Nichols, Dronkers talk Baykeeper settlement on KHUM

KHUM DJ Mike Dronkers talked to Humboldt Baykeeper Pete Nichols on today’s Coastal Currents show about terms of the Balloon Track clean-up following the settlement of the 4-year old lawsuit.

EARLIER: Baykeeper announces Balloon Track settlement

[h/t MD @ KHUM]

  1. The Monitor
    September 22, 2010 at 5:16 pm

    Way to go Pete. The rule of law prevails. We are all better for your efforts, and the bay in particular. It is too bad the process had to be followed to the 11th hour before agreement was reached. But here we are and the clean up will move forward.

  2. A-Nony-Mouse
    September 22, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    Thanks, Heraldo. I was wondering how UP fit in. My guess is that there was a secret side deal between UP and CUE VI that spread the cost. If so, more power to them. Let’s get it done. Then we can get back to arguing about what gets built and why.

  3. Ed
    September 22, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    Four times the EPA level of don’t eat for dioxin in fish in Clark slough. If there was any justice, Frank would be encouraged to become a fish coroner rather than Mayor of Eureka. Extortionists, are you sure about that Frank?

  4. Plain Jane
    September 22, 2010 at 6:12 pm

    A point brought up that I found interesting was that this is only the 2nd lawsuit in which Baykeeper has been involved and the sums received don’t even cover the expenses for experts and legal work. Now how many suits has Arkley brought for his own financial gain? We should all be grateful for the groups who work so hard and suffer such derision to improve the quality of life, and not just for humans. If you have a couple of extra bucks a month, think about donating it to a group working to improve what is closest to your heart, whatever that is. It really is the LEAST we can do.

  5. Sam
    September 22, 2010 at 8:13 pm

    Doubt it interests anyone, but The Humbugtoday “admitted” that he works for Arkley

  6. September 22, 2010 at 9:08 pm

    Thanks Plain Jane for the info. I didn’t get that from the Dronker’s interview but I was wondering myself, how much money Humboldt Bay Keeper made from this lawsuit. You say they lost money on this.

    I have to try to monitor what all sides are saying about such things and this would seem to put some of Bay Keepers detractors statements at odds with the facts. The facts don’t seem to Mirror their statements if you get my drift.

  7. September 22, 2010 at 9:12 pm

    Sorry Mike for the apostrophe in your last name. Other than the lack of the question answered by Plain Jane, I thought you did a great interview.

  8. Anonymous
    September 22, 2010 at 9:34 pm

    Does anybody ever talk about how close the Balloon Tract and its apparently deadly runoff is to the Del Norte Street free fishing pier? That’s where poor Eurekans and other low-income Humboldters go to fish for dinner because they can’t afford the extortionate state fishing license fees California charges in this day and time.

    Has anyone bothered to study the levels of dioxins in their tissues? Or are they, as usual, completely expendable?

  9. Neal Latt
    September 22, 2010 at 11:52 pm

    Great interview, Mike.

    Pete, you are a People’s Hero, along with Michelle Smith, Fred Evenson, and the other seventeen-odd biologists, toxicologists and environmental lawyers, for putting your head down and slogging through this muck for five years to git ‘er done!

    My hats are off to you!

  10. anonypotumus
    September 23, 2010 at 9:40 am

    People’s hero? Now that’s funny. Most of the people would want Paykeepers to go away, so you must be talking about your few people who try to run the entire community.

    Here’s my thought. Paykeepers lawsuit because of “bad science” was a total fraud from the beginning and just another ruse to get some settlement money.

    If the science was actually bad, wouldn’t that stalwart of the environment, BK, continue their suit to save us all from that BIG mistake they based their lawsuit on?

    Gee, what a surprise, a settlement. Nice spin you are all putting on it, but usually, the lawyers, when they don’t really have a case, settle so they can get paid. That’s what happened here. You can’t fool all of the people and I think you will find that out come November. No on Kuhnel, Glass, Lavalley!!! We are sick of the over the top BS you people think is clever.

    Linda will be next, she really stepped in it again on Tuesday night. I don’t know who you think doesn’t get that people get together, give Linda a script and let ‘er rip. It’s a failed “methodology” to quote the new manter from Kuhnel who reall never has an alternative plan, but what the heck if you tell a lie over and over it will become the truth.

  11. Anonymous
    September 23, 2010 at 9:43 am

    Another successful shakedown. Congratulations. You should be proud.

  12. September 23, 2010 at 9:57 am

    Gee, what a surprise, a settlement. Nice spin you are all putting on it, but usually, the lawyers, when they don’t really have a case, settle so they can get paid. That’s what happened here.

    You’re saying that Arkley’s lawyers were so inept that they couldn’t win a trial against a group that essentially faked their case. How insulting!

    Cry all you want, but Security National agreed to the settlement. If they had a plausible defense they would have taken it to trial.

  13. Epaminondas
    September 23, 2010 at 10:00 am

    anonypotumus, you be mighty careful how you use that “bad science”.

  14. Ed
    September 23, 2010 at 10:11 am

    I have some grapes here, Frank, Jeff, Virginia, want some grapes? They’re nice and sour.

  15. Reality Check
    September 23, 2010 at 10:29 am

    Hey Anonymous and anonypotumus-is the sky blue today? I’m wondering if either of you are able to see a situation for what it is, or do you try to spin everything? So, is the sky blue today?

  16. politics, potty-licks
    September 23, 2010 at 10:46 am

    anonymous 9:34, those classes of people are negligible blips in the minds of the classes who constantly talk about “moving forward” on the internet…it’s sad indeed.

  17. Neal Latt
    September 23, 2010 at 11:46 am

    So the spin begins. In federal cases, something like 99% of cases settle before they go to trial. Here, I was told that the judge ordered both sides to sit down, and you can bet that SN and Arkley would not have essentially agreed to everything that Baykeeper asked for, if they had had any way they could have avoided it.

    So, the community wins, the bay wins, good science wins, and still, you have angry, vindictive folks who would rather have relied upon a shoddy, inadequate cleanup plan that would have left considerable toxins buried at the site, slowly running off into the bay, just so they can say, “We proved a point.”

    Are you nuts, or just blind?

  18. Plain Jane
    September 23, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    “Sorry Mike for the apostrophe in your last name. Other than the lack of the question answered by Plain Jane, I thought you did a great interview.”

    You must have just missed it, Tom. The interview is where I heard it, at about 11 minutes.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: