Home > Humboldt County General Plan Update, Rob Arkley > Complete Streets ad war

Complete Streets ad war

Republican players in Humboldt County have long used local AM radio station KINS to spread the GOP gospel.  So imagine the huffing and puffing at 323 5th Street when environmentalists with the Healthy Humboldt Coalition put an ad over those particular airwaves.

Listen here:

Healthy Humboldt is promoting Complete Streets, a state law that requires cities and counties to include policies in their General Plans that make streets safe for all users, not just motorists.

Development monger Rob Arkley apparently hates bicycles and children who walk to school. In response to the ad he used one of his many “groups” to fire back with pot shots straight outta Fox News, including bellyaches about San Francisco liberals.

Listen to his Humboldt Sunshine ad.

Arkley says Complete Streets is no good for Humboldt County, and seems to think such legally required policies should be omitted from the General Plan Update.

Which is no surprise when you remember that Arkley wants the General Plan Update stopped.  At least until Eureka City Council figures out how to make him king.

  1. Anonymous
    April 3, 2011 at 2:03 am

    Complete streets creates jobs and increases our property values. Who are these assholes that want to turn Humboldt County in to a third world slum?

  2. April 3, 2011 at 2:17 am

    Ad wars are great for a radio stations revenues. Kins will make money on both sides.
    1480 probably won’s see any of the Humboldt Sunshine money because in my opinion, progressive talk listeners already want smart streets and that weak argument of theirs isn’t going to change any real progressive minds.

  3. Plain Jane
    April 3, 2011 at 7:10 am

    But, but, but NEC is somehow connected so you HAVE to be agin it! Putting sidewalks in Humboldt is like putting a dairy farm on Market Street! Sidewalks, curbs and gutters OH MY! Sidewalks, curbs and gutters, OH MY! Only the Wizard of Arkley can prevent these “cookie cutter” sidewalks, curbs and gutters!

  4. Mark Sailors
    April 3, 2011 at 7:30 am

    I can not for the life of me figure out why people do not SIDEWALKS? It is unsafe to walk down most county roads. Why not have bike lanes, they have as much right to the road s cars and trucks, yet drivers of cars regularly crowd cyclist off the road.
    Plus I am pretty sure sidewalks and safe accessible corners are ADA mandates.

    April 3, 2011 at 7:38 am

    Listened to the radio ad yesterday. It was a good ad, soothing voice, but obviously a day late and a dollar short BECASUE the basis of the ad was the GENERAL PLAN UPDATE. After umpteen million dollars spent over the past decade, where were these ads at the beginning of the process? Groupees are manipulatinbg again for propaganda purposes.

    Lastly, when did bike trails, sidewalks, better roads, etc…. become only a progressive political platform…..many non-progressives (probably the majority of non-progressives) favor better sidewalks, bike lanes, roads, etc…. WHat this iad is IS a cover-over for the fact that even these groupees are late to the information table. It is true, the little guy knows as much or more than the groupees, especially groupees who have never actually been within any project process as an applicant. The truth of the matter is the ad disclosed how “late to the table” Healthy Humboldt is. Yet, I must confess, better late than never though.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  6. Decline To State
    April 3, 2011 at 7:41 am

    “…they will accommodate the circulation of all users of the roadway, including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, seniors, individuals with disabilities.”

    I’m confused, is this law suggesting that we have all these people sharing the same road with motorized vehicles? Sounds really dangerous. Or are special lanes and sidewalks considered “roadway?” Which brings me to confusion two…

    …the funding. Aren’t roads paid for (at least in part) with gasoline taxes and license fees? Isn’t there an inequity here? Why are the majority of the costs put on the shoulders of only one of the many participants, the people using motorized vehicles? If we are mandated into sharing shouldn’t we also be sharing the expense? Perhaps anyone using the our roadways (if we are including the added costs of special lanes and sidewalks) should be taxed and licensed. I say maybe it’s time to mandate bicycle licensing and to hang some license plates on those pedestrians! Equality for all!

  7. Plain Jane
    April 3, 2011 at 8:07 am

    Sidewalks, curbs and gutters are paid for by the property owner. If you spend any time on non-city roads, you see a patchwork of sidewalks in front of newer construction, but not older homes. Some “blocks” have sidewalk, no sidewalk, sidewalk depending on when the homes were built. While some property owners have taken on the responsibility of putting sidewalks in voluntarily, many have not. In these times of rising energy costs, making streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists is imperative. Property owners should pay for their own sidewalks, curbs and gutters just like those who already have them did.

  8. Mark Sailors
    April 3, 2011 at 8:16 am

    I have to disagree. It is a shame if some people spent their money to provide sidewalks in front of their homes, but now that it is a mandate from the FEDS to have safe accessible sidewalks on all state or county roads where bikes and pedestrians are allowed, the state and feds can pay for the new sidewalks. Unfair, maybe, but that’s how the cookie crumbles sometimes.

  9. April 3, 2011 at 8:21 am

    In E. LA, in the 1960’s, the City of Los Angeles came through and pushed for sidewalks in front of everyone’s house. Many people resisted because they knew it would make it illegal to park their car on the front lawn, if they had a lawn. Many people were in favor of it because of the mess from dirt lawns washing onto the asphalt. Now of course there are sidewalks everywhere, and of course it is illegal to park on anything other than the concrete driveway. You are also not allowed to park in the back or your own house. This might sound like a good idea to some folks, but us poor people have to change our own oil, and it just smacks of fascism to have the government say you can’t even work on your own vehicle in your own yard.
    Now before all the “Good Germans” attack, I’m not talking about dismantled vehicles, those were always illegal.
    All I’m saying is there are valid points on both sides of the “modernization” issue. Like Richardson Grove, people don’t want modernization (improvement?) shoved down their throat.

  10. Plain Jane
    April 3, 2011 at 8:49 am

    There are many federal and state laws which cost homeowners money, Mark. Just because there is a law that requires something doesn’t mean everyone should have to pay for you.

    Oil changes can be done in garages, driveways or even on the street; however, I’ve seen lots of people, even those with sidewalks, park their cars on their lawns to wash them or change the oil. Surely you can come up with a better excuse for not building sidewalks, Moviedad.

    April 3, 2011 at 8:57 am

    8:07 am,

    The taxpayer also pays for sidewalks, curbs and gutters, especially those “safe school routes”, ADA problem areas, sidewalks called boardwalks, etc…….. It is true though that most sidewalks are where “newer” development is projected by a property owner, even though groupees claim “new development” is not doing curbs, sidewalks, etc. when they should all the time (like in front of someone else’s property to connect a long distance).

    There is a sense of economic pandering by those who force the project applicant to do more than is required. Those in older homes should not have to pay for the sidewalks either. Rather, those who walk the route or are clamoring to BEGIN WALKING THAT ROUTE (just trying to use politics to get something subsidized for a small contingient of groupees) could pay for their “usership impacts of their new development within an “existing” undeveloped PUBLIC ROW”.

    Maybe groupees should concentrate on encouraging older home owners to maintain their homes nicer for that effort that which nets much more in community value to do “INFILL” sidewalk projects as walking and biking enthusiasts would rather not ride or walk along a delapidated section of society (this is usually the case for most users). Yet, a property owner who lives there already, and users come after-the-fact, well, that is not a discussion to have because those property owners should not be required to pay for what tax dollars have already been collected for. The mere idea of floating funds and shell games by the tax dollar appropriators is mere evidence as to the fact that the financial house is not in order and probably will never be at this point in time prior to a major societal break-down.

    Please provide that list PJ for the property owners who willingly poured a sidewalk outta their own financial pocket for a “NON-Project”, “NON-FORCED” situation. I bet it is not a long one IF it even can be produced.

    Also, making streets safe for all users, not singling out cyclists as a non-contact, non-responsible user. A sea of cyclists like in China just suggests over-population is not making cycling a “fun” experience any longer in spots of the world, but a forced one because of mobility issues that suggest too many cars. So, I am guessing as to what mobility forms we humanoids take on when areas of biking emulate China’s sea of cyclists, even if for short bursts due to events or some other social issues. If it is already hard to police vehicle violators, then just imagine what the cyclist violators continually get away with. I enjoy biking alot, but it truly is a share and share alike situation with vehicles….it works more than just one way to be successful….it is respect for all users.

    And, think of the law enforcement; and, that each and every time a “new form of mobile transportation” is invented, innovated, increased in its impacts upon the public and private citizens not assoicated with the cycling at that moment in time, etc… , The public structure of oversight becomes that much more bogged down in confusion due to the fact that funding is not there for all the needs created by more users (this has nothing to do with feelings, but purely appropriations of financial sources to do any given public project…when there is no money, there simply is no money). Hence, the efforts now by many groups to make private property owners subsidize more and more….as if all property owners are doing just fine and dandy.

    How many elderly folks will kick in chump change? How many new home buyers of old existing homes will kick in chump change? How many disabled folks who can only afford living in a “less newer and less oufitted” older existing home, how can they kick in chump change?

    How about the community demand tax dollars already collected to fill in these areas and don’t stick a dime on any other entity but for one, insurance companies. Ya see, whenever an insured damages the road section and its appurtenant fixtures and sub-structures, governments are not collecting 100% damages from the insured’s insurance company. So, effectually, the same damage that some people create becomes the same political issue that some of those very same damaging people twist into forcing another to pay for by turning some issues into political one’s that are biased and prejudiced in the most non-sensical platform.

    All of us already over-pay on taxes, no need to keep bailing out the boat when the hole can’t be plugged until the operators of the boat walk the plank. Just sayin’ beware of who you voted for, it comes back to haunt again and again. Many seniors know their voting records and what has occurred over a long time frame for results. It would be candid to suggest younger people get a clue.


  12. Anonymous
    April 3, 2011 at 9:20 am

    I wondered how long it would take before you got back to the anti Arkley stuff. Get over it!

  13. April 3, 2011 at 9:37 am

    Did you wonder how long it would take Arkley to get back to the anti Healthy Humboldt stuff? The dude is obsessed.

  14. April 3, 2011 at 9:39 am

    The McKinleyville Community Plan, approved in 2002, calls for a network of trails, bike lanes, etc. These are built as properties are developed. One example is the Mid Town Trail. It’s a Class 1 trail that runs from behind Mack High to Railroad Dr. It was built and paid for by the developer. Eventually it will extend to near School Rd. Speaking of School Road, it will soon have bike lanes and sidewalks. It’s going to be a big improvement. It will be paid for by the developer of the nearby land. It takes a long, long time to see the results of a good community plan, but there are lots of examples in McKinleyville.

  15. April 3, 2011 at 9:53 am

    Another good example is near the Bigfoot Gas Station at Murray and Central. You’ll notice two Class 1 paved trails, one on Murray and one on Central. They were a condition of development for the mini-storage. Right now, they’re pathways to nowhere. But, some day, nearby properties will be developed and the paths will grow. I suppose that the stretch along Central behind the housed on Eagle Lane will require grant funds, which can be hard to come by.

  16. Anonymous
    April 3, 2011 at 10:04 am

    Ironically, Arkley lives in one of the most “walkable” neighborhoods in Eureka, with wide sidewalks and plenty of room for bikes. There are almost always people out in these neighborhoods walking their dogs, pushing kids in strollers and walking to Henderson Center. Of course RA is rarely seen emerging from his hidden lair.

  17. Anonymous
    April 3, 2011 at 10:14 am

    “Ad wars are great for a radio stations revenues. Kins will make money on both sides.”

    Do you think KINS is charging Humboldt Sunshine for the ads? Don’t think so.

  18. Anonymous
    April 3, 2011 at 10:15 am

    You hippies just don’t get it. Why walk when you can drive? Besides, if you’re me, and your plan is for more retail, how much merchandise can you haul on a bicycle? You got your pedal to the meddle there.

  19. Random Guy
    April 3, 2011 at 10:28 am

    Mixed feelings, leaning negative. Although being promoted locally, Complete Streets isn’t a local initiative at all, and I’d like to think local leaders can (will) use their own smarts when it comes to such things without some group in Sacramento getting credit (and $$$) for it.

    Take the new 101 bridge in McKinleyville. HUGE waste of money. Will they even leave the old bridge for bicyclists and pedestrians? NOPE! WHY?!?!??! Partially because locals have no real say in the matter, just like the Richardson Grove waste-of-money that screws with our environment, tourist potential and basically insults the intelligence of Humboldt’s population etc BLEH….

  20. Anonymous
    April 3, 2011 at 10:32 am

    “pedal to the meddle”

    Rednecks and their poor grammar. Love it!

  21. Random Guy
    April 3, 2011 at 10:41 am

    …maybe “pedal to the meddle” refers to bicycling to an unruly meeting? The more I think about it (all of two minutes) the more Complete Streets looks like the state govt. sticking a permanent toe in Humboldt’s development door. Bicyclist safety? Humboldt as a whole is one of the most conscious places in California when it comes to such things (the whole nation, really)…we don’t need Uncle Sam to help us across the street.

  22. April 3, 2011 at 10:42 am

    I’d like to see more planning that includes pedestrian and bicycle safety measures, including traffic circles, chicanes, diverters and closures. Eureka drivers are careless, and sometimes reckless.

  23. April 3, 2011 at 10:48 am

    Jane I do not have an opinion about whether or not sidewalks “should” go in.

  24. April 3, 2011 at 10:51 am

    Random Guy sure has low standards. Jesus, I hope that Humboldt drivers are “conscious” at the very least while they’re driving.

    And Perhaps he could explain to me why our insurance rates went up when we moved here from a densely-populated, urban area of San Diego?

  25. Anonymous
    April 3, 2011 at 10:59 am

    So now Jack Durham is in support of good planning? Interestingly his business partner, the philandering Jill (Geist) Duffy was deep in the pro-developement pocket of the HumCPR crowd. When she first ran for office in 2002 she ran pledging to “get the general plan done, after too many years of delay”. Eight years later we were no closer then we were when she was elected.

  26. Anonymous
    April 3, 2011 at 11:00 am

    The 101 bridge in McKinleyville was replaced because the old one is not seismically fit. This seems like a waste until we have a 9.0 and then we wonder why the bridges aren’t up to code. Wonder why 200,000 died from the shaking of a 7.0 in Haiti and very few died in Japan from a 9.0?

    Also, the Hammond bridge and trail offer a safer alternative to both pedestrians and cyclists than 101.

    But, CalTrans giving the CR Ag program over $1 million dollars to offset the loss of Ag lands due to the bridge construction. Ya, that seems like a inappropriate use of tax dollars.

  27. Random Guy
    April 3, 2011 at 11:08 am

    Joel knows what he’s talking about, he’s a regular Lance Armstrong.

    The old 101 bridge is a much shorter, and completely viable route between the west end area and north. No reason to tear the old bridge down. Cost of retrofitting would be peanuts compared to the teardown and rebuild. There’s no increase in traffic to warrant the new construction either.

    I suppose the day the state’s “Don’t Make Lead Drinking Fountains Foundation” comes to town and declares permanent participation in Humboldt’s drinking fountain future, everybody will jump on board because, dammit, we shouldn’t be making drinking fountains out of lead.

  28. skippy
    April 3, 2011 at 11:17 am

    Read the article, looked at all the links, heard the ads.

    This appears to be a divide between a quality of life and planning for transportation/walking/biking issues in communities versus the costs and practicality of it for developers, homeowners, and municipalities.

    It’s the State law, like it or not. The General Plan Update must incorporate it. Mr. Durham’s excellent posts noted ‘it takes a long, long time to see the results of a good community plan…’ Eureka needs a good general plan– and planning– in this regard.

    Mr. Arkley’s position does make some sense in his cookie cutter logic. On another level, however, he has a few irons in the fire unnecessarily slamming the NEC and Healthy Humboldt. He’s solidifying his base with it going over well with KINS listeners. Perhaps there’s more to cover than in the 30 second radio spots?

    Yours truly is keeping an open mind on the matter. Understand, this is difficult having been personally threatened by one of his representatives recently.

    “Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgment.”
    Michael Corleone

  29. April 3, 2011 at 11:21 am

    Random Guy isn’t very smart, but he does appear to be random.

  30. Random Guy
    April 3, 2011 at 11:35 am

    …and Joel can’t figure out why his insurance went up when he moved to Humboldt. Howzabout a bumper sticker for you: More State Agencies In Humboldt Now!

  31. Anonymous
    April 3, 2011 at 11:36 am

    Apparently Random Guy is a structural/civil engineer and has studied all aspects of the situation such as the erosion and corrosion of the old bridge foundation by the Mad River.
    Or is he just some guy randomly shooting from the hip about a situation where he has very limited knowledge?
    Of course he would be the first to randomly lay blame on CalTrans if the bridge failed during a flood or earthquake.

  32. Anonymous
    April 3, 2011 at 11:39 am

    If Sunshine Humboldt is a non-profit then they should be required to file a 990 with the IRS and that would be a pubic record. If we had any investigative journalist or interested citizens, it would be interesting to see what one could find out about Sunshine Humboldt.

  33. Random Guy
    April 3, 2011 at 11:48 am

    11:36, I don’t claim to be an expert. You’re shooting from the hip with all that, too. In fact I’m with you, let’s retrofit and rebuild everything…I’m tired of the rioting in the streets about it, and lord knows we have the money.

    Complete Streets has a nice logo, eh? Izzat black thing a tapeworm or a pubic hair? Anyway…I’m going for a bike ride on a long narrow road right now. Here’s your chance to take me out of the equation because of lack of govt. interference…

  34. Anonymous
    April 3, 2011 at 11:51 am

    Random Guy – Actually I do know about the bridge, that’s why I’m calling you on your shit.

  35. jackdurham
    April 3, 2011 at 12:00 pm

    Anonymous says:
    April 3, 2011 at 10:59 am wrote:

    So now Jack Durham is in support of good planning? Interestingly his business partner, the philandering Jill (Geist) Duffy was deep in the pro-developement pocket of the HumCPR crowd. When she first ran for office in 2002 she ran pledging to “get the general plan done, after too many years of delay”. Eight years later we were no closer then we were when she was elected.

    Jack: The McKinleyville Community Plan was approved in 2002. That’s why you see all these trail segments around town. The county also got grant funding to build sidewalks on Central, McKinleyville Ave. and Murray Road. The RCAA worked to complete the Hammond Trail. There have been great advances when it comes to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in Mack Town. Of course, we have a long way to go. The thing that some people don’t understand is that when you draw a line on a map and call it a trail, it doesn’t mean anything until someone subdivides and develops. Very few of these facilities get built with grant funding. Most of it comes from developers.

    I’ve been bitching about the situation on School Road for more than a decade a half. This year, the probably will be solved. How? That pretty pasture on the north side is being chopped up and developed. Because of that, we now get trails, bike lanes, etc.

    No development means no trails or bike lanes. That’s just reality, for better or worse.

  36. jackdurham
    April 3, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    Anonymous says:
    April 3, 2011 at 10:59 am wrote:

    Jack responds: Richard, why don’t you just use your name? Seriously.

  37. McKinleyvillan
    April 3, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    My understanding is that Caltrans is going to designate a separate bridge over the Mad River for cyclists and pedestrians. Which is great since the alternate route goes way out into the Bottoms and over the old Hammond RR bridge. Nice bike ride but out of the way for commuters.

    Caltrans has a Complete Streets policy that requires all road improvements to include safe access for all users. Green Wheels has more info about all this. Check Green Wheels work over the past several years on these issues at http://www.green-wheels.org

    Green Wheels is a member of the Healthy Humboldt Coalition. They have been advocating for Complete Streets policies in the General Plan Update, 101 Corridor project, etc. for years.

  38. jackdurham
    April 3, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    The northbound bridge will have a separate section for bicycles and pedestrians. It will be on the east side of the bridge separated from traffic.

  39. tra
    April 3, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    The northbound bridge will have a separate section for bicycles and pedestrians. It will be on the east side of the bridge separated from traffic.

    That’s great news for bicyclists… and for drivers. A few years ago I was bicycle commuting between Arcata and McKinleyville several times a week, and due to how far out of the way the Hammond Trail bridge is, I ended up taking that northbound 101 bridge over the Mad River for some of my trips.

    When there was little traffic, that blinking “bicyclist on bridge” sign worked O.K., as most motorists would simply move into the left lane to avoid the bicyclist. But when traffic was moderate-to-heavy the right-lane drivers often didn’t and/or couldn’t change to the left lane.

    Still, most drivers took care to slow down and move to the left side of the right lane as much as they could. Meanwhile I’d pedal as fast as I could while maintaining as straight a line as possible, and hugging the right side of the lane. I always made it across O.K., and so did the cars.

    But it certainly wasn’t an ideal situation, to say the least. I don’t know offhand if any bicylists had been killed on that bridge, but if not it was just a matter of time. Glad to see the problem solved in a laasting and effective way. Thanks to all who advocated for this important improvement in our local bicycle infrastructure!

    April 3, 2011 at 1:29 pm


    Enforcement and maintenance :-).

    Ya see, when sidewalks are obstructed illegally (like Round Table Pizza employees or business sandwich board signs), it is of no use, so why bother using the sidewalk unless just to risk injury.

    Ya see, when bike lanes are full of gravel, sand, debris, garbage, some pot holes, some parked vehicles, some advertizing Round Table Pizza derelict swinging about employees expoliting for profit a public right-of-way, why bother risking injury.

    Ya see, this all sounds and reads like winning material for bikes, trails, sidewalks you name it; BUT, until appropriate and proper maintenance and enforcement provides equal protection standards for all users and their safety, what is the point, why bother, unless it is just to make government paperwork camoflage and cover over what is reality on the ground.

    Question: How to effectively hold the fire to the feet of elected officials and public servants who refuse to do their job and provide equal protections for each and every community member within its jurisdiction :-0!

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  41. jackdurham
    April 3, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    I’m able to walk past the Round Table folks without any problem. When on a bicycle, you shouldn’t be on the sidewalk anyway. My main complaint is that the sign holders don’t have the same dance moves and enthusiasm as past employees.

    The county sweeps the streets a few times a year, but not nearly enough. I propose that someone construct a small, bicycle operated street sweeper. Sounds kind of crazy, but I think it could be done.

    It could be stored at the MCSD office. Bicyclists would volunteer to operate the sweeper in different areas for the sole purpose of cleaning up glass and debris along their paths and bicycle lanes.

    April 3, 2011 at 1:38 pm


    A thought – Define “access versus accessibility versus mobility”. Having access to a bike lane is different than actually using it once you have accessed it. Just wondering if there is a legal definition manipulation or not with respect to maintenances and enforcements for proper and safe usages of such trail or bike lane or sidewalk.

    There are public works standards and laws that go unenforced too – just trying to connect what has been politically disconnected.

    Is safety in that definition as an express or implied condition?


    April 3, 2011 at 1:55 pm


    Would you not admit business employees conducting business without a permit or valid license to do such is illegal activities, especially within a ROW; or, is admitting that sorta local reality ruffling the wrong feathers for you, personally?

    Your fortunate to not have been struck by the swinging motion while walking a direction not in the view of the swinging employee – your a fit guy, I expect you to be able to adjust a bit easier on the fly, where as senior citizens, citizens with disablities, groups of people or even a couple walking and holding hands, etc… may not always be able to do what you are capable of doing.

    Further, good thing while riding your bike in the bike lane you did not get struck and knocked down or injured by a 4 foot+ wide swinging sign at an elevation of 4-6 feet off the ground.

    Your idea – not a bad one actually, but the weight of debris may be a factor as that waste accumulates and would have to be re-deposited elsewhere which costs tonnage fees and such. The problem is that officials STILL WILLFULLY and INTENTIONALLY sabotage the road systems by not maintaining in order to further degrade so as to be able to rip off the taxpayer through grant fundings that just throw tax dollars at projects in order to “prop-up, bump-up” false valuations (direct and indirect market economics) based on tax dollar appropriation wastes.

    It is really a fricken duck and cover game Jack, point blank. If the money ain’t there aside from developers, well, then people ought to be grateful for those empty spots because if it were not for developers (as discussed by others blogging too), THEN would government be so “gung ho” to fund these projects?


  44. jackdurham
    April 3, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    You need a permit to stand on the sidewalk with a sign? I wasn’t aware of that.

  45. Eric Kirk
    April 3, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    Reminds me of municipal politics circa 1983. After Tom Hayden and his economic democracy campaign had won some elections in Santa Monica, a conservative political organization put itself out for hire to defeat progressive electoral campaigns in mid-sized towns across the state. This organization would create the “All Santa Cruz Coalition,” “All Berkeley Coalition,” etc. (as you can tell, they had quite the track record). What they attempted to do was to sell communities on the horrors of progressive politics, and one of their tools was a leaflet entitled “From Bike Lanes to Socialism.” Basically, the process was incremental. They started with bike lanes. Then came food coops. Then came free or low income medical clinics. Then came programs for the homeless. Then art centers. Then women’s centers. Then tenants unions. Then smart growth. Then rent control. And finally…. socialism.

    Mostly they slandered progressive candidates and in Santa Cruz we had some very nasty election campaigns with split decisions, but the progressives always maintained a slim majority on the Santa Cruz City Council. And then came the effort to force students to vote in their hometown. But that’s another story.

  46. Random Guy
    April 3, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    Anonymous 11:51, like I said I’m not claiming to be an expert and don’t know all the details of the bridge project. To me there’s better and more obvious ways to spend the time and money. Forget I said anything about it, it’s beside my bigger point. You, however, have let your expertise cloud your common sense. As if govt. agencies aren’t notorious for overspending redundancies…and BSing us about it.

    There’s the saying “always an expert” that’s perfeclty complemented by the other “from the mouth of babes”…contemplate their meaning. You suggest that come a natural disaster I’d blame the likes of Caltrans for failing infrastructure. That’s so patently stupid you hardly deserve response. You’ve demonstrated your inherant bias, and unless you admit to that you’re just another idiot with an encyclopedia.

    Jack suggests that without new development there would be no new trails etc. I could argue otherwise for pages. It’s a matter of perspective and priorities. I’ve lived in McKinleyville prior to lots of trails and sidewalks…and “development”. My neighbors (many here much longer than I) and I all knew where to hike and bike before…and never had any problems doing so. We’ve also ALL acknowledged the increase in traffic, garbage, vandalism and petty crime…including along all the new trails and sidewalks.

    Where are people complaining about lack of bike lanes now? Where is there new “development” happening instead? Who’s trying to convince us we can’t have one without the other? Why are real estate profiteers claiming responsibility for our comfort of living? They’re entirely responsible for it’s decline.

    About Complete Streets…it’s surprising to see so many jump to support another distant building full of government beaurocrats imposing themselves in Humboldt. I’m sure a strong argument is being made that they’re just another friendly looking leg of the federal sprawl machine that’s already raped just about everywhere south of us…

    …as if traffic circles, trails and bike lanes are foreign concepts to local planners…

    It has nothing to do with anything “Arkley” although he of all people should recognize the medicine is hard to swallow coming from somebody who’s pushing walmarts, home depots and apartmento-plexes on us. All the new development is what’s lowering the quality of living for bicyclists and pedestrians…and thus drivers aka 99.9% of everybody.

  47. jackdurham
    April 3, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    Random guy,
    You are correct that trails can be built without development. The Hammond Trail is an example. However, most of the trails that are being built, and will be built, are requirements of subdivisions.

    It’s a Catch 22. We get bicycle facilities with development, but we get more vehicle traffic with development, which makes it less pleasant to bike. But we have bike trails and bikes, which in some places improve cycling.

  48. April 3, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    “99.9% of everybody”? Random Guy must be drinking from one of those lead water fountains he was yammering about.

  49. Random Guy
    April 3, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    Sorry joel my bad, I forgot hardly anybody drives cars these days. Water? You mean the stuff in toilets? What about electrolytes?

  50. Random Guy
    April 3, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    Jack, we get WHAT from WHO? (whom?) Perspective and priorities…

    April 3, 2011 at 4:35 pm

    jackdurham says:
    April 3, 2011 at 2:11 pm
    You need a permit to stand on the sidewalk with a sign? I wasn’t aware of that.

    Response: Ah, manipulative retort, should have figured.

    Anyhow, I did not know a person needed a permit to “obstruct or do business within a public right-of-way” either (at one time in life long, long ago in a galaxy right here) but state and local codes and standards guarantee the general public that this specific area of law (just like public health and the cafe owner in Ferndale) is ENFORCED, not looked away with a willful neglection. Ya see jack, one must be engaged in ingress or egress while being on the sidewalk as the laws suggest – this is why walking wqith a sign is legal, but loitering while stationary is not (something legal experts hashed out).

    Jack, are you a proponent for double standards, politically? I ask because business IS POLITICAL; and, apparantly so too is panhandling, but the panhandling gets more media exposure than the impacts ceated by businesses that are worse than many-a-panhandler. Why is that Jack? It can’t be for lack of newsworthiness, that is for sure.


  52. Builtmore
    April 3, 2011 at 4:47 pm

    Random planning worked so well in Los Angeles.

    April 3, 2011 at 4:52 pm

    Apparantly, McKinleyville is being planned even better now with recent COUNTY CDS proposed changes to the McKinleyville General Plan. So, when is something ever written as if written in stone……NEVER!


  54. Anonymous
    April 3, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    Healthy Humboldt is promoting Complete Streets, a state law that requires cities and counties to include policies in their General Plans that make streets safe for all users, not just motorists.

    if it is a law, why does it need promoting?

  55. jackdurham
    April 3, 2011 at 5:04 pm

    Wait a minute. We’re arguing about a dude who stands on a sidewalk waving a cardboard sign urging people to enjoy the $6.99 pizza buffet? Okey dokey.

  56. Anon 11:51
    April 3, 2011 at 5:23 pm

    Random Guy,
    My only bias is that I’ve read the details of why the Mad River Bridge is being replaced, and it appears to be a necessary use of tax dollars. I don’t work for CalTrans if that is your meaning.
    In my opinion reliable roads and highways are a good use of my taxes. If a bridge is old and falling apart, I want it fixed and I don’t want it to be shut down because of some cliche about all government spending being wasteful. I’ve worked for both govt and private sector and both can be wasteful or efficient. If you can cite specific expenditures or processes of the bridge project that are wasteful, I’d be glad to hear them. Interestingly, most of the project is done by private contractors.

    But forget I said anything about it, it’s beside my bigger point: I called you on your BS that it could simply be “retrofitted”, and you admitted you didn’t really have any expertise in that area.

  57. Random Guy
    April 3, 2011 at 6:08 pm

    11:51, ya vol, I think? I also said I gave Complete Streets all of two minutes thought…now totalling about ten. A little looking and it is in fact a Governator-backed initiative that smacks of the state imposing on local affairs all over california…the “conspiracy” I call Homogenization Nation…bla bla. Like a nice looking bandaid at absolute best.

    Aren’t locals doing the same thing that Complete Streets mandates? Why exactly is the law being pushed all of a sudden, bagged and branded? Is Humboldt about to be so massive? Why distract us from the explosion of development itself? It’s quite a successful distraction in taht sense. I’m no “expert”, but ya gotta wonder…

    Without getting into it, I was a union painter on the Carquinez bridge between crocket and vallejo…working for a private contractor alongside Caltrans. THE STATE WASTES UNBELIEVABLE AMOUNTS OF TIME AND MONEY, FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTORS AND ULTIMATELY EVERYBODY…caps for emphasis.

    We need the right people in the right positions to make the right decisions. It’s important to maintain common sense, 20/20 hindsight, and the understanding that everything is run by fellow human beings who burp and fart while in persuit of their individual success…many of I wouldn’t trust to borrow my bicycle for a day, let alone decide everybody’s future.

  58. Random Guy
    April 3, 2011 at 6:19 pm

    Anon 5:02 asks the same thing…why promote it? Average Joe thinks “yes, bike lanes! bring em! spread the word! Good thing!” instead of “new streets? why? new apartments and strip malls? why?”…does Humboldt need all that? Like I said, what was wrong before? Why all this new development instead of souping up what we’ve got for everybody who’s already here?

    Perspective and priorities…and personal profits. Why all this pressure for new development when increases in infrastructure and population have always been every area’s ultimate downfall?

  59. wish I was amazed...
    April 3, 2011 at 7:04 pm

    It’s just incredible that planning to encourage more pedestrian and bike-friendly transportation makes so many people froth at the mouth in paroxyms of anti-government bulls*t.

    I’d like to say “only in Humboldt”, but the “complete streets” concept is probably controversial and unwelcome in rural Arkansas too (not to demean any otherwise sapient Arkansanians in the crowd).

    If the “Humboldt Sunshine” people are the sh*t-stirrers on this one, it’s likely all about specific dollars for a specific development somebody has in mind and doesn’t want to pay for modern basic infrastructure to support it.

    Even if the regressives hate the idea of designing to accommodate walkers and bicyclists (read mostly KIDS in most neighborhoods), their children and future homebuying neighbors deserve connected public space to be able to get around on outside of a car. What troglodytes.

    Ok, I’ve vented my spleen. Now I’ll calm down and remind myself that these morons are a very small but vocal minority with freshly empowered friends with money at stake.

  60. Random Guy
    April 3, 2011 at 7:11 pm

    OKWTF, as they say…finally able to listen to the commercials, and did a little more looking…complete streets is froo froo green propaganda that rallies support for new development while distracting from questions about it. Nationwide. No doubt about it. Contemporary propaganda campaign in action. Count the outlets championing zero growth. Why is that side of a HUGE and very important argument getting no popular media attention???

    I don’t understand how the second ad is from arkley? Am I missing something? He backed the group, but it jabs him just the same? kind of spinning it…

    fucking developers…as if real estate and construction are the only industries worth our time and money here. Political gridlock because of them, all over the nation. Woes be the places where their money has its way. For the sake of the future, ZERO GROWTH.

    April 3, 2011 at 7:20 pm

    jackdurham says:
    April 3, 2011 at 5:04 pm
    Wait a minute. We’re arguing about a dude who stands on a sidewalk waving a cardboard sign urging people to enjoy the $6.99 pizza buffet? Okey dokey.

    Response: Jack, your latest retort IS exactly the manipulative attitude people will use to “cover-over” lack of duty and obligations by those who act in the capacity as law-makers and law-enforcers, not to mention the policy hacks filled in between who willfully look the other way.

    Did you have an answer yet on double standards?

    As far as dokey and his okey, can you apply your thought process to those panhandling poor people for $6.99 per head because I was unaware that poor panhandlers had a rented building to operate their business from within while abiding by public health and safety codes? I ain’t even talking about the aggressive panhandlers either. Heck, I’d rather the “political children tools” be selling their oj and lemonaide on the sidewalk, but alas, the kids are not old enough to be liable for schit, so kick them out, kinda like poor panhandlers (what are ya gonna get outta them?).

    So, the benefit is taxes via profit, profit via defiance of laws it appears. No different than the graftings by Wall Streeter types either when getting down to the concentrations of wealth as so many clamor to complain about, especially the corporation types.

    On face value Jack, you may make this R.O.W. obstruction issue out to be silly, but in reality, it is important to acknowledge “double standards”, don’t ya think?


  62. April 3, 2011 at 8:45 pm

    I have double standards when it comes to people dancing on the sidewalk and flipping around cardboard signs for pizza buffets? Maybe. I haven’t really meditated on or studied the issue very much. It’s quite possible I’m not grasping the ramifications of this issue.

    April 3, 2011 at 9:15 pm


    avoiding an appropriate answer to the question is quite possible too.


  64. April 4, 2011 at 7:52 am

    What was the question?

  65. April 4, 2011 at 10:47 am

    Arkley quote If you are me, do you really care what

    the city thinks???

  66. Pedestrian
    April 5, 2011 at 12:42 am

    Jack, I went to the County’s meeting about the School Rd. improvements and it was clearly stated that the funding was coming from grants, MCSD, and the developer. It is not true that we “need” development to have improvements, though that is the way the system has been set up because the County/State is so broke.

  67. jackdurham
    April 5, 2011 at 8:26 am

    I’m pointing out that this is the way it works, not the way it should work. Hopefully we’ll get a grant for a new park near School and Washington.

  68. jackdurham
    April 5, 2011 at 8:27 am

    By the way, if anyone sees Richard Salzman, ask him why he’s not returning my emails. I’m trying to find out why he continues to post on these blogs anonymously.

  69. April 5, 2011 at 8:29 am

    Jack, you do allow anonymous comments on your blog, don’t you?

  70. anonymous
    April 5, 2011 at 9:02 am

    Is it only Richard who Jack objects to posting anonymously, or does his rule apply to everyone?

  71. April 5, 2011 at 9:03 am

    These complaints are often highly selective.

  72. jackdurham
    April 5, 2011 at 9:21 am

    You would think that a political consultant who has worked for the DA and other candidates would be held to a higher standard. I guess not.

  73. April 5, 2011 at 9:31 am

    Anonymous comments welcome, unless you’re Richard Salzman, in which case different rules apply.

  74. Plain Jane
    April 5, 2011 at 9:32 am

    How would Jack know who any anonymous is?

  75. anonymous
    April 5, 2011 at 10:05 am

    Who else would keep bringing up Jill Geist Duffy’s infidelity during her campaign?

    Who else (besides her husband and her son) was Jill lying to when she would come home from her extra martial affair, then to someone running her campaign?

  76. Plain Jane
    April 5, 2011 at 10:14 am

    How about anyone who has heard about it, 10:05? This is a small community and such things do get talked about, not always by people with anything personally invested. It’s always possible that her cuckolded husband bears a grudge.

  77. anonymous
    April 5, 2011 at 11:13 am

    Excellent points PJ.

    I think a lot of folks were surprised when it came out that the rumors about her cheating on her husband were all true ( because people believed her when she kept denying they were true!) but I also think it was the first crack into just what other misleading information Jill had been feeding her supporters. I don’t think anyone could have predicted that her entire candidacy would turn out to be have been one big lie. Maybe having Rose as her closest confidant could have been a clue, but then who knew what a wacko Rose was back then?
    I don’t know if Walt holds a grudge or not? Last time I saw him, he had traded up to a much newer and more streamline model. I think I worry more about what the impact is on her son. It seems like dysfunctional families have a way of being quasi hereditary. Apparently she’s got some pretty dark stuff with her own father, but does not excuse lying to her constituents. Did voters have a right to know?
    Interestingly, Jack and other newspaper folks in this town seem to think that adultery, like drunk driving, should not be factored into the assessment of our elected officials. One is ONLY a violation of a commandment, but the other is actually against the law. So now we have a criminal, elected to the board of supervisors, but the “higher standard” that Jack wants to apply is to political consultants exercising free speech under pseudonyms.

  78. April 5, 2011 at 11:19 am

    Oh, look. The sex/morality police believes women are objects that can be “traded up to a much newer and more streamline model.”

  79. Plain Jane
    April 5, 2011 at 11:24 am

    Some people think character is important in elected officials and some don’t. I would guess that those who don’t have very selfish reasons for not caring, like maybe they need officials amenable to back room deal making and bribe taking.

  80. anonymous
    April 5, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    Well I’m not sure if drinking and driving is more of a character flaw or just poor judgement, but a DUI is still a criminal offense.

    Good catch Heraldo on the sexist objectification of Walt’s companion. Adultery is a question of character, and I suppose so are sexist attempts at humor.

  81. anonymous
    April 5, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    In Ryan’s defense, as far as anyone knows his DUI was a one time error in judgment and no one’s accused him of continuing this behavior after having been confronted (albeit, confronted by the authorities!) about it.

    While in Jill Geist Duffy’s case, she had many opportunities to reconsider if it was right to continue her betrayal of her husband (and one could argue, her son). I suppose you could combine the act with drinking and at least the first time you could call it an error in judgement also, but since she was confronted by a whole lot of folks who were concerned about the rumors and how it could hurt her candidacy, and she continued to carry on the affair (until she ultimately ended the marriage, at which point it was not longer a relevant issue to her holding public office), its much more a question of her underlying character.

    Meanwhile it’s nice of Jack Durham to want to belabor this topic and I understand he’s hoping to continue the conversation on his own blog. Maybe he’ll even run a piece in his newspaper which will open it up to a general conversation in the press countywide about the role of the media as a watch dog on issue of morality, honesty and even anonymity on blogs.

  82. jackdurham
    April 5, 2011 at 1:31 pm

    Richard, can you call me? We need to talk!

  83. jackdurham
    April 5, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    While the most recent postings in this thread may or may not be Salzman, they perfectly illustrate his methodology. Lots of anonymous, inaccurate sliming of of people perceived as political opponents. A good many of my fellow progressives consider this unethical behavior acceptable. Pretty sad.

  84. Mitch
    April 5, 2011 at 3:57 pm

    While the most recent postings in this thread may or may not be Jack Durham, they perfectly illustrate the methodology of the local press. Lots of inaccurate sliming of Richard Salzman and others perceived as political opponents. A good many of my fellow citizens consider this unethical behavior acceptable. Pretty sad.

  85. anonymous
    April 5, 2011 at 5:13 pm

    I want to get some of Jack’s attention. Who do I have to write about to get him to obsess over me the way he does over Richard?

  86. April 5, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    I wonder what Richard is afraid of?

    Take note. Every candidate who accepts his help ought to take note of what happens to you if you dare actually think for yourself.

  87. Brian
    April 5, 2011 at 5:31 pm

    Jack is neither progressive nor libertarian (though that one he may have claim to when it comes to his desire for limited government), but what is his point, that his “progressive” friends think that cheating on a spouse and lying should be condoned? Or that politicians who cheat should not be exposed in the press? Wait a minute, I do think I remember Rose defending Edwards now that you mention it. Or is it that his progressive friends are concerned about anonymous postings on the internet?
    I see that he’s trying to get this thread more attention by posting it as a headline on his blog. He must really want to stay on this topic. I think anyone with information should chime in and help Jack out here.

  88. Mitch
    April 5, 2011 at 5:39 pm

    It amazes me that you people can be so short-sighted.

    Once you let the government tell developers to put in sidewalks, you might as well let the government insist you need a license to drive. These power-mad bureaucrats will stop at nothing!

    “First they came for the developers, and I was not a developer, so I said nothing.” Wake up, people! Do you want the government taking away your right to be run over?

  89. April 5, 2011 at 5:54 pm

    Rose defending Edwards? That’s HILARIOUS. (I think you have me confused with Chris Kerrigan)

    Richard Salzman is a lying POS – there’s no denying it – and apparently he has no life outside of hateful political dirty tricks, so right now he is a man without a country with nothing better to do that make up shit about people on his enemies list.

    Again – if you are working with him, be warned. He’s only charming if you do as you are told. Think for yourself, or do something he doesn’t want you to do – and you can already see what will happen to you.

  90. Plain Jane
    April 5, 2011 at 6:00 pm

    So Jill wasn’t cheating on her husband?

  91. anonymous
    April 5, 2011 at 6:03 pm

    Oh yes Rose, please do tell….

  92. Random Guy
    April 5, 2011 at 6:06 pm

    “It amazes me that you people can be so short-sighted.”

    If you’re not being sarcastic, it amazes me you’re being so nearsighted.

    “but now that it is a mandate from the FEDS to have safe accessible sidewalks on all state or county roads where bikes and pedestrians are allowed”

    Those mandates are already in place on a state level through Caltrans, but Complete Streets creates the physical presence of Federal representatives, their input and final seal of approval on ALL of it. Does that compute? It’s the epitome of green camouflage…a real eye opener. Recruiting bicycle groups all over the nation to help back them, even. Another federal toe in Humboldt’s door.

    “Once you let the government tell developers to put in sidewalks”

    More like once they require that you hold their hand while you cross the street wearing a helmet. Frightened grown up children who can’t wipe their own asses, jumping on the peer safety bandwagon at the expense of common sense and localized control.

  93. Plain Jane
    April 5, 2011 at 6:17 pm

    Percy already said it was “tongue in cheek,” Guy.

  94. Plain Jane
    April 5, 2011 at 6:19 pm

    I’m confused, Guy. I thought bike lanes were to keep cyclists from getting killed by careless drivers, not to protect them from themselves. Person v car is a pretty unfair collision, don’t you think?

  95. Mitch
    April 5, 2011 at 6:19 pm

    I give up. Why can so many people here not detect humor? Are things that far gone?

    Here’s a clue: when one alleged horror is compared with another supposed horror that everyone already accepts, yes, that’s sarcasm.

    I know it’s become hard to keep up with reality but, come on, folks. Is this all because Richard Salzman has beamed his secret stupidity ray at you?

  96. Random Guy
    April 5, 2011 at 6:26 pm

    I’ve read this thread, and I see a bandwagon. To me, it’s hilarious that everybody’s falling for the Complete Streets shlock.

    Find one single anti-Complete Streets website. Do you think you will fail because there are none??? GO!

  97. Anonymous
    April 5, 2011 at 6:33 pm

    The main point is that when you notice the paid ads put out by Humboldt Sunshine are anonymous, their are those who’s job it is to say, “Hey look over there! I think I see a Richard Salzman”.

  98. Plain Jane
    April 5, 2011 at 6:44 pm

    Maybe this is one of those issues on which the vast majority agree, Guy. Most people do walk at least occasionally, many ride bikes and almost everyone has a kid or grandkid who rides bikes. Bike lanes on the edge of streets and sidewalks with curbs are pretty minimal safety features when you are separating very breakable humans from tons of speeding steel. Have you ever seen someone hit by a car? It sort of seems that you are against it because no one else is. Am I reading you wrong?

  99. Plain Jane
    April 5, 2011 at 6:46 pm

    And of course, Arkley is against it so you are on his bandwagon now. :D

  100. Random Guy
    April 5, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    Yeah that must be it.

    In south queen city of southern tiers,
    I’m sitting on my super…bicycle…Angeleria.


  101. anonymous02
    April 7, 2011 at 9:24 am

    So what part of Heraldo’s comments policy is Jack not able to read?
    If he does not like that policy, they he should not spend time on this blog. Also, has Jack even objected to any statement made on the Mirror by that political operative of the right? Has Rose, or Kevin. No, they are fine with the total slime that the Mirror publishes, but somehow speaking about the facts of an extra marital affairs of their friend and former supervisor JD (I know the man she was sleeping with during her campaign and he’s a perfectly nice guy (TH) and does not need his name dragged into this, which is what will end of happening if Jack wants proof ) requires that the rules Heraldo set up for this blog should not apply? How about Jack just takes his ball and goes home, since nobody here wants to play with him anyway (which would explain the readership of his own blog).

  102. April 7, 2011 at 9:48 am

    Such diversion— what was the Topic?==
    Raging Granny

  103. jackdurham
    April 7, 2011 at 10:04 am

    Both Richard and whoever does the Mirror should use their real names. Of course, if they used their real names, they wouldn’t publish the slime that you read. Richard knows the difference between right and wrong, which is why he doesn’t use his name on the slime comments. That would be embarrassing to him. He only uses his name when his comments are appropriate political discourse.

    The publishers of the Mirror don’t identify themselves for the same reason. It’s too slimy. How can you show your face in town after publishing that kind of stuff?

  104. anonymous04
    April 7, 2011 at 10:28 am

    “doth protest too much…”

  105. Charlie Bean
    April 16, 2011 at 12:07 am

    I think the ad on KINS ran by Sunshine for Huboldt attacked too many aspects of our community. As an individual in a wheelchair, I believe curb cuts are important, or I will be in the streets slowing traffic (a good thing, yet not safe!). I see nothing wrong with developing a plan for multiple use routes to travel in our area. Yes, there are already infrastructure established that cannot be changed, but there are things that can be done in future development to make it better for everyone. Following the main theme of complete streets will proivde an opportunity for many modes of travel, for leisure and recreration. Why would anyone not support this?

    Sunshine for Humboldt needs to look past its nose and address the attacks directly on the environmental problem, not users of a complete streets program.

  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 )

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s