Eureka City Councilman Frank Jager continued his big talk in support of Security National’s proposed Marina Center mall a day after he called critics of the Environmental Impact Report “extortionists.”
While reciting lines from Security National lawyers, Jager admitted on KMUD Wednesday night that he hasn’t yet investigated the title and boundary disputes raised by the State Lands Commission (SLC) in a letter to the Council.
Jager said it’s typical of state organizations to drag their feet and he lamented that poor Security National has been victimized by 3 1/2 years of foot dragging.
“I’m just pretty angry about it, to be honest,” said Jager, “and I intend to be calling them to find out what needs to be done to get it going.”
Good idea! Pick up the phone and call to get the other side before parroting word-for-word Security National’s complaints.
KMUD was one step ahead and actually spoke with SLC attorney Curtis Fossum about the letter.
Fossum said the city has long been aware of the disputes — and has participated in meetings with SLC and Security National about them. The letter from SLC says the last meeting was in April, and that SN has so far failed to respond to settlement requests since September.
Fossum said the SLC was surprised to learn Monday about the city’s agenda to approve a Coastal Development Permit Tuesday night.
“We don’t like making last minute comments,” said Fossum, “but when that’s all the time we have to comment that’s what we do.”
UPDATE: Download the letter from the State Lands Commission
RSS - Posts
November 5, 2009 at 5:11 am
Shame on Jager.
November 5, 2009 at 6:44 am
Heraldo, you’re actually calling someone else one-sided?
You should read your own blog some time.
November 5, 2009 at 7:13 am
Yes, Heraldo. No news source (especially a blog) should fail to present at least two sides of any story, because everyone has equally valid points to make. This may be the marketplace of ideas, but idea supports are needed to make sure everyone is treated the same. It’s not enough that opposing comments are allowed on your blog. You must strive to promote contrary views on any topic you write about because … well … I’m not sure why, but the national media insist on doing it so you should too.
November 5, 2009 at 7:28 am
Fossum said the city has long been aware of the disputes — and has participated in meetings with SLC and Security National about them.
*************AND, AND, AND *******************
Jager admitted on KMUD Wednesday night that he hasn’t yet investigated the title and boundary disputes raised by the State Lands Commission (SLC) in a letter to the Council.
Response = So, the city knew( err, parts of the city knew) while the council was left out in the dark or did not care? Reads as if the plan was to move forward regardless and then deal with it (Title claims) if it is brought out since time in the process appears to be ever so adjustable.
So, is the legality of the EIR in question now due to interest claims AND lack of legal authority to conduct an EIR for only partial interests that have claims to a project parcel? For the General Public, this project parcel is like trying to fix a boat’s breach without knowing where or what the breach is. If this property ever becomes resolved, we can look back and agree – time is perpetual.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
November 5, 2009 at 7:41 am
Future of Masonite site in limbo following Measure A’s defeat
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20091104/ARTICLES/911049902
A Mendocino County ballot measure that would have allowed for commercial development of the former Masonite plant outside Ukiah failed by a nearly 2-to-1 margin in the polls on Tuesday.
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20091104/articles/911049998
November 5, 2009 at 7:49 am
and Larry is looking at all sides? not sure about that…
November 5, 2009 at 8:00 am
Wow, the knuckleheads lamenting Heraldo not telling the other side of the story on this piece of news… completely fail to present the alleged other side.
Could it be that sometimes a situation is as clear cut as it seems? Are you goons disputing any of the facts presented? Huh? How about it? Put up or shut up. Stop shoveling FUD.
November 5, 2009 at 8:06 am
National HealthCare debate = FUD with H1N1 and other health fear tactics to get people to believe they need to agree to HealthCare reforms that are being touted as necessary but really are not because for big, bad government, it is all about continuing a “for profit” Health Care system by getting those who don’t subsidize it currently, to be forced to subsidize it. FUD is used by BOTH the public and private sectors.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
November 5, 2009 at 8:11 am
Frank (and Arkley’s lawyer) say SN has been waiting 3 1/2 years for a response.
SLC says it’s been waiting 2 months for a response.
See there? Both sides presented. In fact, Frank’s (and Arkley’s lawyer’s) side was noted first.
November 5, 2009 at 8:17 am
A man by the last name of Laird discovered the balloon
tract was once wetlands. Security National has been
negligent in it’s dealings with the State Land Commission. The city has not had the legal authority
to do anything except insert the clause to have this
resolved before clean-up. All they seem capable of
achieving is drama. This property is still zoned for
public use, as it should be. Maybe, the good old boys
aren’t above the law.
November 5, 2009 at 8:21 am
Frank’s like the Manchurian candidate, lay dormant until the Marian Center comes up, then go off. Pretty over top but he is old time EPD.
November 5, 2009 at 8:23 am
Thugs.
The city should have informed the city council about the title dispute before ANY votes were taken. More of the “cart coming before the horse”.
Jager, they are going too fast not too slow. Watch, who you hang out with Frank. They are not making you look smart.
November 5, 2009 at 8:56 am
is there any part of the bay margins that were NOT wetlands? No big discovery there.
November 5, 2009 at 9:04 am
Ha! The City Manager doesn’t inform the City Council of anything if he can help it.
What is hilarious is the cover image of the EIR which clearly shows WATER in the spot where they propose the Big Box store. There’s really not much to dispute if you know the facts and the law. 2+2=4.
If the City Council wanted to get all the info, they could have asked to have more time to review the documents. Rather, the majority just listened to Arkley’s lawyers and attorneys and took those likes as all the info they needed.
So now Jager is going to attack state agencies as well as environmental groups. But somehow Glass is the one with a bias. Good ole Eureka politics.
November 5, 2009 at 9:06 am
This city is a joke. Why do you think so many people stayed home for these hearings? Because the corruption stinks to high heaven. Dave Tyson is the real extortionist.
November 5, 2009 at 9:35 am
Well, the Eureka Mall had to have been wetlands and so is everything along the bay- all the reclaimed cattle pastures to the north and south, and all the development along the bay in Eureka, mills etc. The balloon track tract is not anything different than those areas, I am pretty sure.
November 5, 2009 at 10:14 am
Anony.Miss: Look at California State Land Commission’s web page. It clearly expalins the law.
There is no mystery. There is a web site called
Arkley watch or something to that effect. It has all
of Arkley’s current disputes. The whole scenario is
described for the balloon track. What is really
important is, are the citizens of this community going
to allow behavior like this from city management,
the mayor and the three stooges?
November 5, 2009 at 11:09 am
9:35 the difference is that the BT was a freakin’ rail yard for 100 years.
November 5, 2009 at 11:39 am
round these people up and call them ‘Straw Catchers’ warm up the bulldozers…
November 5, 2009 at 11:53 am
10:14, the answer to that question is looking like “yes”.
November 5, 2009 at 11:53 am
that was me at 11:53
November 5, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Anony.Miss: what you say is true, that much of the developed areas around the bay were once wetland. That is why the state law was enacted, because we have filled, diked, or developed 90% of the coastal wetlands in this state, and wetlands have important functions for water quality (filtering stormwater) and wildlife habitat. Even degraded wetlands.
FYI, anything developed before the Coastal Act was developed without these rules. That was in the early 70s, like many of our hallmark environmental laws.
November 5, 2009 at 1:07 pm
agree with assessment of wetlands importance not sure your 90% is correct, no matter as this project is meaningless in that respect,,,,,,,to brand Jager one sided leaves you little to no wiggle room
November 5, 2009 at 1:55 pm
The question now is, what will Frank do when he finds out that the last Eureka city council mtg. was a dog and pony show while he was kept in the dark about proper process and who it was that were the actual extortionists.
November 5, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Where was Virginia and her let’s-play-nice credo when Frank was name-calling? He doesn’t seem to be very keen on advanced preparation, either.
November 5, 2009 at 3:25 pm
I have a copy of the letter that was sent via
electronic mail and U.S. mail from the California
State Lands Commission to the City of Eureka. Virginia, City Council, Sheryl Schaffner, Kevin Hamblin, John Briscoe, Joseph Rusconi(Deputy Attorney
General), Jim Frey and Grace Kato all received copies.
The council, Virginia, Sheryl Schaffner, and Dave
Tyson had the opportunity to discuss this during the
meeting they have before city council. I don’t have
the equipment to put this on the web. Help?
November 5, 2009 at 3:28 pm
The link in NewBaku takes us to the 3 stooges. There were 5 Marx brothers (only 4 were in movies) so they won’t work. But as the 3 stooges, Mike might be Larry, Jeff could be Moe, but Frank WON’T qualify as Curly!!! Maybe Shep in the other configuration?
I don’t know the title of this particular feature (suggestions?) but ‘the boys’ have made their usual mess of things again, it appears. Pass the popcorn.
November 5, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Alice in Wonderland – Mad Hatter’s Tea Party
Frank’s the Knave of Spades
November 5, 2009 at 4:19 pm
3:25 – Print it as a .PDF, email to Heraldo
November 5, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Ok, the letter is available for download at the bottom of the above post.
November 5, 2009 at 4:53 pm
They put the community through all this bull and bullying and the title isn’t even clear. Like I said earlier, “The Cart before the Horse”. What a bunch of bull!
November 5, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Score:
Arkley – 0
Glass – 1
November 5, 2009 at 5:16 pm
That letter deserves it’s own post. Wow. So “who knew” and “when did they know?”
November 5, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Yes, did the staff and council know about this letter before the vote?
November 5, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Thanks, Turtle. It’s up.
Amazingly, yes.
November 5, 2009 at 5:29 pm
All I can say is, “Wow.”
November 5, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Someone stepped in something and it stinks!!–oh no thats Franks breath Robs got him eating it…The next thing you know Robs gonna throw all of em under the bus…He will never be the fall guy..
November 5, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Jager’s spouting off only shows his lack of understanding of the checks and balances built into the system. It points up how unprepared some council members are in tackling land use issues. They don’t seem to take the time to educate themselves on all the relevant aspects before voting on tough questions. By doing so they have helped muddy the legal waters, not move things forward.
November 6, 2009 at 4:48 pm
The Schuster photos (HSU online library) show the BT wetlands being drained as late as 1950. The actual Balloon Track was on a dike.
November 6, 2009 at 7:25 pm
I’m sorry, I just don’t feel I can play your sorry ass games anymore.
You no more care about the clean up of this property than the man in the moon does. All you people care about is stopping any development in our city. I doubt that half of you even live in Eureka.
But let’s be honest for once & stop the pretense. Arkly is an outspoken conservative, you leftist want to stop anybody from developing anything, anywhere at any time. Those two factors contribute to your unreasonable opposition to the Marina Project.
Hell, you don’t like Home Depot? Don’t shop there fool!
The Marina Center project is favored by an overwhelming majority of Eurekans. Larry Glass is the only city councilman opposed to having this project move forward. It also turns out he is the only city councilman who doesn’t live in our city.
November 6, 2009 at 7:47 pm
The characterization of people questioning this process as not wanting a cleanup is obviously inaccurate. I live in Eureka and am not opposed to coastal development. This project however is not being pursued in a manner that respects the existing local businesses. We can do so much better with our unique location than create another unnecessary mall.
November 6, 2009 at 7:49 pm
The record of ballot propositions like the one in Ukiah last week and the Home Depot voters verdict last decade suggests that support for big boxes on the north coast is a fantasy.
Like I said, put it to a vote. Put up or shut up.
The problem with “dont like it, dont shop there” is that after a few years of HD there won’t be very many other places to shop, unemployement will be up, and wages will be down.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
November 6, 2009 at 9:00 pm
High Fi. What a crock of S+*^%$ you drop out there like it was fact and doesn’t smell. Glass lives near the waterfront. There are many legal issues with many agencies involved with a dog in the fight. Some of us really like clean water and most of us a more liberal than conservative. You can see it nationally with the tea baggers and just say NO people. You guys had eight years and you messed it up badly, ran up a huge debt, allowed health care to take trillions of dollars out of the working man’s pockets. Do you really expect thoughtful people to take you seriously? If you keep frothing at the mouth like that, sitting at your computer, you are going to ruin your keyboard.
HIGHBOLD Has it just about right. The effects of the Bayshore Mall on downtown are a real testment to the sucking effect of big boxes everywhere. This is not rocket science. It has been very well researched, of course most of this was put together by scientists and educators. Wouldn’t want to believe those guys would we.
November 6, 2009 at 10:14 pm
“Larry Glass is the only city councilman opposed to having this project move forward. It also turns out he is the only city councilman who doesn’t live in our city.”
Prove it big mouth, bust him and have him removed from the coucil or STFU
November 7, 2009 at 12:20 am
You guys had eight years and you messed it up badly, ran up a huge debt, allowed health care to take trillions of dollars out of the working man’s pockets.
Response = You guys and 8 years – Who is you guys AND 8 years is way to short; how about both sides for 100 years?
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
November 7, 2009 at 7:34 am
Here, here Jeffery.
November 7, 2009 at 7:57 am
Interesting how High Finance claims “the majority” of Eurekans favor his dinosaur of a project. he gets this information from KINS radio polls and from stuffing the City Council meetings with his loyal followers. That sounds just like Randy when he’s whining. “Oh why can’t you love us? Just because our cleanup is, at best, less than 60% of what’s necessary? Isn’t that better than nothing?” It must be tough to be a Toady these days.
November 7, 2009 at 8:10 am
It is time to clear the air of the confusion around the environmental community’s apparent lack of desire to see Eureka’s Balloon Track property cleaned up. Let me be clear, Humboldt Baykeeper, and other environmental groups, want nothing more than to have the Balloon Track cleaned up to the fullest extent for the health of our bay and community. Period. In fact, Humboldt Baykeeper has worked longer and put more time into getting that property truly cleaned up than anyone else.
At the heart of the issue is the Supplemental Remedial Action Plan (SIRAP) put forth by Security National (CUE VI) — a plan which will not accomplish the goal of clean-up of the Balloon Track. Security National is attempting to slip through a sham cleanup for the Balloon Track, skirting applicable environmental laws, such as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Coastal Act, and the city of Eureka appears to be assisting them in this attempt. It is highly unlikely that these actions will pass muster with the California Coastal Commission, which will be the next governmental body to weigh in on this matter.
The city of Eureka has had many opportunities over the past 20 years to take on Union Pacific over the contamination at the Balloon Track, but the city never had the intestinal fortitude to follow through with any action. Nearly four years ago, Humboldt Baykeeper alone stood-up and took on Union Pacific with a lawsuit, enforcing federal environmental
laws, to force them to clean-up the Balloon Track so it could be redeveloped and utilized by the community as it is zoned, for “public use.”
Security National has since purchased the property, inheriting the lawsuit along with it, and now has essentially legally and financially shielded Union Pacific from any liability for clean-up. It is important to note that the decision to purchase this property was made knowing full well that the property is contaminated, and Security National is now a responsible party for the cleanup. Humboldt Baykeeper has every intention of holding Security National, as well as Union Pacific, responsible for a full characterization and clean-up of the property.
It has always been the contention of Humboldt Baykeeper that Security National can build whatever they like on the Balloon Track site as long it is fully characterized and cleaned up, and as long as they comply with all provisions of the law. What Security National cannot do is sidestep the law and public process to ram through piecemeal actions on their way to an inadequate cleanup in an effort to achieve their end goal.
The greenwashing of their project with pleas to “just let us get started” to cleanup the property is a transparent tactic. Humboldt Baykeeper has been asking Security National to do just that for years and we would step aside tomorrow if Security National would really do the right thing for the environment: fully characterize and cleanup the Balloon Track. It is truly that easy.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a cloud of influence that hangs darkly over the city of Eureka. I find it disturbing that the city has agreed to a generous “indemnification” agreement with Security National for any legal liability regarding the Marina Center project. This essentially hands the keys to the city of Eureka over to Security National regarding all things Marina Center.
This is unfortunate. The city of Eureka as lead agency for this project is charged by state law with requiring that environmental review of the project meets all of the requirements of CEQA. If Councilman Leonard, and others, truly believes that the FEIR they certified to under CEQA is one of the best he has ever seen, then why not be bold enough to defend it? Isn’t that why they are elected in the first place?
Instead, Mr. Leonard and the council voted to certify what they know is an inadequate FEIR and then pleaded with environmental groups to “cease fire” on lawsuits for six months. If Mr. Leonard had as much of a grasp on CEQA as he proclaims, he would know that an individual or organization has only 30 days to legally challenge a project under CEQA.
If the City Council truly wanted a 6-month cease fire, they should have recirculated the FEIR and repaired the major flaws in the document as was repeatedly recommended by Baykeeper and others. The city had plenty of time to consider the ramifications of their action and will most certainly be informed by the courts that their environmental review of the Marina Center is woefully inadequate and incomplete.
Humboldt Baykeeper will continue to demand full characterization and cleanup of the Balloon Track. We have every intention of completing what we started four years ago for the health of the bay and the community. I am more than happy to talk with anyone about our actions and Humboldt Baykeeper’s work to cleanup the property. I can be reached at 268-0664.
Pete Nichols is the executive director of Baykeeper.
November 7, 2009 at 8:17 am
Thank you Pete for setting the record straight. The proponents have spread so much distortion and so many lies, it’s hard for regular folks to sort it all out.
If Frank was really the “Boy Scout” leader he pretends to be he would admit he was wrong publicly.
November 7, 2009 at 8:29 am
I hope the council members get hammered on this when they are up for re-election. It’s a colossal waste of time that could have been spent planning for what the land will eventually be used for. Why has the council abandoned public planning in favor of a pipe dream?
November 7, 2009 at 8:30 am
Good job, Pete, of being proactive and exposing the lies being spread about Baykeeper’s objective. The op-ed in today’s Times-Standard was great.
November 7, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Just look at BayKeepers record. Look at lawsuits that paid off vs cleanup that got done. Pay Keepers is really very accurate name. Piece today was pure damage control for the troops.
November 7, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Like this?
“The Simpson Timber Company, in a settlement with two environmental groups, has agreed to remove tons of sediment laden with cancer-causing dioxin from a contaminated site, a former Simpson Plywood Mill, adjacent to Humboldt Bay at the foot of Del Norte Street in Eureka.”
“Under the settlement, Simpson is required to dig up contaminated sediment in the ditch, which is adjacent to Humboldt Bay’s only public fishing pier, and haul it to a licensed disposal site. The company also must restore the ditch as a functioning wetland and install a network of groundwater-monitoring wells to ensure that residual subsurface contamination doesn’t leave the site. In addition, a Humboldt Bay Wetlands Restoration Fund will be established at the Humboldt Area Foundation for restoration projects designed to offset environmental damage caused as a result of the contamination.”
November 7, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Humred, you are drooling on your keyboard again. If you are going to foam at the mouth, at least pick the right side of the cause.
November 7, 2009 at 5:38 pm
And just who the hell are you to claim omniscience about the genesis of another person’s beliefs, passions, and ideas, High Fi? I was raised in Eureka; I’m the fourth of five generations to call Eureka home. I LOVE THIS CITY and I want very much to see the waterfront WISELY developed. We need the area cleaned, yes, and in a way that will not only ensure a return on the investment of the property owner, but the long-term enjoyment, safety, and productivity of many future generations. I–one of the “leftists” you think you know so well–do want the land developed: in a way that preserves the unique character of our city. Can you imagine a big box somewhere like Pier 39 or the San Diego Harbor? Horse feathers to that. Tourism counts in our town, in a huge way. We need as much of it as we can get—and folks aren’t going to trouble themselves to visit my wonderful hometown if all they see is another Redding, another Vallejo, another Strip Mall USA.
How about speaking for yourself instead of telling others what they think? At the very least, quote someone to try and prove your point. Why argue from the “all you people,” fingerpointing stance?
November 7, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Look in the phone book, Glass lives in Eureka. Kool-aid is blind, both to the issues and the facts.
November 7, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Heraldo, Peter, et al: I would like a bit of education. When calling for full characterization of the BT, what exactly does that entail? What must be done to consider the land fully characterized?
November 7, 2009 at 9:50 pm
It means identify where and what toxins exist on the land. The regional water board admits this hasn’t been done and blames it on the expense of dioxin testing.
November 7, 2009 at 11:04 pm
About thirty to forty percent of the land has been tested with a number of hot spots found. The testing started in the 1970’s and dioxin testing didn’t start til much later. So much less dioxin tests have been done, thereby the current need for a full characterization. It costs a lot for the testing but needs to be done. Otherwise when you start grading the land for runoff control, all the unmapped toxins get pushed around and mixed up. You then don’t know the origin and have a bigger problem than when you started. A hard concept for some to grasp, however.