Home > Eureka City Council, Linda Atkins > Linda Atkins for Eureka City Council

Linda Atkins for Eureka City Council

The lone independent voice on the Eureka City Council has a booth set up on the square in Old Town for Arts Alive.  Stop by and give her some money.

Otherwise send a check to: P.O. Box 6353, Eureka, CA 95502

More info here.

  1. September 1, 2012 at 8:36 pm

    Yeah! Make the only vote that counts. Give a dollar.

  2. High Finance
    September 1, 2012 at 10:34 pm

    Why support someone who said serving on the city council was a waste of time ?

  3. Anonymous
    September 1, 2012 at 11:20 pm

    Why elect a liar and another Reich-Winger with a hate-agenda?

  4. Martha Stewart
    September 2, 2012 at 5:32 am

    So you can have a complete set.

  5. Anonymous
    September 2, 2012 at 6:11 am

    What is her plan with reference to gold fringe flags?

  6. G. Gilbert Yule
    September 2, 2012 at 7:14 am

    I’ll be happy to help Linda retain her seat on the Eureka City Council. I am proud to have her represent me. I am afraid however that my meager contributions can’t touch the money the Eureka development community is willing to spend to unseat her.

  7. Mitch
    September 2, 2012 at 7:21 am

    Martha,

    Thank you. It’s getting harder to smile, but you made me laugh out loud.

  8. September 2, 2012 at 8:09 am

    Back when I lived in the Poconos I confronted a candidate with a similar booth. I demanded to know how much money I had to give to keep them from running. Pretty soon the escalation brought more people to the booth wanting to know the same thing. It was a fun day, though I think the ex-cop candidate wanted to shoot me.

  9. Anonymous
    September 2, 2012 at 8:11 am

    Wow, the only endorsements on her site from the Victory Fund (not a local organization) and the Central Labor Council of Humboldt and Del Norte Counties. Speaks volumes for a candidate who has served all her constituents well.

  10. Anonymous
    September 2, 2012 at 9:00 am

    Yes, and Bonino has Arkley and the Republican Party.

  11. Plato
    September 2, 2012 at 9:07 am

    Like Rex Bohn, Murl Harpham, Frank Jager, David Tyson, Marcia Brady and other “soldiers” Joe Bonino is just a soldier in our local chapter of the maf- I mean Arkleypublican Party.

  12. September 2, 2012 at 9:14 am

    Why support someone who said serving on the city council was a waste of time ?

    Because actions speak louder than words, HiFi, and Linda Atkins serves us well on the City Council.

  13. Plato
    September 2, 2012 at 9:18 am

    Arkleyrepublicanism: Is it An Anti-Mass Movement?

    http://www.electiontrack.com/lookup.html?committee=1018430

    Contributions to Humboldt County Republicans (state)
    Cash on hand: $438 as of 03/19/12
    Contributions since: $0

    Show 102550100 entries

    Search:

    Donor

    City, state

    Employer/Occupation

    Amount

    Contribution Date

    Report Date

    Donor

    City, state

    Employer/Occupation

    Amount

    Contribution Date

    Report Date

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    800

    2011-06-30

    2011-07-29

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    800

    2011-05-31

    2011-07-29

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    800

    2011-04-30

    2011-07-29

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    800

    2011-03-31

    2011-07-29

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    800

    2011-02-28

    2011-07-29

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    800

    2011-01-31

    2011-07-29

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    800

    2010-12-31

    2011-01-21

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    800

    2010-11-30

    2011-01-21

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    800

    2010-10-31

    2011-01-21

    CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY

    BURBANK, CA 91506

    20

    2010-10-29

    2011-01-21

    CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY

    BURBANK, CA 91506

    5

    2010-10-29

    2011-01-21

    JOE AND KAREN RUSS

    FERNDALE, CA 95536

    RANCHER/BUNKER HILL RANCH

    100

    2010-10-19

    2011-01-21

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2010-06-30

    2010-07-13

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2010-05-31

    2010-07-13

    BERTAIN LAW FIRM

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    50

    2010-05-16

    2010-05-28

    BECKER LAW FIRM

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    150

    2010-05-16

    2010-05-28

    BERTAIN LAW FIRM

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    100

    2010-05-16

    2010-05-28

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2010-04-30

    2010-05-28

    TIMES PRINTING

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    450

    2010-04-16

    2010-05-28

    JOE BONINO

    EUREKA, CA 95502

    ACCOUNTANT/HSU FOUNDATION

    630

    2010-04-12

    2010-05-28

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2010-03-31

    2010-05-28

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2010-02-28

    2010-05-28

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2010-01-31

    2010-05-28

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2009-11-30

    2010-01-22

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2009-10-31

    2010-01-22

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2009-09-30

    2010-01-22

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2009-08-31

    2010-01-22

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2009-07-31

    2010-01-22

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2009-06-30

    2009-07-31

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2009-05-31

    2009-07-31

    CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY

    BURBANK, CA 91506

    630

    2009-05-26

    2009-07-31

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2009-04-30

    2009-07-31

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2009-03-31

    2009-07-31

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2009-02-28

    2009-07-31

    RHONDA K. MEEHAN

    FORTUNA, CA 95540

    PROPERTY MGR/SELF EMPLOYED SRPM

    150

    2009-02-18

    2009-07-31

    RHONDA K. MEEHAN

    FORTUNA, CA 95540

    PROPERTY MGR/SELF EMPLOYED SRPM

    100

    2009-02-18

    2009-07-31

    JOE AND KAREN RUSS

    FERNDALE, CA 95536

    RANCHER/BUNKER HILL RANCH

    100

    2009-02-18

    2009-07-31

    SANDY G. TRUTALLI

    FERNDALE, CA 95536

    HOUSEWIFE/NONE

    100

    2009-02-18

    2009-07-31

    LELAND ROCK LOGGING

    FORTUNA, CA 95540

    100

    2009-02-18

    2009-07-31

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2009-01-31

    2009-07-31

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2008-12-31

    2009-01-29

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2008-11-30

    2009-01-29

    RACE INVEST., LLC, ROBIN & CHERIE ARKLEY, SECURITY NATL SERVICING, & ALASKA EASTERN PART.

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    250

    2008-11-03

    2009-01-29

    RACE INVEST., LLC, ROBIN & CHERIE ARKLEY, SECURITY NATL SERVICING, & ALASKA EASTERN PART.

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    6159

    2008-11-03

    2009-01-29

    RACE INVEST., LLC, ROBIN & CHERIE ARKLEY, SECURITY NATL SERVICING, & ALASKA EASTERN PART.

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    6159

    2008-11-03

    2009-01-29

    RACE INVEST., LLC, ROBIN & CHERIE ARKLEY, SECURITY NATL SERVICING, & ALASKA EASTERN PART.

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    250

    2008-11-03

    2009-01-29

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2008-10-31

    2009-01-29

    RACE INVEST., LLC, ROBIN & CHERIE ARKLEY, SECURITY NATL SERVICING, & ALASKA EASTERN PART.

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    917

    2008-10-19

    2009-01-29

    RACE INVEST., LLC, ROBIN & CHERIE ARKLEY, SECURITY NATL SERVICING, & ALASKA EASTERN PART.

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    917

    2008-10-19

    2009-01-29

    JOE AND KAREN RUSS

    FERNDALE, CA 95536

    RANCHER/BUNKER HILL RANCH

    250

    2008-10-09

    2009-01-29

    H.E. PIERSON CO.

    EUREKA, CA 95503

    500

    2008-10-08

    2009-01-29

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2008-09-30

    2009-01-29

    ARNOT LAW FIRM

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    100

    2008-09-26

    2009-01-29

    BARNUM TIMBER CO.

    EUREKA, CA 95503

    250

    2008-09-26

    2009-01-29

    HARVEY M. HARPER CO.

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    1000

    2008-09-11

    2009-01-29

    TIMES PRINTING

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    450

    2008-09-05

    2009-01-29

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2008-08-31

    2009-01-29

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2008-07-31

    2009-01-29

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2008-06-30

    2008-07-17

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2008-05-31

    2008-07-17

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2007-12-31

    2008-01-07

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2007-11-30

    2008-01-07

    JOE AND KAREN RUSS

    FERNDALE, CA 95536

    RANCHER/BUNKER HILL RANCH

    100

    2007-11-10

    2008-01-07

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2007-10-31

    2008-01-07

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2007-09-30

    2008-01-07

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2007-08-31

    2008-01-07

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2007-07-31

    2008-01-07

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2007-06-30

    2007-07-16

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2007-05-31

    2007-07-16

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2007-04-30

    2007-07-16

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2007-03-31

    2007-07-16

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2007-02-28

    2007-07-16

    WILLIAM AND REBECCA BERTAIN

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    ATTORNEY/WILLIAM G. BERTAIN

    110

    2007-02-21

    2007-07-16

    TIMES PRINTING

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    250

    2007-02-20

    2007-07-16

    PHIL AND SALLY ARNOT

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    ATTORNEY/ARNOT LAW FIRM

    110

    2007-02-12

    2007-07-16

    SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION

    EUREKA, CA 95501

    750

    2007-01-31

    2007-07-16

  14. Anonymous
    September 2, 2012 at 9:34 am

    cut and paste is not your friend…

  15. Titt Money
    September 2, 2012 at 10:00 am

    Copypasters are people my friend.

  16. Anonymous
    September 2, 2012 at 10:09 am

    #14 did not say #13 was not a person, only coping and pasting is not their friend. Personally it destroyed the flow.

  17. Dull Che
    September 2, 2012 at 10:13 am

    I think the flow is just fine. You can scroll about ten lines into it and even a monkey could discern the pattern. It then continues on and on and makes the point, drives it home.

  18. High Finance
    September 2, 2012 at 10:27 am

    The SN contributions are mostly free rent for the Rep headquarters. Plato really needs to learn how to format but I saw ranchers, housewifes, lawyers, an auto dealership and only one developer.

    Other than the state party I only saw local people.

  19. Titt Money
    September 2, 2012 at 10:35 am

    Free rent?

    That’s socialism. Nothing is free my friend.

  20. HeeHaw
    September 2, 2012 at 10:43 am

    I just love the $5.00 contribution from the California Republican Party to the local Humoldt County Republican Party. Do you think the Humboldt Republicans tithed 50 cents to the Eureka Chamber of Commerce?

    Well it is trickle down for sure.

    Do you think they Fed Exed it up here?

  21. HeeHaw
    September 2, 2012 at 10:53 am

    Never mind, stupid me. Of course they fed-ex-ed that five bucks up here!

    For two reasons.

    1. To give their business to the private enterprise Fed Ex corp. and keep it away from the socialist US Postal Service.

    2. They could bank the five bucks a day sooner and thus start earning interest on it that much quicker.

    3. It maybe cost $14.95 but worth it given 1 and 2.

  22. What Now
    September 2, 2012 at 12:44 pm

    I would like to extend my thanks and appreciation to Martha Stewart for the terrific laugh.
    Excellent post, Martha!

  23. September 2, 2012 at 12:54 pm

    Would Titt Money and Martha Stewart be the same commenter?
    Thanks for the chuckles!

  24. Eric Kirk
    September 2, 2012 at 12:58 pm

    I saw Linda at Art’s Alive last night. She got there early enough to get the great corner spot Rex had occupied at the last Arts Alive I attended some months ago. Joe Bonino’s was a couple of spots down. Both booths seemed to get a lot of traffic.

    Again, it’s a basic equation. If you don’t like the way Eureka’s been run over the past 10 years, vote for Linda. If you like the way it’s been run, then vote for the same coalition which has run the city for 10 years, and this time without a single dissenting voice. You would have to be really excited about how things have gone in Eureka to do that!

  25. September 2, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    If you don’t like the way Eureka’s been run over the past 10 years, vote for Linda. If you like the way it’s been run …vote for the same coalition which has run the city for 10 years

    Eric hit the nail on the head.

  26. September 2, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    I wrote elsewhere I prefer to have a “mixed” council. Nothing against Joe Bonino, but I likely won’t be voting for him. At this point (as I suspected would happen) Linda’s supporters here have convinced me not to vote for her, either. I’ll likely cast my write- in vote for Charlie “Skippy” Bean!

    Nothing is cast in stone, though, and there’s always the possibility of simply standing aside, as the Greens call it. We’ll see what issues develop and how the three candidates do in the League of Women Voters candidate forums.

  27. September 2, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    I do appreciate it though that she came out in support of the Arcata Community Recycling Center. That was cool.

  28. September 2, 2012 at 3:38 pm

    I appreciated she was the sole vote against that “sleeping” ordinance, although I’ll admit I don’t know under just what context that ordinance was proposed.

  29. High Finance
    September 2, 2012 at 6:25 pm

    Her vote “for the Arcata Community Recycling Center” is exactly why she needs to be voted out of office.

    She wished the best for Arcata & at the cost of millions for Eurekans.

  30. September 2, 2012 at 7:26 pm

    Why don’t you explain how she cost us “millions.”

  31. September 2, 2012 at 7:31 pm

    If we stuck with ACRC it might well have cost us millions more to recycle up here. Recycling with Willits was millions of dollars cheaper. Look it up. She hasn’t demonstrated any fiscal responsibility that I’ve seen.

  32. September 2, 2012 at 9:49 pm

    She did that all by herself?

  33. High Finance
    September 2, 2012 at 10:07 pm

    She would have cost of millions if two other council people voted with her.

    Luckily nobody listens to her.

  34. Eric Kirk
    September 2, 2012 at 11:16 pm

    I don’t know where you’re getting your figures HF, but basically the county gets 50 grand a year for the recyclables sent out of county. Meanwhile we lost 1.5 million in yearly payrolls and nearly twice that in the multiplier of lost economic activity in the county when the Arcata center shut down. That’s about a four or five million dollar a loss every year.

  35. High Finance
    September 3, 2012 at 7:55 am

    Eric, I am relying on memory so my numbers could be off a bit. But the ACRC first bid a cost of something over $1 mill a year to handle the contract.

    The Willits firm bid was to pay US $50 thousand a year.

  36. 713
    September 3, 2012 at 8:28 am

    Where did the money come from for the wages?

  37. Mitch
    September 3, 2012 at 8:43 am

    713 asks an excellent question, and I’m truly interested to here intelligent responses.

    I am still bewildered by ACRC’s apparent inability to submit a legitimate competitive bid, and have never understood that organization’s continuing support by so many people. Yes, it had noble origins.

  38. Mitch
    September 3, 2012 at 8:43 am

    hear. Sigh.

  39. September 3, 2012 at 10:51 am

    It is a shame ACRC couldn’t cut it, but Willits also had the ace- in- the- hole of essentially free transport to haul recyclables. Shame, but we either pay a lot more keeping the recycling local, or save consumers money by taking advantage of Willits’ better deal.

  40. Jim White
    September 4, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    “(Atkins) hasn’t demonstrated any fiscal responsibility that I’ve seen.”

    She voted against sending $100,000+ each year to one of Eureka’s richest private clubs, the Chamber of Commerce, that has never once released their financial records to the public to prove exactly how this public subsidy is spent…now totaling millions of dollars while local schools closed.

    When the “better deal” in Willits gradually reduces payments, then services, then raise their prices to become a lousy deal, it will take years to acquire the institutional knowledge and facilities we once had, making it very difficult to say “no”.

    It will become another example of Penny Wise-Pond Foolish that republicanism has come to represent.

  41. High Finance
    September 4, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    Jim White. Your definition of “fiscal responsibility” is screwy.

    The city makes money off the services provided by the Chamber for its funds. But Atkins voted to send even more money to the Humb Cnty Tourism & Convention Bureau. That agency takes Eureka citizen dollars to bring business to other parts of the county.

    That is really “Pond” foolishness.

  42. Anonymous
    September 4, 2012 at 3:31 pm

    Jim- with all due respect, you are either ignorant about the Chamber of Commerce and it’s Visitor Center or you are just trying to spread a progressive lie. Either way it’s untruthful. The moneys spent on the Visitor Center actually generate more moneys for the City in Transient Occupancy Taxes. It’s not a subsidy and the Chamber’s operating budget is funded by membership dues. Even you, Mr. White are welcome to become a Chamber member if you pony up some dues. I hope this helps your insight. Thank you.

  43. September 4, 2012 at 3:48 pm

    Jim wrote, “….now totaling millions of dollars while local schools closed.”.

    I don’t think the City of Eureka is involved in local school financing, is it?

  44. Jim White
    September 4, 2012 at 11:02 pm

    “The city makes money off the services provided by the Chamber for its funds.”

    Exactly my point: You can claim whatever you wish, their financial records are not available to the public.

    “The moneys spent on the Visitor Center actually generate more moneys for the City in Transient Occupancy Taxes.”

    Exactly my point: You can claim whatever you wish, their financial records are not available to the public.

    “It’s not a subsidy”.

    The funds transferred to the Chamber belong to the citizens of Eureka.

    “The Chamber’s operating budget is funded by membership dues.”

    Exactly my point: You can claim whatever you wish, their financial records are not available to the public.

    “I don’t think the City of Eureka is involved in local school financing, is it?”

    The point, Sherlock, is that city government fiddles while Rome burns.

    What’s with you silly “republicans”, not one of you is bothered by millions of dollars going to a private club? “Conservative” my ass. Over half of Eureka’s businesses agree that they are NOT penny-wise and pound-foolish enough to join their city’s Chamber of Commerce.

  45. Ace
    September 5, 2012 at 9:01 am

    Jim White makes valid points. We should have access to the Chamber’s financial records. Accountability with our tax dollars is not too much to ask.

  46. Anonymous
    September 5, 2012 at 9:49 am

    Life is very simple in your world isn’t it Jim?

  47. September 5, 2012 at 11:06 am

    The point, Sherlock, is that city government fiddles while Rome burns..

    I’d say it was the opposite- the city council would be fiddling if they spent time on city school funding which is beyond the purview of their job. Your concern about the city giving money to the COC is within bounds. Trying to make an analogy of city school funding and the city council doesn’t work. Apples and oranges.

  48. Anonymous
    September 5, 2012 at 11:27 am

    Apples or oranges, it’s a lot of dough going to the same people who buy the politicians.

  49. Plain Jane
    September 5, 2012 at 11:38 am

    They’ll get much more with a rubber stamping council.

  50. A-nony-mouse
    September 5, 2012 at 12:50 pm

    Joe B. stopped by yesterday, in spite of our Atkins sign in the yard. It’s true that he’s a pleasant fellow, whatever his beliefs might be. However, when I asked him WHY he was running, his response was simply “that he didn’t like seeing any candidate run unopposed”. No agenda, no burning desire to help or change things, no real understanding of the challenges facing a councilperson. He just didn’t want anyone to have it too easy, I guess.

    Meanwhile, Linda has been a great voice for the “rest of us” who don’t buy the growth at all cost party line. We’re not anti-growth. But we do insist that growth improves the quality of our lives instead of just piling more stuff on top. Linda is the voice that says “wait a minute, is this really a good idea?” Every council needs that person to keep it from running off the cliff with the rest of the lemmings.

    I’d love to have a beer with Joe but I’m voting for Linda to represent me on our council.

  51. September 5, 2012 at 3:31 pm

    High Finance :
    Eric, I am relying on memory so my numbers could be off a bit. But the ACRC first bid a cost of something over $1 mill a year to handle the contract.
    The Willits firm bid was to pay US $50 thousand a year.

    713 :
    Where did the money come from for the wages?

    Mitch :
    713 asks an excellent question, and I’m truly interested to here intelligent responses.
    I am still bewildered by ACRC’s apparent inability to submit a legitimate competitive bid, and have never understood that organization’s continuing support by so many people. Yes, it had noble origins.

    For me it is an excellent question, and answers to it might help break logjams.

    I don’t think the subject is very simple, but the real situation is there.

    > Willits offers to pay for recycle, because they’ve already invested, and the input to their operation will help them pay it off.

    > Humboldt would have to invest, to build the Arcata operation. Thus there is a high bill attached, though Mitch reports it wasn’t given with facts to justify the amount, which is pretty unconscionable.

    > The losses Jim talks about seem fictitious, until you think about what it costs to _not_ have the long-term jobs the local recycle would create. Now the plot thickens, because you have to ask who pays for all the social services that this joblessness will invoke.

    > I think we are very soon in the land that Humboldt has existed in for a long time: one with lots of dependency payment coming in from State and Federal resources. There’s also a pain cost, for local residents and businesses affected by the blight. I don’t think that pain cost is small. Land values, police services, unattractiveness for tourist visitors, etc..

    > underlying all this then is the question of principle of accounting. HiFi, with complete respect for it, this is your subject, and maybe you can put some thinking in and out here. The present equation (+50k sounds better than -1mi) is stating that idea of export of ‘externalities/external costs’ which is the grand illusion at root of so many troubles and arguments of the present. How would you think to structure a more locally responsible, closed loop accounting. It’s fair to include money that comes back from generalized taxes, but I think not to account or take more than a fair share of it.

    I know I’m asking a lot here, but it’s the thinking that comes when I hear flat statements like Jim’s, and decode what the missing part is in them. Ideals are wonderful – and adults at best really work with them, which includes working out a picture where they get paid for, therefore happen.

    If you want to get really idealistic, there’s any kind of voluntarism or just personal work. But I think for these big questions, has to be a way a general community can see to participate.

    Questions of the hour, at least, don’t they seem?

  52. Anonymous
    September 5, 2012 at 4:37 pm

    Where are all the jobs Arkley’s bunch promised if only Eureka’s voters would give them control of the City Council?

  53. The ghost of Mao Zedong
    September 5, 2012 at 9:00 pm

    In China, round-eyed devil.

  54. Anonymous
    September 6, 2012 at 7:17 am

    “However, when I asked him WHY he was running, his response was simply “that he didn’t like seeing any candidate run unopposed’”

    Yeah. The Republican party treasurer is running against the Democratic party chair because he doesn’t like seeing any candidate run unopposed.” Would he run against Jager? Or?

  55. September 6, 2012 at 11:11 am

    Trying this again later, since posting seems to have been a bit kilter yesterday. Also removing full quote codes, in case that was part of the problem.

    High Finance :
    Eric, I am relying on memory so my numbers could be off a bit. But the ACRC first bid a cost of something over $1 mill a year to handle the contract.
    The Willits firm bid was to pay US $50 thousand a year.

    713 :
    Where did the money come from for the wages?

    Mitch :
    713 asks an excellent question, and I’m truly interested to here intelligent responses.
    I am still bewildered by ACRC’s apparent inability to submit a legitimate competitive bid, and have never understood that organization’s continuing support by so many people. Yes, it had noble origins.

    For me it is also an excellent question, and answers to that might help break logjams.

    I don’t think the subject is very simple, but the real situation is there.

    > Willits offers to pay for recycle, because they’ve already invested, and the input to their operation will help them pay it off.

    > Humboldt would have to invest, to build the Arcata operation. Thus there is a high bill attached, though Mitch reports it wasn’t given with facts to justify the amount, which is pretty unconscionable.

    > The losses Jim talks about seem fictitious, until you think about what it costs to _not_ have the long-term jobs the local recycle would create. Now the plot thickens, because you have to ask who pays for all the social services that this joblessness will invoke.

    > I think we are very soon in the land that Humboldt has existed in for a long time: one with lots of dependency payment coming in from State and Federal resources. There’s also a pain cost, for local residents and businesses affected by the blight. I don’t think that pain cost is small. Land values, police services, unattractiveness for tourist visitors, etc..

    > underlying all this then is the question of principle of accounting. HiFi, with complete respect for it, this is your subject, and maybe you can put some thinking in and out here. The present equation (+50k sounds better than -1mi) is stating that idea of export of ‘externalities/external costs’ which is the grand illusion at root of so many troubles and arguments of the present. How would you think to structure a more locally responsible, closed loop accounting. It’s fair to include money that comes back from generalized taxes, but I think not to account or take more than a fair share of it.

    I know I’m asking a lot here, but it’s the thinking that comes when I hear flat statements like Jim’s, and decode what the missing part is in them. Ideals are wonderful – and adults at best really work with them, which includes working out a picture where they get paid for, therefore happen.

    If you want to get really idealistic, there’s any kind of voluntarism or just personal work. But it seems that for these big questions, there has to be a way a general community can see to participate, no?

  56. Jim White
    September 6, 2012 at 12:38 pm

    Far be it from local business leaders, and their political lap dogs, to have the slightest humility to concede that our species, like all others, must change to survive. Keeping money and power invested in old technologies and processes is only good for another century. Maybe a little more, probably less.

    Instead, they’re fighting downtown every day to maintain the right to begin the 3rd housing bubble since the 1980’s despite limited infrastructure they exceeded long ago. Sending millions in public subsidies to the Chamber of Commerce, (who’s names frequent the pages of most winning candidate’s contribution statements), would cause outrage if we had a public-interest media to repeatedly demand some accountability.

    We live in a world of fast-changing green economies being resisted at ever turn by America’s “owners”. There’s ample land available for affordable housing infill in Eureka, (if only Eureka’s corrupt politicians could stop themselves from rigging public grants to benefit their developer friends).

    We have ample land to grow the biodegradable soybean replacements for toxic plastics, and the factories to mold it into usable products. Many of my neighbors would eagerly donate a small area of land for a Hydrogen boiler generating enough electricity for 100 homes, to be maintained by residents.

    While the nation fumbles, our sense of community could be quickly reignited by the solutions at our fingertips that are being effectively censored and resisted by every city’s stubborn and powerful elites, their media, and their divestment from education, and this nation.

    Until we forcefully take power back from our corrupt development community, we await the next housing bubble….and a growing number of potential catalysts that force the next economic/environmental/political catastrophe humanity seems destined to repeat.

  57. tra
    September 6, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    Narration,

    The background to all of this is that the Arcata Community Recycling Center had just recently built a large, state-of-the-art recycling sorting facility in Samoa, which was up and running, and operating quite efficiently. Unfortunately, ACRC had borrowed a large amount of money to finance this new facility, and their timing was terrible — soon after the new facility was built and brought into operation, the national and world economy hit the skids and as manufacturing declined, the market for sorted recyclables as a “raw material” just dropped like a rock. At that point, the cash-strapped ACRC had to start paying to have materials hauled away, rather than being able to sell those materials at a good price.

    When this crash in the value of recyclables came along, ACRC, which was cash-poor — in part because they had borrowed so heavily to build this new facility — just didn’t have the financial wherewithal to hold on and wait for the recyclable market to recover, they had to start charging a tipping fee to local communities (in the form of the Humboldt Waste Management Authority, or HWMA) in order to accept their recyclables, instead of being able to pay local communities to bring their recyclables there.

    If I recall correctly, with the final ACRC bid, the amount that local communities would have received in payment for their recyclables, would have varied significantly based on the market price of the recyclables. If the value of the recyclables went up, HMWA would have received more in payments from ACRC than they would have received from the Willits outfit — but if the price remained the same (or went down) the HWMA would have received nothing from ACRC. At the time that the HWMA was taking the bids, the value of recyclables was at a record low, as the recession had led to cutbacks in manufacturing, so in the short-term, the ACRC approach certainly didn’t look as good as the offer from the Willits outfit, which offered a fixed, five-year contract, which guaranteed $8/ton for the recyclables for the life of the contract.

    So the immediate issue was that the Willits operation offered a set price that they would pay local communities for their recyclables for the next five years, whether the market for recyclables was up or down — which, given the market conditions at the time (when the value of recyclables was way, way down), would unquestionably bring more revenue to the HWMA in the short-term, compared to the variable compensation offered that had been offered by ACRC. But if the value of recyclables went up, local communities would already be locked into the $8/ton contract with the Willits operation, and would therefore lose out on potentially higher revenues that the ACRC offer could have yielded.

    I haven’t been following whether the value of recyclables has recovered since that time, or by how much. So I don’t know, offhand, how much HWMA and the local communities it serves, would be behind (or ahead) if they had stuck with ACRC instead of awarding the contract to the Willits firm. But in the long run, the market for recyclables may well recover to a normal non-recession level, and we may end up regretting that with the Samoa facility closed and dismantled, and the Willits firm as possibly the sole bidder for our recyclables, local communities could end up being severely short-changed on revenues that could have been theirs had they stuck with ACRC through the lean times.

    However, given the fiscal pressures that local communities were (and are) facing, I can certainly understand why they would have had a hard time justifying turning down an offer to be guaranteed to be paid something (even if it wasn’t much) for their recyclables, by the Willits firm, rather than receiving no payment from ACRC in the short-term. So the HWMA went for short-term savings and low short-term risk — and given the short-term incentives, it wasn’t a surprising outcome.

    Now, as Eric noted, there was another dimension to the whole thing, which is that going with the Willits firm meant the failure and shutdown of the Manila facility, which cost dozens of local jobs. Because of the value of keeping those jobs local, and the value of keeping a local recyclables sorting facility operating so that there could be ongoing competition in that market in the future, and because of the chance that local communities could have benefited more from the ACRC offer if (when?) the value of recyclables recovered to pre-recession levels, I would really have preferred if they could have stuck with ACRC instead of going with the Willits outfit.

    But I wasn’t one of those public officials who were charged with the need to balance their local budget, in the short-term, right as the effects of the recession had reached their peak. Which means that I wasn’t in the position of having to explain what other services would have to have been cut, or taxes raised, to make up for the difference in cost in the short-term. It was a tough spot to be in, and it’s not hard to understand why they made the decision to go with the Willits firm.

  58. September 6, 2012 at 1:41 pm

    Jim, that’s kind of well-used boilerplate, isn’t it? ‘forcefully take power back’ — think you have to consider who’s voting here, and that they sensibly want the jobs, exchange, etc. that comes from local developers, don’t you?

    This is where I am coming from in asking those who are used to a system that’s failing, quite sincerely to actively participate with their skills in designing a fresher one. The ideas I’m hinting have been around for a while; I was hearing them very seriously from the Dutch for example a quarter century ago.

    There’s a book by George Lakoff I’m currently reading, which is if a bit ineptly approached, still quite interesting on the subject of basic cognitive insights for right/left polarization. It promises methods to deal with this practically, which I’m starting to get a hint of; not sure what to think yet. Maybe you want to look at this — his ‘Women, Fire, and Dangerous’ things was quite interesting in a similar way on the nature of categories.

  59. tra
    September 6, 2012 at 1:45 pm

    That was awfully long-winded. Sorry about that. In a way, it was/is a complicated situation. In another way, it was really quite simple: The Willits firm had the financial wherewithal to offer a guaranteed payment to the county even if the market for the sorted recyclables remained low, while the ACRC did not have the financial wherewithal to take that risk.

    The Willits firm was no doubt aware that winning this bid would drive the only other bidder (ACRC) out of business, and part of their willingness to take a risk that they might lose money (or not make much money) with their 5-year, $8/ton fixed contract may have been the long-term profit that they hope to derive from eliminating their competition.

    I guess we’ll see what happens if (when?) the value of recyclables recovers to its pre-recession levels. If we find that we’re stuck with the Willits firm being the sole bidder in the future, the closing of the ACRC facility in Samoa may prove to be very costly to local communities over the long-term. If other out-of-area competitors (or even, at least in theory, a new local sorting facility) steps in to provide competition, it may not be so bad.

  60. September 6, 2012 at 2:02 pm

    tra, thanks — that’s very thorough and useful to know about the local subject, appreciated.

    Short term, long term — even with the situation as you describe around the choice, that’s one of those questions of view that tends to have to do with ‘rule-set’, doesn’t it seem. Though I do well appreciate the position you describe at the time in Humboldt.

    Somehow a tale of strategy vs. tactics out of WWII comes to mind (someone was recounting it to me), where Admiral Spruance turned his task force away, after winning the primary battle, thus avoiding the thrust of Yamamoto’s Combined Fleet plan to dominate, and making what was later recognized as the turning point of the Pacific war.

    He was thinking ahead. And I am musing about all the projective tools financials have in their hands, which might be put to some good use in anticipating the recyclables price/return odds on situations like the question of husbanding your local strength at the Samoa plant.

    There are no sureties, that’s sure; and misuse as in the chain of lies in the mortgage crisis can be deadly. But properly used, there are tools that can help better than ideology on making practical moves — and in keeping the expected sum of those moves towards the positive. I think the financials can help here, as they come to see to, and as they have in forgotten times before.

    We need everyone’s contributions, my thoughts often in the moment, anyway.

  61. Jim White
    September 7, 2012 at 11:43 am

    “…they sensibly want the jobs, exchange, etc. that comes from local developers, don’t you?” (“Narration”)

    Sprawl does indeed create jobs, it’s like being paid to dig your community into a deep financial hole. (That ultimately tanked the world economy).

    Affordable infill housing development also creates jobs…it just isn’t AS profitable as plopping McMansions on Granddaddy’s cheap land miles from downtown, and passing the infrastructure bill to those who will NEVER qualify to live there.

  62. September 7, 2012 at 11:44 am

    tra, got your second note here of yesterday only today, and you probably figured out that we were both writing at same times, each time.

    Again, really appreciate your giving of such good and useful pictures of the recycling choice story.

    Looks also like I was a bit distracted when editing, and chopped up or out a few things in yesterday’s posts..

    – Lakoff current reading title: ‘The Political Mind’
    – Lakoff prior reading title: ‘Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things’. That is all one category, out of 13 of them, if I recall, in the linguistics of a particular African or South American tribe. I liked that concept by itself ;)
    – battle spoken of re: foresight: The Battle of Midway
    – rule-sets: a notion of ideologies, particularly economic ones, as short-cut means that only work as expected at certain moments of more realistically complex long-term ecologies.

  63. Eric Kirk
    September 7, 2012 at 11:47 am

    I did some phone banking for Linda the other night and had some conversations which were encouraging. Joe’s biggest problem is that nobody knows who he is, and Linda is not unpopular despite the vitriol against her on the blogs and in a few letters to the editor. But I expect that a money bomb will hit soon enough.

  64. September 7, 2012 at 12:03 pm

    Jim, my point on this would be that it doesn’t have to be bubble or sprawl either – that there’s are regimes of replacement and development which are sensibly attuned to needs and supportable desires – the ones persons quite naturally have, and enjoy their lives with, when they have the dependable situation to do so. In those, there are the jobs that complete the circle.

    Continuities and dampening of wild swings would do a lot towards the challenges you speak of. One thing we are fighting here is the sense that speculators have that they gain on both the upswing and downswing, thus their support for bubbles. This looks remediable by introducing friction: taxes which make their bids appropriately costly, and returning any windfall excess gains to the use of the community.

    Again, the principle that there can be reward and return to desires, because that gets us the forward movement it’s common and natural to wish, but not out of a balance suitable for many.

    Going forwards, I’d see such as encouraging much more diversity in ways persons find they want to and can live. Some of us already have been living such lives, while not always as fully of choice as of necessity…

    Just a quiet moment of thought about this.

  65. Jim White
    September 7, 2012 at 10:57 pm

    “Jim, my point on this would be that it doesn’t have to be bubble or sprawl either”

    And my point is, yes, it DOES have to be a bubble and sprawl because they own this town and this county, and that’s how they can best maximize profits. They claim it’s “growth”, and far be it from local media to document the growth in pedestrian, cyclist and motorist fatalities on over-burdened streets, waste water discharges in a decayed system, or unaffordable housing and the record poverty it has manufactured.

    You must not live around here.

    Until local “democrats” decide they might want to organize their first voter-registration canvass in living memory, as opposed to well-organized fund raising socials, we can expect local “democrats” to keep electing the speculator’s picks.

  66. September 7, 2012 at 11:16 pm

    You’re preaching to the choir here, wherever I live.

    I say ‘it doesn’t have to’ because it simply doesn’t. Yes, the model has to change from maximum narrow-interest growth, and minimum calculation of whole system accounts.

    Voter registration is in fact one of the things that’s been brought up with considerable interest on the forum here, just in the past couple of days.

    Isn’t just in Humboldt where it’s needed, either, to get a better lever for fair. I am pretty interested in the breadth of abilities shown in writings here in my old home, though, towards coming up with concrete, actionable plans. It would be natural that the practice of these grows into a future, and that the trajectory has to start somewhere.

    I enjoy imagining towards the concrete side, thinking it satisfies and effects more, compared to expressing feelings alone. The feelings are we would all agree natural.

  67. Anonymous
    September 7, 2012 at 11:29 pm

    Well, maybe Jim White / Amy Breighton / Harold Knight / Jack Sherman could help spearhead a voter registration drive in Humboldt.

    In other words, light a candle, instead of just endlessly cursing the darkness.

  68. Plain Jane
    September 8, 2012 at 7:21 am

    People seem to forget that Forster-Gill has promised to help pay for the increased infrastructure their project which necessitate. Quite a change from local developers who agreed to pay more in McKinleyville and Cutten but then turned around and sued to get their money back.

  69. Plain Jane
    September 8, 2012 at 7:21 am

    *their project would necessitate.

  70. 713
    September 8, 2012 at 7:30 am

    Jim,
    How does in fill use less infrastructure if the water and sewer all come from and go to the same place? You argue that the areas out of town have used all the infrastructure capacity, but at the same time say that all of the growth could have been contained within the town. This makes no sense to me.

  71. just middle class
    September 8, 2012 at 8:11 am

    Jane,
    Before you make statements like that, you should check the history. The “extra fees” were school fees, not infrastructure fees. All new development pays for the infrastructure necessary to serve that project: roads, power, water, sewer, etc. McKinleyville Community Services District charges a development fee to pay for the increased demand for water and sewer for each new parcel. Please get your facts straight rather than just making some claim that is not correct.

  72. Plain Jane
    September 8, 2012 at 9:09 am

    You are wrong, JMC. Some of the additional fees were for school infrastructure and some were for HCSD, but all of the extra fees were returned to the developers after they built the homes and added those fees to the home prices. They claimed it was discriminatory to make them pay extra despite the fact that they agreed in order to get the permits to build houses which the existing infrastructure can’t support.

  73. 713
    September 8, 2012 at 9:39 am

    PJ,
    Please cite your source. The only lawsuit I have ever heard about that resembles what you are saying is the school impact fees. The schools were charging fees based on the square footage of the house but it turns out the square footage of a house doesnt necessarily reflect the number of children at that address. I think a portion of the fees were returned, not all. But that would be because a judge and jury decided they were not appropriately assessed, wouldn’t it?

  74. 713
    September 8, 2012 at 9:41 am

    Also PJ, in order to sue you have to get your permit and pay the fees, otherwise you are not damaged.

  75. Plain Jane
    September 8, 2012 at 9:45 am

    My source is my memory, 7:13. This occurred back in the late 80’s or early 90’s when I still lived in Ridgewood. It was in the TS at the time but isn’t available today. The developer of the subdivision at the end of Redwood Drive, the old church camp property, was one who was involved.

  76. Plain Jane
    September 8, 2012 at 9:46 am

    I don’t understand your 9:41 post. They did agree to pay the extra fees to get the permits, paid them and then got them refunded after the homes were built and sold.

  77. 713
    September 8, 2012 at 9:59 am

    You said mckinleyville and cutten.

  78. Plain Jane
    September 8, 2012 at 10:47 am

    Yes, I did, 7:13…what’s your point?

  79. 713
    September 8, 2012 at 2:50 pm

    My point is you are wrong about mckinleyville and I am skeptical about cut ten as well. I am certain there is more to this story that you may be leaving out because it does not fit your idea that out of town developers are more responsible than locals.
    If they paid extra fees and then got their money back via the courts it says more about the fees than the developers to me. There must have been something wrong with the fees, dont you think?

  80. just middle class
    September 8, 2012 at 5:05 pm

    There was no lawsuit other than the school impact fees and none in McKinleyville. Your point, Jane, was that “developers” do not pay for the cost of their development, which is based on your bias. Have you ever developed a project? If you had you would not be saying what you said. All of the infrastructure to serve the development will be paid for by the developer prior to selling anything. All of County staff time will be paid by the Developer, also Quimby fees, etc. Each new residence will be assessed at the selling cost and will pay property taxes at that rate.
    I guess the point is, you can make a claim that development does not pay for the cost of infrastructure, but since it is your bias and not based on any true knowledge ore experience, then it is just your claim without basis in fact.

  81. Anonymous
    September 9, 2012 at 8:32 am

    Just like most things she comments on, PJ does not know shit. Just her silly bias.

  82. Plain Jane
    September 9, 2012 at 9:27 am

    If developers paid for the costs of their developments then the taxpayers wouldn’t be on the hook for the upgrades, would they, JMC and 8:32. My “bias” isn’t due to having a dog in this fight. I’m not a developer and no longer live in Ridgewood so my interest in this project is unselfish. I’m betting you can’t honestly say the same.

  83. just middle class
    September 9, 2012 at 9:54 am

    Jane,
    Upgrades are usually paid by development fees, that is a fee on new development. If the upgrade is necessary because of the new development, the developer pays for the upgrade proportional to the impact on the system. Upgrades that are necessary because of aging systems are usually applied to all current development, but the intity must show that the fee is proportional and directly benefitting the parcel (state law).
    State law requires that the fee be directly related to the impact that that parcel has on the infrastructure deficit. For example a new subdivision is on a substandard road, then the new development must pay to upgrade that road, but new development can not be requred to upgrade roads in other areas unless the nexus can be established to determine that the impact is directly related to that project.
    As you say, you do not have a clear understanding of the funding for infrustructure improvements and I hope my comments will help you with future posts.

  84. Plain Jane
    September 9, 2012 at 10:15 am

    So you admit that they don’t really pay for the costs of their development but pass a large share onto people who already paid for the current infrastructure. Taxes should pay for maintenance of the infrastructure, not the increased demand caused by developers. If you double the population of an area but don’t pay 100% of the required increased capacity of the infrastructure, you aren’t paying the real costs the population increase requires, you aren’t paying the real costs.

  85. Plain Jane
    September 9, 2012 at 10:16 am

    oops. the error is obvious.

  86. just middle class
    September 9, 2012 at 10:21 am

    You did not understand what I said, so let me be more clear. All new development must pay for all of the costs for the intrastructure for that development, but only the costs that are directly caused by that development.

  87. Plain Jane
    September 9, 2012 at 10:52 am

    That’s just BS, JMC. Not paying for the increase in school size and teachers required by your development is not paying all the costs. Not paying for the traffic lights, increased sewer capacity and wider / more streets the increased population from your development necessitates is not paying the full costs. Paying for the materials to hook up to the infrastructure isn’t paying for the upgrades that wouldn’t be needed absent the development. Promising to pay extra fees to mitigate some of the expenses your development creates and then suing to revoke the agreement after you build and charged home buyers those fees is disgusting. Do you think Nelson or any of the other developers involved in that lawsuit refunded those fees to the people who really paid them? HA!

  88. just middle class
    September 9, 2012 at 11:11 am

    Point 1. Schools are not increasing in size at this time and the population is growing as a very low rate. School impact fees can be developed but the school must show that the new development is impacting their facilities and they could not, and that is why the funding was lost.
    Point 2. Increased sewer capacity: All new development pays a sewer impact fee that is develped by the jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction must show that the fee is actually base on the impact.
    Point 3. Streets: If the development directly impacts a street, then the development must pay to improve that street.
    Point 4. Sewing to stop fee? The only one was the school impact fee and the schools could not show that the new development was impacting thier size since most of the student growth was from inter-district agreements. Do you know of any other?
    If you do a population analysis, you see that most new development causes a relocation of people, not a significant growing population, that is why Eureka is shrinking and places like McKinleyville have grown.
    New housing increases the property tax rates because of new assessments at current market value. Your problem seems to be more with how California funds services not new development.

  89. Eric Kirk
    September 9, 2012 at 11:13 am

    Well, maybe Jim White / Amy Breighton / Harold Knight / Jack Sherman could help spearhead a voter registration drive in Humboldt.

    In other words, light a candle, instead of just endlessly cursing the darkness.

    Ditto.

  90. Plain Jane
    September 9, 2012 at 11:27 am

    Cutten / Ridgewood increased in student population a great deal since that agreement was revoked and they are at full capacity year after year. I agree that new houses have a positive impact on tax revenue (DUH) but forcing current residents to either pay more (education bonds) or have their school system (a big reason people want to live in Ridgewood) degrade is unfair.

    Where is your criticism of McKinleyville growing which is even further from most of the jobs and shopping of the residents? What do you think about rezoning and subdividing east of Walnut Drive? I do have a problem with how California funds our services because the rules are tilted to profit developers at the expense of current residents.

  91. Anonymous
    September 9, 2012 at 12:20 pm

    Plain Jane :
    Cutten / Ridgewood increased in student population a great deal since that agreement was revoked and they are at full capacity year after year. I agree that new houses have a positive impact on tax revenue (DUH) but forcing current residents to either pay more (education bonds) or have their school system (a big reason people want to live in Ridgewood) degrade is unfair.

    I think you have missed the point. Cutten school is full only because THEY have solicited and encouraged interdistrict transfers from other areas. They simply need the money that comes with out of district kids. It is actually the fleeing of kids from “infill” style areas of Eureka that are essentially subsidizing the education of Cutten kids. You actually have this particular issue backwards. Sorry, just the facts.

  92. Plain Jane
    September 9, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    Do you know how many kids who live in Ridgewood and Cutten go to ECS and even Freshwater, Arcata and McKinleyville? I know a number of them who requested and received interdistrict transfers from Cutten to elsewhere for parent’s convenience: work schedules, daycare, etc. You say “infill style area” residents are “fleeing” their local schools, driving all those miles twice a day; but apparently miss the flaw in your concerns about traffic impacts. If those people forced into infill by supply of houses near the schools they want their kids to attend could live within walking distance, that’s a big reduction in traffic and energy use.

  93. Anonymous
    September 9, 2012 at 4:00 pm

    Plain Jane :
    Do you know how many kids who live in Ridgewood and Cutten go to ECS and even Freshwater, Arcata and McKinleyville? I know a number of them who requested and received interdistrict transfers from Cutten to elsewhere for parent’s convenience: work schedules, daycare, etc. You say “infill style area” residents are “fleeing” their local schools, driving all those miles twice a day; but apparently miss the flaw in your concerns about traffic impacts. If those people forced into infill by supply of houses near the schools they want their kids to attend could live within walking distance, that’s a big reduction in traffic and energy use.

    I do not know exactly how many kids transfer out of Cutten but so what. I have personally seen the reports. It is an absolute fact that there are more kids (lots and lots) transfering into Cutten/Ridgewood than leaving. Most of those kids are coming from Eureka looking for a better system, also a fact. I didn’t say anything about traffic impacts, houses, walking distance, or anything else. I just tried to correct your mistatement that Cutten residents were paying more in any way because having a full school. Operating at capacity saves them money and allows programming that they otherwise couldn’t afford with fewer kids. The same think also applies to Freshwater, Jacoby Creek, and other schools that offer a better and more successful program than Eureka or Arcata. Why they are better is another subject and might make for an interesting post but better they are.

    Anyway, get a grip. Not everyone is out to get you. Sometimes we all simply make a mistake and should accept a well intentioned correction. Bitterness is not very becoming or productive.

  94. Eric Kirk
    September 9, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    I think you have missed the point. Cutten school is full only because THEY have solicited and encouraged interdistrict transfers from other areas. They simply need the money that comes with out of district kids. It is actually the fleeing of kids from “infill” style areas of Eureka that are essentially subsidizing the education of Cutten kids. You actually have this particular issue backwards. Sorry, just the facts.

    I have also heard this about Freshwater.

    But what you say jibes with the reference by some Eureka activists to Cutten as the “white flight corridor.” Seems harsh to me, but maybe there’s a ring of truth to it.

  95. Plain Jane
    September 9, 2012 at 4:57 pm

    Since you choose to be “anonymous,” don’t complain when you are blamed for the statements of other “anonymous.” You all look the same to me.

  96. Plain Jane
    September 9, 2012 at 5:00 pm

    I don’t think race has anything to do with it, Eric. It’s more middle class flight for better schools and safer neighborhood.

  97. Anonymous
    September 9, 2012 at 9:28 pm

    Plain Jane :
    Since you choose to be “anonymous,” don’t complain when you are blamed for the statements of other “anonymous.” You all look the same to me.

    Seriously, I mean are you kidding. Someone who calls themselves “Plain Jane” is giving me a hard time for calling myself “Anonymous”. I guess you just find that easier than simply admitting that on a simple and small point you were just mistaken. As I said, “bitterness is not very becoming or productive”. I’ll make you a deal. I’ll use my name if you use yours. Everyone will know who is obstinate and bitter and who is not. A side benifit is that we’ll be able to avoid each other at parties. Are you truly confident in your positions and statements?

  98. Anonymous
    September 9, 2012 at 9:45 pm

    Eric, I agree with “Jane”. I don’t see it as a race issue at all. There are a number of schools that simply offer a superior program and environment for a variety of reasons and parents who are aware and able move their kids to schools that provide the better opportunity. In the case of Cutten and Freshwater their ethnic makeup is pretty diverse and probably pretty similar to Eureka, Jacoby Creek less so. The transfer students do tend to have a socio-economic benefit but not a racial one. Consider taking a look at the percentage receiving free and reduced food service which is a pretty standard measure. Freshwater mirrors Eureka, Cutten is slightly better, and Jacoby considerably. I think the real issue is the gross mismanagement within the Eureka systems administration. There are many factors, some out of their control but many that could be changed for the better but Eureka is one seriously screwed up district with no end in sight. I actually think the best thing that could happen is for their test scores to stay low and the state to take over the district. Sometimes it’s just better to start over and the Eureka district is at that point.

  99. Anonymous
    September 9, 2012 at 10:14 pm

    It is white flight pure & simple. The public schools in Freshwater & cutten have the exact same classes & curriculum as the schools in eureka. Anyone who says differently is lying to you and maybe to themselves to cover up their own guilt of prejudice. Prejudice against race or socio economic status or both.

  100. Amy Breighton
    September 10, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    “Well, maybe Jim White / Amy Breighton / Harold Knight / Jack Sherman could help spearhead a voter registration drive in Humboldt. In other words, light a candle, instead of just endlessly cursing the darkness” (Eric Kirk)

    Written by the authoritative arbiter of who is “lighting a candle” and who is not…on an anonymous blog?. You’re joking, right? “Cursing the Dark” has a rich precedence in this country! It’s a damn shame that “cursing the cursers” takes precedence here over promotion of the fair-wage initiative meeting taking place tomorrow at the Labor Temple at 6:15PM. No one knows which issue will become a catalyst for Eureka’s first voter registration drive. Come, hear the “cursers” in your community!

    Or, at least, read a book on this nation’s social movements. All change begins with language often shouted in the “dark”.

    “All of the infrastructure to serve the development will be paid for by the developer prior to selling anything.” (JMC).

    I called the county to learn that these fees total a few thousand dollars, which explains why our infrastructure is a deadly shambles and the benefactors are controlling the political show.

    713: you are correct, infill development will also impact an over-capacity system. Nevertheless, the speculators are successfully defending the right to begin the next housing bubble, miles from downtown, in a county with an extremely low affordability rate.

    If we are going to further burden an over-burdened system, infill makes the most sense.

  101. Plain Jane
    September 10, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    Plain Jane is a pseudonym which is also anonymous but enables people to tell me apart from the other anonymous people. Using anonymous makes it impossible for anyone without access to your IP address can’t discern you from all the other anonymous. If there were other Plain Janes I would have to change my pseudonym or add a number to it. If you can’t understand the difference between anonymous and a pseudonym, I can’t help you. But getting all self righteous because I can’t tell the difference between you is quite funny.

  102. Amy Breighton
    September 11, 2012 at 12:35 am

    Whenever a poster’s identity becomes the issue on an anonymous blog, whether advanced by petty tyrants on the left or the right, it is an attack on American’s right to anonymity and free speech.

    There are few exceptions.

  103. jack of hearts
    September 12, 2012 at 8:29 pm

    Anonymous :
    It is white flight pure & simple. The public schools in Freshwater & cutten have the exact same classes & curriculum as the schools in eureka. Anyone who says differently is lying to you and maybe to themselves to cover up their own guilt of prejudice. Prejudice against race or socio economic status or both.

    oh…wow!

  104. suzy blah blah
    September 12, 2012 at 8:54 pm

    -PJ, you can sometimes tell the anonymouses apart by looking at their avatar. The generic anonymous avatar is the one you see at #81. The one’s who sign in with their email get a unique one like: #98 and #99.

  105. Plain Jane
    September 12, 2012 at 10:30 pm

    Amy, it wasn’t about anyone’s identity. It was about not being able to tell one person posting as anonymous from another person posting as anonymous and one anonymous getting pissy about it.

    Thanks, Suzy, I’ll see if that helps to tell them apart; although most of them aren’t worth scrolling back through the thread to compare.

  106. Amy Breighton
    September 13, 2012 at 2:28 pm

    I look forward to the day that blog posts are judged by the character of their content, not by the distinction of their avatar.

  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