Home > Balloon Track, Coastal Commission, Lawsuits, Rex Bohn, Rob Arkley > Balloon Track lawsuit tossed by Supreme Court

Balloon Track lawsuit tossed by Supreme Court

When the so-called Citizens for a Better Eureka lost their case in Humboldt County Superior Court challenging the Coastal Commission’s say-so over the blighted Balloon Track, they took it to the California 1st District Court of Appeals.  There, they lost again.

Now the California Supreme Court has denied a petition for review of the Appellate Court’s decision.

The lawsuit was a factual dud from the get-go, but was heartily supported by Rex Bohn, 1st District Candidate for Humboldt County Supervisor, who took to the podium during a press conference announcing the suit in February 2010.

  1. September 29, 2011 at 7:36 am

    What a pleasure it would be to see the blighted, discarded property at least cleaned up.

  2. September 29, 2011 at 7:38 am

    Yes, Arkley should get on that.

  3. Anonymous
    September 29, 2011 at 7:44 am

    Yeah…maybe the property can go into Receivership like the Squires properties!

  4. Anonymous
    September 29, 2011 at 7:51 am

    Once again, back to slamming Arkly and progress.

    We can’t have prgress in Humboldt, that would piss sthe progressives off. And the pot growers (including you know who).

    get a life

  5. September 29, 2011 at 7:56 am

    Thanks for reading the Humboldt Herald!

  6. Goldie
    September 29, 2011 at 7:58 am

    Lawful progress need not be so difficult. The balloon tract was purchased with a lawsuit already filed against it concerning the known toxins it held. A proper clean up is all that is being asked for.

  7. Fact Checker
    September 29, 2011 at 7:59 am

    Jeez H, publishing a fact that a case was tossed out of the California Supreme Court. “Back to “slamming Arkley and progress”? Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

  8. Not an Expert
    September 29, 2011 at 8:01 am

    Why hasn’t Arkley started the cleanup he agreed to in the Baykeeper settlement? He’s free to get going on that anytime now…Oh except that another rainy season is approaching, too late this year.

  9. Anonymous
    September 29, 2011 at 8:02 am

    Arkley waves the rules but the CCC rules the waves.

  10. Anonymous
    September 29, 2011 at 8:05 am

    I’ve never understood why some people consider “progress” to be the capping a toxic laden site on Humboldt Bay’s waterfront, the cap consisting of a gigantic parking lot for a big box mall.

  11. Percy
    September 29, 2011 at 8:10 am

    That pesky CCC keeping the great job creator from creating all those jobs. No more taxes on rich people, I wants me my trickle down!

  12. Anonymous
    September 29, 2011 at 8:12 am

    Thanks for reminding us of another of Rex’s Bohnheaded positions. I particularly appreciate his complicity in the LNG scheme.

  13. Harry
    September 29, 2011 at 8:20 am

    I love the Balloon Tract litmus test.

  14. September 29, 2011 at 8:29 am

    It’s a whole new Genre, “Marina Center as Myth”.

    Say, is there any way to find out if Security National and other Arkley fronts have paid there overdue propery taxes?

    As long as Arkley keeps trying to carve up the tiny local retail pie into smaller and smaller bits, he will fail. When he decides to provide location, structure, and support for wealth-producing light industry, both he and the Balloon Track have a chance.

    Hey, was that a pig I just saw fly by?

  15. September 29, 2011 at 8:32 am

    Great, now let’s focus on our coastal wetlands
    before they are gone.
    Manila hind dunes, after a decade of pulling vegetation
    no longer function aquatically.
    Fore dunes are collapsing. Backwards and phony
    from the giddy-up. Now the wetland money is gone and..
    so are the wetlands.
    Nice Clubhouse!
    .

  16. Chicken Little
    September 29, 2011 at 8:42 am

    Wetland Watch says:
    September 29, 2011 at 8:32 am
    “Great, now let’s focus on our coastal wetlands
    before they are gone.
    Manila hind dunes, after a decade of pulling vegetation no longer function aquatically.
    Fore dunes are collapsing. Backwards and phony
    from the giddy-up. Now the wetland money is gone and..so are the wetlands.”

    The sky is falling~~The sky is falling!

  17. Anonymous
    September 29, 2011 at 8:48 am

    Arkley and Randy Gans get a beat-down… again. More evidence that these guys little more than yellow-bellied liars when it comes to anything having to do with the BT.

    When are they going to comply the settlement and consent decree they signed off on in federal court back in August, 2010? Why hasn’t any local media, other than Heraldo, done a story on their lack of progress?

    Talk about silent complicity!

  18. Arkley: King of the Stall
    September 29, 2011 at 9:00 am

    Damien “Sacrificial Lamb” Schiff, a fresh-faced twenty-something counsel for Pacific Legal Foundation (of which Arkley and his dad are/were big supporters) was more than happy to comply with Arkley’s request to assist him in his stalling tactic to water-down or avoid cleanup of the Balloon Track as long as humanly possible. Damien and bosses: “Just keep them donations rollin’ in, guys… and let us know if there’s any other frivolous lawsuits you need us to file. Glad to be of service to the cause!”

    I remember reading Arkley, Sr.’s obituary in the T-S a few years ago, which concluded with a direction for friends to make donations to the PLF in lieu of flowers. Phew!

  19. Down the Road
    September 29, 2011 at 9:04 am

    What should be examined is the failure of the city to take the
    steps with the railroads to clean this track up years ago.

    Arkley and this city think they are impervious to the rest of us.
    They think the statutes don’t apply to them. As far as Arkley
    sidekick Bohn, just say no at the polls.

  20. osprey
    September 29, 2011 at 9:06 am

    Better get to work complying with the Coastal Commission’s requests there Robby…..

  21. Anonymous
    September 29, 2011 at 9:24 am

    A side issue here is PLF’s zeal in filing frivolous law suits to reduce the CCC’s ability to defend against more important, big picture, cases.

  22. WhatNow
    September 29, 2011 at 9:41 am

    Hey, old Rexie Bohn(er)is such a “can do” kind of guy ,w,hy doesn’t he go clean the damn thing up himself?
    Just explain to him the photo opportunities and he’;ll probablym pitch a sleeping tent on site.

  23. Anonymous
    September 29, 2011 at 9:47 am

    Marina Center NOW!
    … or maybe a year or two from now. Wait, maybe I’ll sell the property… no, there’s this pesky economic down turn and there isn’t a market for polluted property. I know, we’ll clean it up after we get rid of Linda Atkins – because she’s the reason we haven’t done any cleanup – ya, ya, that’s it. She’s the problem!

  24. caliboy
    September 29, 2011 at 9:58 am

    All the losers whining. First the CCCU posts slamming Dennis Hunter. Now this attack on Rex Bohn. TS today Salzman running his yap. I smell election time in the air. Prog’s are gearing up for another season of lies and half truths.

    Bout half the posts same people. Hblog is propaganda of a low type.

  25. Arkley: King of the Stall
    September 29, 2011 at 10:04 am

    Lies and half-truths on this thread? So the CA Supreme Court and Court of Appeals are “proggy liars” too? Can’t deal with reality or losing, can ya?

  26. Pitchfork
    September 29, 2011 at 10:32 am

    The Brady bunch and Cherie promised 1000 new jobs. Where oh where are they, Sid Berg? Not one bit of progress towards the court ordered clean up. Less jobs today than one year ago.

  27. tra
    September 29, 2011 at 10:34 am

    NEWSFLASH: Baseless lawsuit found to be baseless…details at eleven.

  28. Anonymous
    September 29, 2011 at 11:04 am

    Developing: no big box developing.

  29. September 29, 2011 at 11:35 am

    “What a pleasure it would be to see the blighted, discarded property at least cleaned up.”

    Indeed. Is is profitable somehow to sue instead?

  30. Arkley: King of the Stall
    September 29, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    Hey, it gave Arkley time to spin the issue, carpet-bomb Eureka with propaganda supporting his contention that if you supported the Coastal Commission’s attempt to fairly apply the law to the project, you were “against a cleanup,” and on that basis, get all of his candidates elected.

    Seemed to work well for him.

  31. SmokeMonster
    September 29, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    As ive stated here on previous threads,where were all of you that are so adamant about the cleanup of the BT before arkley bought it?
    I guess most of you didn’t live here before 1990,im glad you are here now to save us all.

  32. High Finance
    September 29, 2011 at 3:01 pm

    My only surprise here is that anyone tries to do business in California.

    Is anyone suprised that our unemployment rate is over 12 ?

  33. Living In Eureka
    September 29, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    Oh HiFi, now it’s CCC’s fault that our unemployment is so high. Well, Big Business & Big Box guys, you can always hop down to Louisiana. Unemployment rate is higher than ours & no Coastal Commission to deal with! Actually, very few restrictions at all! I hear it is still a little oily down there but you can’t have everything.
    Squires didn’t clean up his property & lost in court, Hmmm…sounds like there is a lot of that going around!

  34. Boris
    September 29, 2011 at 3:35 pm

    Mr. High Finance is correct. In Russia we do not have those pesky environmentalist interfering with our tremendous capitalist effort. We have crushed the socialist movements in our great country and our economies are much better than California’s. Mr. Arkley will drive out the clean air and water peoples and America will be great again.

  35. September 29, 2011 at 3:55 pm

    California sends far more to Washington DC than the federal government spends here. Most “red states” receive far more in federal spending than they send to DC. This is red state welfare. California is tired of supporting the failed red state economies with its tax dollars.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  36. Anonymous
    September 29, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    Anon @ 7:51 am, progress towards what and for whom.

    Hi (-as-a-kite), you and your ilk and your mythological theory of infinite economic growth have now hit the wall of real world absolute scarcity(that is, the world of natural laws that rules all life). To borrow a term, we have hit the state of peak everything and now, like frat boys after a long drunken weekend of excess & debauchery, we will now suffer through the hangover/sickness resulting from a depleted system. Your nonsense is now over. Nature bats last.

    dumb-ass!

  37. Anonymous
    September 29, 2011 at 5:25 pm

    I am wondering why you mentioned Rex? Actually, you are helping Rex everytime you mention him. You probably should mention that Patty Berg was against the lawsuit. Its going to be a great deal of fun watching those two take swings at each other. I didnt know that Berg was still around? Does anyone know what she is doing for fund raising?

  38. Anonymous
    September 29, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    Rex Bohn was VP of that Evergreen Pulp Mill scam. He has never explained that fiasco. That alone is enough to disqualify him.

  39. Anonymous
    September 29, 2011 at 6:03 pm

    Scam? Try to restrain your thoughts to reality.

  40. The Monitor
    September 29, 2011 at 6:42 pm

    Anyone look at the balloon tract lately? Its ground level blight is now covered by log decks in every direction. So much for not touching it until it has been cleaned of toxins. Wasn’t that issue settled in court some time back?

  41. Anonymous
    September 29, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    It wasn’t a scam? Who owns it now? Worthy Pick LLC in the Lesser Antilles? SCAM

  42. Anonymous
    September 29, 2011 at 7:32 pm

    with a little imagination, this property could be something Eureka can be proud of

  43. Not A Native
    September 29, 2011 at 7:41 pm

    So with this lawsuit settled, will CUE IV(Rob Arkley) be cooperating fully with the CC and provide the information requested for evaluating the appeal of Eureka’s approval of a coastal development permit? Anyone giving odds on that happening anytime soon?

    No one thinks this lawsuit was anything other than a stalling tactic with the exception of some who believe it was also done to sway Humboldt elections. C’mon, with housing expected to be in the shitter for the next 3 years, a large Home Depot isn’t going to get enough volume to meet corporate fiscal targets. And Wal Mart has changed its strategy too.

    Will Eureka voters keep drinking the kool-aid that says: Only when large property owners can do what they want(without many questions), will prosperity in the form of median wage blue collar jobs be available for loyal supporters? Some say voters will, because their attention is firmly fixed on the rearview mirror and they don’t know how to take the wheel and look through the windshield.

  44. Anonymous
    September 29, 2011 at 7:56 pm

    Who says this lawsuit is settled? There are still more courts to appeal to, correct?

  45. Anonymous
    September 29, 2011 at 8:10 pm

    The California Supreme Court refused to even review the case. On what grounds could they appeal to SCOTUS?

  46. Not A Native
    September 29, 2011 at 8:22 pm

    The State Supreme Court is the last stop for disputes of State law. This suit wasn’t remanded for further judicial review. The suit was dismissed by the Superior Court and that decision was upheld.

    An action in Federal court would have to challenge the constitutionality of the California Coastal Act. That question has already been decisively decided, barring material novel facts in this instance(none have been alleged).

    This suit is at the point where further action would cause a friviouus lawsuit allegation to be raised, risking severe penalties to the suing party.

  47. Anonymous
    September 29, 2011 at 8:49 pm

    NAN-
    I feel like you are talking out your ass. The last place to appeal state law??? Aren’t all laws subject to federal law and therefore can potentially be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

  48. High Finance
    September 29, 2011 at 9:21 pm

    Just as I guessed. Most of you cheering the stopping of the Marina Center plans are unemployed.

    Isn’t it kind of sick to be wishing the loss of jobs for the rest of us ?

  49. Anonymous
    September 29, 2011 at 9:21 pm

    Btg,bigger,bigest! The CCC is out of control. Over reaching on all levels. Another example of a good idea that the big government progressive vision has F’d up so bad that it(CCC) has become a power unto its own. In Cali the courts are filled with the same Gov knows best mentality. So fearful, they would not even hear the case. Afraid that a little light shinned on the CCC just might show the corruption it has become. This is not a one sided condemnation as corporations are not people either. No matter what a court said.

  50. Anonymous
    September 29, 2011 at 9:26 pm

    Yeah cuz people should like get whatever they like want.

  51. Anonymous
    September 29, 2011 at 9:49 pm

    Highfi – If it’s Arkley or the Highway, I’ll have the highway.

  52. Anonymous
    September 29, 2011 at 11:21 pm

    No 9:26 because the CCC has done horrible things to little people and their civil liberties all over Cali. Your hang up with like Arkley is like weak like dude. Protecting coastal access and coastal resources is an important issue that the citizens of Cali supported in prop 20 and we all still do today. The power hungry and over the top cluster that CCC has become was never invisioned and is not good for Cali anymore. Power,ego and $$$$$$$$ run this agency.

  53. Anonymous
    September 29, 2011 at 11:25 pm

    HIFi – Please explain how cheering the dismissal of this case is “cheering the stopping of the Marina Center”
    The only one stopping the Marina Center is Arkley. He owns the property and he has to do the cleanup within the mandates of the law. Cheering the dismissal of this case is cheering for the removal of a roadblock to site cleanup. If you believe in “Marina Center Now”, you should also be happy for the dismissal of the case.
    And yes I am employed, live, vote, and pay taxes in Eureka, but I do not intend to shop at Home Depot.

  54. Anonymous
    September 29, 2011 at 11:27 pm

    Anonymous 11:21 – please stop calling my state “Cali”. It makes my skin crawl. By the way, we don’t call SF “Frisco” either.

  55. Anonymous
    September 29, 2011 at 11:50 pm

    then don’t shop there/ simple

  56. Anonymous
    September 30, 2011 at 6:36 am

    11:50 – my point is that I really don’t care about another strip mall in Eureka (Marina Center); however, I want the site cleaned up properly. And if there are dioxins there I want them cleaned up to the level required by law.
    Arkley needs to stop stalling and start acting.

  57. SmokeMonster
    September 30, 2011 at 7:55 am

    Have any of you gone across the bay and looked at the old mill sites shit down on the water front there? Oh wait RA must not own them so who cares about them being cleaned up.

    How many of you RA haters are posting from apple cpu’s? Go ahead and tell yourself RA is worse than Steve jobs and all of his frivolous lawsuits to get the control he wants in the business world.

  58. Pitchfork
    September 30, 2011 at 8:05 am

    Exile Arkley! off to Baton Rouge.
    Hey CREG make that bumper sticker.

  59. September 30, 2011 at 8:10 am

    This is a County symptom. Millions in WETLAND money has been spent in this area to acquire, care and enhance WETLANDS. These monies came with an ‘wetland education’ component. Humboldt County used these monies to remove vegetation, calling it wetland restoration. Not teaching children what a wetland is or how to care for wetlands, instead took every 3rd grader in Humboldt , taught them to pull ammophila, and voila- our coastline is destabilized! Who’d have guessed that removing vegetation from sand dunes would drain our coastal wetlands? FEMA/NOAA requires qualified coastal engineering BEFORE removing vegetation from V or AO-Zones. Humboldt has not even mapped their coastal zone for Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The results are disastrous. It looks as though we left our coastal wetland work to grade schools and convicts, as we did.
    Journalists bear a good portion of blame hear, or should I say , lack of journalism, don’t worry though, there is enough damage and blame to go around.
    Nice Clubhouse!

  60. tra
    September 30, 2011 at 10:12 am

    Here’s what PLF’s attorney Damien Schiff said in today’s Times-Standard:

    “At this point, if there is still going to be a cleanup, the CUE VI folks will have to comply with the commission’s request for additional documentations and defend the permit against the folks who filed the appeal.”

    No shit, Sherlock.

    Too bad for Arkley that he didn’t just provide that info to the Coastal Commission a couple of years ago, rather than wasting the time of our judicial system on a case that never had a ghost of a chance.

    Soo much for the ridiculous slogan “Marina Center NOW!” More like “Marina Center…maybe someday…after all the appeals on our frivolous lawsuits run out…meanwhile we’re going to spend hundreds of thousands on lawyers and public relations while simultaneously remaining delinquent on our property taxes…so please vote for our candidates!”

  61. caliboy
    September 30, 2011 at 10:17 am

    Wonder if you can ever say anything at all that is not crap! Just more political garbage from tra.

  62. tra
    September 30, 2011 at 10:27 am

    Caliboy presents: Willful Ignorance Made Easy!

    Step One: Can’t refute the facts? No problem, just dismiss them as “crap” and “garbage.”

    Step Two: See Step One.

  63. OspreyIsSneakyPeteNichols
    September 30, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    Nice Clubhouse, indeed. The big, leveled, gravel parking lot for all the members is also cool. Nice NGO good old boy scam for sure. That lobbying group sure is strong in California. Just ask the California Coastal Conservancy and California Coastal Commission. The names not only sound similar, but they run/fundraise/extort in the same circles.

  64. Anonymous
    September 30, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    Nobody really gives a shit about the clean up. Give me a fucking break. If Bill Pierson owned the property, you would see zero resistance. The only reason you everybody is up in arms is because it is an Arkley project. Love him or hate him, there seems to be no inbetween, you cannot deny that he has invested more money into our city than any one person. He also employs a great deal of people and donates more than any one person. Success brings out lots of jelousy.

  65. Anonymous
    September 30, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    Uh, lots of people care about the cleanup and Pierson doesn’t own the property.

  66. Fact Checker
    September 30, 2011 at 12:53 pm

    Anon 12:45. No facts to check, just your nose jammed so far up Robyn’s ass that you better hope he doesn’t flatulate.

  67. tra
    September 30, 2011 at 2:28 pm

    If Bill Pierson owned the property, you would see zero resistance.

    Perhaps because Pierson would have cooperated with the Coastal Commission in the first place, rather than wasting time and money (both his and the taxpayers’) by filing a lawsuit trying to deny the Coastal Commission’s jurisdiction.

    Rob Arkley’s worst enemy is…Rob Arkley.

  68. William Verick
    September 30, 2011 at 3:12 pm

    What tra wrote at 10:12 is dead wrong. What judge Feeney and the Court of Appeal said is that for an actual clean up of a nuisance there is no need for a coastal development permit. The clean up could have been done all along if it was only a clean up CUE Vi was after.

    But that wasn’t what they were really interested in. CUE VI wanted to develop the property under the guise of a pathetic, sham clean up that was to be done based on willful ignorance of what toxins were on the site and where they may be. No clean up was going to happen unless CUE VI was also allowed to fill in wetlands and regrade the site to allow for the footprint of the desired big box development.

    In other words, obtaining a coastal development permit and an amendment to the City of Eureka’s Coastal Ordinance was the price for conducting the so-called clean up. And that “deal” was what the Coastal Commission nixed.

    So as I’ve said before, Cherie, Rex Bohn, Dave Tyson, Def Leopard, and all of Arkley’s other handmaidens among the local entitled could be out there right now — I envision them dressed in French maids uniforms a la Magenta in Rocky Horror — cleaning up the site if it is a clean up they’re really interested in. That has been the case from day one.

    In fact, if Dave Tyson is so desperate to abate that nuisance, the city itself is empowered under the law to abate it and then to send the bill to CUE VI. But that’s not what you do to a local nobleman that you obsequiously seat at the lead table at your daughter’s wedding.

    So let’s dispense right now with the crocodile tears about how litigation thwarted a clean up.

  69. Greenie Smith
    September 30, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    “So as I’ve said before, Cherie, Rex Bohn, Dave Tyson, Def Leopard, and all of Arkley’s other handmaidens among the local entitled could be out there right now — I envision them dressed in French maids uniforms a la Magenta in Rocky Horror —….”

    C’mon now, be fair, Rex doesn’t roll that way…..

  70. The Big Picture
    September 30, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    For the truth to be repeated as much as the lie, in a corrupt little town like Eureka , local libs will have to organize another “Consider the Alternatives” event that launched Larry glass into office.

    The public has no clue how Arkley is manipulating the system thanks to a compliant media.

    Every community is limited in the number of poverty-wage jobs local government can subsidize with medical, food and housing aid.

    It’s bankrupting this nation.

  71. anonymous
    September 30, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    Spot on, big picture. The resources…both financial and, most importantly natural…are diminishing. They don’t return. History is our future if we continue feeding the beast. Money is buying politics right now. Real alternative voices aren’t being given a match’s worth of light in the media’s spot. The specific enterprises within and around Humboldt County who are bringing the general public down can be stopped at the gate through the very means they use to stump the kind of changes that would improve the general public’s quality of life instead of just their wealthy cliques.

  72. September 30, 2011 at 4:03 pm

    OspreyIsSneakyPeteNichols says:
    September 30, 2011 at 12:29 pm
    “Nice Clubhouse, indeed.
    The big, leveled, gravel parking lot for all ”

    Literally, wetland parking, based on of the fraudulent parking
    numbers that created the toxic, to everything living, Manila Community Center.
    We lose dunes and wildlife and wetland function, and this crap keeps getting signed-off. All but for the want of a qualified coastal engineer.

  73. tra
    September 30, 2011 at 7:26 pm

    …the toxic, to everything living, Manila Community Center.

    That’s some pretty overinflated hyperbole, even by blog comments standards.

  74. Sunny
    October 1, 2011 at 7:10 am

    Yes TRA, Dan spouts the same hyperbole every chance he gets, as you can see by his multiple off-topic postings under at least four different names on this thread. For some reason, he thinks that everyone but himself is ignorant about and determined to ruin dune/wetland/forest habitats. Really.

  75. October 1, 2011 at 7:41 am

    Tra have you seen a dune forest go to desert?

    It’s not pretty but if you are interested beyond spouting
    that which you know nothing about, come on out.

    1611 Peninsula Dr., once there, walk to the Overlook- take a gander. I wish I could say that that is the worst of it, but no, it is merely a prelude for the wasting process has begun.
    Busch Geotechnical, years ago reported to Manila CSD that the wasting effect was due to their behavior. But hey, when you are getting $37000 an acre to strip it, and money is the only thing you give a damn about, then you strip it- and that is toxic to ALL lifeforms that had been living there.
    Hell Tra don’t take my word for it, come and see, then report.
    And Tra, if you still have the stomach for it, check out our newly DESTABILIZED fore dunes- tell us all about that too.

  76. October 1, 2011 at 10:00 am

    Tra and the brown-nosed one Sunny, please be sure to understand what salt-water intrusion will mean to our aquifer. Minutes 4-7.

    Anyone interested in water politics and wetlands will enjoy and appreciate this wonderfully educational film.
    Thanks again, Surfriders.

  77. Sunny
    October 1, 2011 at 10:51 am

    Thanks for the interesting clip from our friends at Surfriders. It highlights the problem of saltwater intrusion into aquifers near the coast as a result of water being drawn from the aquifer for agricultural and other uses–a big problem in the Sacramento River delta. Not the case in Manila, where water is piped in from the shared Mad River water system and the local ground water tables are not touched. False equivalency.

    I doubt you speak for the Surfriders, and you might not want to sign their name without asking. The Surfriders I know in Manila are active in the groups and activities that are working to improve our wetlands, dunes and dune forests. Your concerns have been heard and addressed repeatedly, but you seem to believe that all of us (including the global panel of dunes scientists at the Dunes Forum) are ill-informed and misguided and maybe even acting out of sinister intent. Reminds me of climate change deniers who suggest that 99% of experts who study the problem are wrong.

    Let’s relax and keep in mind that we share the same goals–healthy wetlands, dunes and forests. I have some baby shore pines that need to go in the ground somewhere. Have a good spot?

  78. anonymous
    October 1, 2011 at 11:10 am

    “Let’s relax and keep in mind that we share the same goals–healthy wetlands, dunes and forests.”

    Therein lies the crux. It’s all about who and what you’re specifically talking about. Regardless of their otherwise disinterested moral outlook, people involved in just about every facet of real estate and infrastructure have an additional goal altogether regarding specific projects: personal financial income. They depend on equally professional soothsayers to keep their morality at bay, who rely on just about every facet of professional real estate and infrastructure to maintain their own livelihood as well. And the intentionally unassuming yet vicious cycle continues, one parking lot and plumbing system at a time.

  79. Anonymous
    October 1, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    I call BS on you sunny. The small group (paid by the way) who promote all the anti every use at our dunes & beaches are selling that same BS to groups like surf rider. Many in that group know nothing but the line they are feed and many who do know have simply quit. Old timmers and the open minded see the FOD,Beach Stewards, Paykeeper,newNEC, are in this as a $$$$$$$$ source and no matter what they have to be a player in that game. We have changed one master for another. Their worst sin is the lie they are selling to our school kids.

  80. dwayne montane
    October 1, 2011 at 5:15 pm

    Obviously developers have a greater financial interest in on our coastal areas than “FOD,Beach Stewards, Paykeeper,newNEC”. By removing nonnative invasive plants those groups hope to restore the dunes to their original ecosystems. I believe it is legitimate to question if nonnative plant removal is sustainable, but to call it a $$$$$$$ source is ridiculous, unless of course you are some of the handful of people removing invasive foraround $10 an hour.

  81. October 1, 2011 at 8:41 pm

    It’s like this Dwayne, say you went into a coastal wetland, a protected ESHA (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area)
    to remove ‘weeds’ and when you were done, the coastal wetland
    failed to function.

    How would you explain that to Cal EPA, Dwayne? What would that say to our international agreements for Pacific Flyway wetlands? and…. wouldn’t that lead to fragmentation? The fox, rabbit, vole, mole, songbird, salamander, green frog, red-legged frog, cricket,
    bees, snake……..where are they to go?

    And Dwayne again, what do we tell the State of California when they inquire as to how are wetland money has been spent?

    Jus sayin’ Dwayne.

  82. Blondenonymous
    October 1, 2011 at 9:43 pm

    DuhWayne says:

    “I believe it is legitimate to question if nonnative plant removal is sustainable, but to call it a $$$$$$$ source is ridiculous, unless of course you are some of the handful of people removing invasive foraround $10 an hour.”

    Perhaps the laborers are making $10/hour (if the labor isn’t free from the California Conservation Corps). But grant grubbing nonprofits are making out just fine. How about the $1million grant to weed-wack spartina on the marshes? Or, even better, the additional grant money to spray herbicides on the marshes (yes, marshes on and adjacent to Humboldt Bay waters) to irradicate the same non-natives because the million-dollar weed wacker doesn’t work? So what its inneffective: There’s a grant for that. Come on, dipsticks, it shouldn’t be a surprise we’re all getting worked. We’re all doing it to each other. I think Baywatch and Security Nationalized are playing together in the sandbox because they know one can’t exist without the other. And they laugh as we slack-jawed, knuckle-draggers bitch at EACH OTHER on these silly blogs. Myself included. Meanwhile, both sides are stuffy their pockets.

    Have a pieceful day

  83. dwayne montane
    October 1, 2011 at 10:57 pm

    Where exactly in Humboldt has invasive plant removal impacted wetlands? As far as i know the invasive plant removal on the dunes may “free” the dunes to drift, but that has not impact any wetlands. If so, please let us know. If herbicides are used in or near wetlands, obviously most people would be against that. In fact, i think it’s safe to say that most environ groups would oppose those methods. To compare the funds (maybe tens of thousands) used to remove invasive plants with those used to develop land (hundreds of thousands) is ridiculous. There is no moral equivalency between the two. To say that is intellectually dishonest, but we are dealing with emotions, not reason.

  84. October 2, 2011 at 8:05 am

    Where exactly in Humboldt has invasive plant removal impacted wetlands? Dwayne

    Dwayne, most of the sand dunes from the westernmost road to the trough, in California are called Cowardin emergent wetlands. The swale between ridges is the emergent wetland and is PROTECTED as such. ie; FODs parking-lot is a perfect example of wetlands used for parking. And you Dwayne are a perfect example of a FOD used to destroy wetlands and sorry thing is, as you rip and gut the dunes you have no idea you are draining a protected wetland. Each wetland has a 250′ ESHA buffer. LEAVE THEM ALONE! They will attract hydrophytes (water loving plants) and chemically lock the soil so as not to drain so easily and before you know it other critters have moved-in and it’s home to many protected animals. Yep, when you pull vegetation in these ares, wetlands are not stimulated or enhanced but drained!
    There was a day I’d recommend my alma mater HSU, as a place to study, no more, too much FOD propaganda and too little Cowardin Wetland science. They’ll come around, money money money, has control of their direction at the moment, but these destroyed wetlands
    and coastal forests are so close to the University that from there you can see the sand-sheets swallow the forest. HSU Forestry, Wildlife, Geology,
    What the hell?
    Nice Clubhouse.

  85. InPerpetuity
  86. InPerpetuity
    October 2, 2011 at 10:46 am

    Dang it

  87. billy dune
    October 2, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    The opposing view points of the unfortunate prisoners….I mean residents of Eureka are like an argument about the merits of straight straws vs. silly straws by Special Olympics athletes.
    Sofa king wee tar did, because in the end, they both suck.

  88. Sunny
    October 2, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    Dan, I think your arguments speak for themselves.

    BTW, I live in Manila.

    You might find it refreshing to get a hike in before the rains begin and start raising the water table in those nice wetlands. The frogs seem very excited!

  89. October 2, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    Anonymous says:
    October 1, 2011 at 12:33 pm
    I call BS on you sunny. The small group (paid by the way) who promote all the anti every use at our dunes & beaches are selling that same BS to groups like surf rider. Many in that group know nothing but the line they are feed and many who do know have simply quit. Old timmers and the open minded see the FOD,Beach Stewards, Paykeeper,newNEC, are in this as a $$$$$$$$ source and no matter what they have to be a player in that game. We have changed one master for another. Their worst sin is the lie they are selling to our school kids.

  90. Not A Native
    October 2, 2011 at 3:53 pm

    For those mystified by this off topic exchange, the NCJ had a lengthy cover article about it in April.

    http://www.northcoastjournal.com/news/2011/04/21/bad-weed

    I’m wondering Dan, has your 2008 lawsuit with the MCSD been settled and if so what are the terms?

    Personally, I don’t have an opinion on this issue. But I generally support the concept that natural systems don’t “need” to be managed by humans at all. However, when we humans decide to occupy a particular place, our needs necessitate transforming and managing it to be “habitable”. Deciding exactly how much transformation and management is appropriate is where the arguments begin.

  91. October 2, 2011 at 4:21 pm

    “Their worst sin is the lie they are selling to our school kids”.
    Anon@12:33.

    I could not have said it better.
    For it is kids who will pay the cost for this folly,
    and that Sunny lives in
    Manila just makes him/her even more of a Quisling.
    I have more respect for LP or Green Diamond, hell Weyerhauser-
    at least they let us know they were out to kill trees.

    We learn after the fact from the local dune lords,
    “Everyone knew those trees would die”
    Pickard NCJ

    Having an environmental experiment go awry, is nothing to be ashamed of.
    Having an environmental experiment go awry and either not know it or act as though erosion and dead native trees are acceptable in the wetland areas or anywhere, well that’s criminal level idiocy.
    Nobody’s home.

  92. Sunny
    October 2, 2011 at 5:50 pm

    Dan, you’ve posted under an amazing array of different names, and saying that you “couldn’t have said it better yourself” about your own post kinda’ weirds me out.

    I still have those baby shore pines, if you have a good spot. Hope you’re enjoying the rain.

  93. Anonymous
    October 2, 2011 at 7:56 pm

    I am not Dan and I made that post. Dan and I agree on very little but this is an issue that we do. This is a deeper pit that most people can ever imagine. Where does all the money come from? That will surprise the uninformed.

  94. October 3, 2011 at 8:13 am

    Sunny is it the lying to yourself that allows you to maintain that disposition?

    Let’s talk of your ocean pines, what is on your mind? The area that requires planting contains mature trees that are dying because they cannot reach water, how do you think your young trees will do?
    Do you understand what it means to have lost an aquifer?
    If I was only as simple as you, Sunny I too could smile while watching while dunes collapse and our trees die.

    Instead I pray for water to our stressed trees and indictments.
    This isn’t a game Sunny, those trees are dead!
    But, look at that Clubhouse Sunny!

  95. Not an Expert
    October 3, 2011 at 8:20 am

    Meanwhile, last month the Coastal Commission approved the Coastal Development Permit for the dioxin cleanup at the old Georgia Pacific mill site on the Fort Bragg waterfront. The site was the subject of a community planning process (similar to the oine that the City of Eureka started for the Balloon Track but scrapped the second Arkley told them to) that envisions development that will extend the Old Town, a research marine lab with Sonoma State University, and the Coastal Trail.

    Some of you might want to consider that the Coastal Commission and state law are not the problem here–it’s the applicant’s attitude that he can do what he wants even if it violates the law.

  96. October 3, 2011 at 8:49 am

    “I’m wondering Dan, has your 2008 lawsuit with the MCSD been settled and if so what are the terms?” NAN

    My hopes were that all we’d need to do is bring light to what is happening in the name of ‘restoration’ and the regulators would awaken.

    MCSD went at me with ‘risk management money’ deep pockets from our risk insurer(!)

    With the help of my attorney, we merely slowed them. They promised to stay off the hind dunes, but that too was a lie, the hind dunes are still being pulled.

    Think about it, I sue because of the risks that pulling of vegetation
    introduce, MCSD turns it on its head, and while using risk insurance money, to deflect me, our fore dunes get stripped. Now the fore dunes are wasting towards HBMWDs water-pipe and our Coastal Act freshwater marsh.
    Now FEMA insures HBMWDs pipe, and they say unequivically-
    Do not remove vegetation from V-Zones (ocean-side of fore dune) or AO-Zone (the trough where the 42″ industrial water pipe is located) without FIRST getting qualified engineering calcs. That has not been done.
    Nice Clubhouse.

  97. Anonymous
    October 3, 2011 at 10:34 am

    Yes, state law & the CCC are as much of a problem as the historic degradation. They have become frick &frack. Some would say that as the remaining brown fields/etc are cleaned up that the long term problem will be the CCC/FOD/ETC that must continue to find there source of money. Pave the dunes and spend millions at the new club house. Have to be be cool at the groovey cocktail parties.

  98. honey dew huckster
    October 3, 2011 at 11:02 am

    To address an earlier comment…. the Mattole Restoration Council used herbicides on invasive plants next to the river for years.

  99. Auntie Arkley
    October 5, 2011 at 12:21 am

    Typical of Arkley to waste tax dollars on frivolous lawsuits. It just shows how much he really cares about the community.

  100. October 7, 2011 at 9:48 am

    Not A Native says:
    October 2, 2011 at 3:53 pm
    “For those mystified by this off topic exchange….”

    NAN, off topic?
    WETLANDS is the topic, get it?
    This is not about Arkley or Pete it is about wetlands and when you realize that our coastal dunes, when cared for function as aquifers (wetlands) or as deserts when abused you’ll understand the pertinence to the discussion.

    Balloon Tract= Coastal Act wetlands
    Dune Swales= Coastal Act wetlands

    It isn’t that difficult.

  101. October 7, 2011 at 11:09 am

    NAN… if challenged in the courts, our policies(wetlands) are more easily defended if we can show consistency (isn’t that beautiful).
    But, if we approach it as a popularity issue, we lose an opportunity
    to aid both our coastal stability and the manifold wildlife that depend on it.

    If you want to see our current coastal wetland practices stopped flat all you would need to do is delineate our wetlands, but no, this is Humboldt, we’ll destroy them before they are mapped.

  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