Home > Coastal Commission, Mark Lovelace > Lovelace to be on Coastal Currents

Lovelace to be on Coastal Currents

Humboldt County Supervisor Mark Lovelace will be on the KHUM radio show Coastal Currents show at noon today to discuss his nomination for the California Coastal Commission.

UPDATE: If you missed it, watch this space for the link.

Best quote from Lovelace:

“Some people act like the Marina Center is the only issue facing the coast.  Anyone who is that invested in that project needs to get over themselves.  The coast is bigger than any of us.”

UPDATE II: Listen here:

  1. Give It Up
    December 1, 2010 at 11:45 am

    Nothing you like better than promoting your favorite boy toy, huh Heraldo?

  2. December 1, 2010 at 11:57 am

    One-handed blogging again, “Give It Up”?

    The coastal commission appointment has become issue number one this week. Try to control yourself.

  3. Give It Up
    December 1, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    Actually you’re the anonymous blogger who talks about the same people all the time. Rational people call that being obsessive.

  4. December 1, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    Your first comment reveals you are not rational.

  5. Voter
    December 1, 2010 at 12:30 pm

    Oh my word, Heraldo, blogging about politics and elected officials = obsessive, right.

    Thanks for cluing us in–it was very informative. Mark definitely knows of what he speaks, whether you agree with him or not.

    And thanks KHUM and Baykeeper for hosting Coastal Currents and having Mark on the show. Mark will be an excellent Coastal Commissioner. It takes a lot of time to get up to thoroughly understand all of the issues that come before them, and he will do a great job.

  6. Anonymous
    December 1, 2010 at 2:42 pm

    Oh, the prodigal banjo maker with all the answers.

  7. A-Nony-Mouse
    December 1, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    No one has ‘all the answers’ but Mark seems to know which questions to ask. He knows the CC is a much bigger job than just Eureka. His remarks on KHUM were well thought out and showed a solid balanced perspective. He would be an excellent choice.

  8. Anon
    December 1, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    Thing is, whoever is appointed, the Coastal Act won’t change. Allowable uses of coastal wetlands do not include a mall, regardless of what stores you put in the mall. It’s state law and has been for more than 30 years. Don’t like it? Move to Louisiana.

  9. Steve D
    December 1, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    Mr. Lovelace would be an excellent addition and complement to the California Coastal Commission.

    Another poster in the previous column asked to please send letters of support for Mark Lovelace to:

    Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
    Attn: John G. Cruz, Appointments Secretary
    State Capitol Building
    Sacramento, CA. 95814

    ~and yes, I already have.

  10. Anonymous
    December 1, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    Can’t say I share Mr. Lovelace’s political beliefs all the time but I’d rather see him on the CCC than someone from another county. I think his heart’s in the right place and that he’ll vote what’s best for Humboldt County.

  11. December 1, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    This post has been updated to include the audio of today’s Coastal Currents. Big thanks to Mike Dronkers.

  12. Steve D
    December 1, 2010 at 6:01 pm

    Nice audio work and kudos, KHUM, Mr. Dronkers, and The Double H. Easy link, no adverts, clear quality of sound, nice information, enjoyable to hear. Mr. Lovelace was fair to all and informed from my full audio observation here. Thank you.

  13. Drive
    December 1, 2010 at 6:17 pm

    Anon 3:37,

    Get out more often. Take a trip to Venice Beach, Santa Cruz, etc…

  14. tra
    December 1, 2010 at 6:39 pm

    “Allowable uses of coastal wetlands do not include a mall…”

    I’m not a lawyer, nor have I pored over the Coastal Act and coastal development regulations and the decades of case law that have developed in this area, but I suspect that it’s not quite as clear-cut as you claim. If it was that clear-cut, I doubt Arkley would be wasting his time and money on it in the first place.

    I would be interested to hear from some folks who have a strong grasp of the Coastal Act and coastal regulations as to whether they can cite any specific language in the laws or regs or case law that amounts to an outright ban on building a mall or shopping center there.

  15. tra
    December 1, 2010 at 6:41 pm

    I guess a big part of this question is how much of the Balloon Track property qualifies as a “coastal wetland.”

  16. Drive
    December 1, 2010 at 8:01 pm

    It doesn’t have to be considered a coastal wetland to be under the CC jurisdiction. There are plenty of parking lots constructed in the coastal zone.

  17. Anon
    December 1, 2010 at 8:16 pm

    Parking lots can be an important part of coastal access–unless you live along the coast, most people can’t get there if they can’t drive and park. Get to Massachusetts much? There you will find that you have to pay for a parking spot at the beach–generally not allowed here, because the Coastal Commission protects access for people of all income levels.

    Every Coastal Commission hearing is available online, both in archives and streaming live. Watch one sometime, it’s very informative. You may not agree with everything the state law includes, but you will learn a lot.

  18. anon
    December 1, 2010 at 8:21 pm

    We’re not only talking –intact–coastal wetlands here, with sea level rise that is expected we will need to protect even marginal wetlands, like those that were filled around the bay in the early-mid 1900’s. I find it hard to believe much can be built around the bay that has ANY impact on any potential wetland areas.

  19. mayfly
    December 1, 2010 at 9:31 pm

    Hoe DID Harvey Harper get permission to build the car dealership facility on coastal wetlands?

  20. Anonymous
    December 1, 2010 at 9:32 pm

    Anyone with a job who supports Lovelace for coastal commissioner is a fool.

  21. Bolithio
    December 1, 2010 at 9:33 pm

    tra is right. Its not that simple. Also, the reasoning behind restrictions near coastal areas is more complex than touching water. The wetland issue is a religious one. In other words, its a buzz idea that most people dont fully understand. What is a wetland? Its like old growth. Its fuzzy (pun intended) and people tend to want to save it, but they don’t really know why.

    All of the areas around humboldt bay where once serious wetland. The hundreds of small tributaries that drain from the hills interacting with the tidal influence of the bay made a dynamic environment. This of course was drained, diked and leveled over a hundred years ago. Because of this – when we have wetlands – we tend to want to keep them around, and restore them when feasible. Like old growth. But, as with most of our political driven agencies, these ideas become hijacked by special interest. The BT may have seasonal water present in the water table. It may have old ditches that have perennial water – or saturated soils. These soils may provide habitat for obligate species – but they are not wetlands. There needs to be reasonable discretion concerning these matters.

    Why is a light industrial factory OK but not a mall? These are not issues the CC should be addressing. They need to protect our beaches and coastlines. Political appointments ruin our public agencies by undermining the objectivity required to make sound decisions.

  22. Voter
    December 1, 2010 at 10:36 pm

    Harvey Harper probably got a Coastal Development Permit approved by the City of Eureka, and no one appealed it to the Coastal Commission. Eureka violates its own Local Coastal Plan quite frequently.

    If not for EPIC’s watchdogs, Target would have been built with no trail, and smaller buffer areas along the waterfront than the City’s LCP requires.

  23. Thirdeye
    December 1, 2010 at 10:44 pm

    When definitions are fuzzy or based on a judgment call, professional peer review of documents exercising judgment is standard procedure. The opinion that the BT contains existing coastal wetlands is not supported by any document that has met that standard. It would have been a simple matter for the CC staff to refer the issue to the Department of Fish and Game for review, but they instead chose to arbitrarily decide on their own that there was a wetland issue, based on the flimsiest information. That is not the behavior of an agency that takes its public trust seriously.

  24. Eurekan
    December 1, 2010 at 11:04 pm

    Au contraire, Pierre. If one looks at t.he Sanborn maps and other comparable pre-1950’s documents, it is clear as rain that the Balloon Track was riddled with coastal wetlands. Watch the furious spin from those who desperately want you to believe otherwise, so they can build a Big Box mall on the site. As if.

    As was said on this blog on a previous post, the radically enhanced cleanup that the Baykeeper-Security National settlement now entails almost certainly precludes the Home Depot that was previously planned. The dispersed, wild nature of the natural wetlands that will be restored by court order simply doesn’t spatially allow a seven-acre parking lot and 130,000 square foot retail box. There just ain’t the room. Ryan Burns, Heidi Walters: go get the story!

    The latest wrinkle: Rob Arkley’s hired gun, Kay Backer, who is aware of what the new cleanup settlement will and won’t permit, has been sniffing around looking at county plans for the future siteing of public facilities. She knows there’s big money to be had in that sphere, and the publicly-zoned Balloon Track may ultimately be best suited for the growth of future county buildings compatible with its original zoning.

    Stay tuned, people, this soap opera is long from seeing its final installment.

  25. Thirdeye
    December 1, 2010 at 11:52 pm

    It’s more than just a little disingenuous for Lovelace to claim that he was working to improve, not oppose, the MC project when his name is on the CREG petition.

    Just keep on living in your fantasy world, “Eurekan.”

  26. Bolithio
    December 2, 2010 at 8:46 am

    Sanborn maps LOL

    Because maps from 60 years ago really should be driving our current policy…

    The dispersed, wild nature of the natural wetlands that will be restored by court order…

    You should right headlines for the Onion! LOL

    Back in reality – there will NEVER be natural, wild wetlands at the BT, or most of eureka for that matter. And no court order can change that. (Laws of nature tend to trump our meager courts)

  27. Anonymous
    December 2, 2010 at 9:30 am

    Harvey Harper (RIP) graded that land with no permits.

  28. Anonymous
    December 2, 2010 at 9:36 am

    And now the public is left with the bill for protecting it from rising tides. More republican welfare.

  29. huufc
    December 2, 2010 at 10:41 am

    Hey the marina Center is no big deal. Build it so I can go to it.

  30. Eurekan
    December 2, 2010 at 10:48 am

    (Stamping feet) “There are no wetlands at the Balloon Track! There aren’t! There aren’t! There aren’t!” (Pause to catch breath and unclench fists.)

    Okay, if Sanborn maps don’t work for you, how about aerial photos of the parcel, going back sixty, seventy-five years? Or do those lie too?

    I get the feeling you guys are ready to call in your Stalin-era photograph airbrushers – they may help you bolster your case. Keep spinnin’, it’s quite entertaining!

  31. tra
    December 2, 2010 at 11:03 am

    Are we talking about how much of the Balloon Track is currently wetlands, as defined in the law, or are we talking about whether that area was originally wetlands, and if so, how recently?

    Does the (revised) clean-up plan require that ALL areas that were wetlands at some point in the past must be restored as wetlands? If so, that would seem likely to doom any large project on the site.

    But if the standard is that only the parts of the parcel that are currently wetlands would need to be restored as wetlands, but other parts of the property would be build-able, then I can see how they might get the O.K. from the Coastal Commission for a retail or mixed-use development there.

    So, which is it?

  32. Funnygirl
    December 2, 2010 at 11:05 am

    If you think that there are wetlands down there, then go down and walk around and imagine ducks flying in to spend some quality time there. All the while, they would have to ignore the rest of the bay. It may have been wetlands a long time ago, but then Eureka was a redwood forest a long time ago.

  33. Eurekan
    December 2, 2010 at 11:08 am

    I’m pretty sure it’s the “original wetlands,” as delineated by those aerial photos from early-to-mid 20th century. The site was filled in the 1950’s, I believe. Randy Gans has done his damndest to ensure that Schmidbauer’s log deck covers the wettest part by their mill where waterfowl traditionally utilized during the rainy season. That way, he gets to call it “tire ruts” while puffing his chest out.

  34. tra
    December 2, 2010 at 11:30 am

    How did the Adorni Center, the Bayshore Mall, Costco and so on get permitted by the Coastal Commission? Weren’t those sites originally wetlands, too?

  35. Anonymous
    December 2, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    They kissed butt & paid a huge fortune in extortion, er, I mean they paid a lot of fees.

  36. Anonymous
    December 2, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    The “no net loss” policy may not have been in place.

  37. Jeff Leonard
    December 2, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    Voter – please do not mis-inform the public. I served on the City Council when Target was approved.

    The City of Eureka approved the project with a trail and public access to the boat ramp – project additions that the City worked very hard to incorporate into the project.

    The Coastal Commission changed the color of the project and eliminated the red tiles that had been proposed. The City adopted a trail directly on the bay, the Coastal Commission moved the trail 50 feet back from the bay. The Commission trimmed about 5000 square feet from the back side of the building. The Commission eliminated the City’s traffic mitigation for stop light and stop sign enhancements on V Street and re-paving 3rd St behind the Red Lion. Target was nice enough to fund those enhancements, even though the legal requirement was eliminated through the Commission’s subsequent approval of the project.

    Total Cost to Target for the appeal process = $250K.

  38. Bolithio
    December 2, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    It may have been wetlands a long time ago, but then Eureka was a redwood forest a long time ago.

    Exactly. Your missing the point Eurekan. Its not about what was there 50+ years ago. I dont see a dispute of what was. Its about whats here now – and what can reasonably be restored.

    If you are really interested in restoring wetlands – you can see the actual productive work occurring in this area by searching the web. Salt River, Wood Creek/Fresh Water slough, and many more large scale wetland restoration projects are occurring as we speak. Many more will occur as well.

    Point: We need efficiency in restoration. It is very complex and expensive to implement (properly) and we should seek to do it where we will get the best results. The BT is not a significant wetland – nor will it be even after any project there.

    The way CC and other agencies use “wetland” as a technical term to hamper projects is not based on practical science – but on political whims.

    Also, try to separate the wetland issue from the MC & BT. Clearly the emotion surrounding Arkley issues clouds things from being discussed objectively.

  39. tra
    December 2, 2010 at 1:59 pm

    It seems like a lot of this is going to come down to what qualifies as a wetland, and what will be required to be “restored” as such.

    I don’t know how the CC decides which former wetlands are required to be restored rather than built on. Bayshore Mall, Costco, Target, and so on were allowed to be built on former wetlands, so apparently there must be some significant leeway as far as what is allowed on lands that were historically wetlands but have been filled and used for indstrial and/or commercial purposes for decades.

    On the other hand, the Target project was modified by the CC, and somewhat downsized. So it may come down to the Coastal Commission not outright rejecting any commercial or mixed use development on the Balloon Track, but instead requiring modifications including possibly reducing the overall size and/or siting of the retail space. At that point I guess it would be up to Arkely as to whether he thinks the project is still financially viable.

  40. Anonymous
    December 2, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    Target was already zoned commercial. SN does not own the zoning. SN is asking the public (through the CC) to let them change it. The CC has values it has been created by law to protect. I don’t see much hope for SN to get what they want at this point. If anything the CC will be harder on SN to show that you can’t influence them by taking out their members in elections where the main issue is coastal development.

  41. Eurekan
    December 2, 2010 at 2:32 pm

    Bolithio – I’m not missing the point, just respectfully disagreeing with you. Your implicit argument is that significantly degraded wetlands are inherently not worthy of restoration. I say otherwise. Your argument actually incentivizes wetland degradation, insofar as it encourages chumps like Randy Gans to have Schmidbauer quadruple the traditional size and location of their log deck to spread it over existing wetland, so that later he can say “Look folks, it was all just tire ruts!” And then, clueless people like Funnygirl, who have no grasp of local history beyond yesterday, can come along and say, “Yeah – no wetlands!”

  42. A-Nony-Mouse
    December 2, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    Even with full wetlands restoration, there is still a lot of useable area on the BT. Light industrial buildings can be sized and sited to avoid wetlands much more easily than a big box store or a large retail area with adjacent parking. Industrial use usually needs far less parking and generates far less traffic.
    I concur about the log deck. I used to watch ducks and geese using the degraded seasonal ponds that were later covered with logs. Restored wetlands and ponds have great promise for wildlife and birds.

    When mark says he has worked to improve the BT development, I think he means he’s tried to work with SN to provide a more suitable and less damaging project. That Arkley won’t listen or work with anyone is not Mark’s fault. The CREG petition mentioned above focussed on providing a thorough state-of-the-art cleanup for the site. Even the courts agreed with CREG on that one, dragging SN kicking and screaming into the present. Many prominent folks signed that petition because they wanted a REAL cleanup. So why is that a problem for Mark?

  43. Bolithio
    December 2, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    Ok eurekan – we disagree. I, who live in a place that was once old growth redwood dont intend on restoring the forest here. If you are restoring the original habitat of whatever was there before you, you are the better man…

    but this:

    …Schmidbauer quadruple the traditional size and location of their log deck to spread it over existing wetland,

    …is pretty funny, especially from someone who is claiming they look at historic photos. Believe me, no log decks are any where near their historic sizes.

  44. tra
    December 2, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    I kinda doubt that the size of Schmidbauer’s log deck is part of some grand conspiracy to try to affect the wetlands designation. My guess is that more mundane factors are responsible for the relative size of Schmidbauer’s log deck.

  45. Huge
    December 2, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    Size matters

  46. CrispyCream
    December 2, 2010 at 4:59 pm

    Since the Marina Center is the only project facing the Coastal Commission it is quite clear that all discussion regarding appointments to it by the governor should be focused entirely on the appointee’s position on said project.

  47. Ditto
    December 2, 2010 at 5:16 pm

    LOL Crispy. I think your brain is fried.

  48. Eurekan
    December 2, 2010 at 6:10 pm

    “I kinda doubt that the size of Schmidbauer’s log deck is part of some grand conspiracy to try to affect the wetlands designation.”

    Hook Gans and Arkley up to twin lie detectors and ask them that question. Guraranteed: the needles will be jumping off the paper.

    Let’s be perfectly clear: so you’re saying it’s just a coincidence that the log deck historically adjacent to the wildlife ponds on the Balloon Track, suddenly expanded to COVER the entirety of the seasonal ponds there, at the same exact time that Security National was being asked by the Coastal Commission (and subsequently refused to say) the size and location of the on-site wetlands?

    Babe, I gotta bridge to sell ya!

  49. tra
    December 2, 2010 at 7:08 pm

    Yes, I do think it’s more likely that it is a coincidence than it is a Schmidbauer-Arkley conspiracy to hide the “wildlife ponds.”

  50. *issing up a rope....
    December 2, 2010 at 7:25 pm

    Log deck or no, there are plenty of wetlands to shut down that project. It used to all be wetlands after all, and all the projects approved before (Mall, etc.,) had no one paying attention. Elect all the cronies you want, the ‘good ‘ol boy’ network is gone. those days are over. Not to mention, the coastal development process is going to take 5+ years anyway.

  51. Anonymous
    December 2, 2010 at 7:49 pm

    Everybody knows that Eurekan is right. The log deck expansion was a conspiracy launched at the Ingomar Club when all the rulers of Eureka hatched the plan. We are all slaves to the capitalistic pigs.

  52. anon
    December 2, 2010 at 7:55 pm

    First, you can’t hide wetlands, although I wouldn’t expect the SN “I-Gors” to try. Especially with Mitchell and Gans in the sandbox together. That said, wetlands are wetlands and are based on soil type and plant associations. Coastal has them pretty well mapped and has had little response from the sandbox. They’ll find out soon enough.

  53. Truth in information
    December 2, 2010 at 9:01 pm

    But I thought the Brady bunch said they were going to get it done fast. Were they naive or just deceptive? They built a big lie to get elected, and now we will see if the wetlands will truly hold water, not logs.

  54. anon
    December 2, 2010 at 9:55 pm

    They’ll be lucky to have any permits in hand by the time the “Brady Chumps” are up for their next election. SN can keep spending their money and brainwashing Eureka, 70% public approval doesn’t trump the Coastal Act.

  55. Ditto
    December 2, 2010 at 10:31 pm

    They should be praying for Lovelace to be appointed so they can make him the boogeyman blocking the MC at re-election.

  56. Anonymous
    December 2, 2010 at 10:53 pm

    anon 7:49 ysm massa

  57. Pete
    December 2, 2010 at 11:17 pm

    Ditto – Oh, yeah? Well, I’ll bet my boogeyman can beat up your boogeyman!

  58. Pete
    December 2, 2010 at 11:20 pm

    A boogeyman mud wrestling match in the middle of the “wetlands”. Peter Douglas can ref.

  59. Anonymous
    December 2, 2010 at 11:24 pm

    I feel as though paranoia is taking over here. Tra is probably right – there is less of a conspiracy than people are imagining and the CCC will evaluate the MC project on its merits. I think the MC faces a long uphill battle no matter what. Maybe I’m naive but I think the CCC will apply the required standards and that it will be a challenge for SN to meet them. I do believe they intend to try but it may be more costly than they can afford without definite anchor store commitments.

  60. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    December 3, 2010 at 8:19 am

    Gans @ 10:45 into the audio, he mentions (not exact quotation) when they can’t reinvest into their company, they can’t invest and/or are deprived in their core business and it trickles down to workers/employment/community.

    My Response: The continued attitude is one of many pyramid scheming responses which never seems to focus on entrepenuerisms but only on “company slave-type labors” which yield “Pyramid scheme profits” that DESTROY COMMUNITIES AND INDIVIDUALISMS. Now, the very same business model Gans speaks of (his employers’ own) is very opposite of the “pulled face and words” Gans uses to express or imply his frustrations. Further, as was mentioned about Harvey Harper, it is about the not-so-secret old boy network, still. Unfortunately, since Humboldt is Humboldt, it is still a very manipulatable political environment due to its geographic/politcal isolation when compared to the more “new wave advanced” society. Yes, society has also de-advanced if you will in enough areas as well.

    JL

  61. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    December 3, 2010 at 8:26 am

    tra says:
    December 2, 2010 at 3:51 pm
    I kinda doubt that the size of Schmidbauer’s log deck is part of some grand conspiracy to try to affect the wetlands designation. My guess is that more mundane factors are responsible for the relative size of Schmidbauer’s log deck.

    Huge says:
    December 2, 2010 at 4:49 pm
    Size matters

    My Response: Kinda like illegal timber harvesting to get a crap load of logs now prior to any legal decision rendering finality to an illegal harvest that was done in an illegal manner so as to reap more profits now while avoiding process fees and time delays. IOW, break the law now and profit more while getting more; then, claim hardships and other stuff after-the-fact.

    Only masses of “backed-into-a-CORNER” stupid and greedy people could allow such rubbish to continue on and on and on, election after election after election.

    DEPOPULATION IS GOONA BE A DOOZY!

    JL

  62. Bolithio
    December 3, 2010 at 9:56 am

    My Response: Kinda like illegal timber harvesting to get a crap load of logs now prior to any legal decision rendering finality to an illegal harvest that was done in an illegal manner so as to reap more profits now while avoiding process fees and time delays.

    WTF? What illegal timber harvest? What profits are you talking about? Fees? Time delays? WTF are you talking about?

  63. A-Nony-Mouse
    December 3, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    Bolithio, on this one I kinda have to agree. With Henchman you really never do know just WHAT he’s talking about.

  64. Anonymous
    December 3, 2010 at 5:23 pm

    I get dizzy just reading Henchman !

  65. Eurekan
    December 3, 2010 at 6:06 pm

    Time to serve up a few facts:

    Fact: The Schmidbauer log deck on the Balloon Track (at the intersection of Washington St. and Waterfront Drive), historically adjacent to several acres of seasonal ponds utilized by waterfowl, was suddenly given permission to roughly quadruple in size almost overnight, to cover, obscure and effectively obliterate such seasonal ponds.

    Fact: At roughly the same time, the Coastal Commission requested a detailed map of the entire parcel from Security National, showing the size and location of all on-site wetlands.

    Fact: Security National, knowing that such a map would be a killer to its project as proposed, has stonewalled the CC’s request a for wetland size-and-location map. To this day, SN has not, to my knowledge, provided the requested map.

    Fact: Prior to its last meeting on the North Coast roughly a year ago, the Coastal Commission requested permission for access to the Balloon Track so that commissioners and staffers could see the site for itself. SN, which had granted a similar request a couple of years prior, this time refused.

    You can call me a bug-eyed conspiracy freak, but I’m just connecting the dots here, people.

  66. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    December 3, 2010 at 7:12 pm

    So you few obviously agree by playing stupid in your comments that “the claim” of the log deck being done “over-night” is kinda like an illegal harvest by Pacific Lumber prior to a timber harvest plan? I know, just pick on people offering a comparable viewpoint that is despised by no namers. Besides, those logs having to go somewhere for storage and milling……. Friendly neighbors can be helpful when both neighbors can prosper. There could be some validity to the claim(s), but obviously some grand conspiracy is beyond human capacities.

    Every new day is another day of proof that this country is less better, sad but true. The coast of California AND SECURITY NATIONAL are nothin’ compared to what is coming. The audio interview fails to make that point stick.

    JL

  67. Bolithio
    December 3, 2010 at 7:24 pm

    Those are facts and opinions Eurekan.

  68. Joel Mielke
    December 3, 2010 at 7:55 pm

    “Actually you’re the anonymous blogger…”

    This from the brave commenter who goes by the handle “Give it up.”

  69. Matt
    December 3, 2010 at 9:40 pm

    From the Governor: “nominees…should be officials committed to and knowledgeable about coastal preservation and conservation.”

  70. Anon
    December 3, 2010 at 10:43 pm

    Wetland plants are wetland plants and they are there on the Balloon Track today. Ever heard of the Coastal Commission and Dept.of Fish & Game’s single criterion wetland definition? If not, your arguments are nothing more than hot air.

    That goes for Virginia Bass, who has determined that there aren’t any biologically functional wetlands at the Balloon Track. Because of course, she’s a wetland expert!

  71. Voter
    December 3, 2010 at 10:46 pm

    Mark Lovelace did come up with an alternative project for the Balloon Track. Remember that this area is zoned Public, and we could still go back to the community input process that so many other communities have done to develop their Balloon Tracks (Truckee) and old mill sites (Fort Bragg). Or, we could fight and stomp over it for another couple decades.

  72. December 3, 2010 at 11:54 pm

    “nominees…should be officials committed to and knowledgeable about coastal preservation and conservation.”

    Well, that excludes Bass.

  73. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    December 4, 2010 at 9:20 am

    Interesting snip-it

    Humboldt Investment Capital, LLC. The company, managed by Cedar Reuben and George Schmidbauer, targets investments for local companies primarily producing goods and services for export to national and international markets.

    JL

  74. Anonymous
    December 4, 2010 at 10:24 pm

    Doesn’t Arkley’s plans for the balloon tract include something like 10 or 11 acres of restored wetlands ? If you really are interested in wetland preservation you would be rooting Arkley on.

  75. Eurekan
    December 4, 2010 at 11:18 pm

    His original proposal was to drop in a 132,000 square foot Home Depot, surrounded by a seven-acre blacktopped parking lot. Possibly some other mixed-use stuff, but that was never set in stone. Knowing Gans and Company and their capacity to stretch the truth like bubblegum, I think it was probably just a teaser. The Big Box store and its parking lot was to go on top of historic tidal wetlands, as indicated from pre-1950’s aerial photographs.

    The so-called “wetlands” that Arkley proposed were not restored. They were “simulated wetlands,” that is, stagnant plastic-lined ponds created to look like wetlands. There was to be no restoration of wetlands at the site. Part of the reason the Coastal Commission said, “whoa, daddy!”

    Rumor has it that Arkley was having the folks at Disney design animatronic hippie-mom ‘droids pushing strollers in workout clothes around the fake-wetlands trails. Then, the simulation would be total; the illusion, complete.

    Sorry to bust your bubble here.

  76. Anonymous
    December 5, 2010 at 6:10 am

    The plans for the Marina Center include restoring wetlands. It not a requirement of such a project. Even the community park and center in Arcata had to restore wetlands, even though they already had a lot of open space, uncovered by concrete. It is a swap of sorts.

  77. Anonymous
    December 5, 2010 at 6:11 am

    It IS a requirement for such a project, I meant to say.

  78. anon
    December 5, 2010 at 7:53 am

    Id have to look at the map again but isnt Costco about as close to Humboldt Bay as the Balloon Track? Or maybe the edge where the slough is located is a bit closer. In my opinion that could be resolved by subdividing hmmm just thinking out loud-don’t mind me.

  79. Anonymous
    December 5, 2010 at 9:47 am

    The proposed wetland on the BT is there because the unstable soils in that area will not support any structures. It is not a great place to build wetlands. In fact it will be a dump for a large area of urban runoff. Unless there is a mandated requirement to maintain and clean the area it will become a very polluted place.

  80. Bolithio
    December 5, 2010 at 8:14 pm

    9:47 makes a great point. The single criterion methods of classifying something a wetland ultimately miss the mark. They are political, like spotted owls and old growth. The issue with the MC is not wetlands! Its this growth vs that growth. Its a policy fight. Politics.

    Reasonable discretion needs to be applied to these situations. Wetlands should not be used as leverage in these cases.

  81. truth
    December 5, 2010 at 10:10 pm

    Heraldo or someone will you please put up the site showing the aerial photo of the Balloon Track?

  82. Heidi
    December 5, 2010 at 10:23 pm
  83. truth
    December 5, 2010 at 10:25 pm

    Thanks Heidi but I was referring to the photo that was taken around 1950.

  84. Heidi
    December 5, 2010 at 10:33 pm

  85. truth
    December 5, 2010 at 10:38 pm

    Sorry Heidi this still isn’t the photo that I have seen before. It was up several months ago during another discussion on the BT. Is it a Schuster photo?

  86. December 5, 2010 at 11:01 pm

    Schuster’s photos of the BT are here.

  87. Anonymous
    December 6, 2010 at 8:24 am

    Bolithio is wrong. It is growth vs non growth. All the rest, Home Depot/wet lands/Arkley or whatever, is bull shit.

  88. Anon
    December 6, 2010 at 9:57 am

    I’m sorry, but can someone explain to me the relevance of wetland status from some 60 years ago?

  89. Anonymous
    December 6, 2010 at 10:59 am

    Natural conditions, go take a peek at Westend road in Arcata after a few days of continual rain. If development in that area as well as all along Janes Creek, had taken into account natural conditions, natural storage, natures way of handling sediment and other pollutants then a problem that is virtually impossible to fix now could have been alleviated. Wetlands have a purpose, natural conditions and natural processes are usually what we want to match. It is impossible to expect to return anything that has been developed back to 100% natural conditions but it is very important to study and determine what those conditions were and what purpose they served.

    If we had considered the fact that Humboldt Bay was historically a lagoon, and studied the natural processes of a lagoon and the composition of the bottom of Humboldt Bay then maybe we would not have been surprised when we widened the entrance, increased the surface area, increased the volumetric flow and silted in the bay. Contrary to popular belief, natural systems are scientific, serve the purpose of preserving life, and are usually the path of least resistance. In following the links from last night, I found this one that interested me.
    marshy tideland, storage, treatment, sediment removal, habitat, etc.
    4th picture down, 1902
    http://www.snowcrest.net/marnells/balloon.htm

  90. Anonymous
    December 6, 2010 at 12:18 pm

    Great aerial photo of the balloon tract wetlands on page IV.E-7 of this document

    http://www.ci.eureka.ca.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=5045

  91. truth
    December 6, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    Wetlands can indeed be restored. Restoration is happening all over the world. 1902 rendering is great. In all the photos we can clearly see that this is a wetland.

  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