The Humboldt Herald
Provoking Humboldt County since 2006
-
Recent Comments
Wolfking on Calif. pot busts by count… Heraldo on Coastal Commission gives Eurek… "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE… on Coastal Commission gives Eurek… "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE… on JONES AND LEONARD: Spanke… "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE… on Another Humboldt Hum Depot on Another Humboldt Hum Depot on Another Humboldt -
Subscribe
RSS - Posts
November 5, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Wow. Everyone has some ’splainin’ to do.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
November 5, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Ahahaha, the Eureka council members who voted for this prematurely are indeed assclowns.
November 5, 2009 at 5:45 pm
…premature robadulation.
November 5, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Wonder if this action constitutes malfeasance on the city’s part, which voids Arkley’s contract to indemnify the city over future lawsuits? And since the city attorney did not give a heads-up to the council, suggest they get an outside legal opinion and retract their votes for now.
November 5, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Seems to met the council has decided that the notion of potential new job creation is more important than any environmental issue, traffic issue, urban decay from big box competition, land use arguments, etc etc because of the potential political gain moving forward. Face it, unemployment rates are at disasterous levels, thus it’s easy to make the argument that this project is important to the community. Period.
Simple as that!
November 5, 2009 at 6:00 pm
It is not as simple as that because a Home Depot will cause unemployment to go up in the community, not down. We need development that provides living wage jobs, not slave labor service economy jobs.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
November 5, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Maybe a little too simple, sonny.
November 5, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Is it safe to assume that Glass was not made aware of this letter?
November 5, 2009 at 6:07 pm
They were all aware of the letter. Glass quoted from it, especially the part that says the city may not have legal authority to grant a Coastal Development Permit.
November 5, 2009 at 6:08 pm
See Coastal Development Permit approved for Marina Center
November 5, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Boy, you really have to look “under the hood” to understand the shananigans thats going on.
What Gans has touted as a generous “gift” of restored wetlands turns out actually to be a barter in exchange for the State ceding its claims to ownership rights on the rest of the property. Gee I guess it wasn’t so generous after all, just another land grab deal to transfer public rights into private hands. Thanks Arkley, your claimed beneficence is now revealed to be extortion.
November 5, 2009 at 7:14 pm
The Times Standard ought to print the whole letter.
November 5, 2009 at 7:27 pm
This letter verifies my previous comments about this SLC matter. Thanks.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
November 5, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Here’s the Jan 30 2009 letter from CSLC to Sidnie Olsen:
http://www.ci.eureka.ca.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=5196
November 5, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Thanks for posting that link. Sure makes Jones’ and Jager’s angry complaints look ignorant and manufactured by Arkley’s lawyers.
November 5, 2009 at 7:54 pm
I find it intersting that all everyone can blog about is “a home depot will cause unemployment to go up” or that “a generous gift of restored wetlands turns out actually to be a barter in exchange for the State ceding its claims to ownership rights”.
You blow right past the key point that the CDP is to do nothing other than implement the interim clean up of the balloon track and end up with 11 acres of restored wetlands that can actually be used as a public amenity. Neither of those objectives exist today, yet all you can blog about is why that effort should be stopped or questioned.
You see only that which justifies your end goal, which is clearly not to allow the Regional Board and Security National to stop surface runoff from polluting the bay.
Hmmm, what could the real objective be???
November 5, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Surely it’s difficult for Rob Arkley that anyone would dare question his plans. Poor guy!
November 5, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Be interesting to see the title report which should define exactly where the state tidelands line is drawn. Security National should have a copy, and if they don’t they are stupid. I think not. Sounds like the state isn’t too sure where that line is and might be negotiating a bluff. This is a common occurance in waterfront properties.
November 5, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Yes, what a terrible plan it is Heraldo. Implement an interim clean up mandated by the regional board and create an 11 acre wetland, all without the least bit of assurance that a project will be entitled for any future use. What are you fearfull of? Stopping run off into the bay? Actually progressing some clean up and beautifying a long neglected property?
Who is being disingenuous? Focus a little please!
November 5, 2009 at 8:11 pm
What’s the hurry? They can’t start until spring anyway. So why not fully characterize the site first to ensure the clean-up will be complete?
November 5, 2009 at 8:15 pm
That will be done when the final remediation plan is developed for the final land use; something that is done on every brownsfield site in the united states. Its brownsfield 101.
By the way, the definition of “full characterization” depends on the final land use. You cant get the the former until you have the latter.
And what a statement in light of 30 years of blight
“whats the hurry?” Thats all you got! Give me a break
November 5, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Spreading toxics around the site is not a clean-up. It’s a cover-up.
November 5, 2009 at 8:21 pm
You clearly are more interested in “spin making” and not focused on facts. “Spreading Toxics” around on the site is what you say when you cant back up your position with facts. Regional Water Boards, DTSC, EPA, probably dont endorse such activity dont you think. What do you think confirmation sampling means.
Lets stick to facts, not sound bites that elevate paranoia.
November 5, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Maybe SN is afraid of the facts which is why it refuses to fully characterize the site.
November 5, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Again, you need to focus. The site will be fully characterized based upon what the final APPROVED land use will be. That approved land plan will drive the characterization.
I think I already defined that for you, again its brownsfield 101, its what state and federal law allow.
It seems to me that all SN is asking for is to do it the way the rest of the country gets to do it.
Why are you afraid to let them follow the law?
November 5, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Whether they’re are following the law is in question. Go back and read the letter that forms the basis of this post.
A full clean-up does not depend on whether there is a plan for a big box or not. Either toxics are removed or they’re not.
November 5, 2009 at 8:34 pm
The city council is smelling more and more fishy.
November 5, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Again, “spin” the focus. Following law with respect to brownsfield clean up which is the basis of my contribution to this post.
A “full clean up” is the elephant in the room that you just will not wrap your mind around. Well, at least you wont admit it. Toxins above actionable levels will always be removed, that is the law. Every major development on brownsfield sites in this country is developed that way, according to the law.
Why cant you just say we “prefer” that ANY “wiff” of a toxin must be purged from the earth. Alas a great moral high ground position, perhaps something you strive for, but not what the law allows with respect to mixed use development on a brownsfied site.
That is all I am saying, so we can agree to disagree, but lets make sure we understand the difference between what you desire, and what the law provides.
You dont like that outcome, then spend your time advocating to change the law; not blasting land owners that follow it.
November 5, 2009 at 8:46 pm
The deliberate obfuscation of this CSLC issue is evidence of improper collusion between “staff” and “developer” is it not?
have a peaceful day,
Bill
November 5, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Congratulations to you guys and gals. I think it’s certain this project will never happen and the property can continue to lie dormant and leach toxins into the bay for generations to come. If the property remains zoned for public use we all can wait around for the “City” to develope it into a park. Good luck with that. You’ve saved all the jobs at Piersons and Ace and all the small independent local retailers, we’ll see how that works out.
November 5, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Since the states claims ownership of the wetlands and those wetlands are now known as the balloon tract, the problem has to go back to 19th century maps that show the original water boundary and what has since been filled in. That is not an easy thing to sort out. The state has ownership of all of its waterways. That part is clear. It is the filled in tidelands that are in question. This has created friction between the city and the Coastal Commission and other state agencies that have a dog in the fight. Certain city staff hate the fact that they don’t have total control. The old checks and balances are uncomfortable when you crave it.
November 5, 2009 at 10:32 pm
looks like Randy Gans has taken over this discussion. it was pretty interesting for a while.
P.S. how many jobs will be created or destroyed has NOTHING to do with CEQA or the Coastal Act. That is a red herring. Tell it to the judge, Randy!
November 5, 2009 at 10:46 pm
What’s pretty easy to sort our is the extent of water in the 1940s Shuster aerial photo that on the cover of the EIR. Check it out.
November 6, 2009 at 6:07 am
Any excuse to delay & drive up the costs. Try to kill the project with legal fees. Stop anything that trys to improve our lives.
California is the pits and Humboldt county is one of the worst places to try & accomplish anything. No wonder we are becoming an economic basketcase.
Of course you all know that if Arkley gives up, this property will go back to being a garbage dump infested with homeless bums camping & defecating in the bushes again. It will be another 50 years before somebody trys to do anything.
November 6, 2009 at 6:26 am
Since the so-called First Phase Cleanup seems to be in question, maybe the owners of the property should consider a Plain Old Cleanup of the property. Haven’t we had to look at that grafitti covered railroad stock long enough? Don’t we have any nuisance laws that compel property owners to take care of such things? That property would look much less junky without all the rusting train parts.
Maybe they could at least all be grouped in a compact herd of rust buckets down at the Old Town end of the property. Hire Accident Gallery artists to give them a more viewer friendly grafitti job for Arts Alive. Or maybe Duane Flatmo could have a crack at them – worlds first mobile murals.
November 6, 2009 at 6:37 am
Will someone please remind me what type of cleanup is required for ground floor residential construction? Or the extent of cleanup required for a city park?
November 6, 2009 at 6:38 am
Heraldo, can you answer the other perspective? Or anybody? It is pretty puzzling to try and understand why the environmental groups want to stop a clean-up. I am for the Marina Center, but have many friends who are not but they do not understand why baykeeper or anybody would want to delay an interim clean-up. It seems like a win-win.
November 6, 2009 at 7:12 am
421, the standards for clean-up vary, depending on the types of uses allowed on the land. The attempt here is to get away with less than complete clean-up by proposing the land be zoned to allow different (more toxic-friendly) uses for the property than are allowable under current zoning laws. In other words, to build on the property as it is presently zoned would cost lots more than changing the zone to build (for example) a Home Depot. The issues involving this property run a gamut, from toxics and tsunamis to traffic. So, it’s not just about pollution.
The only form of toxic clean-up you might call “win-win” would leave the bay protected from whatever chemicals were spilled into the earth by the railroad during it’s century on the property, and we won’t know what clean-up really means until we find out what’s really in there. I want a “win-win” also, but it won’t happen without more research.
November 6, 2009 at 7:19 am
Ever see the tide crest at the old boat basin? Add some some quake liquefaction or a tsunami, or even a slightly higher tide, and Marina Center will be the center of the marina anyway. The property is a dog and Union Pacific should be asked to clean it up properly. The city won’t do it, but hey – the state owns part of the property, and it’s tidal. Maybe the state could communicate the need for corporate responsibility to Union Pacific.
November 6, 2009 at 7:34 am
“California is the pits and Humboldt county is one of the worst places to try & accomplish anything. No wonder we are becoming an economic basketcase.”
Then tell Arkley that his HELP and Humboldt Sunshine lawsuits against the county have put county planning on the skids as they are forced to deal with “extortionism” based on faulty fact finding,instead of taking the necessary steps to clear up confusing elements of the county element.
How ironic of Arkley apologists to rip Baykeeper,a group of minor leaguers in the lawsuit business in comparison to anything merely touching Security National.
November 6, 2009 at 7:42 am
How much clean up is enough?
It has to be clean enough so that you can put your baby on the ground to crawl 10 feet or so and be confident that she won’t contract leukemia or genetic damage. That is the baseline requirement.
Anything less is not clean enough.
This is our planet, it doesn’t just belong to Union Pacific or greedy extortionate money lenders.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
November 6, 2009 at 7:45 am
I am amazed at the lack of intelectuall objectivity on this blog. To suggest that the thread above should be dismissed as uninteresting simply because you presume the author is Gans; well pretty narrow minded to say the least. The points are no less accurate.
To help answer a few questions; ground floor residential is not an option at the Marina Center due to Tsunami constraints. Has nothing to do with residual toxics. All housing will have to be podium and guess what, that is consistent with most Brownsfields developments.
Parks are handled like all open space; so long as there is a clean fill barrier of some regulatory approved depth.
Guys, its ok to shout from the mountain tops that a full clean up must be done, and I give you that position. Just remember the legally approved alternative position, which exists becasuse good science is applied, along with economic feasability. Otherwise, these sites never get fixed. Just look around the country for examples.
In other words, get real.
November 6, 2009 at 7:51 am
Sorry Bill, did not see your post before sending the last, and this is my last as my perspective has been presented clearly.
I would ask that you stop with the blatent statements intended to simply reaise levels of paranoia. What you suggest needs to be the end result for you baby, happens with Brownsfields development. It is that kind of “tug at the heart strings” comment that simply is misinformation, not based upon fact, that just raises paranoia
November 6, 2009 at 7:54 am
421 & high finance & another perspective.
It’s not a real clean up. Mobilizing contamination is reckless and incompetent. Arkley is trying to get away with an low budget clean up or cover up. I real clean up will eventually involve digging up and hauling off all the contaminated soil to a class 1 dump site and will cost over 10 million not the under 2 million that Arkley wants to spend. Any Enviro or Enviro group that’s not 100% against this, is not a real Environmentalist they are just posers.
November 6, 2009 at 8:00 am
Really?
Then how to explain the high cancer rate in Humboldt County? The apparent leukemia clusters? Is that just paranoia or fact?
have a peaceful day,
Bill
November 6, 2009 at 8:11 am
Arkley and the City of Eureka apparently think they are impervious to the law. The first step should have
been the title. They tried a snow job on the public
and obviously from the comments a lot of people have
fallen for it. This is just an example of the corruption that is being practiced in this city.
Eureka needs to clean house, not just elected officials, but the planning department, management,
and the city attorney for allowing this. Somebody
owes Larry Glass an apology.
November 6, 2009 at 8:21 am
Corruption in the City of Eureka? Actually, some form of corruption is prevalent throughout this county in all jurisdictions. Depends on if you are one of the lucky ones to be dragged into it by the string of your hair on the red carpet! Oh, if you have no hair to be tugged, you will be an inductee on a slip and slide ride.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
November 6, 2009 at 8:28 am
“Humboldt County ranks second among California counties for cancer mortality and has the highest death rate from breast cancer in the state.”
http://www.mobilemed.org/healthofhumboldt.htm
November 6, 2009 at 8:39 am
lol for the letter,
lol for the shill trolls, might have hooked into a stakeholder this time,
lol to highboldtage, is that a real poncho? Where do you get your paranoid facts? never seen high cancer rate or leukemia cluster study, have you?
November 6, 2009 at 8:54 am
Bill, Thanks for the update on the cancer rates. Consider that your numbers might be the result of our failure to attract and maintain quality medical personel due to an unfriendly economic/business environment and the resulting lack of living wage jobs. Also consider that when all you have is what amounts to entry level retail and service jobs you tend to encourage a less educated workforce who cannot afford healthcare. Areas with a legitimate industry and higher paying jobs have better medical care. But thats okay I’m sure it will all be better if we have a trail.
November 6, 2009 at 8:59 am
So maybe you support the idea of building a medical school on the balloon tract? That would help with our health care problems and economic problems all at once. Would leave the bulk of the balloon tract available as restored natural wetlands and provide a much larger high tech economic multiplier for Eureka and Humboldt County than a dead end big box retail scenario.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
November 6, 2009 at 9:06 am
I can’t open the letter.
is because of my mac?
November 6, 2009 at 9:17 am
Make sure you tell the pop-up to open the letter rather than save it.
November 6, 2009 at 9:21 am
“Economic Impact of UAMS‐Northwest UAMS‐Northwest has tremendous potential for boosting economic development in thenorthwest portion of the state, thereby having an overall positive economic effect on Arkansas.A 2004 study by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) noted that majoremployers, medical schools and teaching hospitals have a considerable economic impact ontheir geographic areas. When direct expenditures of aninstitution and its employees are re‐circulated into theeconomy, the recipients of the income re‐spend a portion ofit on other businesses and individuals within the state. This re‐spending is described by economists as the“multiplier effect.”According to the AAMC, medical schools and teachinghospitals have a multiplier effect of 2.3. In other words, forevery dollar spent by a medical school , an additional $1.30 is indirectly generated for a totalimpact of $2.30. Using the multiplier effect of 2.3, UAMS and its affiliates have an economicimpact of $4.25 billion in Arkansas each year.”
Medical schools = local economic multiplier of 2.3, Home Depot = NEGATIVE MULTIPLIER, (MONEY IS SUCKED OUT OF THE LOCAL ECONOMY.)
FACT.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
November 6, 2009 at 9:29 am
got it thanks! go Bill!
November 6, 2009 at 9:59 am
It is worth noting that the latest Pulp fiction involves a plan for $50 million investment instead of $400+ million.
I have done some research, and it turns out you can build a fantastic medical school for $50 million dollars.
So let us imagine two futures: in one we build a medical school here in Eureka and 25 years from now you travel to Chicago. Someone asks you where you are from and you say “Eureka, California.” And they say “Oh, isn’t that where that great little medical school is?”
Or the other scenario – You say “Eureka California” and they say “Oh, isn’t that where they built that Home Depot 25 years ago? Ha Ha.
Now I know that a medical school will not employ a lot of former pulp mill workers, but it will need operating engineers, electricians, plumbers, welders and painters, all jobs that were done at the mill. These will be UNION jobs.
We all need to live in a city that aspires to more than a Home Depot. At least I do.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
November 6, 2009 at 10:16 am
If some of the property is within the State Tidelands, maybe the state should be responsible for the cleanup. They claim ownership on behalf of the citizens of California. Humm.
November 6, 2009 at 10:28 am
Hey another perspective. The whole purpose of environmental protection is to protect living creatures, especialy humans. While Bill’s baby comment might be too simply stated, the principle he expresses is exactly correct. Standards for clean up are based completely on the biologic effects of the identified substances. If you don’t understand that it really is about protecting babies(and others) from harm, you’ve actually lost all perspective.
How has this thread gotten diverted without anyone noticing? The conditional use permit that the council just approved furthers the Marina Center building plans. Thats not the environmental impact report(and SIRAP) which the council approved last week.
Building can’t be legally started until all constraints on the use of the property are satisfied. In this case, the State has some rights to the propery’s use. At least mineral rights, among others that are in contention. Phart knows how to cowardly hide when he makes predictions that might be wrong, but doesn’t know how to read. The dispute isn’t about property lines. The bay’s boundary was settled with lawsuits back in the 1970’s.
November 6, 2009 at 10:38 am
Bill you are quite right, a state of the art medical school would be far better for our local economy than a Home Depot. If you would now just follow up with Mayo or Hopkins and get them to confirm their commitment to build in writing I will sign on with you.
November 6, 2009 at 10:50 am
“If some of the property is within the State Tidelands, maybe the state should be responsible for the cleanup. They claim ownership on behalf of the citizens of California. Humm.”
UNION PACIFIC is the responsible party along with Arkley’s shell “Alaskan limited liabity company CUE VI”. Make them do a full cleanup, then and only then, we can talk about what would be best for the site.
NO ARKLEYVILLE!!!!!!!!!!!
November 6, 2009 at 10:59 am
YA, medical schools are having problems recruiting students now. Read the blog’s, MD’s are not happy at all right now. Twenty years ago would have been a good idea. We have two nursing programs now and they are chuck full. Bill is big on government support so let them develop those programs.
RA owns the piece of land n question. Why don’t all you folks with all the great ideas pony up some bucks and buy it. Oh, I forgot, between all of you can’t come up with 500 dollars.
November 6, 2009 at 11:06 am
Humred your from Mckinnleyville STFU! this about Eureka, go undo the the damage you’ve done in your town.
November 6, 2009 at 11:12 am
You lost me Oldphart. You use “they” when referring to the “state”. Are you part of the state? Is your hard earned tax dollars not going to be spent by the “state” for a cleanup caused by a privately held corporation in your scenario? That land was not contaminated by the “state”. Splain it to me Lucy.
November 6, 2009 at 11:25 am
Oldphart’s idea is worth considering at least.
Consider: The State of California steps in and restores the Balloon Tract to its state say of 1940, including the original tidelands and wetlands that are owned by the state, and that will be uncovered by the removal of contaminated fill.
The clean up jobs will be created by the state at good living wage wages. When the tidelands and wetlands restoration is complete, the State can send a bill to the Union Pacific and its accomplices.
Of the 15 or so acres that are left for development after the restoration, the Union Pacific or Arkley can come up with a new plan, maybe even a Mini Depot…….
have a peaceful day,
Bill
November 6, 2009 at 11:47 am
Hey, NAN, how was I hiding? You must have bet on the 49ers last weekend. It is prognosticating and you need to take a chill pill. Jeez, can’t have any fun? Everything serious? If it pisses you off, then it is all worth it.
If the State Lands Commission argues that the Tidelands include a part of the BT, then how are they not responsible for anything? The state claims ownership, once again, on behalf of the citizens of Callifornia. If this is not the case, what is the point of the State Lands Commission? They can bill the RR or do whatever, but what is their point?
November 6, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Phart you’re a coward. Changing your screen name only to avoid being caught out if you were wrong demonstrated that.
But Sims caught you in the act and your technical incompetance too. Now you’re squealing and trying to whitewash the whole thing. What you call having fun is simply a lame excuse for cowardice.
I’m not p[issed off at all. I feel great to know you’ve been caught out and everyone has proof of what a jerk you are. You’ve got no credibility here, you’re just a bad smell. Go in peace with Black Flag and the rest of your ilk, but know everyone on this blog is on to your bullshit cowardice.
November 6, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Plus the City of Eureka already built the Wharfinger and the Marina on the OTHER side of the BT. So the city may very well know where the state tideland line is as they would have had to deal iwth that isssue back when those were built. the State Lands Commission could just be a bunch of incompetent bullies, trying to cover up the fact that they really don’t know much.
November 6, 2009 at 2:09 pm
This is the same city that let the railroad walk away from their responsibilities 30 years ago for the sake of a job or two. The same city that let the pulp mill pollute our bay & stink up our air for years for the benefit of jobs. The same city that knew that the lumber & fishing industries were in trouble but did nothing to attract other industries to replace these jobs. This is the same city that had to turn away a tour ship because the “forgot” to get insurance. And now we are surprised that this is the same city that is standing in line to kiss Arkleys’s very large ass for a few dead end jobs?
Give me a break!! The only one of them that doesn’t have their lips all puckered-up is Larry Glass. After everything the city & Arkley’s gang put him through the last few weeks, it wonder he doesn’t just walk away from the whole mess!
November 6, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Christ, NAN , what the fuck is wrong with you? Get some help.
November 6, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Larry Glass give me a break. LiE you are totally full of shit. Big bunch of half truths to satisfy your inability to understand what really happens. You of course as a captain of industry have all the answers and great knowledge of how it went down. Ya right. Just like NaN/redhumjob. Full of shit. Seems oldphat know’s a lot of real world stuff. You all know progy line its just fed to you and you suck it down hook line and sinker.
Kool-Aid 4 fuck off and die. Balloon tract effects everyone in the county. As far as being from McK and making problems again you know shit.
November 6, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Apparently Sidney and Dave thought this was just another crank comment on their pet DEIR. Oops! For a moment there I thought competence might make an appearance but I was wrong.
Now let’s get the bulldozers in there and move all those contaminants around! They’ll never find them then. HA! HA! HA!
The SIRAP calls for channeling all the runoff into some sort of central depression so it won’t go into the bay. Won’t that create a lake if we have any kind of winter at all? And won’t that lake be full of contaminants so it would be toxic to birds and other wildlife that might touch it? What if it’s a wet winter and it all overflows, toxics and everything? Perhaps the legendary Bums would try to bathe in it and end up sueing the city for the weird growths that develope on their necks. Why is Arkley kicking and screaming so loudly about doing it right? If the site is thoroughly cleaned up to the present state-of-the-art, it could be used for anything. Wouldn’t that make it an extremely valuable property, able to be sold for other uses at an immense profit? Yet Rob persists in doing things the hard way. You don’t suppose it’s all a grudge match, do you?
Go, SLC!!! Maybe you can get them to do it right. No one else seems to know how.
November 6, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Geez everyone settle the fuck down and wait to read the paper about the SLC. Instead of having all these terrific ideas of what everyone Should Do-help yourselves! Look at your lives figure out whats missing fix it and quitcherbitchin and throwing nothing but hot air around-its embarassing!
November 6, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Pardon me, HumRed, if some of us actually speak english and can articulate without lapsing into mindless ranting. Public school would have helped you but that would have meant government intervention. What a wackjob!
November 6, 2009 at 2:35 pm
HumRed, they have medication that can help you out, may I suggest that you get it by the truck load. Each and every word of my statement was the truth and anyone who lives here knows that. Where are you from, Mississippi???? If so, please return there with all of our blessings!
November 6, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Actually I’m forth generation Californian. Anyone who lives here knows it. Then how come so many of them disagree with you. ANM I speak perfect English. That reading your stupidity pisses me off is true. I was educated in the California pubic schools through I’ll make it simple for you the 16th grade. Then did private schools for 6 more years. I talk like a man who works for a living and have my whole life. If you would like I can also curse in several other languages. I find communicating with people of your intellectual level cursing comes in handy.
November 6, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Living in Eureka – if Eureka sucks so bad, why do you live there? Just curious. It seems to piss you off no end. You can just move to say, Freshwater or whatever and not have to deal with all these frustrations. Just a thought.
November 6, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Hum red, your people disagree because they didn’t read enough of the temp clean plan, didn’t read the whole EIR, both pro and con. They didn’t know about SLC, even when available for months, The city has had it and ignored it, or buried it, for those many months. This seems like the most inept, or biased control of the process I’ve seen at city hall for many years. Their agenda, however, is at odds with state water rights law, the SLC, and the coastal com. They don’t want to play by the rules and it will cost the city in many ways. Doing it on the cheap and damn the torpedoes is not the best way for either the city or Arkley in the long run. Doing it right is not a bad approach, no matter how you try to paint it. Just realize the Arkley’s approach may, in fact, not be the best way to move this project forward. At least entertain the possibility.
November 6, 2009 at 5:19 pm
This is to Another Perspective, Oldphart and the other outhouse corn cob users. Carefully read the
letter from the state to Sidnie Olson, dated
01-30-09 or have someone read it for you. Maybe a
third grade teacher. The state is the authority.
There are strict laws regarding title, wetlands
and contamination. Living in Eureka, like so many
of us taxpayers are tired of the incompetence and
graft that rule this city.
November 6, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Actually a corn cob beats the shit out of a rock. Sears book or North Coast Journal are both better.
If your tired of it dip shit do something about it. Make some money and apply it. Run for office. You think insults from some asshole anon bother me. I read the letter, read the EIR ( and all the dumb bullshit in response by the local idiot’s progy fraction ).
RA is not stupid nor are the people working with him. Did you ever stop to think that maybe all us outhouse folks might know a hell of a lot more than you realize.
How about that the state does not know where the hell the tide line is at this point. What title company would go on the hook not knowing what was happening. If there is problems, it will get straighten out during the cleanup don’t you think. I realize that there is a possibility that his approach may not be the best. Know what its his project, not yours. You did not put up a fucking cent. A bunch of bleating sheep following folks are full of shit. Insulting myself, oldphat, or RA is not going to change facts. Watch and see how this comes out. I am not gloating, its beyond me how ignorant so many people are about all this stuff.
November 6, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Here’s a pic from the Shuster collection at HSU taken in 1946.
http://dscholar.humboldt.edu/humco/holdings/shuster/Access_Jpg/2001010075.jpg
Balloon Track and wetlands.
November 6, 2009 at 5:57 pm
That’s an amazing picture. Holy fucking wetlands, Batman!
November 6, 2009 at 5:59 pm
It is fairly apparent then that the railroad must have either had permission from the State Land Commission to run a rail bed over tidelands (state lands) or it never was considered tidelands. How did the city of Eureka build its marina? The Wharfinger building? Or is the city stupid, ignorant,corrupt incompetent and been building over tidelands for decades? Then where oh where was the State Land Commission during that era?
November 6, 2009 at 6:18 pm
“Or is the city stupid, ignorant,corrupt incompetent and been building over tidelands for decades”Or is the city stupid, ignorant,corrupt incompetent and been building over tidelands for decades?”
That question answers itself.
Boat basin was bay filled with water. Wharfinger was a higher land. Need another photo?
November 6, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Boat Basin:
http://dscholar.humboldt.edu/humco/holdings/shuster/Access_Jpg/2001011324.jpg
November 6, 2009 at 7:57 pm
“Wharfinger was a higher land.” WTF???
Look at maps of Eureka from late 1800s. The whole site was a salt marsh, up to what is now Hwy 101. Clark Slough and several smaller tributaries drained the salt marsh during titdal fluctuations. The whole BT consists about 8 feet of fill that sits on top of bay mud – that mud represents the salt marsh. So, if the dispute includes land that is fill, the Wharfinger, BT, Waterfront Drive – it all sits on fill, and is all part of old “wetland”. Look at the old maps, Broadway is essentially the edge of the wetland.
The Shuster photo is amazing, but it is not the standard for this discussion.
November 6, 2009 at 8:31 pm
RIP Waterfront Drive extension.
November 6, 2009 at 8:43 pm
“Consider that your numbers might be the result of our failure to attract and maintain quality medical personel….”
The contraction rate would not be related to quality of local medical personnel.
“…when all you have is what amounts to entry level retail and service jobs you tend to encourage a less educated workforce….”
This may be true. And how will the Marina Center change this? It will offer better jobs than entry level retail, primarily?
November 6, 2009 at 9:18 pm
It is hard sometimes to get the liberals riled up enough to change the status quo that has gripped Eureka politics for so long. I hope this is a sign of action and a damned good slate of candidates. That is the way to get movement on these issues. If we fail to act and don’t get it done, we deserve what we get.
November 6, 2009 at 11:14 pm
boy, are these guys in deep shit. I guess Rob and his bitches are in for the long haul on this piece of shit project. Can’t wait for the Coastal Comm. to weigh-in.
buh-bye, boys.
November 7, 2009 at 12:09 am
I don’t know what to say. This is insane. It seems like there are people that are going to destroy this unique opportunity to develop this “worst case enviro-nightmare” because they are jealous of a man with money who is willing to take a chance on developing a vacant and deteriorating parcel of land. Because…? I don’t get it. Hate Arkley, hate Home Depot, hate any development. Where does that get you?
Don’t you see that this could become one of the most beautiful parts of Eureka and give an opportunity to develop the rest of the bayfront and truly change and improve the entire character of this run down “piece of shit” town?
That may be put too strong, I just fear that if nothing ever moves forward with the group of people that are so against any development that this place will shrivel up and die.
November 7, 2009 at 7:01 am
The only form of toxic clean-up you might call “win-win” would leave the bay protected from whatever chemicals were spilled into the earth by the railroad during it’s century on the property, and we won’t know what clean-up really means until we find out what’s really in there. I want a “win-win” also, but it won’t happen without more research.
from what i understand the characterization would be completed during the interim cleanup and during the capping process there would be monitoring wells to ensure contaminants do not leach into the bay.
November 7, 2009 at 7:11 am
El Rushbo, when you refer to this “group of people” who exactly are you referring to? Larry Glass? Baykeeper?
Please tell us what other development projects these people have fought and/or apparently “hate”. I always hear about Glass fighting all development projects and being anti “progress”. Can you guys name any others?
November 7, 2009 at 7:22 am
Why do people find it so hard to accept that many people in Humboldt would rather have a “unique” seaport village, that has “destination” status with the world’s tourists. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that a Home Depot, or any other addition to big-box-cookie-cutter buildings that now ugly up the area, is a bad idea. Does anyone really think that Home Depot is going to offer the same deals that they offer in Sac, or even in Redding? I noticed when Costco gas came in, people at first thought they where going to get the good price, but first off they are all capitalists, so it is whatever the market will bear, what is the price compared to other stations?
I think the very idea of another one of these huge McUglies around here is suspect. Capitalists have no imagination…thank God.
November 7, 2009 at 7:26 am
I am looking forward to a Home Depot. Sorry for my lack of imagination.
November 7, 2009 at 9:11 am
what does private ownership of capital have to do with imagination?
November 7, 2009 at 10:49 am
Fine, steak. Let’s build a big box mall in Humboldt where it makes sense and bring in Wal Mart and the others too, if they want to come. But building a big box on Eureka’s waterfront makes no sense.
November 7, 2009 at 10:57 am
Since we all have dioxin in our bodies, shouldn’t we all be cleaning up ourselves first? I mean, we must be spreading toxins everywhere! Yikes! Where is Bodykeepers when you need them? Maybe we could put a detox center at the BT. Then not just the character of the area could remain the same, but the history could be preserved.
November 7, 2009 at 10:58 am
Hasn’t anyone noticed things are built without permits? If anyone finds out
and tells on them then they get a variance. In Eureka, it seems to be what you
can get away with is commonplace. This is behind the Redwood Curtain and
run the way it’s always been run. Wild West on the coast! Great photos of the
tidelands!!!
November 7, 2009 at 10:59 am
El Rushbo thinks a mall with a parking lot could be the most beautiful part of Eureka. What else is there to say?
November 7, 2009 at 11:01 am
El Rushbo, this is such a tiresome and specious comment. Speaking for myself, my objections to the Marina Project as currently proposed have absolutely nothing to do with jealousy over Rob Arkley’s bank account. When I look at the refurbished Vance Hotel, I am delighted that Rob has money. If you actually take the time to TRY and understand the reasons of those objecting—and I’m not talking about nasty, drive-by insults, I’m talking about specific arguments—you will not see the so-called class envy or cash jealousy you and others claim. If you believe you do, please provide examples—not based on your speculation of the poster’s emotions, but based on what they actually say.
November 7, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Mike – the boat basin may be in the water, but someone better tell the yacht club that their building is underwater along with the parking lot, lauching ramps, etc. More to the marina than boats.
November 7, 2009 at 1:44 pm
And the Warfinger is not on fill? The stretch of 101 between Arcata & Eureka is all old tidelands. Where will it end? Ask the State Lands Commission to clarify tidelands in Humboldt Bay.
November 7, 2009 at 2:22 pm
There is already a dock that needs to be expanded and up dated. Eureka waterfront could be a better attraction than Port Angeles. It’s all about what should be allowed next to the water. Hey, did ya notice? No F-word.
November 7, 2009 at 2:22 pm
The city has long been aware of the wetlands / tidelands CSLC title issues in the areas of the boat marina, the boardwalk and the fishermans terminal. They negotiate with the state often over these issues. In this case however, our own city government chose to bury this problem in favor of the developer.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
November 7, 2009 at 2:36 pm
It isn’t a wetlands issue. It is a tidelands issue. The State owns the tidelands and grants them to local governments. If the City has negotiated with the SLC in the past, these issues should have been resolved.
November 7, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Why does building a big box on the waterfront make no sense?
November 7, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Since the SLC had to have signed off on the BT when the RR had it, then all of this must be about a change of use. The RR degreased the locomotives and let it run off. That was the norm in that area. People oiled gravel roads back then. Nobody thought it was harmful, or didn’t think about it at all. That has to be where the majority of toxic nastiness came from. But today, the SLC is concerned about the use. Or at least I would think that is the real issue. Does the SLC actually care about any cleanup? Probably not the issue to them.
November 7, 2009 at 4:43 pm
In that era as well as that area. oops.
November 7, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Building a Home Depot on the waterfront is not a coastal dependent use, as defined by the coastal commission, who gets its authority from the state of California. It is that simple.
November 7, 2009 at 6:02 pm
It’s not even a ‘coastal related’ use which is probably more applicable to the BT since it is not actually on the water except for Clark Slough. Either way, it’s the wrong use for the parcel. But I suspect steak has been too busy drawing moustaches on the Mona Lisa to notice.
BTW, there’s NO marina at the ‘Marina Center’. Cute PR. eh?
November 7, 2009 at 6:39 pm
That is an issue for the Coastal Commission, the question is the State Lands Commission. One thing at a time.
November 7, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Maybe it should be the Marinara Center. Money for nothing, pizza for free. Sorry Dire Straits.
November 7, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Hopefully the grand jury will take up this issue.
November 7, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Mouse, looking for answers and reasons, not sarcasm.
November 8, 2009 at 10:24 am
Thinking that a Big Box Home Depot is appropriate use of our bayfront lands suggests a glaring lack of taste and appreciation for the aesthetics involved.
That was the thrust of my ’sarcasm’ above. By the way, the moustaches should curl UP, not down.
November 14, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Nice Post today. Didn’t read all 115 entries but remember this?
Public Trust Doctrine Could Stop Balloon Tract Retail Development
http://www.humboldtadvocate.com/articles.php?action=view&id=44
By Elaine Weinreb, Humboldt Advocate
July 7, 2006
Although Security National’s proposed Balloon Tract development in Eureka is named the Marina Center, it does not contain a marina – or anything else that is related to water, boats, or the bayshore on which it is located.
This, according to the project’s opponents, could be the downfall of the project. Aldaron Laird, a local consultant specializing in regulatory compliance for water-related projects, has uncovered a doctrine buried deep in the heart of the California legal system that could bring the development to a stop, if anybody wanted to take it to court.
In researching old historical documents and records, Laird discovered that the Balloon Tract was once a tideland, an area that was covered and uncovered twice each day by the waters of Humboldt Bay. Even though the area was subsequently diked and filled, Laird says that legally the land remains subject to the doctrine of public trust.