Home > Uncategorized > Belonging never felt stranger

Belonging never felt stranger

Coast Central Credit Union prides itself on being a “local financial cooperative.” But the buck seems to stop there when it comes to pride in localism.

CCCU is encouraging its members to shop online at local economy killers, like Wal-Mart.  Spending money this way qualifies members for a “Rewards” program.  Questions about the rewards program are directed to call a number with a North Carolina area code.

Download the pdf.

  1. Eric Kirk
    August 7, 2011 at 12:20 am

    That is very disappointing.

  2. Making an Observation
    August 7, 2011 at 12:54 am

    HSU also did its thing, “HSU Night at Target,” for incoming freshmen a few years ago.

  3. August 7, 2011 at 7:13 am

    And I was just about to move my business account there…

  4. Anonymous
    August 7, 2011 at 7:28 am

    So which local bank or credit union is loyal to the community? I have already spoken to my investment counselor about transferring my cash to CCU and the remainder as soon as they reach maturity. Now I need a different plan to invest locally.

  5. Decline To State
    August 7, 2011 at 8:02 am

    Yes, disappointing. What sort of “rewards” are Walmart, etc. returning to CCCU for selling out their community do you suppose?

  6. Anonymous
    August 7, 2011 at 8:10 am

    Who is the head of marketing there?

  7. guest
    August 7, 2011 at 8:29 am

    “Who is the head of marketing there?”

    If you’re referring to CCCU, I believe its Dennis Hunter.

  8. Anonymous
    August 7, 2011 at 8:29 am

    For those of you who don’t shop at Target or K-Mart, I have a three questions.

    1. Where do you buy your underwear?

    2. How much does it cost?

    3. Where is it manufactured?

  9. Dan
    August 7, 2011 at 9:40 am

    Stunning.
    I keep savings there because of their ‘local’ framework.
    Reconsidering that stance now. Another institution that claims similar priorities is a local bank in Eureka, maybe someone could inform us ‘investors’ of the most local approach to our savings.
    Isn’t this where Hi Fi guy steps in? Bailiwick authority.

  10. Sue
    August 7, 2011 at 9:45 am

    1. Belle Starr
    2. $14/pair, and it lasts for 8-10 years.
    3. Canada: and, yes, I know Canada isn’t local, but I’m betting Belle Starr would carry them if anyone made them locally.

    Of course, underwear isn’t really the question, is it? Just because these big boxes carry cheap Chinese-made plastic crap for lower cost doesn’t mean we should buy it. Every dollar spent on your Walmart underwear goes directly out of our community, whereas money spent in local stores stay right here.

    I’m disappointed in Coast Central, and I’m going to stop by the main branch tomorrow to let them know. I suggest everyone else does the same.

  11. Anonymous
    August 7, 2011 at 9:59 am

    I suspect 99% of local women don’t buy from Belle Star. It was identified a few years ago, rather prominently in the Arcata Eye by economic development folks, as the only place in Arcata selling underwear besides Payless/Thrifty/Rite Aid. A K-Mart or Target is essential to county residents for certain basic necessities, unless you want to do web orders or pay an exorbitant amount of money. Last time I checked, most people couldn’t afford $98 for a week’s worth of underwear (and thrift stores don’t carry underwear). Imagine the cost of the rest of the wardrobe. Just sayin’.

    If you disagree, kindly show us your knickers, otherwise I won’t believe you.

  12. Anonymous
    August 7, 2011 at 10:01 am

    Every dollar spent on your Walmart underwear goes directly out of our community, whereas money spent in local stores stay right here.

    Since when did Crescent City residents working at Wal-Mart begin working for free? There are lots of reasons to hate Wal-Mart. Lying is not necessary.

  13. 69er
    August 7, 2011 at 10:03 am

    Have been a member since 1962 and I find this to be very disappointing. Will be sure to let them know first thing this week. I will not go so far as to give up my membership, banks do not offer the same services without charging excessive fees, I pay nothing for accouints other than for my safe deposit box, try getting that at a bank.

  14. anonymous
    August 7, 2011 at 10:06 am

    Solutions in Arcata also sells underwear, expensive, but it, too, lasts for years.
    None of the big box stores mentioned at 9:59 is essential to a community. By investing in good, long lasting basics we may not be able to afford the extras, but it all depends upon your priorities.

  15. Sue
    August 7, 2011 at 10:11 am

    Okay, so every dollar not attributed to largely minimum wage, benefitless jobs goes directly out of the community. I stand corrected.

    The point, however, is that we trust our local CU to support our local community and businesses, and that’s why we bank there. Credit union members are shareholders of the institution, and it’s understandable that we want to voice our disagreement with a promotion we don’t support.

  16. August 7, 2011 at 10:15 am

    To anonymous who posted at 9:59am. Sue certainly will not show you her knickers, but I’ve gone on many a girls’ trip and shopped with her countless times over the 12 years I’ve known her. The vast majority of her wardrobe (right down to the knickers) is absolutely locally purchased. It’s truly not possible to get a locally *made* wardrobe, unless you can somehow outfit yourself head-to-toe in Kokatat.

    Oh, and thrift stores most certainly do carry underwear. I was thrift shopping with my parents last weekend at the Hospice Shop in Arcata, St. Vinnie’s in Eureka and Arcata, and the Miranda’s Rescue Thrift Shop in McKinleyville.

    Spend money with local merchants.

  17. Eric Kirk
    August 7, 2011 at 10:19 am

    If you disagree, kindly show us your knickers, otherwise I won’t believe you.

    You’re missing the point, at least mine. I’m not opposed to any big box shopping for anything. But when I can buy local at a reasonable price, I will do it. It would be nice if the local businesses, which spend more money locally, would make a little more and the big boxes a little less. It’s not black or white, just a question of balance.

    But this kind of promotional exercise from an institution which is has marketed in the past its dedication to the local economy is rather disappointing.

  18. anonymous
    August 7, 2011 at 10:21 am

    Agreed 69er – if enough of us voice our disappointment maybe CCCU will reconsider selling its soul to make a buck. But then maybe Mr. Christensen needs another raise to make his salary an even $1,000,000. Our governor is paid $174,000.

  19. Anonymous
    August 7, 2011 at 10:32 am

    First of all, Thrift Store underwear, that’s just gross! Secondly, I thought Hippies didn’t wear underwear, but I guess I was wrong. They wear “gently used” second-hand underwear. And to keep the same pair of undies for 8-10 years, WOW, I hope you only buy them in black or brown! I’m gonna go vomit now!

  20. Anonymous
    August 7, 2011 at 10:44 am

    Some of the money spent at Walmart does circulate, but the high number of their employees that require subsidies from the tax payers to survive on those wages reduces the benefit from those wages.

  21. Anonymous
    August 7, 2011 at 10:45 am

    Imagine how much better it would be if Walmart paid their workers wages that didn’t require those subsidies which increase the owners bottom line but come from the taxpayers.

  22. High Finance
    August 7, 2011 at 10:58 am

    I shop local whenever possible. For example, Mikes Hamburgers in Eureka is local and their garlic fries are to kill for. McDonalds sucks.

    But the negative effect of Target and other chains on the economy is exaggerated. Belle Star and Target both buy their underwear from out of the area. That cost represents more than 50% of your purchase dollar. Both Belle Star and Target employ local people (bet you they pay the same wages), pay local property & sales taxes, buy advertising in the local paper & TV, etc.

    The real difference is the net profit. Belle Star’s stays local and Target goes to the stockholders out of the area. However net profit only represents 2-5 cents of the dollar you spent there.

    However, on-line sales that Mitch loves is a total and absolute negative on our local economy. I suggest you call Coast Central & express your disappointment to the CEO’s office at 445-8801. Leave a message for him and leave another one for the board of directors.

  23. Anonymous
    August 7, 2011 at 11:00 am

    if enough of us voice our disappointment maybe CCCU will reconsider selling its soul to make a buck.

    You’re under a misconception that the vast majority of their customers don’t already spend money at big box stores. Do you think they’re all buying underwear from Belle Star? Seriously? The only thing missing from that list is Amazon.com. If you want to help CCCU, boycott them. The resulting publicity will be highly beneficial for them.

  24. Anonymous
    August 7, 2011 at 11:00 am

    What is a credit union doing having a “Rewards Program” anyway?

  25. Anonymous
    August 7, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    I’m with you 10:32. I almost lost my breakfast at 8-10 year old undies. GROSS. I guess hygiene isn’t big with that poster.

  26. The Big Picture
    August 7, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    If media did its job, consumers would understand that Walmart’s success is attributable to the public services and welfare that its part-time, low-wage employees require to survive; the near-free labor in Africa and Asia that relies on children, the 750 foreign U.S. military bases that protect this exploitation, and the legislation that eliminated Tariff’s AND enables most corporations to pay no taxes.

    It has turned capitalism and competition into a quaint notion, still trumped by uninformed fool’s demand for their “Constitutional right to shop”.

    Local businesses have greatly limited access to foreign child-labor and offshore tax accounts and attorneys. However, being forced to purchase imported essentials does not make “buy local” advocates hypocrites.

    Thanks to a pathetic media, most consumers have no idea that CCCU is falsely advertising its commitment to our community.

  27. anonymous
    August 7, 2011 at 1:03 pm

    Anonymous @ 11:00 – Agreed there are lots of CCCU members who shop the big boxes and online. You’ll never get rid of the “I want more for less crowd”. But there are also many CCCU members (I am a member) who do their best to shop locally and abhor the credit union encouraging its members to bypass the local businesses who make Humboldt County thrive to the extent it does. Take a trip cross country to the rural areas where Walmart has become the only place to shop within 30 miles. It’s desolate out there and sad to watch Walmart become even the social center of these areas along the interstates.

  28. anoni-laundry
    August 7, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    To 10:32 & 12:04

    Two words…….washing machine.

    Yes……they really work. Work that into your “hygiene” lifestyle.

  29. Eric Kirk
    August 7, 2011 at 2:28 pm

    Hifi – according to the mendocino county chamber, 80 cents on a dollar spent at a locally owned business is spent locally, while about half is so spent by a chain. I don’t know what that’s bsed on.

  30. August 7, 2011 at 2:51 pm

    A friend from Lebanon, Oregon, told me what happened when WalMart opened a superstore there.
    Basically, the town closed down. Almost every local business was put under. Below cost sales, promotions, and targeted marketing made short work of the locals. I haven’t been ther, but my friend is reliable and tells me it’s pretty grizzly. WalMart wants to own it all. Period.
    I’m not sure who they expect to shop in their stores when everyone else is out of business but I don’t think they care. I don’t know how many bad examples we have to see before we do something (maybe a ‘square foot limit’?). Looks to me like we’re about to start down that road where the only retailers left are Target, WalMart, and maybe K-Mart. What a warm beautiful town Eureka will be then.
    Time to leave, Dave.

  31. Anonymous
    August 7, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    Hey anoni-laundry,

    I would want my laundry to be anonymous too if I had ten year old undies in there, I repeat, Gross! I bet your the hippie/retro/vintage style type, huh? It’s not because you’re creative and want to look good, though, no? It’s because you’ve been sporting the same rags since you acquired them decades ago!
    P.S. I own an LG, from Verns, and life is good!
    -10:32-

  32. Anonymous
    August 7, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    If Dennis Hunter is in charge at CCCU it explains a lot.

    This good ol’ boy knew for decades that his family’s business was cutting corners, putting employees and the public at serious risk from leaking ammonia and rotted floors at the Ice House.

    Everyone at city hall kept their mouths shut because they’re good ol’ boys and girls too…rightfully anticipating the favor will be returned if called upon.

    Ushering-in more predatory economy-killers is no surprise.

    “Bigger is the American way….regardless of how it’s achieved or what the public pays”.

  33. High Finance
    August 7, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    Eric, that would have to be 80 cents of each dollar profit otherwise it wouldn’t even make sense.

  34. Anonymous
    August 7, 2011 at 5:13 pm

    Lebanon has a bustling downtown filled with indie businesses, a farmer’s market and park concerts. Your friend is yanking your chain. Yes, they have a Wal-Mart, and I’m sure the indie underwear retailers have gone under, but life goes on. People continue to thrive.

  35. August 7, 2011 at 5:54 pm

    Why soch emphasis on underwear?Have you purcased tools
    ?
    recently What country makes so many items–?US factories

    are closed and skilled craftmen are out of jobs.

  36. Ann
    August 7, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    Costco has great, inexpensive underwear and good employment practices.

  37. Anonymous
    August 7, 2011 at 6:22 pm

    I bet many women also buy underwear at Victoria’s Secret, another non-local chain with good prices, and let’s not forget Ross. That said, the underwear market is the least of what Walmart will challenge. Belle Starr and other independent/boutique businesses with a more unique selection have far less to fear than retailers that carry the same brands Walmart is able to sell for less.

  38. August 7, 2011 at 7:17 pm

    The Big Picture says:
    August 7, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    If media did its job, consumers would understand that Walmart’s success is attributable to the public services and welfare that its part-time, low-wage employees require to survive; the near-free labor in Africa and Asia that relies on children, the 750 foreign U.S. military bases that protect this exploitation, and the legislation that eliminated Tariff’s AND enables most corporations to pay no taxes.

    It has turned capitalism and competition into a quaint notion, still trumped by uninformed fool’s demand for their “Constitutional right to shop”.

    Local businesses have greatly limited access to foreign child-labor and offshore tax accounts and attorneys. However, being forced to purchase imported essentials does not make “buy local” advocates hypocrites.

    Thanks to a pathetic media, most consumers have no idea that CCCU is falsely advertising its commitment to our community

    Couldn’t have said it better…where’s the “Best of Herald?”

  39. Ghost of Mabel
    August 7, 2011 at 8:27 pm

    Hi Fi,
    How totally appropriate that you like Mike’s Hamburgers. I stopped there once to try it out. The burger and fries were pretty good. While I was waiting for my food, I came across the bulletin board which slammed Barack Obama and bordered on Republican “racism”.
    Someday I will stop in and let the owner know that even though he may not agree with the current administration, Barack Obama, our first black president, (and Harvard grad) can at least spell “fashioned” as opposed to “Old FASHONED” burgers.
    You, Hi Fi and Mike’s Hamburgers, are what’s wrong with America.

  40. August 7, 2011 at 9:58 pm

    Blue Canoe is a local women’s clothing company based in Benbow and offers nice undergarments. Not cheap, but well made and very comfortable.

    Wallmart is going to hurt local businesses.

    Low’s is closing in Fortuna. What is next?

  41. 06em
    August 7, 2011 at 10:22 pm

    What is next? Let’s hope it’s not Lost Coast Brewery re-locating out of the area because a handful of NIMBYs are whining and the Eureka City Council good old boy and girl network is remaining curiously mute on the issue. Job creators my ass. More like part-time-no-benefit-low-wage job creators.

  42. Thorstein Veblen
    August 7, 2011 at 10:43 pm

    I wonder, does Belle Star bank at CCCU? Does WalMart, Target, or Barnes/Noble?

  43. Walt
    August 8, 2011 at 7:22 am

    If Walmart gets into the brewing biz, we’re in trouble. Spoze they stock Tsingtao?

  44. Anonymous
    August 8, 2011 at 8:02 am

    Low’s is closing in Fortuna because the owner is getting a divorce, not because of economic times.

  45. High Finance
    August 8, 2011 at 8:04 am

    How appropriate that you would say that Mabel.

    Mike’s Hamburgers, myself and many of your political opponents provide jobs for Americans and pay a boat load of taxes.

    What do you give (as opposed to take) to America ?

  46. Quotidian
    August 8, 2011 at 8:45 am

    And why did you put racism in quotes, Mabel?

  47. Anonymous
    August 8, 2011 at 9:20 am

    Don’t we ALL provide jobs for Americans, HiFi? You do, of course, realize that consumption of your product, whatever that is, is what creates jobs? How many people would you and Mike’s Hamburgers employ if you had no customers? How many customers can you lose because they lost their jobs before you lose yours? We are all in this together despite the walls fanatics are trying to build between us.

  48. Plain Jane
    August 8, 2011 at 9:36 am

    Consumers create all jobs, HiFi. How many people would you and Mike’s employ if lots of your customers lost their jobs or their SS checks? Someone else would provide the products you provide, but they would still need customers. The reason the stock market is tanking and people all over the world are buying US Treasuries isn’t because they fear the government has too much debt and certainly not because they think there is a likelihood of default. That would be schizophrenic. It’s because the brinksmanship over the debt ceiling made S&P, investors and everyone with a functioning brain realize the fanatics on the right aren’t going to allow the economy to improve so long as they don’t control the country and their demands, if met, would bankrupt almost every one, including you and Mike’s. Businesses can’t make a profit, no matter how low their taxes and wages or how lax their regulations, if people don’t have jobs to pay for their product. If you want more people to pay taxes and consume your products, they need money in their pockets and that requires jobs that not only cover necessities, but some discretionary spending ability as well. We are at a pivotal point and can either recognize we are all in this together or we can let fanatics build walls too high to climb over and declare the great experiment a failure.

  49. Plain Jane
    August 8, 2011 at 9:37 am

    Sorry for the Anonymous 9:20 post. Didn’t mean to post it.

  50. Anonymous
    August 8, 2011 at 9:43 am

    Democrat and Republican are political parties, not races. You can not be racist against a political party. You can however hate a political party or members of it.

  51. Ben
    August 8, 2011 at 10:49 am

    Jane,
    People just do not stop shopping because they rely on the goods and services provided by businesses. The vast majority of people do not have on hand what it takes to sustain them. The areas of significant lost sales are in areas of discressionary spending, that is for “unnecessary” items. That is why the gift market sank when the recession started. Just ask anyone in that business sector. When times get tough, people tend to shop for value and purchase less expensive items. Most of the discussion about items in this blog were about businesses for the individuals and families that have plenty of discressionry money. Most regular folks will not go to a small local botique clothing store because they simply can not afford it. Most people can not afford to shop at farmer’s markets because of the price.
    I am not a Tea Party person, but there seems to be some significant basis for only spending what you bring in when looking at the current situation.

  52. Fact Checker
    August 8, 2011 at 10:59 am

    “…Coast Central Credit Union and its CEO and president, Dean Christensen, were on the list. In 2008, said the report, CCCU lost $5.2 million. Christensen received compensation of $919,799 — more, apparently, than many CEOs, and less than a few whose compensation edged toward $2 million.” (more)

    http://www.northcoastjournal.com/news/2011/02/17/big-job/

  53. Walt
    August 8, 2011 at 11:12 am

    “Most regular folks will not go to a small local boutique clothing store because they simply can not afford it.” Yet they can afford lottery tickets, new F-250s and new apps for their BlackBerries. Why is that?

  54. Anonymous
    August 8, 2011 at 11:27 am

    Ordinary folks will show up and complain about a raise in sewer/water rates, but how much is their cable bill? People are strange.

  55. Plain Jane
    August 8, 2011 at 11:32 am

    You didn’t make a lot of sense and in no way addressed my points, Ben. I didn’t say people stopped buying because they rely on business services and don’t have clue about what that even means.

    Since you acknowledge that people cut back on spending due to lost jobs. Do you also acknowledge that lost jobs which result in lower spending result in more lost jobs, an endless downward cycle? When people buy only what is necessary, businesses have to lay off employees because minimal spending can’t support this economy and the downward spiral continues. If you increase unemployment with cuts in government employee wages and jobs, cuts in government purchasing, cuts in social programs, etc. (all of which will negatively impact their consumption of business products, what you have left is a third world economy where everything is owned by those at the top and the masses live in poverty and rage.

    People who would rather the country fail than ask the rich (who are richer today that at any time in at least 4 generations) to pay a few percent more by letting the Bush / Obama tax cuts expire have a lot of nerve calling themselves anything but traitors. Asking that those who are barely surviving now (and only with the help of social programs) to pay more taxes or take wage or job cuts is unconscionably.

  56. Plain Jane
    August 8, 2011 at 11:35 am

    unconscionable too

  57. Not A Native
    August 8, 2011 at 11:36 am

    Jane, you’re absolutely correct of what really creates jobs in retail. Whats being ‘revalued’ now is the US economy’s dependence on ever increasing consumption mostly from greater individual consumption, not population growth.

    The general call for more consumption in the US to create prosperity is well intentioned from the postiion of those who see themselves ‘falling behind’ and feeling lesser entitled. But the feeling that we in the US have a destiny of ever growing individual consumption is based on temporary post WWII conditions. Then, the US had a near monopoly on technology and modernized productive capacity while most other countries had large amounts of natural resources and destroyed or antiquated production. Those conditions are reversing rapidly.

    One example of why an economy based on growing individual consumption is no longer good is that beneficial consumption has limits. People who consume so much they become obese are supporting the economy by eating more, needing more health care and dying eariler. But the long term economic costs of their consumption are larger than the benefits.

  58. Anonymous
    August 8, 2011 at 11:43 am

    Smart local business owners will be making immediate plans to either close, return to former careers, or retire early if they can, once Walmart begins construction.

    Those who thrive on rising income disparity, economic collapse and the needless suffering of others can rejoice.

    Low’s in Fortuna closed because sales have plummeted since 2007, without Walmart! Divorce rates rise with financial insecurity, foreclosures and bankruptcy.

    Anyone who has experienced Walmart’s M.O. knows what happens to those “everyday low prices” once the competition is decimated.

    Roman citizens had no idea they were being poisoned by the “progress” of lead-pipe water systems. Unlike my neighbors who know, but merely avoid explaining to their kids how other people’s children made their clothes and toys. Still toxic after all these years.

    If not for expendable people and their children, there would be no Pyramids, skyscrapers, or “progress” (as defined today).

  59. Walt
    August 8, 2011 at 11:46 am

    “Americans watched more television than ever in 2010, according to the Nielsen Company. Total viewing of broadcast networks and basic cable channels rose about 1 percent for the year, to an average of 34 hours per person per week.” NYT

    That’s just under 5 hours PER DAY the average person is programmed to obey the TV. And they buy what they’re told to buy, whether it’s viagra or Tea Party. If Americans as individuals didn’t spend more than they had, Our Corporate Masters, LLC would have to hold bake sales.

    No, people shop at WalMart because that’s what they’re told to do.

  60. Plain Jane
    August 8, 2011 at 11:47 am

    My use of the word “consumption” was meant to mean consumption of services, not necessarily manufactured products or food. When you go to the theater you are “consuming” their product, consuming the rental owner’s product means paying him rent for the apartment, seeing a doctor consumes his product, etc. Even multi-national financiers’ product (capital) has to be consumed by borrowers who, again, need consumers of their product, whatever it is, to pay it back. When the means to consume product (capital) is owned by too few people, a modern economy can’t function. That’s what we have today. What we will have tomorrow if we don’t regain some balance will look more like India than Denmark.

  61. Not A Native
    August 8, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    Capital isn’t needed at all for trade of services, you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours, no capital required. Simply putting in time is labor, not capital. But it takes food, air, and water to keep you alive and scratching. Capital is needed only to create products. Creating a product requires capital that enables consuming labor/material now in anticipation of later production that exceeds the utility of the initial consumption.

    The media reports that at least 70% of our ‘modern’ economy is based on material consumption. Thats much too high when it entails the per capita energy and resource use that comprises the average US lifestyle.

  62. August 8, 2011 at 12:59 pm

    Too late to regain any “balance,” Jane. All that’s going on right now is squabbling over, and picking up the scraps.

  63. Plain Jane
    August 8, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    You missed the word “modern,” Nan. Capital is wealth, whether it is based on favors due, seashells, pieces of paper, houses, blips on a computer screen, or local currency so long as what you have to trade is acceptable to the person whose product you want in exchange. Me scratching your back and you scratching mine is fine in a direct exchange. But If I am a carpenter, how do I trade my product for a loaf of bread or a car payment? If I am an auto factory worker, do I get a car every payday? I think it would be very difficult and too time consuming to meet our minimum needs in direct trades so currency is required. It doesn’t matter if the currency was gained from selling a product for a dollar or doing a dollar’s worth of labor. When almost all the capital in town is owned by one person, he has the power to set the exchange rate and there is little the rest can do about it.

    Does anyone have any ideas about what balance of wealth accumulation and taxation would result in the healthiest economy?

  64. Plain Jane
    August 8, 2011 at 1:38 pm

    Of course, what the people in the town could do, if it was a democracy, is pass legislation that set the minimum exchange rate for labor, price supports for vital commodities when needed, and steeply progressive tax rates to prevent economical, political and socially destabilizing wealth accumulation.

  65. Ben
    August 8, 2011 at 2:05 pm

    If there is no ability to accumulate wealth, then what is the motovating factor for economic risk taking. Jane, you must recognize the failure of quotas for production and income. You do remember China don’t you?

  66. Plain Jane
    August 8, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    I didn’t say NO ability to accumulate wealth, Ben. I said what would be a healthy balance? This isn’t a yes or no question. Do you think 1% owning 60% is healthy? 1% owning 40%, 10% owning 50% and 89% owning 10% is healthy? Do you think governments have at least some valid interest in maintaining a healthy economy? If so, what means should they use to maintain a healthy balance? If not, how do you prevent all the wealth accumulating at the top? Or isn’t that important?

  67. Plain Jane
    August 8, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    I do remember China. They own a large share of our “wealth” and jobs now, haven’t you noticed?

  68. Ben
    August 8, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    I agree that there are two imbalances: 1. Very few very wealthy people and 2. Less than 50% on taxpayers pay taxes. If we can agree on these facts, then we have a relative minoriy funding most everything. If we are to move wealth down, then we need the bottom half being more productive also.

  69. Plain Jane
    August 8, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    First of all, the few who claim to be funding most everything aren’t. The majority of all taxes are regressive and paid by everyone. The few at the top actually pay a lower percentage of total taxes than their secretaries. Now as to their share of federal income taxes, they have the majority of the income and wealth so doesn’t it seem fair that they pay the majority of taxes? If they used it in productive ways they wouldn’t pay such high of taxes and the entire economy would benefit. Where is the money to come from to pay for the bottom half’s production when most of it is hoarded at the top? If you really wanted to stimulate the economy you would raise taxes at the top where money is hoarded, cut them at the bottom where money is spent and seriously consider raising the minimum wage.

  70. Plain Jane
    August 8, 2011 at 2:53 pm

    Just came across this old article (2003) about Walmart at Bloomberg Business Week. It seems pretty fair handed and gives lots of data about how much they sell, what percentage of the retail and wholesale markets they control and the benefits and problems towns have when Walmart moves in.

    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_40/b3852001_mz001.htm

    Of course, the numbers are 8 years old and we know they’ve only grown over that time.

  71. Anonymous
    August 8, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    Boo at Diqui LaPenta! Oppressor of the people!

  72. Plain Jane
    August 8, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    Did she fail you, 3:07?

  73. Anonymous
    August 8, 2011 at 3:43 pm

    Mikes Hamburgers is great, no doubt, but McDonalds is pretty good too when you take into consideration their breakfasts and all that they have. Correct me if I’m wrong but McD’s is a franchise. Like Burger King.

    So if a local person owns a franchise are they evil too? Part of the Big Box conspiracy to undermine the likes of Eric and Larry.

    You people are all a bunch of bed wetters, with the exception of Hi Fi. And he’s wrong about McD’s.

  74. Anonymous
    August 8, 2011 at 4:29 pm

    C’mon, we are all forgetting what is most important here. That there are people walking around HumCo, right now, sporting undies that are older than both our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan! Their significant others should form a support group. Gross!

  75. Ben
    August 8, 2011 at 4:30 pm

    Most people pay taxes on regular income as reported by their employers, but self employed and some others have income from a variety of sources that may include caipital gains, etc. What you call income may not be considered income for taxable purposes. Some people have loss carry forwards which will diminish their taxes for a period because of a previous loss. Again saying that an employer pays less taxes than their secretary is an apples and oranges statement and to be an effective argument there needs to be a specific example, not just an unverified claim.

  76. Sue
    August 8, 2011 at 4:51 pm

    I’m pleased with Coast Central Credit Union’s response to my concern about their debit card promotion apparently favoring national retailers. 45 minutes after I posted a comment on CCCU’s FB page, Dennis Hunter called me at home to better explain the situation. He is in the process of recruiting local businesses for the promotion and said it is intended to get more folks to use their debit cards. CCCU gets no kickbacks, only trying to get customers bonuses.

  77. anonymous
    August 8, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    Sorry, Hunter’s explanation doesn’t cut it. The whole program has been done in reverse. Contact the locals first.
    CCCU charges merchants every time a member uses her/his debit card. Not long ago, as a member, I was contacted to lobby against merchants wanting a cap on that amount or maybe it was a reduction in the fee charged. CCCU blamed it on the corporate retailers and now they pander to the same corporate retailers. I’m looking for another financial institution.

  78. Ben
    August 8, 2011 at 5:41 pm

    Somehow I just think that you, anonymous, probably are not a member of CCCU since you do not even have a name.

  79. anonymous
    August 8, 2011 at 5:49 pm

    Ben, if you could comprehend what I wrote you’d know that I am a member.

  80. anonymous
    August 8, 2011 at 5:54 pm

    Let me add that as the years have gone by, I’ve become more disenchanted with CCCU. The CEO’s salary, the service to me hasn’t been that great, and now this promotion just sours my opinion of CCCU. I’ve stayed with them up ’til now as the lesser of the evils.

  81. Anonymous
    August 8, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    I already have 43 points suckers.

  82. Anonymous
    August 8, 2011 at 6:03 pm

    “Ben says:
    August 8, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    I agree that there are two imbalances: 1. Very few very wealthy people and 2. Less than 50% on taxpayers pay taxes. If we can agree on these facts, then we have a relative minoriy funding most everything. If we are to move wealth down, then we need the bottom half being more productive also.”

    If you want agreement on facts, then you ought to provide some. Here’s a scenario; mom drives a kid to the store so the kid can buy a toy with birthday money from grandma, mom ends up paying gas tax and sales tax, and even the kid pays sales tax. Plus mom smokes and drinks alchohol (not while driving though), and pays those special taxes too. The myth of the lower 50% not paying any taxes is just silly. And, yes, the kid may actually be paying a higher percentage of his/her income in taxes than does a Wall St. fund manager making hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

    Define your terms a little better, and we might be able to get closer to that agreement on facts. But I do appreciate your general sentiment of everyone chipping in to get us out of this hole. Agree with that part.

  83. Plain Jane
    August 8, 2011 at 6:14 pm

    Is this a specific enough example for you, Ben?

  84. Plain Jane
    August 8, 2011 at 6:16 pm

    Warren Buffet paid 17.9% total taxes.
    The average of his office employees was 32.9%.

  85. tra
    August 8, 2011 at 7:30 pm

    Seems to me that, in a way, Ben and P.J. are both right, it’s just that they’re talking about different things.

    Yes, a very large amount of total taxes are paid by the rich. That’s because they’re the ones with the most income and property.

    But it’s also true that many wealthy people do indeed pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than people with far less money.

    This is because despite the progressivity in the income tax system, there’s significant regressivity in payroll taxes, and of course sales taxes are essentially a flat tax, which works out in a regressive way because poorer people have to spend a much larger percentage of their income just to get by.

    Meanwhile, wealthy people can and do take advantage of various tax loopholes and deductions. And of course when it comes to money coming in in the form of capital gains, the wealthy pay a much lower percentage in taxes on that incoming money than people who work for wages pay on their income.

  86. tra
    August 8, 2011 at 7:36 pm

    And Ben, the “problem” of the lower 50% “not paying enough” in income taxes is the result of several decades of wage stagnation (and in the bad years wages falling behind) for middle income and lower-income families. And you want them to pay more taxes? If those at the top were willing to pay those at the bottom a bit more in salaries, then that “problem” would take care of itself.

    What we have right now is CEOs and hedge fund managers and people who have inherited wealth and so on all enjoying skyrocketing incomes and falling taxes, while middle and lower-level employees get stagnating or diminishing wages and benefits. It’s a bit ridiculous when, in that environment, we then have CEOs and hedge fund managers and the like start whining about how the bottom 50% “isn’t paying enough taxes.” My message to those folks would be: If you want to share the tax burden, then you have to share the wealth.

    And by the way, the “productivity” of American workers is at an all-time high, and among the best in the world… the problem is that the fruits of that productivity are being sponged ever upwards in the wealth pyramid.

  87. Anonymous
    August 8, 2011 at 9:22 pm

    The bottom half are not paying federal income taxes. Fact. Mom’s sales tax and kids ice cream tax don’t have anything to do with the federal deficit.

  88. The Big Picture
    August 8, 2011 at 9:43 pm

    The bottom half are taxed every time they get their pathetic paycheck and every time they spend it.

    For nearly a quarter century the top individual tax rate was 91%, corporate taxes were 36% and it didn’t stop people’s motivation, in fact, it was one of American’s greatest periods of prosperity and economic growth.

  89. Anonymous
    August 8, 2011 at 9:51 pm

    CCCU rocks. HH & crew are just silly at best. Thank God we have a republic, not a democracy. Republic’s foster freedom and choice. Democracy’s lenchings. Sadly none of HH’s zealots can ever simply agree to disagree/

  90. Plain Jane
    August 8, 2011 at 9:57 pm

    What percentage of that “50%” are retired, disabled or widowed with dependent children? What percentage of people working full-time pay federal taxes? Everyone I know pays federal taxes and I know lots of people who are far from rich. If you want more people to pay taxes they need incomes that cover the cost of survival plus enough for taxes. When you pay less than the cost of living and put the difference in your pocket while they sign up food stamps, you have a lot of nerve complaining that they don’t pay taxes.

  91. tra
    August 8, 2011 at 10:09 pm

    The bottom half are not paying federal income taxes.

    That’s just not true. I’ve never been in the top 50%, and I’ve been paying federal income taxes every year for decades.

  92. Anonymous
    August 8, 2011 at 10:13 pm

    Thank you for this discussion about CCCU. I have been a member since 1991, but did not know of this reward program. I will ask the Crescent City Branch Manager why it is that they need to promote businesses that do not really need that much promoting. I will stay a member, however, because I believe in the basic principals of credit unions and because I think that it is better to bank with a MEMBER owned institution than with an INVESTOR owned one. Also, I have my mortgage with CCCU and they are the only institution that holds onto their mortgage loans rather than selling them to Fannie Mae or others. My rule is to do as much business with co-ops, credit unions and non-profits. Even my IPS is a non-profit–Jeffnet, affiliated with Jefferson Public Radio.

  93. Eric Kirk
    August 9, 2011 at 12:38 am

    Eric, that would have to be 80 cents of each dollar profit otherwise it wouldn’t even make sense.

    No, it could include overhead – supplies, labor, contract professional services, etc.

  94. Ben
    August 9, 2011 at 7:35 am

    I do not debate with people who do not use their names. Anonymous bloggers can not be taken seriously. Sorry.

  95. Plain Jane
    August 9, 2011 at 7:46 am

    Are you going to respond to the pseudonymous “bloggers,” Ben or are their “names” somehow less serious than “Ben?”

  96. High Finance
    August 9, 2011 at 9:26 am

    46% of the American people do not pay federal income taxes and that is beyond dispute.

    The bottom 50% pay only 3% of all income taxes paid.

  97. Plain Jane
    August 9, 2011 at 9:40 am

    Do you know what percentage of that 46% are retired, disabled or unemployed because they can’t find a job, HiFi? I just can’t believe that the bottom 50% pay only 3% considering what percentage I pay and my income. When you destroy the middle class with tax cuts for the wealthy minority and wage cuts for the working class majority, it would be nice if you didn’t pretend it’s because they are leeches. They don’t set the wages, nor do they have any power over tax rates, so blaming them for the mess is dishonest. Does it make sense to you that low wage workers who already don’t make enough to live and must rely on social programs to survive should pay more taxes, HiFi? And where are the jobs that were promised in exchange for the lowest tax rates in 3 or 4 generations?

  98. Franklin
    August 9, 2011 at 10:05 am

    PJ asks a valid question, Ben. Unless A person uses their full, real name how are they different than someone posting anonymously?

  99. August 9, 2011 at 10:13 am

    This is for HiFi: I noticed your comment and recalled seeing this article on Monday, Aug.8th, front page of the SF Chronicle. “Taxes, closer look at 46% who don’t pay, Tea Party’s favorite stat doesn’t tell the full story.” The story is by Joe Garofoli a Chronicle staff writer. He reports; “it is accurate in a sense-46% of US households aren’t expected to pay federal income taxes this year. But most of these people do pay federal taxes of some sort, such as payroll taxes.” Here’s the interesting part-“Roughly half of those 76 million American households who don’t pay federal income taxes are zeroed outbecause their INCOME IS TOO LOW, (capitals are mine HiFi) he said while the other half-of all income levels-pay no income tax because of a variety of exemptions and loopholes.” It’s a much more nuanced story than the blatant ‘almost half of Americans pay no tax’ Williams said. Further on in the story is a very clarifying paragraph (just for you HiFi) “Only 1 percent of US households pay neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes. Those who pay no federal income taxes are predominately lower-income Americans. Nearly 80% of the US households who pay no federal income taxes earn less than $30,000, Williams reseach has found.” Did you know this statistic is not really accurate Hifi? Do you only pay attention to the statistics that support your own fiscally conservative nature?

  100. tra
    August 9, 2011 at 11:28 am

    HiFi said: “The bottom 50% pay only 3% of all income taxes paid.”

    Given the rapid increase in income inequality over the past few decades wouldn’t be surprised at all to find out that that statistic is accurate.

    When the rich keep getting richer, while working families are left behind, sooner or later you get a situation where a large proportion of the population doesn’t have enough income to qualify to pay income tax.

  101. High Finance
    August 9, 2011 at 11:30 am

    Look friend, look behind what they are saying.

    Does it even make sense to you that “Only 1% of US households pay neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes”? Think about it. Retired folks pay ZERO (capitals are mine Friend) payroll tax. Then think about the fact that many if not most Social Security people don’t even file a tax return. In fact far more than 1% of the households don’t even file a tax return.

    That article is so far off base it can’t be taken seriously. As for the statement that most of the people who don’t pay income tax make less than $30,000 ? DUH !

    The fact that 46% of the people don’t pay income taxes stands. The Chronicle is full ob baloney.

  102. Plain Jane
    August 9, 2011 at 11:47 am

    HiFi, at what income level should people have to start paying federal income tax? Should wages for a full-time job be high enough that everyone has to pay something? Should we make them pay taxes and then give them even more subsidies to make up for it? What tax rate on how much income do you believe is fair and best for our economy?

  103. Migh Finances
    August 9, 2011 at 12:02 pm

    I benefited from an era that had 91% tax rates and the fully funded elementary, university and infrastructure I needed to prosper.

    Now that I succeeded, I have no interest in those “Social Security people” and taxes!

    You will never catch me cashing one of those commie checks that coddle the old and disabled and keeps them unproductive.

    61% of taxable corporations pay no taxes, but THEY deserve it. THEY work hard and provide jobs for this world’s poorest families and their children.

    Or, would you rather send billions in foreign aid?

  104. High Finance
    August 9, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    PJ, the problem with our system is that so many people have no stake in the income tax system. In other words, if they pay zero income tax they don’t care if income taxes is raised for the people that do. But they vote.

    I think that everybody should pay income tax, even if it is as low as 1% for the lowest paid people. That way they have consequences for their votes.

    But before you jump to stereotypes, I have no problem with having tax increases by letting the Bush tax cuts expire except that we are teetering on the edge of a “second dip” recession. Once the economy recovers we need to raise taxes at the same time we have serious spending cuts.

  105. Thorstein Veblen
    August 9, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    Is it any wonder that we can’t do anything to fix our dysfunctional systems, when we can’t even get agreement on fairly straightforward issues of fact? Sad, as we continue to drift toward the abyss.

  106. Plain Jane
    August 9, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    So you would increase social programs to make up for the taxes they would pay or should they go without eating a few days a month, HiFi?

    What affect do you think raising taxes by 3% would have on people making over $250,000 compared to people making under $15,000 paying 1%? Which would hurt the economy more?

  107. High Finance
    August 9, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    I would not want to increase taxes on either group until after the economy recovers in a couple of years PJ.

  108. Plain Jane
    August 9, 2011 at 1:01 pm

    How will the economy recover if you cut social programs which subsidize the poor and government spending which employs millions of people? You do realize that a tiny cut in the subsidies for the working poor would have a much greater negative impact on them, and the economy, than increasing taxes on the rich even more than 3%?

  109. anoni-laundry
    August 9, 2011 at 1:06 pm

    “P.S. I own an LG, from Verns, and life is good!”….10:32

    So sorry….didn’t realize you were bonafide.

    Thanks for clarifying.

  110. Anonymous
    August 9, 2011 at 5:05 pm

    I just got an email, originated through Vertical Response, an email campaign internet based software program, under Velocity Solutions account, that was for Coast Central Rewards Program.

    The subject line of the email was “Shop Online for Hot Deals at coastcentralrewards.org!” and there was a graphic saying “Beat the Heat! Cool Savings are Just a Click Away!”

    “Do you break a sweat just thinking about stepping outside in this heat? Chill out and enjoy sizzling savings when you shop online through coastcentralrewards.org”

    Hahahahahaha … definetely not local. They would have never said that, because we all know the majority of Coast Central’s customers live a a mild temperate climate and we have not had a “hot” summer (here on the coast, that is).

  111. Anonymous
    August 9, 2011 at 6:24 pm

    That’s too bad. I’m still reeling from reading about Dean Christensen’s compensation. I see CCCU employs over 150 people. I hope they all receive good wages and benefits.

  112. Anonymous
    August 10, 2011 at 11:50 am

    If media returned to reporting in the public interest it would be headlining the extent to which Americans are still losing everything in record numbers while the number of U.S. and Chinese billionaires doubles. (Forbes).

    We haven’t seen this much income disparity since the Gilded Age, or this much unemployment since the Great Depression, yet, the thousands of U.S. citizens awarded advanced degrees each year in sociology, history, and economics, (who understand the legacy of FDR), are neither sought-out nor interviewed by mainstream media.

    Outrage is being effectively confined to the scores of anonymous blogs on the internet now estimated to reach 1% of the world’s population.

  113. Fact Checker
    August 10, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    Anonymous says:
    August 9, 2011 at 6:24 pm

    “That’s too bad. I’m still reeling from reading about Dean Christensen’s compensation. I see CCCU employs over 150 people. I hope they all receive good wages and benefits.”

    Pay at CCCU is notoriously low. I have friends who have worked there as well as at other financial institutions on the North Coast.

  114. anonymous
    August 10, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    All commitment to community is slowly eroding; all for more money. Pure, simple, greed.

  115. High Finance
    August 10, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    Again “Fact” Checker presents no facts.

  116. Fact Checker
    August 10, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    High Finance says:
    August 10, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    “Again “Fact” Checker presents no facts.”

    Wrong again No Class Finance. It is a fact that CCCU pays substantially less than Humboldt Bank did, North Valley Bank does, etc. They do not post their wages posted online, but the fact remains and those in the industry know this to be true. You, obviously, are either not in the industry or you are looking at the $900,000 their CEO Dean Christiansen made running a local financial co-op. Wall Street has come to Harrison Ave.

  117. Fact Checker
    August 10, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    Again “Hi Fi” blows hard.

  118. Thorstein Veblen
    August 10, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    I’m also disturbed by the CEO pay. Thats almost $80K per MONTH, more than I make in some YEARS. Couldn’t we find someone for less than that? I could be getting a bigger member dividend. And I deserve it too.

    I haven’t noticed lately, but CCCU branches used to have the photos of the board of directors on the wall. I’ll have to see if I still know any of them and make my complaint known. But, I suspect any board that would approve such ceo pay has been recruited with that purpose in mind. Also my complaint about undermining local businesses with this rewards program, which was the subject of this thread.

    I think CCCU can still be responsive to the local community, but not if we don’t let them know what we are thinking. Maybe will make no difference in terms of CEO pay, but I’d bet that Dennis Hunter would make more of an effort to find some locals for his program.

  119. High Finance
    August 10, 2011 at 4:47 pm

    Is it a “Fact” Mr Factless, that Coast pays “substantially less” than than other banks or are you making it up ?

    You might know one or two employees at Coast and one or two other bank’s employees and what they make at best. To project that out to all the Coast employees is not a “fact” but pure guesswork.

  120. Anonymous
    August 11, 2011 at 12:35 am

    Geeze-O-Peet HiFi, it’s not like he’s claiming that the Eureka Chamber of Commerce financial records are public…as you have in defense of their public subsidies.

  121. Fact Checker
    August 11, 2011 at 8:04 am

    No Class Finance 4:47. I know much more than “one or two employees at Coast” and I personally know several who have worked at CCCU and also for local banks. It’s a revolving door in a small town. I don’t see any CCCU employees jumping on your bandwagon No Class. It’s because the pay is below industry standards except, of course, Dean Christiansen, the CEO of a “co-op”, who make $800,000+ a year. (sonds like your kind of guy No Class). You are not too bright No Class. And you aren’t very knowledgeable or else you would no not to step into a debate in which you are dead wrong.

  122. High Finance
    August 11, 2011 at 9:48 am

    You make up shit all the time “No Fact Checker”, and you are doing so again now. I also know several current & former Coast employees and when they moved to Coast from other banks they got RAISES.

    I make no excuses for the CEO’s pay. But you are wrong on that as well. His pay & benefits was reported as a lot higher in the media.

  123. Anon
    August 11, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    “I make no excuses for the CEO’s pay”.

    …because you’re so busy apologizing for a corrupt society to express outrage against it?

    With all the bailouts enabling the bigs to continue making bigger profits on bigger cars and bigger homes that average Americans need credit to buy, at what point does capitalism become a corrupt mockery to you?

    How consistent of you to focus on the speck of presumption by 8:04, while ignoring your lie exposed by 12:35.

  124. High Finance
    August 11, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    “Lie”? Any member of the Chamber can see the financials.

    I believe the financials of the Chamber are even made public.

  125. Curley
    August 11, 2011 at 3:27 pm

    There are no public subsidies for the Chamber of Commerce. That’s one of the most told lies on this blog. If you’re talking about the TOT tax money- it goes to fund the visitor’s center for information and referrals to local hotels, restaurants and businesses which generates more TOT tax dollars. It’s a completely different thing than the Chamber’s budget which is funded by membership dues. There’s no connection between the two. Boring but that’s what it is.

  126. Plain Jane
    August 11, 2011 at 3:41 pm

    What do we really get from that approx. $125,000 a year, Curley? Do you think if people arrive in Eureka and there is no visitor’s center they won’t be able to find a hotel which likely has brochures and locals to recommend restaurants and points of interest, not to mention internet access? Will they not stay in hotels and eat in restaurants without the visitor’s center? What sort of outreach do they do to encourage people to come here that isn’t duplicated by privately funded sources all over the web?

  127. Curley
    August 11, 2011 at 3:59 pm

    I can’t tell you what all they do but if you were to call the Chamber I’m sure they’ll be very happy to give you that information. They do keep track of all visitor contact and outreach stats and I’ve heard all of the stats summarized at the annual membership meetings. It’s pretty impressive. The point is that it’s a fee for service arrangement that’s worked well for the City and I believe the TOT tax numbers have increased most years.. It’s not a subsidy or some shady deal for a certain sector or group though-that’s for sure.

  128. Plain Jane
    August 11, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    Why would you assume the increase in the TOT is due to the visitor’s center, Curley? Couldn’t you just as easily assume it’s due to people coming here to buy pot or higher gas prices? People clicking on their links isn’t evidence that’s the only place people looked for information about Eureka and how many people stop by in person isn’t evidence that they wouldn’t have stayed, dined or shopped in Eureka if the visitor’s center didn’t exist.

  129. Not A Native
    August 11, 2011 at 6:47 pm

    Its a pure subsidy for friends and insiders of the chamber. Looking over the Humboldt Economic Index shows that lodging business has declined over the last ten years. But this tourism killing vigorish is one more little local way that the old boy business community puts their hands into the public till looking after their own, dispensing patronage to the right folks(politically Right that is).

  130. tra
    August 11, 2011 at 8:53 pm

    Is there some kind of secret entrance to that Visitor’s Center, or something?

    The reason I ask is because I’ve never actually seen anyone go in or out of it.

  131. Plain Jane
    August 11, 2011 at 11:29 pm

    I’ve never seen any sort of activity around it either, Tra. What are its hours?

  132. High Finance
    August 12, 2011 at 7:33 am

    Curley is 100% right. There is NO public subsidy of the Chamber. The city is buying the Visitor’s Center activities. Not only have I personally seen and talked to tourists in its lobby while I was there but they get a ton of phone calls as well.

    Not only does the Chamber spend ALL the money from the city on tourism outreach, but it spends a lot of its member’s dues on it as well. The overhead of the Chamber is paid 100% by member’s dues.

    The TOT tax is paid by tourists. A small fraction of that money is spent by the city to attract more tourists. The city MAKES money by its payments to the Chamber.

  133. Fact Checker
    August 12, 2011 at 7:59 am

    High Finance says:
    August 12, 2011 at 7:33 am

    “Curley is 100% right. There is NO public subsidy of the Chamber….The TOT tax is paid by tourists.”

    A tax is a tax is a tax. And the tax becomes a public subsidy.

  134. Plain Jane
    August 12, 2011 at 8:36 am

    Shame on us for thinking COC members should pay for their own own advertising! There is no evidence that the tax payer money they are given does anything to increase the TOT. Claiming that because TOT increases every year means it increases every year due to the work of the COC is fallacy of circular logic and causation.

    This is nothing more than local corporate welfare.

  135. Anon
    August 12, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    Give Baykeeper the public’s TOT subsidy to operate tourist services, instead of the COC, and watch Hi-Liar and Curly start crying “public-subsidized environmentalists”!!!

    Putting the lie these liars is just too easy.

    And then, Without any shame, they offer even more drivel about COC’s self-sacrifices for tourist services that cannot be proven because their financial records are not public.

  136. Anonymous
    August 12, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    At least Baykeepers actually offers a tourist-attracting boat ride around the bay with volunteer docents!

  137. Curley
    August 12, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    Please pardon me. I didn’t mean to upset anyone with my comments about the Transient occupancy Tax yesterday. Just meant to clear up a misconception, that’s all. Didn’t mean any disrespect to anyone.

  138. Anonymous
    August 12, 2011 at 10:30 pm

    Hi-Liar’s sidekick had to lie to clear things up. Funny.

  139. High Finance
    August 13, 2011 at 9:07 am

    Factless Checker is wrong again. It is not a “subsidy” it is a payment to MAKE money by attracting MORE tourists who pay MORE TOT dollars.

    A subsidy is what you get with your monthly welfare checks Factless. The payments for services rendered are not.

  140. High Finance
    August 13, 2011 at 9:12 am

    Curley, you shouldn’t feel as if you have to apologize to the cyber bullies.

    They gang up on anybody who doesn’t toe their line in order to try and drive away any dissenting voices. They are so insecure in their own beliefs that they cannot tolerate anybody who doesn’t agree with them.

    I am not talking about all of them. Some can debate like adults. I am talking about the likes of those who posted at 10.30pm, 12.33pm and a few others.

  141. Anonymous
    August 14, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    Funny to see Hi-Liar get ramped-up in his preferred environment where he can finally DEMAND debate in the absence of verifiable facts!

    Hilarious!

    My sources have informed me that the Chamber scrambled to provide a schedule of costs as evidence supporting their expenditures of TOT funds once it became controversial.

    The COC has received millions of dollars in public funds from public TOT revenue. These funds have not been kept in a separate bank account and there are no invoices nor supporting schedules itemizing charges normally associated, and required, when an entity is “hired” by government for a service.

    To me, the land that COC received from the City of Eureka, is generous enough.

    A “debater” would simply verify his claims by either posting the financial reports and supporting schedules, or providing a link to them.

    A liar can do neither.

  142. Jack Sherman
    August 14, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    Silly people!

    Give me $100K-150K a year for decades and I’ll provide you with PLENTY of invoices and schedules!

  143. Cheers
    August 15, 2011 at 11:55 am

    Calling Hi-Liar on his “facts” has banished the tyrant once again.

    Well done.

  144. Humkev
    August 15, 2011 at 4:19 pm

    Wow, this story has a number of local scams tied to it.

    The right wing Chamber, is of course getting a substantial government payout each year. As they curse all government handouts and work behind the scenes to “limit government spending”. I wish I could be shocked by right wing hypocrisy, but I’m pretty numb to it by now.

    Then Dean Christenson’s obscene salary. Wow. Almost a million dollars a year in this area is crazy enough, but in a “not for profit” credit union set up for it’s members…..holy shit.

    Obviously money doesn’t buy happiness, if you know Dean. He’s pretty convinced that life and his fellow people are screwing him over good. He’ll go to the mat to get a dollar he thinks someone owes him.

    And then High Finance tries to drop an ad for Mike’s without mentioning that more pricks hang out there than at a nudist colony. What if a customer with dreads shows up, HF?

  145. High Finance
    August 16, 2011 at 10:00 am

    “Cheers” is again not telling the truth.

    1.51pm has no “inside sources” at the C of C.

    Their remarks warrant no response. Can’t debate with liars.

  146. Anonymous
    August 16, 2011 at 10:20 am

    Who owns the building HiFi?

  147. Fact Checker
    August 16, 2011 at 10:55 am

    High Finance says:
    August 16, 2011 at 10:00 am

    “1.51pm has no “inside sources” at the C of C.”

    Really Hi Lie? You know for fact that an “Anonymous” poster “has no inside sources at the C of C”? How do you know who knows whom?

  148. Fact Checker
    August 16, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    It is a matter of public record that
    2112 Broadway, home of the Eureka Chamber of Commerce, is owned by the City of Eureka.

  149. Jack Sherman
    August 16, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    High Finance says:
    August 13, 2011 at 9:12 am

    “They are so insecure in their own beliefs that they cannot tolerate anybody who doesn’t agree with them….(while others) can debate like adults”.

    High Finance says:
    August 16, 2011 at 10:00 am

    “1.51pm has no “inside sources” at the C of C.

    Their remarks warrant no response”

    “Debate like adults”?

    This goon has zero credibility. Why you folks engage him is fascinating. How hard is it to make a counter-claim to 1:51 that TOT funds are kept in a separate bank account to ensure transparency?

  150. Not A Native
    August 16, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    Pure subsidy and they pay the COC to take it.

    Gee how come the city isn’t selling off that surplus property, like the school board had to do for Jefferson? The ole’ boys look out for their friends first, if there’s anything left over, that goes to their relatives.

    The only ‘service’ the COC performs for the city is taking its money. Its a gubmint ‘make work project’ if ever there was one. But this one is based on greed, not need.

  151. Anon
    August 16, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    If Eureka owns the COC’s land, how much rent does COC pay?

    Oh that’s right, the COC owns this city….citizens must be grateful to their betters, and be required to show it.

    The COC is: Eureka’s Little Pyramid of Nobility.

  152. High Finance
    August 16, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    If my memory serves me right, I read where the land was donated to the city in exchange for them to rent to the C of C for $1 per year.

    Thanks, Jack Sherman, for being a perfect example of everything I said.

  153. Fact Checker
    August 16, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    High Finance says:
    August 16, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    “If my memory serves me right, I read where the land was donated to the city in exchange for them to rent to the C of C for $1 per year.”

    If the C of C was transparent, this would be a documented fact instead if relying on Hi Lie’s memory. What a sweet heart deal, $1 a year? How much do the taxpayers pay for maintenance, etc.?

  154. High Finance
    August 17, 2011 at 8:22 am

    No “facts” again ?

  155. Fact Checker
    August 17, 2011 at 10:49 am

    High Finance says:
    August 17, 2011 at 8:22 am

    “No “facts” again ?”

    Yes Hi Lie, it is a fact that the Chamber of Commerce lacks transparency and their budget, their agreement with the city, none of it is posted at the C of C website nor the City of Eureka website. Have any more enlightened opinions to share with all of us Hi Liar?

  156. High Finance
    August 17, 2011 at 11:11 am

    I thought we agreed that you would hang up that ridiculous moniker or at least try harder ?

    I vote for “FactLess”.

    Don’t you think it is important to find out how the city acquired the property and the restrictions on it before you accuse ?

  157. Fact Checker
    August 17, 2011 at 11:59 am

    High Finance says:
    August 17, 2011 at 11:11 am

    “I thought we agreed…”

    Wrong again doofus! We have agreed on nothing. You just can’t get anything right, can you boy?

  158. Jack Sherman
    August 17, 2011 at 1:49 pm

    “This goon has zero credibility. Why you folks engage him is fascinating. How hard is it to make a counter-claim to 1:51 that TOT funds are kept in a separate bank account to ensure transparency”?

    Worth repeating.

  159. Anonymous
    August 17, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    Yep, all is right in the universe.

    Eureka citizens maintain legal liability on the COC property for $1.00, while paying the richest club in town millions.

    It works for Wall Street!

  160. Cheers
    August 17, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    Judging by the content, Hi-Liar was effectively banished. More unsubstantiated BS and additional School-yard crap hardly counts as a response, let alone, the “debate like adult(s)” he likes to throw around.

    He can’t/won’t respond to 1:49 or 1:51…so he just keeps on making stuff up.

  161. High Finance
    August 17, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    More hate speak by cyber bully Jack Sherman.

    Cheers, repeating the same lie over and over again doesn’t make it true. It just makes you look stupid.

    Again I ask. Isn’t it worthwhile to know how the city acquired the property the COC sits on and what restrictions were made on that gift ?

  162. Cheers
    August 18, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    Idiot.

    “Restrictions” do not protect injured parties from suing and winning huge liability settlements.

    “How hard is it to make a counter-claim to 1:51/1:49 that TOT funds are kept in a separate bank account to ensure transparency”?

    You may now return to your childish (and “stupid”) name-calling.

  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