Public Safety Project™

From: Willmore Doug
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 11:15 AM
To: katiewillmore@me.com
Subject: Fwd: CM Blog: “Civic Dialogue” . . .

Katie,

Will you post a supportive comment to my blog? You can just do it anonymously. It will make a difference in the fight against Chevron.

Doug

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: “Tagle, Mickie”
Date: December 29, 2011 2:59:38 PM EST
To: “Tagle, Mickie”
Cc: *ALL CITY-WIDE PERSONNEL , “Mortesen, Cindy” , “Lanphere, Ralph” , “Hensley, Mark (City Attorney)” , “Berger, Karl (Assistant City Attorney)”
Subject: CM Blog: “Civic Dialogue” . . .

Hello –

To view the City Manager, Doug Willmore’s Blog post, please click on or cut-and-paste
onto your browser the following link:

Civic Dialogue
http://dougwillmore.blogspot.com/2011/12/civic-dialogue.html

Please let me know if I may be of assistance with anything. Thank you.

Mickie Tagle
Executive Assistant to Doug Willmore
mtagle@elsegundo.org
310-524-2303
City of El Segundo
Office of the City Manager
350 Main Street, El Segundo, CA 90245-3818

From: Willmore Doug
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 1:41 PM
To: mickie.tagle@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Richmond’s Tax Revenue from Chevron – A Fact Sheet

Thanks for sending this, Mickie. It would be great if he would be willing to post this or
some version of this as a comment. He could just use his first name (if he doesn’t want it
attributed) and say that he has been a member of a council for 8 years in the Bay area.

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 29, 2011, at 4:04 PM, “Mickie Tagle” wrote:

> A family friend’s (and a former 8year City Council/Mayor in stunning Half Moon Bay, CA)
comment that thought it might be of interest to you…
>
> > I found the attached via google search for Chevron + tax…
> >
>
> Thanks, Mickie. It seems that this issue is well illuminated by facts
> concerning (a) what other cities get & Chevron’s virtually unlimited
> ability to pay their fair share of local taxes versus (b) Chevron’s
> position that they should continue to get special treatment b/c (1)
> they have long term community presence and/or relationships; (2) they
> claim to use less city services than other facilities that could have
> occupied (there’s that word again) that land; and (3) their
> implication that bringing equity up during the holidays is somehow unfair.
>
> What’s less clear is what Chevron’s impact on the city really is
> compared to what the impact would be if other industries or businesses
> had occupied that land. For example, doesn’t Chevron have unique
> traffic, safety, incident response, visual, waste mgmt, air pollution
> & other environmental impacts? I doubt if Chevron had to prepare an
> EIR when they opened their facility long ago, but can you imagine the
> mitigations that would be required today if such a facility was proposed?
>
> Just providing some local jobs does not excuse Chevron from paying
> their taxes like everybody else. If Chevron wasn’t there, that land
> would have generated other jobs.

Note by Michael D. Robbins on March 22, 2012:

This is another example where Doug Willmore asked to have contrived comments posted on his blog to make it look like there was support for his Chevron Shakedown.

Doug Willmores statement, “Chevron’s virtually unlimited ability to pay their fair share of local taxes”, implies he wants to extort more of Chevron’s money because he believes they have it. He uses “fair share of local taxes” as code words for the amount of money Willmore wants to extort from Chevron.