Home > environment, Eureka, Rob Arkley > CREG: Security National is stonewalling

CREG: Security National is stonewalling

The Citizens for Real Economic Growth are held a press conference this afternoon about what they call “stonewalling” by Security National/CUE VI to provide information to the California Costal Commission regarding the Balloon Track.

KHUM interviewed Neal Latt of CREG this morning, followed by Randy Gans of Security National.

Below is the CREG press release for the press conference:

Citizens for Real Economic Growth (CREG) was founded in 2005 as an grassroots educational endeavor to hold Union Pacific Railroad, then-owner of the Balloon Track property in Eureka, accountable for its legacy of intensive pollution of the property, and to advocate for an open process to determine the highest, best use of the site and then to help Eureka to proceed with that development.

Since that time, much has transpired in regard to the property.  What has not changed is its condition:  stagnation.  The legal stage has evolved to the point at which certain information has been requested by the California Coastal Commission from the developer (CUE VI, a subsidiary of Security National), in order to proceed with the cleanup permit.

This information has not been yet been provided, and does not, to the best of our observations, appear to be forthcoming.

Today we call upon CUE VI and Security National to immediately provide the information requested of it by the Coastal Commission, so that a hearing on the cleanup permit may be held at the earliest possible time.  Without this information, the Commission cannot make a decision, and the effort to achieve a cleanup of the Balloon Track cannot move ahead. When Security National bought the property in 2006, they knowingly and willingly assumed liability for doing the cleanup that Union Pacific and its predecessors had successfully avoided for decades.  They made the purchase knowing that any proposed cleanup would have to comply with the Coastal Act – and importantly, they promised us they would do it.

Today we also call upon Virginia Bass and Jeff Leonard, and the alleged independent group “Citizens for a Better Eureka” to join us in demanding that CUE VI and Security National provide the information requested of it, so that the cleanup of the property may finally move forward. It is in no one’s interest for Security National to continue to withhold the necessary information and delay the process.  Ms. Bass and Mr. Leonard, along with Frank Jager and Mike Jones, demanded a quick hearing by the Coastal Commission of the permit application in a press conference in this same location last December.  If they are sincere in their expressed desire, they will join us to demand that the developer provide this necessary information to the Coastal Commission in the most expeditious manner possible.

Some of this requested information includes:

1)                               An Alternatives Analysis, to make the necessary findings that the proposed wetlands fill by the developer to control hazardous materials-entrained stormwater runoff on the site is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.  This was requested because the Coastal Commission found that the City of Eureka’s approved Environmental Impact Report (EIR) “. . . provide(d) no substantive analysis of project alternatives that address other feasible options to the grading and filling of nearly 2/3 of the roughly 40-acre site that would achieve the same water quality objectives.”

2)                               A Hazardous Materials Contamination Assessment, which would provide “full characterization of the presence and extent of constituents of concern prior to approval of the Clark Slough wetland reserve component of the project.”  As proposed by the developer, this component would entail extensive ground disturbance and “. . . the unearthing of heretofore subsurface material in an area that has been generally documented as contaminated with elevated levels of petroleum distillates, metals and polychlorinated dibenzo-dioxins and furans, and could result in exposing the aquatic resources within the slough and, in turn, Humboldt Bay, to toxics which could have deleterious impacts on the biological productivity of water quality of areas and species of special biological or economic significance . . .”

3)                               Property Interest Information.  Questions have been raised in regard to the location of the boundaries between public and private ownership at the site, and whether portions of the site may be subject to public trust review by the State Lands Commission.  To the best of our knowledge,  CUE VI and Security National have not, as of yet, provided the requested information to the Commission, in regard to:

a)    when the property was acquired, and from whom;

b)     the purchase price;

c)     a copy of any title report, litigation guarantee or similar document that might have been prepared in connection with all or a portion of the property;

d)    the historic chain of title for all property, both on and adjacent to the site, held by the landowner in common contiguous ownership;

e)     information to establish lot legality for all APNs both on and adjacent to the site, held by the landowner in common contiguous ownership;

f)       the location of all wetlands located on site, as well as the location of all areas of soil and groundwater contamination.

In conclusion, the Balloon Track isn’t getting any cleaner.  The dry season when the work might be performed is nearly upon us.  We assert that it is hypocritical for CUE VI and Security National to complain about the Coastal Commission asserting jurisdiction over a permit that they themselves sought in the first place. By the same measure, the frivolous lawsuit brought by the Pacific Legal Foundation in this regard is (at best) a waste of time, and appears to be a mechanism for stalling further scrutiny by the Coastal Commission of a flawed and deficient EIR.  It further delays the cleanup that all of our community clearly wants to see begun.  We, the citizens of Eureka, demand an end to the apparent stonewalling of the Commission’s request for information from the project applicant. The Balloon Track, Humboldt Bay, and we, the citizens of Eureka cannot wait any longer for this cleanup to proceed.

Thank you for your time today.

  1. March 23, 2010 at 1:47 pm

    Excuse me, but CREG doesn’t speak for the citizens of Eureka. There is many of us who disagree with CREG.

  2. Seven
    March 23, 2010 at 2:07 pm

    What was the response from Randy Gans?

  3. Anonymous
    March 23, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    To paraphrase Randy: “We don’t like what the Coastal Commission has said to us, so we don’t think they have jurisdiction. Waaah!”

  4. Neal Latt
    March 23, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    I challenge Security National to produce the title (not the title report, which is different) to the Balloon Track property, showing that they truly own it.

  5. Snickerdoodles
    March 23, 2010 at 2:18 pm

    CREG speaks for me, my wife and most of my friends. I think the perception that the majority of Eurekans support the Marina Center is patently false. And is based on meetings packed with Tammany Hall style vote collecting brought to us with Arkley dollars. He has a captive pool of ‘support’ which includes his employees. (full disclosure: both my wife and I are former Arkley employees) and they are all afraid to lose their jobs.

  6. Larry Evans
    March 23, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    Yes capdiamont, but “there is” many of us who do agree with CREG. Is your implication that no one should speak for us?

    Your side is financed by a billionaire banker. Are you afraid that your positions won’t receive an adequate hearing? Rest assured– Mr Arkley & his henchmen are certainly well advised on every front–legally, politically & PR-wise. They will certainly be

    Unfortunately for that mob, the only problem for the proposed big box maul project is that it will never pass muster within the law.

    I know that bankers don’t really have any respect for law and order, but most of the rest of us do.

  7. March 23, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    And they should listen to Neal why?

    CREQ doesn’t speak for me, my wife, and most of my friends. I’m not an employee of Arkley’s, nor a spurned employee. Never was.

  8. Larry Evans
    March 23, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    “They will certainly be” heard.

    dang tek-Know-logy!

  9. March 23, 2010 at 2:29 pm

    Uh, yawn Evans. Why does it have to be afraid of this, or of that? Not afraid of anything.

    My assurtion is CREQ, or any such group has no right to speak for Eureka as a whole.

  10. March 23, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    assertion, grumble.

  11. Seven
    March 23, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    Capdiamont is crossing his fingers that Arkley will pay for his pet railroad project

  12. Anonymous
    March 23, 2010 at 2:32 pm

    The smelly hippie’s are laughing at you Rob. They’re all going to laugh at you.

  13. March 23, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    Yawn. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

  14. Plain Jane
    March 23, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    They should listen to Neal because he is a citizen of Eureka who is impacted by the toxic materials at the balloon tract, Cap. Just because you don’t care doesn’t mean most people share your view. I’m curious as to why you are so interested in this issue if you don’t care that it is cleaned up properly.

  15. Larry Evans
    March 23, 2010 at 2:40 pm

    They should listen to Neal because…

    he presents solid logic

    based on actual facts and

    the inescapable conclusion that this project is:

    BAD for the Economy!

    BAD for the Environment!

    BAD for the Community!

    Now more than ever Eureka requires:

    Full Cleanup!

    Local Business to keep our money at home! -and-

    A return to the public planning process to determine the appropriate zoning changes to approve in order to provide the ultimate future developer, (whoever that ends up being– Mr. A or someone else), with the appropriate direction of what the community will alow on this site.

    Mr. A did not buy a commercial property that he is being prevented from developing to its economic potential. He bought a toxic waste dump that is zoned for public use (for the most part). Until the citizenry determines its preferred zoning use for that property, it is simply another bankers gamble that they can skim off profit from yet another speculative scheme.

    In this case, that scheme revolves around buying a toxic waste dump on the cheap and then trying to low-ball & bum rush the community out of a FULL CLEANUP to maximize profits. This is an old story, oft repeated.

    That is not a scam I am falling for and neither are the supoporters of CREG.

  16. March 23, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    “FULL CLEANUP” at what level is a full clean up? Quite a few people keep saying that, without defining what they mean.

    Full as in ZERO contaminates left behind, or as in the last baykeeper approved cleanup that has left some contaminates behind?

  17. March 23, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    Just because they are a citizen of Eureka, doesn’t mean they are impacted by the toxic materials at the site Jane.

  18. Plain Jane
    March 23, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    We are all impacted by it, Cap. You still haven’t explained your interest in it.

  19. Truth speaker
    March 23, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    Jane, right now, are those toxic materials there right now? The question is: how do we properly dispose of the materials? If we cannot come up with an economically feasible way to clean it up, to you really expect a private business man to foot the bill? What is your plan Jane?

  20. A-Nony-Mouse
    March 23, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    A “FULL” cleanup means state-of-the-art to the highest possible standards. That’s WAY above what Arkley proposes to do.

    Who’s causing the delay? CBE’s lawsuit over Coastal Commission jurisdiction is ONLY a delaying tactic which prevents the CC from scheduling a hearing until it’s ettled. Past cases suggest CBE has almost NO chance of prevailing. Then there’s Security National’s strange reluctance to provide all of the information that the CC has requested so it can schedule a hearing. It’s all enough to make one think that Arkley doesn’t really want to get started. Could another bank failure have anything to do with it?

  21. March 23, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    What’s yours? I don’t think everyone is impacted by it. Mine is simple interest.

  22. A-Nony-Mouse
    March 23, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    Capdiamont should work on his spelling. Unless he’s (she’s) just a nasty bastard, the proper spelling is CREG. That’s “Citizens for Real Economic Growth” which you maybe wouldn’t know about.

  23. Larry Evans
    March 23, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    Capdiamont,,

    You can call me Larry.

    You are utilizing an old rhetorical trick–

    misstating your opponents position in order to discredit them.

    I re-read all the comments here as well as the release and it does not state anywhere that CREG believes it is speaking for “Eureka as a whole”

    Now, read carefully the words that my fingers are typing–

    CREG speaks for many of us. On the other hand– many people’s view are represented by Mr. A and his outfit. (Likely most folks in this town find all the caterwauling on both sides of the issue as an irritating buzzing in their ear.)

    The bottom line is that CREG speaks for many. Those collected voices heve every right to be heard.

    What’s the matter Mr. C, are you opposed to free speech? I am surprised because I was under the impression that you are FOR Freedom. Apparently the freedom you support is selectively endowed to only those who agree with you.

  24. March 23, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    A full clean up, as you put it, isn’t required by law, period. A business owner should sink more money in to a project than is required, why?

  25. Mike Buettner
    March 23, 2010 at 3:22 pm

    One reason might be that they care about the community.

  26. Bolithio
    March 23, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    CREG does not speak for everyone.

    1) Alt Analysis – this is nothing to get excited over. Read some alternatives from any EIR and enjoy the smoke and mirrors. Ask your self this, whats the impact of a “no project”?

    2) A Hazardous Materials Contamination Assessment – the preceding paragraph is fancy jargon for sure, but again the sky is not falling. You even think the CCC would understand the language within that report? Why isn’t the RWQCB being asked about this? Or have they already?

  27. the reasonable anonymous
    March 23, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    Cap,

    If you really can’t think of an answer to your own question at 3:18, then I feel very sorry for you.

  28. the reasonable anonymous
    March 23, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    Mike Buettner beat me to the punch!

  29. March 23, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    “We, the citizens of Eureka, demand an end to the apparent stonewalling of the Commission’s request for information from the project applicant.” Try reading more Larry. It is implied, that instead of saying member of CREG, it is citizens of Eureka. Heraldo even put that phrase in bold.

    “You are utilizing an old rhetorical trick–

    misstating your opponents position in order to discredit them.”
    Right back at you. Just because I criticize someone’s speech, doesn’t mean I’m curtailing freedom of speech, nor opposed to free speech. Do you think the same weird thought when anyone criticizes someones speech? What about teachers? Are they curtailing free speech by correcting papers? You are the 1st person with the off-the-wall assumption that criticizing speech, means opposition to free speech. Do you complain everytime that happens on a blog, or just people who are not on your side?

  30. Plain Jane
    March 23, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    Yes Truth, they are there right now leaching into the bay that most of us use for recreation and fishing. It also ends up in the ocean and on the beaches. I’m not an expert so I go with what experts have to say about it. SN’s refusal to comply with Coastal Commission requests for information while suing them definitely seems like they are hiding problems with their EIR and clean-up plans.

    And YES, I expect the property owner who bought the property knowing it was contaminated to clean it up to the point where it no longer poses a threat of toxic contamination according to the experts, not the owner.

    Fortunately, the people who think the earth will put up with any amount of ecological insults are dying off. I just hope future generations are able to reverse this ecological nightmare we have created.

  31. Mike Buettner
    March 23, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    Crapdiamont sound like he is the spokesperson for Citizens for a Better Eureka. But he of course doesn’t speak for the citizens of Eureka.

  32. March 23, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    Your answer Mike, has several fallacious. A) Business are built for the bottom line, period. B) A business still cares, even if they do the minimum. C) SN could bow completely out of the project, and leave it the way it is, contaminates, and all. D) A caring company who always does the max, but goes out of business, will have to give uncaring pink slips. E) those contaminates will have to be dumped on some other community/place.

    I, for those who couldn’t figure it out, have many answers to that question.

  33. March 23, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    Neal Latt @ 214 you are right on, there is no proof anywhere so far that CUE or SN has title to the balloon track, perhaps they just have an option or a verbal agreement. It is all speculation. I said the same thing right here on NOV 8 in this thread: https://humboldtherald.wordpress.com/2009/11/07/city-of-eureka-protected-vulnerable/

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  34. March 23, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    I don’t claim to Mike, for either group. Care to explain away the polls that support the project?

  35. March 23, 2010 at 3:46 pm

    No title, no responsibility.

    BTW Mike, I caught your childishness of messing up my handle.

  36. Seven
    March 23, 2010 at 3:49 pm

    What polls, Capdiamont?

  37. Plain Jane
    March 23, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    If Arkley doesn’t own the balloon tract, how could he have legal standing to sue the Coastal Commission?

  38. Anony.Miss
    March 23, 2010 at 3:55 pm

    I know there are so many opinions and sides to this story. I personally can’t stand the possibility of any sort of toxic runoff going into any waterway. Also, knowing the Arkleys personally, I am certain they think they are doing the right thing. They want to stay here most of the time and they want the community to be a better place. They talk it about constantly. They love the outdoors and natural wildlife. I am convinced they have reason to believe what they are doing enough, and while trying to keep their costs low they don’t want to spend more than they have to- money is a big issue right now. Are there some solid numbers of toxins leaking into the bay to convince them?

    I am sure they wouldn’t be putting the money they have into a property they did not actually own. It doesn’t make sense to me.

  39. Plain Jane
    March 23, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    “E) those contaminates will have to be dumped on some other community/place.”

    Yes, that’s why we have toxic waste dumps which are sealed to prevent leaching into groundwater or bays.

  40. Larry Evans
    March 23, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    Truth Speaker, the answer to your question is an emphatic HELL YEAH!!!

    A private businessman who voluntarily (though apparently unwisely) accepts liability for a toxic waste dump when they buy that property from the fabulously wealthy corporation (Union Pacific) that was responsible for the mess in the first place, oh yeah, that businessman is directly and legally responsible for that mess.

    Funny thing about freedom– it only works when balanced by responsibility.

    And on the subject of what constitutes full clean-up we can go over this again but everyone please pay attention. [the rhetorical device often employed here by the minions of arkley of asking the same question again & again while ignoring the proferred answer is an effective method of misleading folks who are only paying slight attention to an issue, but it is a technique of deception and therefore not about facts or reality.]

    A FULL CLEANUP does not mean removing every trace of toxins. That would be great if possible, but it is not technically feasible. In this case as in all cleanups, there are decreasing returns on investment as the cleanup progresses- ie. lots of toxins removed for cheap at the start but as the toxic concentrations become more diffuse and spread out, they also become more expensive to deal with. The question is what is the risk and the consequence of the toxins left behind relative to human and environmental health. The other question is how can we get this stuff out of the ground &/or water &/or watertable without mobilizing it into the air as dust or into the bay as runoff during the cleanup itself. A cleanup that spreads the poison around defeats the purpose.

    Of course the first step towards determining the details of full cleanup is to complete the assessment of the site. Until that point everything is speculation– or worse it is dangerous and willful ignorance that can in fact lead to spreading the poison around as does the current inadequate cleanup plan.

    Okay– too much time at this on a spectacular day– time to finish planting the potatoes!

  41. Neal Latt
    March 23, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    Time to steer this conversation away from arguing what the definition (and feasibility) of a “full cleanup” is. We might as well be talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

    I’m more concerned with simply satisfying the law. What Security National has proposed – filling and grading roughly 2/3 of the 40-acre wetland-laden site “for stormwater retention” is simply not compatible with the law (Coastal Act). Filling wetland for a big box store (or any other commercial development not resource-dependent) is not compatible with the law. Disturbing mass amounts of toxin-laden soil BEFORE it has been fully characterized is not compatible with the law (even if it is to “create wetland”).

    Full cleanup? Sheesh! I’d settle for LEGAL cleanup – and simply stated, what SN has proposed is not compatible with the law. Don’t take my word for it – read the 13-page staff report from the Coastal Commission yourself. Here’s the link:

    http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2009/12/Th14c-12-2009-a3.pdf

  42. Anony.Miss
    March 23, 2010 at 5:08 pm

    Like I said, I think their intent is to make it clean. The problem is knowing who to believe.

  43. Plain Jane
    March 23, 2010 at 5:08 pm

    Where did you find potatoes, Larry? I tried to buy some at Greenlot this weekend and they didn’t have them in yet.

  44. Anony.Miss
    March 23, 2010 at 5:16 pm

    I may have seen some at Mad River Gardens.

  45. anymouse
    March 23, 2010 at 5:25 pm

    I want a full clean up. That what Rob promised when he accept liabilty for the property from Union Pacific.
    Think of the jobs it would create, a 15 to 20 million clean up project, it would take a couple of years.
    Jobs Jobs Jobs right Virginia?

  46. Neal Latt
    March 23, 2010 at 5:28 pm

    Anony.Miss, this isn’t about “belief,” it’s about the law. Rob, Cherie, Neal – it ain’t about what we think, it’s about what’s legal – or not.

  47. Larry Evans
    March 23, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    potatoes at Piersons– bought them a couple weeks ago then threw them into the fridge. I plant into wire cages so I can start a little earlier than my drainage situation allows.

    back to cases– Neal has some very good points about the basic failure of the proposed project to meet the minimum standards of the law, but I respectfully disagree about settling for the minimum legal cleanup. I think that Union Pacific (or their dupe since that gigantic corporation was able to find a sucker through whom they could weasel out of their obligations), needs to cleanup their mess to the fullest extent of technical feasibility.
    They dumped their costs onto our community in the form of toxic pollution so the maximum clean-up is the way that they internalize the costs dumped on us. If somone dumped their bedpan into the community water tank, should that person be responsible to only clean up the mess part way? Of course not.

    Of course some businesses try to avoid paying the costs of their operations but others act responsibly. The act of ducking out on responsibility is neither ethical, nor has it resulted in a good outcome for our community. Enough is enough!

  48. Neal Latt
    March 23, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    Anyone who spends fifteen minutes reading the CCC staff report will have a much better understanding of what the REAL issues are here.

  49. Plain Jane
    March 23, 2010 at 5:36 pm

    Waste dumps aren’t built in wetlands or placed next to rivers or bays and are surrounded by monitored wells to watch for any seepage.

  50. March 23, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    And then what Jane? It isn’t our problem any more, so who cares?

    ALL LANDFILL LINERS AND LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEMS WILL FAIL …

    “First, even the best liner and leachate collection system will ultimately fail due to natural deterioration, and recent improvements in MSWLF containment technologies suggest that releases may be delayed by many decades at some landfills. For this reason, the Agency is concerned that while corrective action may have already been triggered at many facilities, 30 years may be insufficient to detect releases at other landfills.” Source: US EPA Federal Register, Aug 30, 1988, Vol.53, No.168, (scanned document). Check-out Peter Montegue’s Rachel’s for list of other comments in Federal Register by EPA.

  51. March 23, 2010 at 5:43 pm

    sorry, forgot the link for last part.

  52. Anony.Miss
    March 23, 2010 at 5:44 pm

    “Legal” has interpretations. If it were simple, it would be finished already.

  53. Cooper
    March 23, 2010 at 5:47 pm

    Neal:

    Please run for City Council. Please. Imagine what you can accomplish for the city of Eureka with a four-vote majority. Please. Please. Please.

  54. huufc
    March 23, 2010 at 5:52 pm

    I would’nt give the jack booted thugs at the coastal commision anything.

  55. the reasonable anonymous
    March 23, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    Rhetoric Inflation Alert: Whooop! Whooop! Whoop!

  56. Plain Jane
    March 23, 2010 at 5:57 pm

    Systems are repaired and upgraded as needed, Cap. You are so silly. It will always be our problem. There’s no escaping it as long as there are humans on earth. Just another of those “oops we didn’t know” from the sort of people who are still demanding absolute proof before they curtail harmful activities and then say, “Oops we didn’t know” again and again and whine about the cost to fix it or stop doing it.

  57. March 23, 2010 at 6:05 pm

    Ah… by moving the toxic contamination to a landfill, which is out of Humboldt county. If the landfill fails, is it any problem of us in Humboldt? I had to make it real plain and simple for plain Jane.

    Now, plain Jane, if you aren’t one of those people who goes “oops we didn’t know”/doesn’t still demand absolute proof, how can you demand any of the toxic material from our area go to a landfill, since they have 100% failure rate? Or do you demand proof of the failure rate?

  58. Plain Jane
    March 23, 2010 at 6:16 pm

    The toxins already exist, Cap. They have to be placed in the least hazardous place and that is in a toxic landfill. That’s why we have them, ya know? Everything fails eventually and WE FIX IT.

  59. Plain Jane
    March 23, 2010 at 6:20 pm

    Cap seems to be making the argument that since no one can guarantee a dump will never leak that we might just as well leave them where they are, leaching into the bay. We can’t guarantee that nuclear waste sites will never leak either so why bother moving it to specially constructed sites? Can anyone really be this ignorant?

  60. Sandra
    March 23, 2010 at 6:29 pm

    So Cap, these dioxins would be better off under a concrete cap adjacent to our bay rather than in a monitored landfill?

    Makes alot of sense…

    Hope Rob coughs up the cash for your railroad

  61. Anonymous
    March 23, 2010 at 6:30 pm

    Yeah Jane, Heraldos, Greg, Larry and Neal

    We get it that you guys are opposed to an interim cleanup that will identify the full scope of the cleanup needed.

  62. the reasonable anonymous
    March 23, 2010 at 6:32 pm

    Yes, they can be and are.

  63. the reasonable anonymous
    March 23, 2010 at 6:33 pm

    My 6:32 comment was a response to Jane’s 6:20.

  64. March 23, 2010 at 6:41 pm

    Ah, but by moving them, we are guaranteeing the contamination of new ground and water. We are effectively spreading the toxic material. With landfills, we detect the failure, by monitoring ground water. That is where monitoring wells come in to play. The ground, and ground water is already contaminated by the time the wells detected it. Now in order to fix it, another solution must of been found, or move it to another landfill, etc. A toxic, snowballing solution, is land filling.

    A less ignorant solution, is to find creative solutions. Dumping is simply dumping on next generations, which is ok with plain Jane. Why not bio-remediation, or glassification? While capping seems to be out, it maybe possible with bio-remediation, to have a cleaned up site, and use of the site.

    Another issue, is in order to fully clean up the site, everything upstream of the site needs to be clean. Do people here understand that fact, and the drainage passing though there extends all the way up to Henderson Center?

  65. March 23, 2010 at 6:49 pm

    “…82% of surveyed landfill cells had leaks while 41% had a leak area of more than 1 square feet,” according to Leak Location Services, Inc. (LLSI) website (March 15, 2000).

    According to Dr. Fred Lee, “detection in new landfills can be difficult since the only way to know this is detection in the monitoring wells. The likelihood of a monitoring well at a single or double lined landfill detecting an initial leak is very small.” Monitoring wells should be located in areas most likely to detect contamination (i.e., testing the ground water after it has passed under the landfill.) See: Subchapter I: Solid Waste. Lined landfills leak in very narrow plumes, whereas old, unlined landfills will produce wide plumes of leachate.

    Old and new landfills are typically located next to large bodies of water (i.e., rivers, lakes, bays, etc), making leakage detection and remediation (clean-up) extremely difficult. This is due to the incursion of surface water in both instances. Federal and state governments have allowed landfill operators to locate landfills next to water bodies under the misguided principle: Detection by monitoring wells can also be very difficult at lined landfills. Lined landfills leak in very narrow plumes, whereas old, unlined landfills will produce wide plumes of leachate.

    Ground water flows downstream, or toward nearby lakes and rivers. In some cases, monitoring wells have been located around landfills in areas least likely to detect leakage (i.e., upstream of the groundwater flow). This is in violation of federal law. See Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): Chapter I – Environmental Protection Agency, Subchapter I: Solid Waste / PART 258 (Updated 1997) – Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Adobe PDF). If a landfill is located next to a water body, then the monitoring wells should be located between the landfill and the water; or (if there is no space left), in the water. See: EPA’s Ground Water Monitoring

  66. Mike Buettner
    March 23, 2010 at 6:51 pm

    The Randy Ganz spokesperson.

  67. Plain Jane
    March 23, 2010 at 6:52 pm

    I don’t have any more time to waste knocking down Cap’s straw men. It’s just frustrating and pointless.

  68. March 23, 2010 at 6:57 pm

    Plain jane doesn’t have enough time to think, so she just uses old tired out solutions.

    Mike just continues to act childish.

  69. The Monitor
    March 23, 2010 at 6:57 pm

    The impact on Eurekans is as follows: The bay continues to be the run off recipient of toxic rain water from the property. This chemical soup moves on the surface and it moves with subsurface water. The water table there rises to just a few feet below ground level in the winter carrying the toxics on a slow but inevitable trek to the bay. At least 25% of the balloon tract is buried slough and it still oozes into the bay. If it is cleaned properly the bay, the community, and the region are the better for it.

  70. Neal Latt
    March 23, 2010 at 6:59 pm

    To say that the interim cleanup “is needed to identify the full scope of the cleanup needed” is straight-out a lie. A lie that Security National has fostered that was bought by Virginia Bass, Jeff Leonard, Mike Jones and Frank Jager. The Coastal Commission knows better and called them on it: “the unearthing of heretofore subsurface material in an area that has been generally documented as contaminated with elevated levels of petroleum distillates, metals,…dioxins and furans…before full characterization of the site has been undertaken, could result in exposing the …Humboldt Bay to toxics which could have deleterious impacts on …water quality.”

    Pretty crafty to say, “we’re going to grade all this toxic-laden soil to make a WETLAND, folks! Then, we’ll characterize what’s leftover…AFTERWARD! But first, let’s move the soil all around, mobilize the toxins in a way that makes them impossible to characterize… but folks, you’re getting a WETLAND out of it!”

  71. March 23, 2010 at 7:06 pm

    Yet I’m ignorant,pointing out obvious flaws in the landfill idea. Oh yeah those are straw men. Maybe Arkley can use that old line of Jane’s, “we fix it”.

  72. March 23, 2010 at 7:13 pm

    what’s that old sayin’ that grandpaps used to scold once in a while,

    “a day late and a dollar short”?

    This is what the balloon tract has been for decades.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  73. humboldturtle
    March 23, 2010 at 7:17 pm

    Slap ’em, Crappy!

  74. humboldturtle
    March 23, 2010 at 7:17 pm

    Crappy wanted to slap you guys over at Richard’s, but Richard took the post down :O)

  75. Snickerdoodles
    March 23, 2010 at 7:24 pm

    Solid municipal waste dumps are not toxic waste dumps. And yeah dumps leak. Should we just let our trash pile up instead? Sheesh. I smell a shill.

    Continuing your logic though: some people are motivated by greed to do evil. We should ban money. (you’re secretly a Commie Cappy!)

  76. Mr. Nice
    March 23, 2010 at 7:31 pm

    What we should do is argue about this another 100 years without cleaning up shit or trying to build anything. Then it can continue to be a sick graffiti spot. Has anyone done undersides there?

  77. Anonymous
    March 23, 2010 at 7:40 pm

    Oh, it’s a “straight out lie” because NONexpert Neal Latt says its a lie?

    Puhleeeze

  78. Neal Latt
    March 23, 2010 at 7:55 pm

    I’m not saying it.

    The experts at the CCC, who now have jurisdiction on the development, are saying it (page 9 on the link above).

    Keep spinnin’, guys.

  79. Carol
    March 23, 2010 at 8:07 pm

    I grow my potatoes year-round in my compost pile, and they also grow well outdoors in Smart Pots.

  80. Carol
    March 23, 2010 at 8:07 pm

    P.S. Nice to see CREG is still active.

  81. March 23, 2010 at 8:15 pm

    “(CREG) was founded in 2005 as an grassroots educational endeavor to hold Union Pacific Railroad, then-owner of the Balloon Track property in Eureka, accountable for its legacy of intensive pollution of the property, and to advocate for an open process to determine the highest, best use of the site and then to help Eureka to proceed with that development.”

    Still seems like a good approach to me. Nice job, Neal.

  82. Curiousofbeingfoundout
    March 23, 2010 at 8:16 pm

    Face it, bottom line, competition SUCKS! I know, I face it everyday and nobody cry’s foul….cept the P word!

  83. March 23, 2010 at 8:18 pm

    Ah Democrats squashed free speech over there ht?

    We can’t guarantee that nuclear waste sites will never leak either so why bother moving it to specially constructed sites?

    Actually that is one of the arguments, people, more knowledgeable than I make, such as my friend Michael Welch. Of Redwood Alliance, Arcata based, and an author in Home Power Mag

  84. Captain Dennis
    March 23, 2010 at 8:24 pm

    Where can I get a pair of those cool shades Capdiamont?

  85. Anonymous
    March 23, 2010 at 8:26 pm

    there are only a handful of very left wing proggies like Evans who would let creg speak for them///// the vast majority of us want the damn thing cleaned up and for you NO! NO! NO! types to take care of your own biz,put down the dope pipe, and try hiring a few workers at union wages ///// ROTFLMAO at that thought

  86. March 23, 2010 at 8:30 pm

    Muppets 3D show. They wouldn’t let me keep them.

  87. Anonymous
    March 23, 2010 at 8:30 pm

    God you are full of shit, Neal.

    The “experts” – Peter Douglas? The same guy joined at the hip to Bill Pierson?

    What about the other experts who in the same document are in favor of the clean up such as the regional water control board?

    Lets get an interim clean up going so we can all find out what needs to be done to clean this up.

  88. Not A Native
    March 23, 2010 at 8:30 pm

    As far as expecting a cleanup to be “cost effective”, Arkley determined that preserving the Old Town Bar and Grill wasn’t “cost effective”. But Kurt Kramer’s pencil showed a different answer. Same risk but opposite conclusions, both by profit motivated businesses.

    I think a similar situation exists for the Balloon Tract cleanup. Just cause Arkley says it’s so don’t mean its necessarily so.

    Lets give other people a chance, like what the public scoping process was going to do, before Leonard aborted it. And lets also support the legal clawback actions to recover assets that the railroad privatized while they socialized the risks(toxic waste).

  89. Mike Buettner
    March 23, 2010 at 8:41 pm

    Wether or not CREG represents anybody is obviously not the issue. What CREG is doing is what our City Council should be doing. Asking the obvious questions and demanding answers. In this day and age it is unconscionable for the City Staff to not be at the forefront of getting the best for the citizens of Eureka. Short of that the Council should be demanding the same.

  90. Neal Latt
    March 23, 2010 at 8:55 pm

    It’s interesting to see how the project proponents defame the decisions they object to. If their project came before the U.S. Supreme Court, would they claim that the court had no jurisdiction?

  91. Captain Dennis
    March 23, 2010 at 9:04 pm

    How about that kick ass tee-shirt Cap’n?

  92. CREG hell ya
    March 23, 2010 at 9:06 pm

    Good job Neil, the wing nuts are on you, allways a sign of sucess. The SN crowd can’t stand for people to call them on their lies. Thanks for steppin up. I too hope your still running for City Council. You will win easly.

  93. March 23, 2010 at 9:40 pm

    Can’t remember about tshirt.

  94. March 23, 2010 at 10:15 pm

    Commercial Hazardous Waste Landfills – Alphabetical Listing by State

    State

    City

    Facility

    ID. Number

    Telephone

    Alabama

    Emelle

    CWM

    ALD000622464

    (205) 652-8156

    California

    Kettleman City

    CWM

    CAT000646117

    (209) 386-9711

    California

    Buttonwillow

    Laidlaw

    CAD980675276

    (805) 762-6200

    California

    Westmorland

    Laidlaw

    CAD000633164

    (619) 344-9400

    Colorado

    Deer Trail

    Laidlaw

    COD991300484

    (907) 386-2293

    Idaho

    Grandview

    EnviroSafe

    IDD073114654

    (208) 384-2275

    Illinois

    Peoria

    Peoria Disposal

    ILD000805812

    (309) 676-4893

    Indiana

    Fort Wayne

    CWM

    IND078911146

    (219) 447-5585

    Louisiana

    Carlyss

    CWM

    LAD000777201

    (318) 583-3771

    Michigan

    Belleville

    Wayne Disposal

    MID048090633

    (313) 699-6290

    Nevada

    Beatty

    US Ecology

    NVT330010000

    (702) 553-2203

    New York

    Model City

    CWM

    NYD049836679

    (716) 754-8231

    Ohio

    Oregon

    EnviroSafe

    OHD045243706

    (419) 690-3500

    Oklahoma

    Waynoka

    Laidlaw

    OKD065438376

    (405) 697-3500

    Oregon

    Arlington

    CWM

    ORD089452353

    (503) 454-2643

    Pennsylvania

    Pittsburgh

    MAX Environmental

    PAD004835146

    (412) 343-4900

    S. Carolina

    Pinewood

    Laidlaw

    SCD070375985

    (803) 452-5003

    Texas

    Deer Park

    Laidlaw

    TXD055141378

    (281) 930-2300

    Texas

    Robstown

    Texas Ecologists

    TXD069452340

    (512) 387-3518

    Texas

    Andrews

    Waste Control Spec.

    TXD988088464

    (505) 394-4300

    Utah

    Lake Point

    Laidlaw

    UTD991301748

    (801) 323-8900

    link

  95. Not A Native
    March 23, 2010 at 11:02 pm

    As usual, Cap is full of shit. Dioxin contaminated soil isn’t landfilled, incineration is the only method proven effective to destroy dioxin in soil. It’s been done nearby smaller contaminated sites, no need to ship the soil long distances.

    Here’s a link to news item about EPA’s updated remediation goals for dioxin. Adoption of the goals is planned for this year.
    The EPA’s new goal reduces the amount of allowable soil dioxin for both residential and commercial/industrial sites, because the health effects of dioxin have been found to be more severe than was previously believed.

    So a “full cleanup” Balloon Tract technically means to reduce the concentration of dioxin in the soil to be below the allowable level.

  96. March 23, 2010 at 11:02 pm

    It’s very simple. Neal, heraldo, and the Mateel/ERF(Baykeeper)/EPIC et al group should pool their Prop 65 money and BUY the Balloon Track from Arkley.

    Then THEY can use more Prop 65 money to well and truly clean up the site, and filed all the lawsuits (oh wait, there won’t be any for THEM), once and for all – step up to the plate – OWN IT – and do what you want. Make it a sanctuary for North American Wood rats if you want to.

    Really, you guys are raking in millions – you can afford it.

  97. Plain Jane
    March 23, 2010 at 11:12 pm

    Better yet, he could give it back to the railroad and they can clean it up.

  98. Anonymous
    March 23, 2010 at 11:19 pm

    Cap says:

    “Care to explain away the polls that support the project?”

    Care to cite the polls that support the project?

  99. Anonymous
    March 23, 2010 at 11:27 pm

    Truth Speaker: ask Simpson how they cleaned up their site at the old Flea Mart, it’s not that complicated. 1) do the tests; 2) dig out the dirt and send it to the hazardous waste dump in Kettleman City; 3) do some more tests to make sure you got most of it out of there; 4) plant some wetland plants.

    JUST DO IT!!

  100. Anonymous
    March 23, 2010 at 11:33 pm

    so Capdiamont’s main argument not to clean up the Balloon Track is that the hazardous waste dumps can leak?

    Are they anywhere near Humboldt Bay? No they are not. It’s not perfect but it’s what can be done at this point–get it away from the Bay, away from fish and shellfish that people and wildlife eat.

  101. March 23, 2010 at 11:42 pm

    Woo-hoo! I’m “raking in millions”!

  102. March 24, 2010 at 12:04 am

    11:33 Are you stupid? Can you READ? If your going to participate, go back and read.

    It is like people are stuck in stupid mode. We are stuck in 1955 solution, because people don’t care. Sure it gets it away from us, what about them? That is what dooms the planet, always looking for short term gain. Seems most people here can’t debate, for if things get tough, they throw up the working/spokeperson for Arkley, or strawman crutches. It is like google doesn’t exist, and we don’t have access to the internet.

    Most people on here throw up every argument against some sort of development, so I thought to do the same against your simplistic cleanup.

    KETTLEMAN CITY, Calif. — State and federal officials are scrambling to determine what caused the deaths of three children in this Central California farming town, which shares a ZIP code with the largest hazardous waste treatment site west of the Mississippi.
    Skip to next paragraph
    Related
    No Cause Found for Cluster of Birth Defects (February 10, 2010)
    Enlarge This Image
    Michal Czerwonka for The New York Times

    The California Aqueduct borders the town.

    Over a 15-month period in 2007 and 2008, six children of mothers from Kettleman City were born with serious birth defects, including cleft palates, deformities and brain damage. Half of those infants subsequently died.

    And while health authorities have not placed any blame, the apparent cluster of defects has given new ammunition to environmentalists and local residents who have long been wary of the town’s proximity to the Kettleman Hills waste facility, a 1,600-acre landfill that lies in an unincorporated area less than four miles west of here.

    FIX THAT PLAIN JANE, THREE DEAD BABIES FROM BIRTH DEFECTS THAT THE LICENSED TOXIC WASTE LANDFILL LIKELY CAUSED, 1,600 ACRES IS NOT EASILY FIXED. NYTIMES 6 FEB 2010

    For decades Kettleman City residents have fought Chemical Waste Management over proposed expansions of its landfill. The dispute has included charges of environmental racism and repeated concerns that the toxic dump is causing health problems. Now, people suspect chemical waste is to blame for the recent spike in birth defects.

    Five area babies born in a 15-month period in 2007 and 2008 suffered severe birth defects — including cleft palate, heart problems and developmental delays. Maria Saucedo, a 17-year resident of the area, gave birth to one of those children–a daughter named Ashley.

    Sorry closed out the link for the 2nd part.

  103. Mike Buettner
    March 24, 2010 at 12:07 am

    And the picture in the dictionary next to the word idiot is?

  104. March 24, 2010 at 12:08 am

    Yours

  105. Mike Buettner
    March 24, 2010 at 12:15 am

    Why all the diversion from the topic cap? Afraid of the realities of what lies beneath the Balloon Track?

  106. Mike Buettner
    March 24, 2010 at 12:16 am

    Why not support the best for the community?

  107. March 24, 2010 at 12:25 am

    Are you a moderator? Do you choose what is said here?

    Why do people think a person has to be afraid of something? Are you that weak in your thinking? Why do you cold heartily, ignore the birth defects, and contamination of other communities? Why not do the best for the world?

  108. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2010 at 6:06 am

    From your article, Cap: “Only 60 acres was devoted to the most dangerous material, she said, including hazardous chemicals and byproducts from manufacturing and agriculture, which are stabilized in cement blocks before they are buried.”

    AND ((wonder why he left this out?)

    “Dr. Michael MacLean, the public health officer for Kings County, said that drawing conclusions from such a small sample was a challenge. “I understand why people are concerned about it,” Dr. MacLean said. But, he added, “If I had to bet the farm on it, I think that this is just a statistical anomaly.”

    The Kettleman City area is virtual desert compared to here so they don’t have the problems of water seeping into a river or bay through waste and certainly not through waste that is sealed in concrete which, unlike the plastic liners used in ordinary landfills, doesn’t get brittle and break down.

    There are so many possible culprits in an agriculture area besides waste sealed in concrete blocks, like maybe pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, the nearby oil fields, exhaust from I-5, etc. People who work in agriculture would prefer to blame a landfill rather than their livelihoods for the birth defects.

    Cap’s belligerence and deceitful tactics really have me wondering what his real stake is in this issue.

  109. Anony.Miss
    March 24, 2010 at 6:28 am

    I don’t know anything about Kettleman City’s toxic waste dump, but isn’t that the place where they used to have that huge cattle yard for fattening up before market? Acres and acres and cattle standing around….Zillions of them.

  110. Cell Bull
    March 24, 2010 at 6:32 am

    Neal is he not the one who cried wolf over the cell tower that did not fall during the earthquake, and both houses in immediate area that have sold in last 6 months sold for close to asking price go back to Orleans.

  111. March 24, 2010 at 6:53 am

    My “belligerence” comes from stupid people, who despite me suggesting alternatives to landfill that clean it up, that somehow I don’t want it cleaned up, plus Mike with his childishness, and your instance that landfill is an option, anything else is “strawman”. Are you saying all the BT waste is going to be cemented?

  112. March 24, 2010 at 6:55 am

    Still there Anony.Miss.

  113. humboldturtle
    March 24, 2010 at 7:01 am

    Whatever kind of people you come from, Crappy, stupid is as stupid does.

  114. March 24, 2010 at 7:06 am

    go hide in the shell

  115. Cindy
    March 24, 2010 at 7:19 am

    Quite the outfit there Cap

    Is that you, or did you steal that photo from the dictionary entry you described above?

  116. March 24, 2010 at 7:22 am

    ah, cute one. Apparently, another one who can’t read.

  117. CREG
    March 24, 2010 at 7:23 am

    A REAL Clean-up not a Cover-up!

  118. March 24, 2010 at 7:25 am

    a real cleanup, that requires a cover-up, someplace else.

  119. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2010 at 7:27 am

    Yes, AnonyMiss. Imagine the pesticides they use to keep the flies under control. And then there are the chemical sprays and fertilizers for the crops which are blown by the winds and which people working in agriculture (most of the inhabitants) are exposed to on a daily basis. But NO, it must be toxic chemicals sealed in concrete which caused the “anomaly” of a birth defect cluster. Rational people might think a cluster is indicative of a short term exposure to a causative agent rather than continuous exposure from their water supply, but not everyone is rational.

  120. Anony.Miss
    March 24, 2010 at 7:32 am

    The runoff from that cattle yard, a soup made of fecal matter, hormones, and pesticides must be an intense toxic mix.

  121. High Finance
    March 24, 2010 at 7:49 am

    Some claim the left does not have a sick obsession with all things Robin Arkley.

    One stupid, short little story about Security National gets 122 posts in less than 24 hours proves otherwise.

  122. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2010 at 7:52 am

    According to the NYTimes article that Cap linked, the toxic waste section of their 1,600 facility is 60 acres (another Cap deceit) and is used primarily for “hazardous chemicals and byproducts from manufacturing and agriculture.” The people in this area are exposed 24/7 to these agricultural chemicals which have to be disposed of in a toxic waste dump, but Cap would have us believe they are more hazardous to the people after they are buried in cement cases than when they are being sprayed and their residues seeping into the ground water with irrigation and breathed directly by the locals.

  123. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2010 at 8:05 am

    BTW, Cap, subsequent to that NYTimes article, State EPA officials investigated and their preliminary report stated, “there is nothing unusual about the birth defect statistics in Kettleman.”

  124. Plain Jane
  125. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2010 at 8:06 am

    Further Oops, that was State Department of Public Health officials, not EPA.

  126. March 24, 2010 at 8:22 am

    NAN @ 8:30 pm,

    Could it be the wallet is just getting hammered because of too much leveraging in the financial markets – GREED?

    As far as old town and questionable projects, Arkley and Kramer have had a business relationship for quite some time, yes?

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  127. by the numbers
    March 24, 2010 at 8:35 am

    HF….almost 50 of the post were PJANE & cappy

  128. Larry Evans
    March 24, 2010 at 8:48 am

    As of now I count 43 of 127 posts from volks obviously opposed to CREG. So apparently 34% of the “obsession” claimed by hi-fi is the obsession of the arkley crew.

    By the way, why did Anon@8:26pm accuse me of being a meat & potatoe filled pastry pie of Eastern Eureopean origin and why is that an insult? Also, what difference does it make which hand I eat it with?

    Ahh, the mysterious workings of the the teabagger elite.

  129. Anonymous
    March 24, 2010 at 8:49 am

    capdiamont shouldn’t be throwing that ‘stupid’ word around, since he believes in magic underwear and no human rights for gay people because some hucksters from Utah say so…

  130. Mike Dronkers
    March 24, 2010 at 8:52 am

    ???

    Latt on KHUM: “Apparently Security national has never produced an actual title to the Balloon Track…”

    “…If the title exists, I challenge Security National to produce it…”

    It starts at 3:31 in the interview and goes on for two minutes.

    http://khum.com/node/523

  131. March 24, 2010 at 8:53 am

    8:49 No human rights? Complete lie.

  132. Anonymous
    March 24, 2010 at 8:55 am

    Arkley’s project looks more like a crude attempt at political framing every day. Re-elect Bonnie Neely!

  133. March 24, 2010 at 9:04 am

    Can’t you get title records through public offices?

  134. March 24, 2010 at 9:08 am

    Re-elect Bonnie Neely and Larry Glass! Neil, I hope you will run, too! :)

  135. Not A Native
    March 24, 2010 at 9:08 am

    Read it again Cap, there no dioxin landfill. Dioxins are incinerated, not land filled. The other contaminants, mostly diesel and solvents can be placed to where they won’t move into the water, but they aren’t anywhere near as hazardous as dioxin. And thats what the fuss is all about. Making certain the dioxins are removed and destroyed, not landfilled.

  136. Filibuster
    March 24, 2010 at 9:21 am

    I think the most useful analysis of the state of contamination and the cleanup required is contained in p. 11-27 of the pdf referred to in Mar 23 4:53

    http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2009/12/Th14c-12-2009-a3.pdf

    This is the California Regional Water Quality Control Board North Coast region November 2009 response to public comments. It summarizes the water quality issues, legal requirements, and possible actions.

    The known contaminants are largely “petroleum hydrocarbons and [heavy] metals”.

    They later point out that “the sediments in Humboldt Bay are contaminated with dioxins … Humboldt bay is on the state’s list of impaired water bodies because of dioxin contamination” and “There is no information that attributes the source of dioxins in Clark Slough to the SPTC site. Regardless of the source of dioxins the Site owner will be required to address the presence of dioxins in the Remedial Action Plan…”

    In #4 “Remedial Actions” (p. 22-23 of the pdf) they discuss remediation strategies and requirements and how they might be implemented.

    It is useful to read this discussion. (The whole pdf is 236 pages, so I am trying to point out the most scientifically and geologically relevant part.)

  137. Neal Latt
    March 24, 2010 at 9:36 am

    Randy Gans: caught red-handed trying to say Sunshine for Humboldt is “independent,” then acknowledging after persistent questioning from Mike Dronkers, that their money actually comes from Security National. Listen to it at the link above.

    Typically disingenuous stuff – but we’ve come to expect it. The disinformation campaign from Security National rolls on…

  138. March 24, 2010 at 9:53 am

    Neal,

    Below are my issues. I would welcome your opinion / position on any or all of them.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

    City support for clean industrial development in Eureka.
    City built affordable low income housing in Eureka.
    Termination of the current city manager’s contract.
    Implementation of a true ward system in Eureka with instant run-off voting.
    Taxation of cell towers, big box stores and high fructose corn syrup.
    A complete clean up of the Balloon Tract and preservation of “public use” zoning for that parcel.
    A $12.00 per hour minimum wage in Eureka for businesses with over 100 employees.
    Decriminalization of marijuana in Eureka.
    A city owned and operated very low cost medical and dental clinic for the people of Eureka.
    A city owned and operated free detox center for the people of Eureka.
    A city owned very low cost dignity campground for poor people who find themselves without shelter.
    A city owned and operated very low cost food kitchen for poor people.

  139. Neal Latt
    March 24, 2010 at 10:03 am

    The Coastal Commission is requesting the “location of all area of soil and groundwater contamination” (page 13) BEFORE 2/3 of the parcel is graded and filled, as is SN’s proposed plan. Why would a developer want to grade 2/3 of the soil on a parcel before full characterization is performed? We maintain that doing so makes it impossible for the soil to be properly characterized afterward, thereby minimizing post-grading cleanup costs. It’s as simple as that. The proposed cleanup is a cover-up. Dioxin cannot be found and removed if it is buried. And remember, in the wintertime, the tidal water table is only a few feet below the surface. What a sham!

  140. Filibuster
    March 24, 2010 at 10:36 am

    Neil — I think the link you gave in Mar 23 4:53

    http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2009/12/Th14c-12-2009-a3.pdf

    is to a different pdf than the one you refer to in your discussion above. The pdf your link accesses is 236 pages long, and you have referred to a 13 p Coastal Commission document. P 13 in the above-referenced pdf is a discussion by the water quality control board of types of contamination and what the water board has required.

    Or are you referring to some different part of the pdf?

    I’d appreciate some clarification. Thanks.

  141. Anon
    March 24, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    In the pursuit of factual posting, I once again provide the link to the 16 page “Response to Public Review Comments on the Supplemental Interim Remedial Action Plan” that was placed on the RWQCB web site Nov 30 last year.

    http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/regulators/deliverable_documents/3432987809/Nov%202009_SPTC_Response%20to%20Comments.pdf

    Mr. Latt has clearly taken personal liberty interpreting the facts. Page nine states that the “upper most A-Zone layer of the water table is NOT tidally influenced”. Page 11 states “When the RWB considers a proposal for on-site reuse of soils, the decision is based on the contaminant concentrations, the toxicity of the contaminants, the volume of the soils, and the reuse location. The excavation of contaminated soils at the Site will REQUIRE CONFIRMATION sampling on the bottom and sides of the excavation pits. The excavated soils will NEED TO BE adequately characterized in order to determine the final disposal location. The plan for confirmation and verification sampling will account for any redistribution of on-site soils.”

    Of course, it is always more expedient to distort facts in order to support your position.

    Its as simple as that.

  142. Anonymous
    March 24, 2010 at 1:00 pm

    Precisely Anon.

    AT this point all Larry Evans has been doing is make baseless accusations and personal insults. At least Neal doesn’t follow the ranting insults in the manner of Larry; but, I understand – Larr cant help himself.

    As an aside, I concur with the poster who brought up the cell tower at the AF church. I drive up that street every evening on the way home from work, and more often than not, I cannot help but chuckle at the baseless claims Neal made about the tower, how it was going to cast a giant shadow, etc. Hell, it blends right in; if anything is a visual nuisance, its all the overhead power lines that all but obscure the view of the tower.

  143. Seven
    March 24, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    That tower is so unbelievably ugly, and it is unfortunately not obscured in the least bit. These things should not be designed to look like something they are not.

    Please, someone with a decent sense of design should take the lead in these type of projects.

  144. A-Nony-Mouse
    March 24, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    Claiming the cell tower ‘looks good’ is like claiming the Yugo was a fine looking sportscar. Won’t wash!
    You’ll notice that the above from 12:16 (Hi, Randy) says soils will be tested AFTER they have been excavated. Let’s see…first we mix then all up, put them into piles (berms), and THEN test them just in case we haven’t mixed them up enough yet?
    That brings to mind a catchy phrase heard recently around town……
    A REAL CLEANUP, NOT A COVERUP!

  145. Anon
    March 24, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    As usual A-Nony-Mouse distills a complex situation down into a simple sound bite. You have no idea how confirmation sampling is done in the field at a brownsfield site. You certainly do not have the scientific expertise to back up your blanket statments. This is standard protocal, whether it be Cal-EPA, DTSC or RWQCB.

    Read the letter please. Are you interesed in facts, or just cute slogans for bumber stickers?

  146. Stupid, Can't Debate
    March 24, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    capdiamont Says:
    March 24, 2010 at 12:04 am

    “11:33 Are you stupid? Can you READ? If your going to participate, go back and read.

    It is like people are stuck in stupid mode. Seems most people here can’t debate, for if things get tough, they throw up the working/spokeperson for Arkley, or strawman crutches”.

    So…what polls are showing all that support for the Marina Center project?

    Please don’t throw-up….

    your crutches.

  147. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    I would like a bumper sticker but can’t think of a “cute” slogan that encapsulates the need to clean up toxins which are leaching into the bay, contaminating fish, shellfish and waterfowl. You have any ideas?

  148. Truth speaker
    March 24, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    What is wrong with you Seven? I disk golf in the redwood forest all the time and people always comment how that tower is the coolest cell tower they have ever seen. People use cell phones. We need cell towers. If we can make them blend in and look like trees, why not? You are just looking for sometihng to complain about.
    It’s similar to the planned Arkley clean-up. No matter what he suggested, the CCC and supposed liberals would have been against the plan because it was Arkley’s plan. Who on this site truly knows whether or not his clean-up meets good environmental standards? Few on here are experts in toxic clean-up. Say it true if you are against it because it is Rob’s and Rob is a G. Bush supporter and GW is the devil. Thus, supporting the Rob’s plan = supporting the devil/ conservative regime. It really seems like it is the same old Humboldt County lines drawn in the sand.

  149. Bolithio
    March 24, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    I do:

    How about “My environmental sticker ignores this car”

  150. humboldturtle
    March 24, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    Marina Center: for the Acrimony.

  151. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    I don’t understand yours, Bolithio.

    That just isn’t “cute” enough, Turtle. There must be a funny slogan about poisoning the bay……like with a fuzzy duckling saying “I’ll croak instead of quack if you don’t clean up the balloon tract,” But that’s too long.

  152. Seven
    March 24, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    It’s a HUGE eyesore Speaker

    You’re friends are blinded by their version of “progress”

  153. March 24, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    Did it fall down in the earthquake? Did it crack? Did it even move an inch out of place?

    Humboldt Business Council poll on the Marina Center
    Just received an e-mail from them containing the following press release. Basically, it indicates a 59% support for the project in Eureka, with 22% opposing when a summary of the arguments are presented side-by-side (the information so far doesn’t state whether both sides were consulted regarding the wording of the arguments for their side). Sounds pretty high to me, but I guess we’ll find out how accurate the poll is a week from tomorrow. I do also have to say that the pro-project information is much more detailed than the opposition information, and question number 5 is classic push poll language. However, the support is indicated high even before you get to that language.

    Sohum1

    Sorry but all throughout that discussion, CREG refused to release their questions of their poll.

  154. The Monitor
    March 24, 2010 at 4:34 pm

    Why is SN so afraid to get their feet wet on the Balloon Tract? They are obviously stalling for some reason. Could it be the toxic soup hidden just below the surface?

  155. March 24, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    Ask them.

  156. Seven
    March 24, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    The Chair of Humboldt Business Council is Chris Crawford

    I’d give that poll about the same credence as the CREG poll

  157. March 24, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    At least they reviled their questions, vs CREG.

  158. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2010 at 5:06 pm

    That’s a funny misspelling, Cap.

  159. Anonymous
    March 24, 2010 at 5:10 pm

    A-Nony-Mouse,

    I never stated the tower “looks good”.

    I said it blends in and is far from the monstrosity that Neal Latt (and Sue Brandenburg) said it would be.

    Neal posted back then that there would be huge shadows across multiple properties, and would be a visual monstrosity.

  160. Seven
    March 24, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    I agree 100% with the visual monstrosity comment

  161. Anonymous
    March 24, 2010 at 5:37 pm

    Yeah, Seven, it stands out there all by itself. You may not like it, but it is far from what people were trying to make it be.

    You’d look foolish were somebody to take a picture up Harris towards the church – it would not stand out at all due to all of the overhead wires and other visual clutter.

  162. The Monitor
    March 24, 2010 at 5:50 pm

    If you don’t know what the bell tower really is, it looks ok. But what does that say about us, when the true usage has to be covered up and put in a church yard with a fake bell? If I was a member of that church I would want the bell to work and ring out the good news. Cover up the hormone enhanced chicken with a crispy crust and call it a nugget. It is just packaging to make it more tasty in the public’s eye. What is real in this world is getting harder detect. Is it the gas pedal or the computer that makes a Toyota go 100mph? It is the same with SN throwing up legal smoke screens and attacking the character of CCC members rather than ponying up the info needed to move the process forward.

  163. Anonymous
    March 24, 2010 at 6:09 pm

    Wow, talk about straw men and red herrings monitor. That was great!

  164. humboldturtle
    March 24, 2010 at 6:25 pm

    Cappy wants to be Glen Beck. I’m down for that.

    Bluster and bully, bellow and blow,
    it’s about all there is now
    unless you like crow.

  165. March 24, 2010 at 6:39 pm

    your down for anything.

  166. Bolithio
    March 24, 2010 at 7:30 pm

    Another good sticker would be “Im part of the problem”

    Environmental slogans stuck to cars seems to epitomize the emptiness in most movements. On one hand we want to think that we are in favor of this idea, but we are careful to ignore the aspects we cant live by.

    This whole issue is so funny to me because a bumper sticker mentality seems to develop in these threads. Lets forget about the owners and regulators for a second. This mess, under the balloon track, is the result of a time in our history when our knowledge of science was limited. Our focus was progress, and a pioneer mentality allowed us to advance quite quickly – with the expense of our health and environment. Its not about right or wrong at this point.

    Anything actually toxic that was sitting under those trains has long since leached anywhere where there is potential for it to go. This notion that some how now, after the site has been sitting for ever, is suddenly going to destroy the bay seems a little ridiculous at best.

    Still, the CEQA process requires projects like this to address all potential impacts – which appears to have been done in this case. All of this bickering over the order of magnitude of “clean up” isnt likely to make any real actual difference in what happens on the ground.

    We all need to admit that none of us really know how effective any scale of clean up will be. Especially when you consider that the damage has long since been done, and that many sites in post industrial eureka likely have this same contamination issue.

    I always try to see if people will agree that something is better than nothing. We may not be pulling out the Bat Sand Separator, but it will be cleaned up to the extent that multiple agencies will enforce and regulate. Im comfortable with that.

    “Progress, its a debt we all must pay. Its convenience we all cherish, the pollution we disdain…” Greg Gaffin

  167. anonymous
    March 24, 2010 at 7:31 pm

    YOU’RE down for anything. Learn to spell, dude.

  168. humboldturtle
    March 24, 2010 at 7:44 pm

    Careful, 7:31. Crappy Cappy is Slap-happy.

  169. March 24, 2010 at 7:50 pm

    ah yes, the class clown speaks again.

  170. Bolithio
    March 24, 2010 at 7:53 pm

    Greg Graffin, sorry

  171. humboldturtle
    March 24, 2010 at 7:57 pm

    put up your dukes, slappy!

  172. March 24, 2010 at 7:57 pm

    7:31 sentence me to death! Tired like I am, I really don’t care, at times.

  173. humboldturtle
    March 24, 2010 at 8:03 pm

    Cap, what would your mother – or your minister – think of you for saying people you don’t agree with should be taken out and “slapped”?? Really.

  174. March 24, 2010 at 8:05 pm

    I say to take anybody out. Now your implying things.

  175. March 24, 2010 at 8:05 pm

    I didn’t say…..

    Is that the best you can do, to be fixated on one subject?

  176. Brigham Young
    March 24, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    Now where can I gets me some of thos’ magic under-roos!

  177. March 24, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    “Should be slapped” is a common phraseology. It doesn’t necessarily mean physical contact. Look up the various ways slap is used. Of course easily frightened C&G will have heraldo delete this entire thread since this was mentioned.

  178. Anon
    March 24, 2010 at 8:23 pm

    Bolithio, thank you for your objective and measured thoughts on the relevant subject at hand on this thread. Unfortunately, the majority of the comments have deteriorated into the usual brainless personal attacks and nonsense.

    Its no wonder most of this site is not taken seriously.

    Too bad

  179. March 24, 2010 at 8:25 pm

    Go Cindy at 8:22 with some religious bigotry. But that is ok isn’t it?

  180. March 24, 2010 at 8:28 pm

    BTW BY wouldn’t have to ask how to get garments. Kinda ruins the “joke” by using a Church leader.

  181. The Monitor
    March 24, 2010 at 8:33 pm

    The balloon track continually, slowly leaches it’s toxins into the bay all the time. All the mill sites around the bay do the same thing. That is why there are a number of ongoing cleanups happening now. SN may not have the money right now, to do it right, and are using delaying tactics to keep the project alive until SN’s finances are in better shape. Just a thought.

  182. Anon
    March 24, 2010 at 8:49 pm

    Monitor,

    the real problem is the philosophical divide between those that advocate for clean up(from an emotional perspective) and those that simply comply with brownsfield law (from a technical perspective).

    I respect your opinion and the right to advocate for something different but that does not translate into “all landowners that opt to follow remediation law that is available, are somehow evil!”

    Perhaps when your expressing your emotional point of view that something better should be done at the balloon track, give equal critique to all the other sites in the area that have been closed using capping and testing protocol no different than proposed by CUE VI.

    Just a thought

  183. March 24, 2010 at 9:19 pm

    Very well put 8:49pm.

  184. The Monitor
    March 24, 2010 at 10:35 pm

    There were also many teepee burners at the north end of the bay, now removed, but the dioxin levels from wood ash still remain. There are ongoing site cleanups happening now. The runoff into the north end of the bay is another problem entirely. Silting has taken place over the years, covering the dioxin. Disturbing the silt to get at the problem spreads the dioxin even more. The problem remains, capped but unstable and pluming out slowly.

    A toxic plum is moving onto the balloon tract from across Washington St. It will eventually meet the slough where the marina center pond is proposed. No discussion has addressed this problem. How much will be done by SN and how much will be left to our children to figure out. Wouldn’t it be better to just get the job done now, while the property doesn’t have anything on it. Well, maybe some log decks.

  185. Walt
    March 25, 2010 at 5:46 am

    Jerry Rohde’s research indicates (if I read it right) 22 confirmed mill sites in and around Arcata and 14 in and around Eureka. Assuming one teepee burner per site (when did they start using them, anyway?), that’s a lot of dioxin.

  186. Bolithio
    March 25, 2010 at 7:31 am

    Moniter,

    based on your last two posts it would appear that you have the “Hazardous Materials Contamination Assessment” people have been asking for. How are you determining where and how this “toxic plume” is moving?

    Also, when you read “delaying tactics” it sounds negative, as if there is devious intent behind it. Yet if it is as you suggest, that allocating the money is the primary reason for the delay, lets take a step back and allow things to unfold.

    I dont buy the toxic plume bit, although there may have been considerable chemical contamination in the past (thus the dioxin listing of the bay).

    Walt, I would say the key question might be: When did they stop using the burners?

  187. Anony.Miss
    March 25, 2010 at 7:55 am

    They were still using tee pee burners around here in the 60s.

  188. March 25, 2010 at 9:19 am

    My family vacationed in this area in the early 1960s and there were burners everywhere from Ukiah north. Though the land was beautiful and there were jobs in the timber industry the air quality was horrible, worse than Los Angeles where I grew up.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  189. Ghost of Mabel
    March 25, 2010 at 9:45 am

    Oftentimes I drink too much tea.
    Then I have to pee.
    And it really burns when I do.
    Is that what we’re talkin’ about here??

  190. The Monitor
    March 25, 2010 at 10:35 am

    The information is available from the same agency that OKed SN’s first phase of the cleanup plan. It was information that was presented at the warfinger to inform the public. Remember, dioxin has a very long half life. There was a map of the property presented at the same meeting, that showed that less that 20% if the property has been tested and only a small percentage of that 20% has been tested for dioxin. Until more is known about what is there, it is too early to start bulldozing dirt around. That will mix everything up and the sources will be hard to find. It is thirty some acres out there with at least 25% of it being covered over wet lands and slough. That is the area that is still flowing slowly into the bay. That’s why the State Lands Commission is weighing in on the issues. They have the last say on state wet lands and waterways. This will not be easy to sort out and the CCC needs all relevant documents to move the process forward. That is what CREG is asking SN or Q6 to do.

  191. Anonymous
    March 25, 2010 at 10:57 am

    That is the area that is still flowing slowly into the bay.

    Page nine states that the “upper most A-Zone layer of the water table is NOT tidally influenced”.

    monitor, please reconcile this.

  192. A-Nony-Mouse
    March 25, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    Anon 2:30 No, it’s not simple. But that doesn’t mean a reasonably educated layman can’t judge it fairly well. I think the old phrase went, “I’ve been to the circus and I’ve seen the elephant”. That means that what you’re describing is NO surprise. And when you exagerate, it does not impress me.
    However, the statement is still true.
    A REAL CLEANUP, NOT A COVERUP!
    Our childremn will be walking there with us. It’s different than a fenced off field. It must be cleaned up to the highest possible standard, not some “least amount” necessary for a big box project.
    Using that standard will come back to bite us some day, just like RA’s Daddy’s Blue Lake Forest Products pollution that still haunts us. Let’s do it right the first time this time.

  193. A-Nony-Mouse
    March 25, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    Sorry, that’s “chidren” who will be walking.

  194. The Monitor
    March 25, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    It is all in how you read it. The upper most layer seeps down by force of gravity and eventually ends up in the bay via the pipe under waterfront drive that empties just east of the warfinger.

  195. Anon-Again
    March 25, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    Nony-Mouse; I understand your position and passion behind it. Thats fine; but why the singular focus on the Balloon Track? Where were you/are you and the rest of your passionate “real clean up not cover up” advocates when Simpson capped Dioxan down the street? How about Georgia Pacific (another legacy company like UP) when they capped Dioxin in Fort Bragg for the beautifull coastal trail? I get the passion, just not the hypocrisy.

    And to you Monitor, plugging the pipe that drains from the balloon track into the Slough has always been a key outcome of the clean up plan.

    Again, it is that simple.

  196. A-Nony-Mouse
    March 25, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    Simpson’s mess “down the street” got cleaned up thanks to a BayKeeper lawsuit and subsequent cooperation from Simpson. Fort Bragg is working WITH the Coastal Commission on cleanup and developement of the GP millsite west of town. What a novel concept….can you imagine actually working with the CC and maybe even WITH the …gasp!…PUBLIC?

    No, I haven’t been in every fight. I’ve only gotten ‘active’ on this stuff in the last 5 or 6 years. Does that make my committment less? I don’t think so. There are many sites that need cleanup, especially RA’s Daddy’s big mess at Glendale. That doesn’t make the Balloon Track situation any better or worse. It stands on its own.

    Even I can look at the SIRAP and see that only 20% of the site has been tested (characterized) and only a handful of tests for dioxin, the most toxic of substances found there , have been done. That’s not a cleanup, it’s a coverup.

    Neal’s comments about Title refer, I think, to the unsettled situation regarding Public Trust status of most of the property. Settling this issue will have a profound effect on the future of the Balloon Track, regardless of what Randy may say. Randy claims he’s been working with the State Lands Commission for 3 years. They say nothing has been heard from SN since November. If there are more recent communications, I have not heard of them.

    If CUE VI and Security National were serious about getting this thing done, they could have started out working with the agencies involved to SOLVE the problems and hangups. Instead they go kicking and screaming about every issue and every regulation they don’t want to comply with. Now which is liable to be the easier and quicker way? You figure it out.

  197. A-Nony-Mouse
    March 25, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    Looking at Anon-Again’s comment again, I can only regret that, because we are limited human beings, we can’t be in EVERY fight. There simply is not time in our lives. We choose this one because it is closest to home and will have profound effects on the place we live. So I say again:
    A REAL CLEANUP, NOT A COVERUP!

  198. A-Nony-Mouse
    March 25, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    Amazing! I just listened to Randy’s KHUM interview. He doesn’t seem to think that State Lands Public Trust issues could ‘cloud’ the title to the Balloon Track. I think he’s in for some surprises, in that case. He still maintains that you can test for dioxins AFTER grading and bulldozing the site. Kinda unlikely, don’t you think? The SIRAP was not part of the original EIR and missed most public comment. The Water Board did have a meeting at the Wharfinger about the SIRAP but it was not for ‘Public comment’. It was to try to justify their plan. So when Randy claims the SIRPA received full public review and comment, he, once again, is full of ‘something brown’.

  199. A-Nony-Mouse
    March 25, 2010 at 5:03 pm

    That’s ‘SIRAP’, not SIRPA. Flying fingers strike again!

  200. March 25, 2010 at 5:19 pm

    COSTCO paid the city of Eureka $850,000 to abandon its title interests in 13 acres. How much is CUE going to pay Eureka for 44 acres?

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  201. Anonymous
    March 25, 2010 at 5:32 pm

    Who knows Bill. Attend the meetings and find out.

  202. Mike Buettner
    March 25, 2010 at 5:36 pm

    Thank you Nony.

  203. The Monitor
    March 25, 2010 at 6:48 pm

    Yes, thanks Nony. There is not much more that I could add. Randy’s words will sink or swim as rulings come down. I hope he is ready. How about “Stop muddying the Waters.”

  204. Auntie Arkley
    March 26, 2010 at 11:33 am

    Cap says people can’t read. Well, Cap can’t think!

  205. A-Nony-Mouse
    March 27, 2010 at 8:10 pm

    Wow. talk about stirring up the anthill. 205 comments on CREG’s asking SN to get off its ass.
    It’s not a record but it’s pretty damn good! Maybe CREG hit a nerve?

    So once again we raise the battle cry:
    A REAL CLEANUP, NOT A COVERUP

    You get the idea.

  206. March 27, 2010 at 10:18 pm

    Is the a lamer handle than Auntie Arkley? Exactly what were you thinking, or trying to say with that handle? Yet, you say I can’t think humm……

    Maybe CREG can get off it’s rear end and produce all the questions in it’s survey, with the results? Maybe the public isn’t good enough for GREG to show this? Maybe the answers showed more support for the project, than GREG is willing to admit?

    “A REAL CLEANUP, NOT A COVERUP” ah yes, a slogan for simple minds. To boot…. no matter how much cleanup you do, you will still be covering up the remaining contamination.

  207. LDS or LSD?
    March 28, 2010 at 8:50 am

    “Real Cleanup, Not A Coverup” that makes the the rail cultists and the Arkleyites start foaming at the mouth!
    Dig it up haul it off, to a class 1 dump site. It’s gonna cost millions, that’s why Arkley and Union Pacific are try to avoid it.
    It’s all Bonnie’s fault right? She made the railroad pollute it, and that arrogant dumb ass Arkley take responsibility for it. Well That what CBE, Virginia and Jeff want us to believe.

  208. March 28, 2010 at 9:43 am

    You must be LSD.

    Try sitting back, thinking a little, come up with a more thoughtful slogan, realize none of your point meets reality, and by law cleanup will happen, but only to the point needed by law.

    Making fun of your slogan made you foam at the mouth, and no foaming at the mouth happened here.

  209. March 28, 2010 at 9:57 am

    BTW, when is NEC cleaning up their property?

  210. A-Nony-Mouse
    March 28, 2010 at 7:40 pm

    Ah, I love the arguement from C(r)appy that because you haven’t cleaned up yours, we don’t have to do a thorough job on ours. I would be the first to join him/her/it in asking for a thorough cleanup on every possible site. Some things take time. Meanwhile, not all of those other sites are in the middle of what is proposed as a very high traffic area. The Balloon Track is. So, since CUE VI has submitted its fantasy EIR, this one is on the table. If NEC has cleanup problems, that will come in its own good time. Same for Indian Island. At least there the public will not be exposed or walking all over it.
    Capdiamont, you must be dizzy ALL the time the way you try so hard to spin. Sit down a minute and it might hit you that the quick and easy way to do this is by doing it completely the first time without all the resisting and fighting. It would cost more in the short run but would earn huge rewards in the long run. Like so many things in life, DEMANDING your own way is rarely the best way to get things done.

  211. A-Nony-Mouse
    March 28, 2010 at 7:42 pm

    Meanwhile, “A REAL CLEANUP, NOT A COVERUP” has generated over 211 posts. Somebody must be paying attention.

  212. anymouse
    March 28, 2010 at 9:06 pm

    I have notice Randy has still not produced the title, or anything else the commission ask for. Typical poor sport Randy is, if you don’t like the call have the the ump fired. Rob is beaming with pride!

  213. March 28, 2010 at 11:03 pm

    “DEMANDING your own way is rarely the best way to get things done.” Ah, nice spin. Fact is, you’re doing that same exact thing, your accusing me of.

    Nice avoidance btw of my point of, “by law cleanup will happen, but only to the point needed by law.” Care to answer that?

    Also, good way to start out your argument, by messing up my name.

    Nah, I love how NEC’s site, being unfenced, accessible to the public, can be over looked by people as yourself. The whole fun of mentioning it, is simply to make you environut worshipers foam at the mouth, for the next 5, 10, 15, and probably 20 years until it is cleaned up. But, the weak in the mind like to assume, and you know what they say about assume, that I, despite never have said so, think, “because you haven’t cleaned up yours, we don’t have to do a thorough job on ours.” It is absolutely humorous, that an environmental org which screams at the top of it’s lungs that others should clean up their property, chose to spend it’s money on other things. Come on now, don’t you find that funny?

    Part of the fun is making you foam at the mouth, the other part is the assumptions you stupid people come to, like just because someone is arguing for a project, doesn’t mean they are a spokesperson for the project, or agrees 100% with the project leaders, or are being paid in any shape, way, or form.

    Umm, the title is GREG: Security National is stonewalling, not as you have put it.

  214. Anonymous
    March 28, 2010 at 11:34 pm

    koo koo…

  215. March 28, 2010 at 11:54 pm

    you you?

  216. Roberta
    March 29, 2010 at 7:28 am

    So Mr. Cap,

    Why do you believe SN not providing the CCC with the information as requested? Simply because they don’t believe the CC has jurisdiction over the property?

  217. LDS or LSD?
    March 29, 2010 at 7:38 am

    Crappy has become the “step an fetch-it Jeff” of the blogs I wonder if he’ll get a motivational “your worthless” speech. Rob is so smart, he doesn’t even pay these fools.

  218. anymouse
    March 29, 2010 at 10:15 am

    Neil Latt Rocks! Neil kick ass and took names this morning on KMUD. Walks in the woods nailed Rob’s motives for this boon-dogle! Well worth the listen.

  219. March 29, 2010 at 10:28 am

    No idea Roberta. It could be anyone of the reasons listed here. I don’t know.

    LSD continues to be unable to debate, and avoids “cleanup to the law, and no more than the law.”

    I’m unlikely to get any speech, but any of SN. No political power, not much for money, and haven’t had any dealings with Rob. But thanks for the laugh, I need it. With spin that good, you must be dizzy.

  220. June 7, 2010 at 11:44 am

    Randy Ganes on June 5 hd four columns T/S to rant and

    anger at the Coastal Commission, and Bonny Neel and

    William Pierson.

    Rather than sitting around calling each oher names

    why do’t you intelligent people collaborate ideas

    and come up witha safe and workable solution to

    ths challenge.

  221. August 21, 2014 at 2:37 am

    Fantastic get the job done! That’s the form of information which should be contributed around the web. Pity on yahoo as a result of positioning this submit upper! Can happen through along with talk with my website. Many thanks Equals)

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s