Standing Rock DAPL: Protesters Disperse; Santa Monica divests from Wells Fargo
- Thread starter ineedsleep212
- Start date
City Council Moves to Divest from Wells Fargo
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SANTA MONICA, CA – Last night, the Santa Monica City Council voted to divest all City funds from Wells Fargo bank due to their involvement in financing the Dakota Access Pipeline and their other misleading business practices that do not align with Santa Monica policies. The motion was brought forward by Councilmembers Terry O’Day and Tony Vazquez.
“One of the most substantive and symbolic fights for our future is happening at Standing Rock over the Dakota Access Pipeline,” said Councilmember O’Day. “It is a fight over sovereignty and respect for native people and humanity. Wells Fargo is a key lender to the project. Divesting with this institution would take us into the next generation of implementing our values with our business relationships and the way that we invest our dollars.”
Divestment will be completed as soon as is reasonably possible. The City has $1 billion in annual transactions with Wells Fargo, including deposits and payments. The City’s investment portfolio includes $4.6 million in Wells Fargo bonds. Staff will issue an RFP for banking services as soon as it is practical. Finance staff will return to Council with recommendations on a divestment strategy at its February 28 meeting.
“Santa Monica is taking a stand against Wells Fargo because they have repeatedly used deceptive business practices,” said Councilmember Tony Vazquez. “Their investment in the Dakota Access Pipeline is the latest egregious action. It’s our hope that other cities will divest their funds so together we can have a collective and powerful impact.”
City of Santa Monica Newsroom - City of Santa Monica
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SANTA MONICA, CA – Last night, the Santa Monica City Council voted to divest all City funds from Wells Fargo bank due to their involvement in financing the Dakota Access Pipeline and their other misleading business practices that do not align with Santa Monica policies. The motion was brought forward by Councilmembers Terry O’Day and Tony Vazquez.
“One of the most substantive and symbolic fights for our future is happening at Standing Rock over the Dakota Access Pipeline,” said Councilmember O’Day. “It is a fight over sovereignty and respect for native people and humanity. Wells Fargo is a key lender to the project. Divesting with this institution would take us into the next generation of implementing our values with our business relationships and the way that we invest our dollars.”
Divestment will be completed as soon as is reasonably possible. The City has $1 billion in annual transactions with Wells Fargo, including deposits and payments. The City’s investment portfolio includes $4.6 million in Wells Fargo bonds. Staff will issue an RFP for banking services as soon as it is practical. Finance staff will return to Council with recommendations on a divestment strategy at its February 28 meeting.
“Santa Monica is taking a stand against Wells Fargo because they have repeatedly used deceptive business practices,” said Councilmember Tony Vazquez. “Their investment in the Dakota Access Pipeline is the latest egregious action. It’s our hope that other cities will divest their funds so together we can have a collective and powerful impact.”
City of Santa Monica Newsroom - City of Santa Monica
Divesting pensions from the Dakota Access Pipeline might sound good, but it will hurt Californians
The day he was sworn in to the California Assembly, freshman Bay Area Democrat Ash Kalra filed his first piece of legislation: Assembly Bill 20, which would force the state’s two largest public employee retirement funds, CalSTRS and CalPERS, to divest from companies involved in building the disputed Dakota Access pipeline.
The bill, if it were to become law (and it shouldn’t), wouldn’t stop the project from being completed. The Army Corps of Engineers has already given final approval to the remaining section of the pipeline. It would, however, blow a multibillion-dollar hole in the pension funds — and the public pocketbook, because state and local taxpayers would be left to fill that hole.
What was Kalra, a former San Jose City Council member who is no doubt familiar with how pensions are financed, thinking when he made this proposal? Perhaps about starting a discussion on a controversial topic that would establish that he, the first Indian American member of the California Legislature, wasn’t going to be a wallflower during his stint in Sacramento. Good for him. Welcome to the fight, there’s much work to be done. But here’s the first lesson: Ill-considered, attention-getting bills only detract from that mission.
Even those who opposed the Dakota Access pipeline, such as this editorial board, must recognize that AB 20 is a flawed and dangerous bill. For one thing, it is overly broad, requiring divestment from a company that operates multiple oil and natural gas lines as well as from major national banks that finance not just the pipeline’s construction, but also many of California’s businesses. California Public Employees’ Retirement System staff estimate that cutting investment in these companies would cost it at least $4 billion. California State Teachers’ Retirement System staff is still evaluating what divestment would cost that fund.
The bill did get attention: CalPERS staff recommended that the CalPERS board oppose the bill because of the financial damage it might do to the fund. It also contradicts the fund’s preferred method of affecting social change — which is to lobby the management of the companies in which it invests. And that’s exactly what the board did Friday when it joined other investors in calling on the banks involved to address the concerns of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe.
Divesting the considerable assets of the public pension funds can be a powerful tool to effect social change. Many people credit the global divestment in South Africa for helping to end apartheid. But given the potential cost, lawmakers should wield this power sparingly and in a precisely targeted way — and never when it would just be an empty gesture.
Divesting pensions from the Dakota Access Pipeline might sound good, but it will hurt Californians
The day he was sworn in to the California Assembly, freshman Bay Area Democrat Ash Kalra filed his first piece of legislation: Assembly Bill 20, which would force the state’s two largest public employee retirement funds, CalSTRS and CalPERS, to divest from companies involved in building the disputed Dakota Access pipeline.
The bill, if it were to become law (and it shouldn’t), wouldn’t stop the project from being completed. The Army Corps of Engineers has already given final approval to the remaining section of the pipeline. It would, however, blow a multibillion-dollar hole in the pension funds — and the public pocketbook, because state and local taxpayers would be left to fill that hole.
What was Kalra, a former San Jose City Council member who is no doubt familiar with how pensions are financed, thinking when he made this proposal? Perhaps about starting a discussion on a controversial topic that would establish that he, the first Indian American member of the California Legislature, wasn’t going to be a wallflower during his stint in Sacramento. Good for him. Welcome to the fight, there’s much work to be done. But here’s the first lesson: Ill-considered, attention-getting bills only detract from that mission.
Even those who opposed the Dakota Access pipeline, such as this editorial board, must recognize that AB 20 is a flawed and dangerous bill. For one thing, it is overly broad, requiring divestment from a company that operates multiple oil and natural gas lines as well as from major national banks that finance not just the pipeline’s construction, but also many of California’s businesses. California Public Employees’ Retirement System staff estimate that cutting investment in these companies would cost it at least $4 billion. California State Teachers’ Retirement System staff is still evaluating what divestment would cost that fund.
The bill did get attention: CalPERS staff recommended that the CalPERS board oppose the bill because of the financial damage it might do to the fund. It also contradicts the fund’s preferred method of affecting social change — which is to lobby the management of the companies in which it invests. And that’s exactly what the board did Friday when it joined other investors in calling on the banks involved to address the concerns of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe.
Divesting the considerable assets of the public pension funds can be a powerful tool to effect social change. Many people credit the global divestment in South Africa for helping to end apartheid. But given the potential cost, lawmakers should wield this power sparingly and in a precisely targeted way — and never when it would just be an empty gesture.
Divesting pensions from the Dakota Access Pipeline might sound good, but it will hurt Californians
afterlife2009
Superstar
A shadowy international mercenary and security firm known as TigerSwan targeted the movement opposed to the Dakota Access Pipeline with military-style counterterrorism measures, collaborating closely with police in at least five states, according to internal documents obtained by The Intercept.
The documents provide the first detailed picture of how TigerSwan, which originated as a U.S. military and State Department contractor helping to execute the global war on terror, worked at the behest of its client Energy Transfer Partners, the company building the Dakota Access Pipeline, to respond to the indigenous-led movement that sought to stop the project.
The documents provide the first detailed picture of how TigerSwan, which originated as a U.S. military and State Department contractor helping to execute the global war on terror, worked at the behest of its client Energy Transfer Partners, the company building the Dakota Access Pipeline, to respond to the indigenous-led movement that sought to stop the project.