Home > Balloon Track, Big box, Marina Center > Channel 3’s lazy reporting

Channel 3’s lazy reporting

When cobbling stories together for the nightly news, KIEM Channel 3 pulls clips from the archives rather than haul out the cameras for updated interviews.

That’s what happened during a November 9th report about the passage of Measure N, which purports to change the zoning of a blighted Eureka property from public use to commercial to make way for the big-box-anchored “Marina Center.”

When it comes to stories about the Balloon Track, KIEM appears eager to interview property owner Security National and air its talking points — no matter how false — without criticism or comment.

For example, SN gladiator Randy Gans says progress of the Marina Center is “out of our control” despite widespread acknowledgment by city and state officials that SN stonewalled the Coastal Commission on necessary hearings for project permits.  Measure N was part of the charade, but you won’t hear it from KIEM.

To get “both sides” of the story for the Nov. 9th report, KIEM pulled a clip of Humboldt Baykeeper Executive Director Pete Nichols from a September 23rd interview and aired it along side a new interview with Gans.  KIEM failed to note the age difference between clips.

In both reports, Nichols says the big box project is not the “highest and best use” of the property.  The sentiment holds true, but a response to Gans’ misinformation and a comment about what Measure N means for the project — and what it doesn’t — would have better rounded out the story.

  1. CheckYourMyopiaAtTheDoor
    November 17, 2010 at 12:35 pm

    no surprise.
    KIEM has as much crediblity as FOX.

  2. November 17, 2010 at 1:04 pm

    Looks as if the Humboldt Herald’s view of this issue is at extreme odds with the community at large.

    An overwhelming majority (well over 70%) want the project to move forward as envisioned in the latest EIR.

    If others want a “higher and better use,” buy it and develop it yourself.

  3. Sam Spade
    November 17, 2010 at 1:04 pm

    The T-S and News Channel 3 are the most pathetic so-called news organizations since Pravda. Nothing but reading or printing press releases from businesses and also fluff pieces that hopefully will generate another ad from the local merchants or politicians running for re-election. I worked at a media outlet, read the “press release” faxes from the powers that be, then I heard news channel 3 “anchors” read these press releases as if they were written by a news reporter. These “press releases” even have three versions. i.e. 15 seconds, 30 seconds and 60 seconds. What a bunch of stooges!

  4. November 17, 2010 at 1:07 pm

    An overwhelming majority (well over 70%) want the project to move forward as envisioned in the latest EIR.

    They might also want peace on earth but it won’t happen because of Measure N. Similarly, Measure N will fail to produce the “Marina Center Now!” as promised by Security National.

  5. Ditto
    November 17, 2010 at 1:16 pm

    Manufacturing public opinion with lies is easy when the fourth estate is owned by the second.

  6. Anonymous
    November 17, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    “If others want a “higher and better use,” buy it and develop it yourself.”

    And then, go sue yourself!

  7. A-Nony-Mouse
    November 17, 2010 at 1:53 pm

    Whatever your views, a recent interview allowing Pete Nichols to respond to current events seems only fair. Allowing ‘Rant and Rave’ Randy the only current word is poor reporting and does the community a diservice.
    Remember, Chris, before you get all on your horse about the ‘vast majority’, that only around 60% of elegible voters voted. If it holds that about 65% voted for Measure N, that means only 39% of elegible voters actually voted for N. That’s NOT a ‘vast majority’ by any stretch of the imagination. I grant you that the conservative machine ran an effective, though very dirty, campaign which turned out their N voters in good numbers. Does it represent the ‘vast majority’? Unlikely, at best.
    If SN really wanted to build their Big Box Shopping Maul, they could have started long ago with a real cleanup. They could have worked WITH the Coastal Commission. Now they’re still stalling and fighting , doing anything BUT the ‘Marina Center Now’.

    A large part of this whole thing was for RA to get some kind of vengance on Larry Glass. Witness RA himself parading in front of Larry’s store after the election, smiling and laughing while pointing directly into the store. Then RA enters the BayKeeper office and gives one of his famous ‘performances’, ranting into Pete Nichols’ face while having a near-coronary.

    Sory, gang, but a well money’d machine with plenty of well-paid political help is hard to beat. So if you think money didn’t matter, then you hire the office help, the door hangers, the phone bankers, the poll takers, the sign placers, and pay them well. Send out flyers full of lies and half-truths every couple of days (they’re expensive!). The conservative side did just that. I talked with one ‘walker’ for Newman who thought of it as just a temporary job to make a few bucks. Money may not be everything but it’s a damn site better and more effective than ‘no money’. We’ll never get a level playing field until we get True Ward Voting so a candidate can afford to campaign throughout his ward without the ‘big bucks’. Thinks this new council will go for it? HA!

  8. Anonymous
    November 17, 2010 at 2:45 pm

    Yeah, KIEM is weak and appears to be partial to the “good old boys and girls”. Why no coverage on the Hansen story for instance. It is also true of the “Sub-Standard”. Why do you think that is? Let’s hear from both of these outlets–I’m sure they review this blog, but unless I’m sadly mistaken, neither one of them have responded to any blogger regarding their coverage of “local”concerns. Come on T.S. and Kiem, let’s hear from you!

  9. Just Asking
    November 17, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    Using file tape or archived interviews is standard journalistic practice, the only problem I have here is that the Nichols interview should have been identified as an old soundbite – a simple date super would have sufficed – but the fact that they used it again, no big deal.

  10. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE'
    November 17, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    Just like Sacramento,

    the media fudges, mixes and matches its information it addresses to the people in multi-dated forms that are unnoticeable on the initial face communique’ to the unprepared and brainwashed.

    So what’s news? Afterall, local, regional and national media thrives on divisivnesses.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  11. Anonymous
    November 17, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    Wait, H is complaining of using old footage, yet used an old billboard?

  12. High Finance
    November 17, 2010 at 3:00 pm

    Channel 3 & the Times Standard have to produce news living with the economic reality of the day. They live off of advertising revenues & advertising is way down due to the recession.

    You will notice that the other “local” TV stations have all dropped local news. The only other daily newspaper ceased publication altogether.

  13. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE'
    November 17, 2010 at 3:02 pm

    HiFi,

    too bad costs are so HIGH that T-S has to rip-off the consumer for their ad space rates! The elections saved their solvency hides this year!

    JL

  14. Anonymous
    November 17, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    I heard that the old proposed cleanup was going to cost SN about 2.5 million, while the cleanup that was forced thru the settlement is going to cost upwards of 15 million.

    In that video, it is comical hearing the SN reps basically saying their originally cleanup plan was basically the same as the Baykeeper plan!

  15. Sam Spade
    November 17, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    Only HiFi would rationalize/spin doctor on behalf of the worst media west of the Rockies. Then again, the second estate would never criticize the fourth estate if said estate had become the lapdog of the powers that be.

  16. tra
    November 17, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    I agree that Channel 3 should have at least identified the date of the Nichols interview.

  17. HappyHank
    November 17, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    We’re not partial. There is nothing wrong with using an old interview if it’s germane. Sometimes it’s who you can get to talk to you by deadline. We are,however, part of a vast media conspiracy shaping the maleable minds of an unwitting public. We pay $50 a month in dues, and get secret messages coded into suddenlink’s channel guide.

  18. Sam Spade
    November 17, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    Hank. Way to dismiss a serious problem. Have you read “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media” (1988), by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky? It’s bad enough that modern media has been co-opted (from the T-S to Fox [Fair and Balanced]) and we may all be “Hooked”, swinging from the ceiling of OH’s Ghost. Insult to injury is editors cracking jokes about the sad state of modern Idiocracy. Joke on funny boy, joke on. While Rome is burning.

  19. HappyHank
    November 17, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    It wasn’t the burning that destroyed Rome, it was the Visogoths. They had no sense of humor either.

  20. Sam Spade
    November 17, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    Sure blame the Visgoths. Read “Lost To The West” by Lars Brownworth. Rome didn’t “fall”, just the West. The East saved Europe for a millennium until the Eastern Roman Empire finally “fell”. Also, it was like I was reading about our history here, you know, Uhmerican history.

  21. Anonymous
    November 17, 2010 at 4:22 pm

    …replete with allegations of Byzantine intrigues in our history as well as that of the Byzantines.

  22. I heard something else
    November 17, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    Anon 3:13

    What is “comical” is your posting “I first heard this, and then I heard that” as the basis of saying something else you saw on TV is comical

    Really???

  23. CheckYourMyopiaAtTheDoor
    November 17, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    HappHank @ 4:11 wrote:
    “It wasn’t the burning that destroyed Rome, it was the Visogoths. They had no sense of humor either.”

    Historians note that the decline of the Roman Empire began when Christianity was tolerated by the state.

    And why in the world does ANYONE lend a whit of creedence to Chris Crawford? He manages to make Rex Bohn look informed and inteligent.

  24. Sam Crow
    November 17, 2010 at 5:42 pm

    I think Larry’s been freed up to really make things really “interesting” for Rob and Randy. This will be fun to watch.

  25. Bolithio
    November 17, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    Who cares? I mean has anyone’s position on the balloon track changed? No. Its same story, same positions, same cometary. While it is a little lazy, you shouldn’t expect investigative pieces from channel 3. Really, biased punditry should be left up to cable and blogs.

  26. Big Al
    November 17, 2010 at 7:57 pm

    truth is, we live in such a small market here on the north coast that the news people are most often fresh out of college.
    serving such a small market kiem can’t charge the same rates as larger markets and the pay is low all around.
    the reporters get better at their craft and get jobs in larger markets with better pay, the good ones leave pretty quickly.

  27. 69er
    November 17, 2010 at 8:27 pm

    Big Al speaks the truth and it is not about to change. There are larger and much more prestigious news papwers and other news outlets that have bit the dust due to econoics. we should be happy to still have what we have. Why cnn’t we take the advice of Hank Jr? “Why Can’t We All Just Get A Longneck”?

  28. 69er
    November 17, 2010 at 8:28 pm

    PAPERS!!!

  29. Anonymous
    November 17, 2010 at 9:07 pm

    Yeah, Anony-Mouse, if everyone had voted it would have been completely different. Really?? What excuses we see. Predictable though.

  30. Humboldt Politico
    November 17, 2010 at 9:32 pm

    Last I heard, T-S pays its reporters only $10.00 per hour.

  31. Anonymous
    November 17, 2010 at 9:53 pm

    Did RA really parade in front of Larry’s place of business and taunt him – and then march into the Baykeeper’s Offices to further his harassment? I don’t dispute the fact that it could have happened…in fact, I can see it. Still, I wonder if there is some exaggeration here. Did anyone document his actions?

  32. FOXFollies
    November 17, 2010 at 10:10 pm

    Jeez Hank, you’re really joining the fun over here? And on company time too, tsk tsk.

    Election’s over, we need to sell some cell phones and cars man!

    See you at the secret meeting…

  33. Goldie
    November 17, 2010 at 10:12 pm

    If I were to say RA would never do a thing like that, I don’t know if I would believe my own post.

  34. 69er
    November 17, 2010 at 10:14 pm

    Anon 9:53, I very seriosly doubt the taunting. Glass would never tolerate such an action without making sure it was made known to all. So that leaves very little reason to believe the rest of the accusation. Some people just like to stir the pot and will stoop very low to accomplish their goals.

  35. Anonymous
    November 17, 2010 at 10:30 pm

    Good point 69er – I too doubt Larry would let that go without comment. I can also appreciate Goldie’s point – I would never say “never” in respect to RA’s actions – but it seems this story may be more fantasy than fact.

  36. Eurekan in the Know
    November 17, 2010 at 10:32 pm

    Yes, it did happen.

    A few days after the election, Rob Arkley stood outside The Works on the sidewalk taunting and pointing at Larry, leering and trying to catch Larry’s eye to provoke him. Larry, who was on the phone, just shook his head and went on with his business. But hey, this is what we have all come to expect from Rob Arkley, so nothing earth-shattering here.

    I didn’t know that he went over to Baykeeper after that and actually went in and got into Pete’s face. But, I don’t doubt that either. This is the real Rob Arkley. Anyone who doubts it, just doesn’t know the guy. He really thinks he is God in Eureka. What a pathetic lout!

    Oh, and by the way, yes, its true the numbers that were stated above. The cleanup settlement (a real cleanup, not the coverup and dirt stir-around that they had previously okayed) mushroomed in cost about sixfold. Real cleanups cost money, you see. Also, I heard that the wetland remediation may actually preclude a big box store, because SN had to remediate the existing wetland on-site, rather than covering them up and consolidating them as they wanted over to one corner of the site. Hey, Ryan Burns, how about a story on the cleanup settlement and what it will preclude as far as the previously-proposed development goes? Talk about a scoop, dude!

  37. anon1
    November 18, 2010 at 5:45 am

    It was reported right after the election…about robbie’s antics in front of Larry’s store..rob arkley is a scumbag piece of shit that preys on week and injured communities..If he were a real BIG man he would be competing against the likes of people like TRUMP..Go to L.A. or New York..robbie might live 5 minutes..Hes tough here..but that’s because he can bully us..His hired goon Randy couldn’t protect his boss and would run at any sign of problems..I think the next person he pushes should knock him and the GOON OUT!!!

  38. Anonymous
    November 18, 2010 at 6:28 am

    I overheard RA talking at lunch yesterday about this; it sounded like what SN considers as Pete’s continuing criticism about Marina Center and the cleanup to the media may lead to a lengthy delay or outright denial of payment from the settlement funds. I guess Pete needs to be more discrete.

  39. Schwingerkönig
    November 18, 2010 at 6:39 am

    What I don’t understand is why, if SN and Baykeeper reached a settlement, can’t Pete, Heraldo and others stop with the negativity about MC, at least for the many years it will take to implement the cleanup. That’s what is very bothersome about this blog- constant negativity about a project that 70% of Eurekan’s want. Whoever is behind this blog should try to have an open mind. Pete, too. Constructive, genuine participation in the process is one thing, but this blog is in no way constructive or helpful. Obviously you can’t sway public opinion on this project. After 4 years of this bullshit, 70% of Eurekans say build it already.

  40. Derral Campbell
    November 18, 2010 at 6:59 am

    Oh, constant negativity! Make him stop!! Poor knuckleheads, led around by Big Money in lieu of independent thought. What are you going to do about something so nefarious, so worthy of exposure? Whoops, too much negativity, can’t tell the truth anymore? Look, “Schwingerkönig,” slamming the messenger if the message makes you uncomfortable may well be Arkley’s M.O., and I know how you supply-siders idolize the rich and their whims, but if you continue to imitate the morally corrupt, you’re doomed to their immutable destiny. I think the part about Arkley trying to taunt Larry Glass is plenty instructive. More sore winning.

  41. Percival Ne'er-do-well Esquire III
    November 18, 2010 at 7:12 am

    Nice name Schwinger, Robby think that one up for you? Ever hear of the CCC dumbfug?

  42. Not in the Know
    November 18, 2010 at 7:24 am

    Eurekan in the know 10:32; you don’t know shit and you know it. Anyone who says they have any kind of accurate estimates (in advance of further testing and analysis) is just lying and spreading rumors.
    But of course, that is the point, isn’t it.

  43. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE'
    November 18, 2010 at 7:35 am

    Schwingerkönig says:
    November 18, 2010 at 6:39 am
    What I don’t understand is why, if SN and Baykeeper reached a settlement, can’t Pete, Heraldo and others stop with the negativity about MC, at least for the many years it will take to implement the cleanup. That’s what is very bothersome about this blog- constant negativity about a project that 70% of Eurekan’s want. Whoever is behind this blog should try to have an open mind. Pete, too. Constructive, genuine participation in the process is one thing, but this blog is in no way constructive or helpful. Obviously you can’t sway public opinion on this project. After 4 years of this bullshit, 70% of Eurekans say build it already.

    Derral Campbell says:
    November 18, 2010 at 6:59 am
    Oh, constant negativity! Make him stop!! Poor knuckleheads, led around by Big Money in lieu of independent thought. What are you going to do about something so nefarious, so worthy of exposure? Whoops, too much negativity, can’t tell the truth anymore? Look, “Schwingerkönig,” slamming the messenger if the message makes you uncomfortable may well be Arkley’s M.O., and I know how you supply-siders idolize the rich and their whims, but if you continue to imitate the morally corrupt, you’re doomed to their immutable destiny. I think the part about Arkley trying to taunt Larry Glass is plenty instructive. More sore winning.

    My Response: So, at least two groups trying to sway knuckleheads. What difference for individual thinkers would any group make an effect upon, right? Blogs, media, government hearings, civic events, etc… yep, there is a lot of individual “GROUP” thoughts there…..just sayin’.

    JL

  44. Derral Campbell
    November 18, 2010 at 8:02 am

    Hey Hench, if you’re going to “respond” to me, get it right. “Knuckleheads,” as I wrote it, refers to rabid right know-nothings, and I am not trying to sway them, but escape their sway. Your posts remain confused and mis-focused.

  45. Barb Leonard
    November 18, 2010 at 8:06 am

    Somehow, Rob leering and taunting Larry Glass after the election doesn’t seem such a big deal when you consider the history between the two.

    Isn’t it Larry who sold anti-Arkley materials in his store? Isn’t it Larry who told the Arkley girls they were just collateral damage in a war zone? Isn’t Larry who accused Rob of pushing and threatening him?
    Isn’t it Larry who formed CREG to oppose Rob’s plan for the Balloon tract? I could go on but what’s the point?

    At most, it wasn’t the best form and could be considered childish revenge, BUT, Rob does have a couple of reasons behind his actions that no one can really dispute.

    Who among us might not react to the election results in the same way considering the history there? I don’t like to admit it, but I might have done a little smirking myself.

    So, if Rob’s a scumbag for venting, what does that make all of you here who were celebrating your take over of the council all summer until, sadly, election day became reality for you?

    Generally speaking, when putting the shoe on the other foot, one size does fit all.

  46. A-Nony-Mouse
    November 18, 2010 at 8:12 am

    Yes, RA was acting in an infantile and bullying way. If that’s what floats his boat….! Now clean up the site. The only comment I’ve heard from Pete is that he believes that a big box retail development is inappropriate for that coastal zone property. For some reason, RA thinks that’s a ‘sueing offense’. Sorry, Rob. It has nothing at all to do with the cleanup or with the court order. Now it’s time to put up or shut up. Get the cleanup done and we’ll argue about what gets built later.

    And I LOVE how 65% of 60% suddenly becomes a ‘vast majority. My math gives it 39% at best. That’s a significant number but by no means a majority of anything.

  47. OffTheRez
    November 18, 2010 at 8:21 am

    Ya your smirking Barb. Your little pantie waste son could hold his own with Larry in the council “ring” so you always had to be defending and attacking from the side lines.

  48. High Finance
    November 18, 2010 at 8:36 am

    If RA did “parade” in front of Larry’s store “taunting & jeering” then it would be an incredible childish act. HOWEVER I do not believe it not even for a second. The only place I have seen it “reported” is here by a couple of bloggers who are known to have problems with the truth before.

    69er is right. If it really did happen & Larry was there, he would have trumpeted it to the media. Somebody would have captured it on their cell phone & it would have been on YouTube by now. Heraldo would have the video here.

    Heraldo has not even devoted a topic to it.

  49. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    November 18, 2010 at 8:52 am

    Derral,

    if you continue looking down at your knuckles, your head would have to be upright and you would have to see what you read in order to understood the at minimum 2 arguments you make from at minimum 2 sides. I know, I know, more individual bashings………

    Again, your post makes clear at least 2 sides are grouping to persuade individual thoughts – whether your pro or con. Objectivity is subordinate to the group wants – sad.

    JL

  50. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    November 18, 2010 at 8:55 am

    Cuz I wanted too says,

    “understand” for those without individual thought skills.

    JL

  51. Dennis Long
    November 18, 2010 at 9:01 am

    Let’s set the record straight. I was standing at the register buying and couple of records, I saw Rob Arkley looking in through the door with a Cheshire cat grin and waving his arm making somekind of gesture. I like Larry, I love his store, I have no beef with Arkley, I saw what I saw.

  52. Pitchfork
    November 18, 2010 at 9:03 am

    it’s time for Larry to start selling the Arkleyville stickers again. it really is Arkleyville now.

  53. Big Al
    November 18, 2010 at 9:11 am

    look out Dennis…
    somebody will call you an Asshat for seeing what you saw, just like they did me when I posted here about seeing a drunk guy on tv

  54. Anonymous
    November 18, 2010 at 9:20 am

    HI-Fi and Plain Jane and some other regular bloggers are entertaining, even if often wrong in their extreme positions. But their observations are at least intelligent.

    Barb Leonard and Chris Crawford on the on the other hand appear dumb as a post. I really do not understand why they blog under their own names. Maybe it goes with the stupidity.

  55. Big Al
    November 18, 2010 at 9:34 am

    actually lost some respect for Barb with that last post.
    sorry Barb, no justification for that sort of behavior.

  56. anon1
    November 18, 2010 at 9:55 am

    I’ve always thought Henchies moniker should have been “Ramblings of a Mad Man”..The bottom line here is robbie is a bully..and “liar”..A friend of mine is looking forward to robbies entry into his business..Should be 4th of July..Its a supporting staff or supplier based backing because all those people think when robbie builds his empire they will get work. robbie will probably try to bring in child labor or put most of the work out to out of town contractors.Maybe a signed contract from robbie that all of the construction to be done by LOCAL people and LOCAL companies..I bet local brothers (Macbeth’s) in the metal business think they are gonna get some work that’s why they have bought up other metal fabricators businesses and spoken at council meetings as proponents of the Marina blunder. Remember no big box by the queen..Liars,liars,liars. His good relationship with fair haired local, Kurt Kramer,Is dead, over immoral practices by robbie. He leaves despair everywhere he goes. Put your trust in this piece of shit and have another PALCO situation..Don’t forget!! In the name of jobs..Bullshit..If it were jobs he would clean up the sight like he agreed to when he bought the site. Again another lie. The way to tell if hes lying his lips are moving. This is the worst kind of person,Who values paper over human beings lives and possible poisoning of our kids in the future.

  57. Anonymous
    November 18, 2010 at 10:15 am

    Jeff Leonard was not the brightest bulb ever, but what brainpower he had obviously came from his dad.

  58. BradyBunch
    November 18, 2010 at 10:22 am

    I guess Larry was “collateral damage” this election. He is swimming in his own morass.

  59. Barb Leonard
    November 18, 2010 at 10:50 am

    Let’s see…Chris and I are “dumb as posts” because we blog under our own names.

    BUT, posters who call us dumb as posts, anonymously, are……… please fill in the blank.

    Words escape me.;-D

  60. Sam Spade
    November 18, 2010 at 11:13 am

    Sorry Barb, your boy is an idiot and all your attempts to prop him up should have ceased by 5th grade. He’d be stronger now if you had. HiFiFantasyLand. You believe what you want to believe: Foreclosures are okay, Bush was right, RA is awesome, and Larry hates Uhmerican. You are such a tool.

  61. Anonymous
    November 18, 2010 at 11:31 am

    Barb says “Words escape me”.

    I think that was the point that was being made.

  62. CheeseDick
    November 18, 2010 at 11:35 am

    I am done with the “Uhmerica, McMansions, Big Money and Good ‘Ole Boy” self hating paranioa.
    Sam, are you what, fuck, 12 years old?

  63. nobody special
    November 18, 2010 at 11:59 am

    Our dear posters of late appear childish, taunting, and unusualy verbose at finger-pointing and name-calling, bringing up few points of real insight or import. Sad.

    We usually have a higer level of cooperative discussion here.

  64. nobody special 2
    November 18, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    Amen! This blog has deteriorated into a whine fest; meant only to insult; not to rationally inform.

  65. by the numbers
    November 18, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    from the immortal words of Marvin Gaye “whats going on?”

  66. Bolithio
    November 18, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    We usually have a higher level of cooperative discussion here.

    LOL

  67. Anonymous
    November 18, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    Barbara- here’s a hint: Arguing with idiots makes you an idiot.

  68. Big Al
    November 18, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    my point Barb was that defending RA’s behavior made you (Barb) less credible to me.
    I didn’t call anybody stupid.
    I think Jeff cares about his community and tried to do a good job.

  69. Anonymous
    November 18, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    Some of these rants are over the top (anon1, for example) which is too bad because they contain a fair amount of truth, overshadowed by hostility. Having now heard the story as told by Dennis Long, I can see the incident with RA happening. He is a person who relishes the failure of others and takes pleasure in rubbing it in. I’ve witnessed this on several occasions. It’s an unfortunate character trait. As for being able to trust Arkley, that’s debatable and dependent upon his state of mind as well at the state of his finances.

  70. tra
    November 18, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    “Let’s set the record straight. I was standing at the register buying and couple of records, I saw Rob Arkley looking in through the door with a Cheshire cat grin and waving his arm making somekind of gesture.”

    Even if true, so what? Is a “Cheshire cat grin” and some unspecified gesture some kind of scandal? Is Arkley required not to grin in the vicinity of the Works, because his doing so might hurt someone’s feelings (probably not Larry’s as he is a grown-up and I assume that like most of us he doesn’t give a rip one way or the other)?

  71. tra
    November 18, 2010 at 2:32 pm

    I guess what I’m getting at is why people would bother to get all excited about things that are both unverifiable AND inconsequential. Did a Newman have a few too many drinks at a victory party? Did a Arkley smirk or grin in the direction of Larry Glass’s business?

    Surely there must be some more substantial matters to discuss.

  72. Sam Spade
    November 18, 2010 at 2:32 pm

    Tra. Go ahead, defend childish behavior from so-called adult business men. With such childish behavior from local “leaders”, why do many people think our society is slipping into Idiocracy?

  73. tra
    November 18, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    Personally I think the obsession with this kind of meaningless sniping is a symptom (and maybe in a small way a cause) of the slide toward Idiocracy.

  74. Let it go
    November 18, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    Spade; let it go. Tra is right. Move on people and get back to rational discussion on issues. Spade, asking to move on and get to more substantive threads is not defending anything. WTF!

  75. Anonymous
    November 18, 2010 at 2:47 pm

    Keep things in perspective. I know Sam Spade has to have more of a sense of humor than his post reflects. With all the abuse Rob Arkley has taken in especially this blog you can’t blame him if he smirked at his detractors. If Larry Glass had take the volume of shit RA has here he’d damn well smirk too if they had their asses handed to them the way he had. It’s politics for crying out loud. Nothing more.

  76. Sam Spade
    November 18, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    Okay, more humor. A waitress, a coroner, and an Insurance Agent walk into a bar. No wait, that’s a city council meeting. Nevermind.

  77. osprey
    November 18, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    I overheard RA talking at lunch yesterday about this; it sounded like what SN considers as Pete’s continuing criticism about Marina Center and the cleanup to the media may lead to a lengthy delay or outright denial of payment from the settlement funds. I guess Pete needs to be more discrete

    I don’t believe the agreement says anything about Pete saying that he thinks the MC is a bad fit for the property or just a shitty project, period. RA better get his lawyers to read more slowly to him next time. It is a public document after all, and there is nothing even close to that in there. The only thing he can’t challenge is the permits for the clean-up, etc., that Baykeeper gets input on anyway.

  78. I read it too
    November 18, 2010 at 4:41 pm

    It is a public document, and it clearly states that the clean up testing plan and final clean up plan anticipates (and can be driven by) the Marina Center development. And yes, they have input, but all disputes (which I am sure there will be) are decided by an independent scientific mediator.
    Seems to be quite a slippery slope for Pete to piss all over a development that the remediation can be based upon.

  79. Anonymous
    November 18, 2010 at 5:44 pm

    Anonymous at 6:28. Where did you have lunch yesterday? Name the restaurant. I have an acquaintance who ate lunch with RA yesterday. Where you really there?

  80. I read it also.....
    November 18, 2010 at 8:33 pm

    Too: laughable on many fronts.

  81. Anonymous
    November 19, 2010 at 9:10 am

    And I saw RA with 5:44’s “acquaintance.” Small world.

  82. Anonymous
    November 19, 2010 at 7:48 pm

    I saw you all there. You looked good.

  83. Eric Kirk
    November 21, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    Did they attempt to reach Pete Nichols and he failed to get back to them? Otherwise, yes, that is very lazy reporting. And even then, they should have stated that they attempted to reach him but were unable to.

  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