Home > Alex Stillman, Balloon Track, Coastal Commission, Jeff Farley, Ken Zanzi, Mark Lovelace, Virginia Bass > Supes nominate everyone for Coastal Commission

Supes nominate everyone for Coastal Commission

Randy Gans delivers Security National's talking points to the Board of Supervisors.

Humboldt County Supervisors voted 5-0 Tuesday to forward all interested nominees to Governor Jerry Brown to consider for the California Coastal Commission.

Tuesday’s hearing was the second time Supervisors have considered nominations in the last 5 months — first at the request of outgoing Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and now at the direction of Brown who withdrew Schwarzenegger’s pick of Fortuna City Councilman Ken Zanzi.

Supervisor Clif Clendenen made the motion which drew appreciation from many public speakers who recalled the contentious and disrespectful mudslinging at the November/December meetings.

Most speakers threw their support behind Lovelace while supporting the motion.  But petitions both for and against Lovelace were submitted.

Trinidad Mayor Stan Binnie said the nominee should support the Coastal Commission’s mission to “protect, conserve, restore, and enhance environmental and human-based resources of the California coast and ocean for environmentally sustainable and prudent use by current and future generations.”  Binney said Lovelace is the best choice.

Local resident John Webb said the fact that Lovelace has generated opposition from financial and political forces is a good thing because he will stand up for the CCC’s mission in the face of pressure from developers.

Three speakers associated with Rob Arkley’s Security National Servicing Corp. spoke against Lovelace.  Arkley’s push for a Home Depot-anchored mall in the Coastal Zone has spawned a political war against the Coastal Commission and anyone who supports the goals of the CCC over Arkley’s interests.

In addition to Lovelace and Zanzi, the other names forwarded to Brown will be Ferndale Mayor Jeff Farley, Arcata Councilwoman Alex Stillman and Supervisor Virginia Bass.

  1. March 22, 2011 at 1:10 pm

    Gov. Brown will do the old “Names on a Dart Board” method in his office. Then tell us that he carefully reviewed the recommendations of the County Supervisors.

    Oh, and do not forget our neighbors to the North; they have a voice in this too.

  2. Lib neutral
    March 22, 2011 at 1:39 pm

    To be fair we should nominate a gay transsexual with physical disabilities including blind, dumb, and deaf. Now that would be love-lace.

  3. Not A Native
    March 22, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    OK, It was a smart move on Clif’s part. Just wonder where those new names came up? They weren’t on the agenda. Its a missed opportunity for that often poster here from McKinleyville. If only he had known all contenders would win the prize. Finally, he ‘coulda been a contender instead of…….’.

  4. Mel-z
    March 22, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    Can someone help me understand why Zanzi would want to be nominated for a position he was removed from?

  5. March 22, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    He said today that he had “two good months” on the Coastal Commission, had met the Executive Director and the staff and was beginning to have good working relationships with them when he was removed.

  6. Reinventing The Wheel
    March 22, 2011 at 3:05 pm

    An endorsement from Bonnie Neely will put Lovelace over the top.

    Any news on current and former official’s endorsements?

  7. Anonymush
    March 22, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    Lib neutral @1:39,

    Thank you, thank you, you’re too kind. But I’m very busy and have no time to serve. But I appreciate it.

  8. Schwingerkönig
    March 22, 2011 at 7:03 pm

    @ Reinventing the Wheel- Did that endorsement help you defeat Frank Jager for Eureka City Council?

  9. skippy
    March 22, 2011 at 10:51 pm

    Once again, Heraldo makes an accurate assessment with surprising rapidity only seconds after Item F1, CCC nomination considerations, had closed. His 2:43 post was equally fair and on the mark.

    The shenanigans, showmanship, and high drama of the last go-around was avoided by Supervisor Clendenen’s foresight initiating this agenda item today. Citizens spoke in favor of their chosen horse in the race with Mr. Lovelace moving ahead by several lengths.

    One nominee who made the BOS tote board in the nick of time yet nearly missed the starting gate by an inadvertent clerical error was 4th term Ferndale Mayor Jeff Farley, sporting varied experience by serving on 5 (well-known) boards and commissions, 4 others as an alternate, and with direct experience of water, wastewater, wetland, land use, Fish and Game, Planning Commission, CEQA, and other areas of expertise for both Ferndale Village and PALCO, according to his resume (and this is the short list, folks).

    Skippy wishes Mayor Farley well– and the rest of the other fine and well qualified nominees pursuing this questionably sadistic endeavor of serving in the public interest for the Coastal Commission. As one person said, “It’s a job in itself. You don’t get a monthly envelope in the mail to review. You get an entire box of materials.” After reviewing these copious materials one gets to attend the monkeyshine meetings making decisions of numbing scrutiny and nabobs of noodleheaded nullity. And only then can one really joyfully start the excruciatingly painful process of pissing everyone off in the meanwhile. Sorry, folks, ‘but once the pony dies, the ride is over.’

    One fine gentleman addressing the Board was Arcata Councilman Shane Brinton throwing his support behind Mr. Lovelace. Honest, bright, and forthright as his young years might indicate, Mr. Brinton did very well noting Mr. Lovelace’s accomplishments and articulately speaking to the (“shhh…”) giant white elephant in the room– the SHN representatives’ previous public comments and their biased relationships subtly in favor of the Marina Center and not so subtly against nominee Lovelace. It was defnitely not cricket.

    The Supervisors will now forward all nominees’ names onto Governor Brown. Having spent time at the same Jesuit proving grounds (yet years apart and under different circumstances) and having met him personally, yours truly believes the Governor, strong-willed, intense, independent and iconoclast, beholden to no person nor special interests, will give special review and thorough consideration to all of the nominees– with the final nod going to the chosen and best qualified golden one taking this appointed CCC crown. No, he doesn’t throw darts. You cheeky monkey, you.

    Yours truly will post Donna Tam’s Times-Standard article early tomorrow morning for your review.

  10. March 23, 2011 at 7:50 am

    I sure hope Randy gets paid a LOT for being such a tool.

  11. Decline To State
    March 23, 2011 at 7:52 am

    This seems to me to be the cowards way out on the part of the council. Nominating everybody releases them from having to do their jobs and maybe make a decision that may prove unpopular.

    On the other hand it gets people’s names I would like to see get the job in front of Gov. Brown’s team. I don’t believe this decision will be made by throwing “Names on a Dart Board” as Taperass suggested. The Governor understands the importance of this commission and showed it by making it a priority immediately after taking office…quickly giving Zanzi his walking papers.

  12. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    March 23, 2011 at 8:21 am

    Decline To State – very accurate analyses. Yet, I don’t mind the fact that sending off a list to the governor is part of the process, as is widdling the list down. Too often, representatives don’t want to be mocked or scoffed twice in a row in such a short time period over issues such as nominations. Sometimes, there is just less division by letting non-local agencies or jurisdictions decide amongst themself for that non-local agency position.

    In one way, it is cowardess to not deliberate to widdle a list down; yet, in another way, less local divisions amongst the citizenry and the elected officials deliberating such personal and touchy subject areas. Part of being an elected official is having those hard discussions without hunching backwards out the back door.

    This is one of those areas in local government where “an in your face, straightforward and upfront supervisor” would be beneficial to the citizenry, but alas, not for awhile until voters understand what type of representative it needs to re-acquire in order to be elevated above and beyond wasteful political discussions or ineffective political processes. Time is valuable and wasting that time only degrades the effectiveness of representations.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  13. skippy
    March 23, 2011 at 9:13 am

    “Robert Vogel told the board there was a 385-signature petition in favor of Lovelace — said they supported Lovelace’s nomination because of his dedication to balancing environmental protections with job creation, while two people opposed his nomination. Security National Vice President Randy Gans said he continues to take issue with Lovelace… while Citizens For A Eureka President Gary Bird called Lovelace “divisive…”

    More of Donna Tam’s Times-Standard article here.

  14. E Percy
    March 23, 2011 at 9:40 am

    Must be nice for the great puppeteer to be able to just pull a string and have Randy jump. But that’s why he gets paid the big bucks. Thanks for speaking from the heart Gans.

  15. E Percy
    March 23, 2011 at 9:48 am

    Kudos to Cliff for finding consensus where there was nothing but contention. Everybody voting for a different candidate would not have solved anything.

  16. skippy
    March 23, 2011 at 10:20 am

    Grandstanding, stumping, and personal endorsements aside, several public comments by citizens advocated moving all nominees forward with equal magnanmity and standing.

    Let’s see what happens in selecting its nominees for the California Coastal Commission’s North Coast seat at The Humboldt County Association of Governments special meeting this Thursday, March 24, at 6:30 p.m. in the Eureka City Hall Council Chambers, 531 K Street.

    Yes, the public is allowed to attend… and comment.

  17. longwind
    March 23, 2011 at 10:37 am

    A thought from one (of many) who thinks of Clif as Mini-Mark: when Mark moved to endorse himself while Board chair last time, the reaction was so fierce, I’m told, that more than 300 letters against his seating were sent to Schwartzenegger.

    Far fewer of those letters will be resent to Brown if there’s no local controversy this time. Mark will look much better, as one among many, than as by leaps and bounds the most widely reviled contestant in 3 counties.

  18. E Percy
    March 23, 2011 at 11:38 am

    “most widely reviled contestant in three counties” sounds a bit over the top to me. There are a lot people that think Mark has the qualities to be a fine coastal commissioner that didn’t write letters to Schwartzenegger. Before Cliff was “mini Marc” he was portrayed as being told what to do by Neely. Just because he doesn’t further your humcpr agenda is no reason to think he can’t think for himself. He got elected by a majority in his district and your candidate did not for a reason.

  19. tra
    March 23, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    He got elected by a majority in his district…

    No, he did not. He won with a plurality, due to the highly unusual circumstances of having a Johanna Rodoni running as a write-in 3rd candidate, in what is usually a 2-person runoff in November. Her high-profile presence in the race, and the fact that she shared a last name and a political base with her late husband, made that a pretty exceptional circumstance.

    That doesn’t mean that Clif might not have won anyway, in a head to head matchup, either against Johanna Rodoni or against Estelle Fennel. Of course we’ll never know for sure.

    But it’s unlikely that we’ll see a similar 3-way race next year, when Clendenan would be up for re-election. If he chooses to run again, this time he’ll most likely have to win by a majority to keep his seat.

    In the meantime, he won more votes than either of his two opponents in the three-way contest, so he legitimately won with a plurality of the votes. The fact that he didn’t win with a majority doesn’t give him any less power on the Board of Supervisors, he gets the same voting privilege as the other four supervisors.

    But it does mean that that his prospects for achieving re-election may be a bit less sunny than the otherwise might be.

  20. longwind
    March 23, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    E Percy, it’s not over the top. He and Bonnie have earned unique dislike, for reasons I’ll get to shortly. But first, Clif got nowhere near a majority. And he was indeed Bonnie’s lapdog before she was hooted out of office for what she was orchestrating with Mark. Then Clif became Mark’s lapdog.

    My candidate won, incidentally. I voted for Clif.

    Mark is divisive in the way that Bonnie was after her midnight conversion to all-things corpo-enviro: he like she is executing a predetermined agenda, paid for by the same Silicon Valley money that bought the MLPA’s imposition of predetermined policies.

    We’ve been over all this. Here, for example, keep reading down: https://humboldtherald.wordpress.com/2010/06/13/healthy-humboldt-running-general-plan-radio-ads/#comment-107576

    Here’s an evil funder: http://www.resourceslegacyfund.org/pages/p_wildcal.html

    If we’d had a democratic discussion, we could have agreed on an effective Plan A-. But the public can’t be trusted to agree on the precise deliverables that the foundation’s grassroots assets must advance to demonstrate progress “under the radar,” which is to say, without locals knowing that no one cares what they want because the decisions are already made. Does this ring any bells? Have you heard this complaint before? It’s what we call government at work, and it’s not working for us.

    I was amazed that so-called Progressives couldn’t care less what the people who they were writing ordinances about wanted, needed, or thought. That’s just a completely cock-eyed way to run a government–or to get re-elected. Have you noticed yet?

    But to be fair, this is a general incapacity, and we see the Eureka City Council acting as arrogantly as ever the Plan A-ers did. I doubt it will turn out better for them.

  21. Plain Jane
    March 23, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    It’s amazing that HumCPR could only get 300 letter writers to oppose Lovelace’s nomination. They must be losing the attention of their “members.”

  22. felix
    March 23, 2011 at 1:21 pm

    So WHO is the biggest, most effective and electable candidate against Arkley (by whatever name his bought and paid for candidate will use)?

  23. tra
    March 23, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    Jane,

    Or maybe the HumCR members aren’t quite the Arkley-tools that some folks portray them as. I suspect that the majority of their members are exactly who HumCPR says they are: rural residents who are concerned about their property rights, TPZ issues, changes to the General Plan, the code enforcement follies, and so on.

    I’m sure that many of those folks oppose GPU Option A, but do not care all that much about the Coastal Commission seat (or dislike the alternatives as much or more than they dislike Lovelace). And, depite the assumptions and stereotypes, these folks are not necessarily in Arkley’s pocket on issues like the so-called Marina Center (aka Big Box by the Bay).

  24. tra
    March 23, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    Still, 300 letters from a small county is pretty significant. Staffers who work for politicians generally believe that each letter respresents many others who feel similarly, but didn’t write.

    However, if all the letters are form letters and the person just signs it and sends it, rather than writing a personal letter themselves, well those sorts of letters tend to get discounted as something more along the lines of a petition (which is what a bunch of form letters really amounts to, if you think about it).

    I’m not sure what the case is here, whether we’re talking about 300 people who took the time to write a letter of their own, or 300 people who signed and sent a form letter, or some combination of the two.

  25. Matt
    March 23, 2011 at 3:55 pm

    Bass? Are you kidding me?!

  26. tra
    March 23, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    But to be fair, this is a general incapacity, and we see the Eureka City Council acting as arrogantly as ever the Plan A-ers did. I doubt it will turn out better for them.

    Careful, longwind — with comments like that you might cause brainquakes among some of the more close-minded readers of this blog.

    “But, but, but…” they think, as their head spin, “If think the Plan A crowd shows ‘arrogance,’ then you must be an Arkley tool, and the City Council are also Arkely tools, so there’s no way you can think that the City Council shows ‘arrogance’….but, but, but… you do! Error! Error! Does Not Compute! Does Not Compute!” (…and then the head explodes.)

    (Or, a nearly closed mind opens just a little bit, to allow this seemingly contradictory information in, and as a result the point of view of the mind’s owner may change just a little bit. At least that’s the hope.)

  27. March 23, 2011 at 5:01 pm

    But, but, but the Eureka City Council put your man Ulancey on the city Planning Commission and called for a halt to the General Plan Update. Some of their arrogance should win them a gold star, no?

  28. Anonymous
    March 23, 2011 at 5:31 pm

    “Or maybe the HumCR members aren’t quite the Arkley-tools that some folks portray them as. I suspect that the majority of their members are exactly who HumCPR says they are: rural residents who are concerned about their property rights, TPZ issues, changes to the General Plan, the code enforcement follies, and so on.”

    This might be true, but the question is who funds HumCPR? That is who Estel really answers to. Pandering to the rural residents gives cover to the industrial and big money interests that really drive that machine.

  29. longwind
    March 23, 2011 at 7:03 pm

    People who own or want to own a little rural property are not natural allies of people who own mountains of it. But the two groups were shotgun-wed here by Healthy Humboldt.

    If greenies were more focused on winning office than on pleasing their office funders, they would try to split off small landowners from big ones. That isn’t rocket science, it’s just politics.

    But it requires talking to people. And listening to them, and finally broadening views and goals so more people get included in them. This would also work well for the county, not that the county cares. You can’t miss how well it’s working for HumCPR.

  30. Anonymous
    March 23, 2011 at 7:19 pm

    As soon as the big money funders of HumCPR get what they want they will leave all the little guys out to dry. Patronizing and fanning paranoid imaginations of the hill people is not “listening”, its manipulation. And you are right, it is working.

  31. longwind
    March 23, 2011 at 10:45 pm

    Sadly, that kind of poor treatment can be ascribed to Healthy Humboldt. Southern Humboldt was a rock-solid and proud anchor of the countywide environmental movement, no matter what NAN says about dope growers. But we were thrown over for a new funder the day Mark’s coalition came into office. that’s a very foolish way to treat your base, especially if you’ve been hired to grow grassroots.

    The object lesson is there for anyone including HumCPR to learn, and I hope Healthy Humboldters will learn it too.

  32. Anonymous
    March 23, 2011 at 10:55 pm

    “But we were thrown over for a new funder the day Mark’s coalition came into office. that’s a very foolish way to treat your base, especially if you’ve been hired to grow grassroots.”

    A bit abstract Longwind; we who? new funder? Mark’s coalition? into what office? Please educate us.

  33. longwind
    March 23, 2011 at 11:23 pm

    I did. See 12:12 pm.

  34. Anonymous
    March 23, 2011 at 11:56 pm

    You have an active imagination.

  35. longwind
    March 24, 2011 at 9:10 am

    30 posts covering a half-dozen pages of several websites bragging about the problem itself, and I have an active imagination?

    I see you threw yours into that mighty river of denial.

  36. Anonymous
    March 24, 2011 at 9:18 am

    30 posts? half-dozen pages? several websites? bragging? the problem?

    I guess my imagination is not following your vague references.

  37. longwind
    March 24, 2011 at 11:14 am

    I said, and I quote, “See 12:12pm.”

    That’s right up above, yesterday, in this string, shortly after noon. Scroll up there, read the post, follow the links, learn something.

  38. Lovelace basher
    March 24, 2011 at 7:49 pm

    hey good news for you proggie dicks. Mark Lovelace nomination was denied at today’s Hcaog meeting tonight. enjoy dumb shits. hahahahA.

  39. skippy
    March 25, 2011 at 9:44 am

    “Accusations of political divide continued to plague the California Coastal Commission nomination process Thursday night as Humboldt’s city selection committee voted against sending 3rd District Supervisor Mark Lovelace’s name to the governor’s office…

    “I think it’s very clear that there were two candidates that had outstanding qualifications — I will not even name them — more than the others, and it’s clear the board won’t nominate them,” Trinidad Mayor Kathy Bhardwaj said at the beginning of the meeting… “I hear things, but frankly, I don’t know whether to believe them or not,” she said, adding that she admired Lovelace’s composure while under fire at the last meeting.

    Arcata Mayor Susan Ornelas echoed Bhardwaj’s sentiments, and said in her brief experience working with Lovelace, she found him to be a consensus builder. “I realized he’s hit some wrong notes, but things are being attributed to him that I don’t even think are true,” she said…Blue Lake Mayor Sherman Schapiro said he thinks those who are opposed to Lovelace are actually a small segment of the population. “Maybe he’s on the other side, but he can find the middle, which I don’t think can be said for the right,” he said.

    (Ferndale Mayor Jeff) Farley said he thought Lovelace has enough on his plate dealing with controversies that have arisen in the 3rd District to be taking on the commission seat. He did not specify what controversies. “I don’t think he can do his work as a supervisor and this,” Farley said.

    ”Mark stabbed us in the back,” (Eureka Mayor Frank) Jager said…Jager said the sticking point for him is in relation to a project involving the California State Lands Commission. Jager said Lovelace gave a presentation to the commission on the project without contacting the city for information.

    Lovelace was not in attendance for the meeting. When reached by phone after the meeting, Lovelace said he is open to discussing this particular issue with Jager. “I believe we need to follow the laws of the State of California to protect our coastal resources and the public trust,” he (Lovelace) said. “If Frank ever wants to talk about these issues, my door’s open to him.

    … I believe that he (Lovelace) is divisive and he is out of touch with the county,” said Bob Morris, with Humboldt Coalition for Property Rights (CPR).”

    Also echoing comments against Mr. Lovelace was Security National’s Brian Mitchell, repeating nearly the exact same words he said before the Board of Supervisors session on Tuesday. In fact, Mr. Mitchell’s comments, almost verbatim, can also be found in this (sponsor mysteriously unnamed) slick and slimy piece of anonymous work, here.

    More excellent reporting of the Humboldt County Association of Governments (HCAOG) meeting last night by the diligent Donna Tam can be read further in today’s Times-Standard article,
    “City Selection Committee Not Sending Lovelace Forward for Coastal Commission; Board Sending Names of Stillman, Bass, Zanzi, Farley to the Governor”

    Skippy applauds those Mayors who stood up for what’s right in fairness and their conscience. Folks, there’s some Big Bullies on the block wanting what’s financially best for them in their little corner of the world– and not caring of what’s fair, equal-handed, or best for greater Humboldt County or the overall citizens of California.

    peace… skips

  40. Steak n Eggs
    March 25, 2011 at 10:02 am

    Skippy…These mayors represent many people who are tired of the CCC’s over reach, but not against the protection of the coast. The Mayors are listening to their constituents.

  41. skippy
    March 25, 2011 at 10:31 am

    Yes, that’s right, Steak ‘n Eggs. All the Mayors did a fine job in both their fair words and presenting chosen nominations based on their own Councils’ recommendations and consideration, and presumably, constituents. The Big Bullies on the block are the other special financial interests afoot mucking up the waters.

  42. Anonymous
    March 25, 2011 at 11:00 am

    good brief skippy. tammany hall? i’m signing the FOR mark lovelace list for coastal comissioner. money screams it seems.

  43. Plain Jane
    March 25, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    There’s no doubt they were listening to SOME of their constituents, S&E, undoubtedly the ones who funded their campaigns.

  44. skippy
    March 25, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    Good point, Plain Jane.

    Thank you, Anonymous, but understand this isn’t a ‘Tammany Hall’ yet. The council members, Mayors, and politicos were fairly reasonable and honest in their comments, especially Mayor Jager of Eureka adequately explaining the Eureka City Council’s position and notably why they wouldn’t support Mr. Lovelace. A few others’ comments sounded, well, ‘tinny,’ given Mr. Lovelace’s good experience and qualifications pointed out by Mayors Schapiro, Ornelas, and Bhardwaj.

    No, it’s the other guys, the elephant in the room, doing the influencing and with intimidating tactics.

  45. Thirdeye
    March 25, 2011 at 4:27 pm

    Best move for Brown would be to appoint Farley or Smith. All of the other candidates are weighed down by the baggage of Humboldt County’s constant ideological pissing matches, rightly or wrongly.

    The Humboldt BOS move was an attempt to preserve unity. It succeeded for about the duration of the BOS meeting. In essence they just punted the issues over to HCAOG, who didn’t flinch the way the BOS did in the face of making a decision that was going to displease somebody.

  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