Conaway husband slams McKeon/SCV and Victorville over CEMEX deal

Written by Jeff on June 19th, 2008

The husband of Democrat Jacquese Conaway, the Barstow Democrat who’s running for Buck McKeon’s seat this fall, has written a letter to the editor of the Victorville Daily Press, bemoaning the potential Cemex land swap deal McKeon engineered earlier this year.

The letter, posted online and published today, was sent by one “Bob Conaway” of Barstow. Although it’s possible there’s two “Bob Conaways” in Barstow, I don’t find it likely. Bob Conaway once ran for Congress against McKeon and lists his wife as Jacquese, the current candidate.

Back to the letter: Conaway says the City of Victorville ought to reconsider its recent resolution in support of McKeon’s HR 5887, the same resolution the City of Santa Clarita is urging its residents to support:

I urge the City of Victorville to withdraw its resolution in support of HR (House Resolution) 5887 and for citizens to write Congressman Buck McKeon and Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein to withdraw their support for HR 5887, a land swap deal.

Conaway says the resolution amounts to a raw deal for Victorville, which he claims already suffers from excess diesel emissions, chromium problems at a PG&E facility, and nitrate problems. He notes that the CEMEX facility in Santa Clarita would have been only “400 acres,” while under the terms of McKeon’s bill, CEMEX will get 5,000 acres in Victorville, which he thinks would only add to health and pollution issues in the High Desert.

Why is it OK that we get a project that pollutes the air and water — and even more to the point, why is the Victorville City Council saying that increasing the risk of serious health problems for us is OK?

The people in the Barstow and Mojave Valley area stand a four times greater chance of contracting lung cancer from the diesel emissions from trains in the area, we still are still suffering from chromium problems from the PG&E facility (despite claims of remediation efforts underway), nitrate problems in our water, chromium in the air from concrete aggregate crushers in the Oro Grande to Helendale area, VOCs and PM-10s above the levels allowed by the EPA throughout the Mojave Valley, and now you want to add a polluting mining operation that will add to the toxic and noxious air quality?

He ends with some closing words about Buck McKeon and asks why the Victorville city council is so “hell bent” on pleaseing the “wealthy” people in Santa Clarita.

First thoughts from this political novice:

It appears to me that the Conaway campaign (again, assuming the Bob Conaway letter writer is the Jacquese’ husband) is trying to divide and conquer CA-25 by using the poisonous topic of a CEMEX Mega Mine (insert scary music here) to put Buck on on the defensive.

So if it works, how does Buck McKeon defend himself from what might be hordes of angry Victorville and High Desert residents who think he’s selling out their health/future/water/air quality for the rich jerks down in Santa Clarita?

I imagine the Conaway’s strategy is aimed at getting more High Desert residents to the polls in November to offset whatever advantage McKeon has in Santa Clarita and the Antelope Valleys, where residents strongly trend Republican.

It could be very effective, could it not? The narrative becomes that Buck McKeon sold out Victorville and the High Desert for his old stomping ground in the SCV, but a vote for Jacquese Conaway could stop all that.

It’s not clear (or at least I’m not clear) on what CEMEX plans to do with the thousands of acres of land it would obtain under McKeon’s land-swap deal, which still has to pass Congress. But as we saw in Santa Clarita, the mere mention of an aggregate mining facility with all the fears and NIMBYism that imagery entails can be more than enough to get residents outraged.

For what it’s worth, this is the only criticism of the deal I’ve seen in the VV Daily Press, let alone anywhere else. Maybe that’s an indication that there’s no outrage up there in the desert over this deal and McKeon need not worry.

Link to letter

Posted in Politics, Reporter's Notebook | Tags: features

9 Comments so far ↓

Jun
19
10:37
AM

Mike
My understanding was that Cemex was getting federal land that the city of Victorville would like to have. The city would buy the land from Cemex. I didn’t think this involved mining by Cemex in the Victorville area. If it does, it does seem like a strange thing for Victorville to endorse.

Geographical resentment will only get you so far, and that pendulum swings both ways. The resented won’t take so kindly to it, and I have to think that a great many AV residents aren’t keen on their morning commute being affected by a mega mine. Conaway is a non-serious candidate. A real shame, because Buck has passed his sell-by date.
Jun
19
10:43
AM

Pauline Harte
Don’t they know Victoville was already going to buy that land from the BLM for Victorville’s master planned project? Victorville has purchased a lot of land besides the Cemex land deal (I believe around 56 square miles) so their borders will be contiguous with Barstow, and Victorville is planning a long-term master planned project beginning next year. Nothing said about water, so I don’t know what they are planning to do about that issue. Victorville received millions of dollars from George Air Force Base (around a couple hundred million) when the base closed up, the money was paid to Victorville so Victorville would not be harmed financially by the base closing up. Since then, Victorville has been acquiring land with all that money. Victorville is quite happy with the Cemex land purchase, a purchase they were going to make anyway to add to their land-acquisition plans for future development.
Jun
19
11:09
AM

navigator
Sounds like this guy is either stupid, unknowledgable or just plain devious in his assertions. The only reason Cemex has accepted this deal is to sell the property to Victorville for economic development for an amount of money to be at least what they may have lost on the mine deal here.
Jun
19
11:23
AM

CIB Bill
Jackiese Conaway, another Democrat who also is likely against more oil drilling in America.
Jun
19
11:43
AM

Mike
Pauline, Thanks for coloring in between the lines. I’ve been wondering what the story was with the land and how the city would have so much money on hand. Makes sense now.
Jun
19
12:20
PM

Pauline Harte
And according to the last paragraph in the mining bill, mining is prohibted on that site, Victorville is not doing any mining there. That is what is so good about the bill, mining is prohibited there. Doesn’t Conaway know this? Granted, this is written in Federal legalese, so it is possible Conaway didn’t understand this very important part of the bill. Unfortunately for Conaway, that letter is based on a non-issue because he ignored or didn’t understand the bill. If Conaway truly wanted what was best for the people of Victorville and Barstow, he would be supporting this bill.

Cemex has been a presence in Victorville for many years, why is Conaway just now all riled up about mining?

Also, Cemex is not expanding on their own anymore since they acquired the huge Australian Rinker Materials, a global concrete business that has sites all over this country and all over the world.

The Democrat Club of the San Fernando Valley endorsed McKeon’s bill, as did a Los Angeles organization of Democrats. (Feel free to check this with Bruce McFarland). It’s time Conaway got on board with his fellow Democrats. (Bob Conaway ran for Congress against McKeon many years ago). And thanks to the local chapter of the Sierra Club for their endorsement of McKeon’s bill, too.
Jun
20
7:02
AM

gortiz
Re: Victorville should reject land swap with CEMEX

HR 5887, the Soledad Canyon Mine Act was written not only to solve a long standing dispute between the City of Santa Clarita and the mining company CEMEX, but also to benefit the City of Victorville. The legislation would allow CEMEX to be fairly compensated for canceling its mining contracts in Soledad Canyon by providing the company with land in the Victorville area.

CEMEX has no plans to mine the property near Victorville, but has a signed agreement with the City of Victorville to sell these lands in accordance with local land use and economic development goals. The City of Victorville, planning for future economic development, unanimously voted to pass a resolution of support for HR 5887- because HR 5887 does not trade one mine for another but rather it helps them achieve their economic development goals. Victorville and Santa Clarita are joined in their support by a unique mix of business, industry, government and environmental groups who view this legislation as the “win-win” it is.

Public debate regarding legislation such as HR 5887 is an important part of the democratic process. It is even more important, however, that all participants in a debate are properly informed. The only reason offered in this letter to the editor to oppose HR 5887 was the mistaken belief that the mine which Santa Clarita has objected to for nearly a decade will be transferred to Victorville. This simply is not the case. HR 5887 should be supported by residents of Victorville because it helps that city achieve its economic development goals and does not transfer the mine from our backyard to yours.

The Victorville City Council should be commended for their support of this legislation and for their economic development plans for their City that will be moved forward by the passage of HR 5887. We urge the residents of Victorville to visit http://www.santa-clarita.com/news/HR5887/index.asp to find out how they can help get HR 5887 passed.
best,
gail
Jun
20
10:42
AM

Mike
Ms. Ortiz, well put, but I have one question. At what point will we get a “THANKS BUCK! FOR HR 5887″ banner?
Aug
27
5:16
PM

Robert Conaway
Of the people that support this resolution–read it. Areas NOT in the Victorville sphere of influence are not restricted AND if Victorville sells the land, the mining restriction does not run with the land under the resolution– meaning someone can mine after a title transfer. It is defective as written. I oppose the resolution as drafted, not the concept. For what it is worth, I proposed a land swap in 2002 under the proper circumstances when the CEMEX issues were first discussed. The resolution drafted and approved is not a proper solution. Ascribing evil or ulterior motives to a public expression of dissent is typical for the republican crowd that is about ready to lose the White House, more seats in Congress, the Senate and some “safe” high desert assembly seats. As for people supporting a defective resolution that does not present a potential adverse impact to their area, like the LA Central Committee of the Democratic Party that approved the resolution without the typical notice period required (because the proponents said they could not wait for the resolution to be properly agendized and debated), yawn.