Thursday, April 20, 2006

Today's Editorials

The Times- Standard comments on the sale of the Fireside Inn today. Odd that, as supportive of redevelopment agencies the Eureka City Council seems to be, all except Councildude Kerrigan seem to realize if they want something done, they best leave the redevelopment agencies out of it.
*******
Seems to me the Eureka Reporter has made comments favorable towards same sex marriage before. They did it again in today's editorial. Why do I find that odd? I suppose it's because I would think it would be contrary to the Arkley's beliefs.

Then again, I'm not one who thinks that everything a newspaper publishes is the result of some conspircacy by the paper's owners.

15 Comments:

At 8:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred,

What type of oversite do you believe the city should have with developments? Do you believe that Eureka is so strapped that developers should be able to proceed just to see something built?

It amazes me that so many people would rather sidestep a public process simply because a blighted piece of property is being redeveloped. This "anything is better than what's there now" mentality isn't gonna make our community much better.

 
At 9:26 AM, Blogger Fred said...

I've said before I'm not necessarily opposed to government involvement in redevelopment efforts. I'm just not sure just how much it should be involved.

Developers have enough to deal with, as far as getting approval for their projects, even without having to have a major public debate every time someone wants to put up a new building.

As I mentioned before here, I understand it took two years for that little coffee hut in the parking lot at Long's Drugs (Myrtle and West in Eureka) to get the powers that be approval. They've since changed locations.

I can imagine the hurdles any developer faces with a new project proposal, even without public input or even a special election. Although along the same lines of what that coffee hut had to go through, I'm sure current government scrutiny is more than enough without any added headaches.

 
At 9:27 AM, Blogger Fred said...

"This "anything is better than what's there now" mentality isn't gonna make our community much better.".

As an aside, I've also said here before that I don't have a problem with an empty lot, either.

 
At 9:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

maybe the process needs to be updated, but there still should be at the very least a review board that looks out for the interests for the community- I'm an architect and am amazed with some of the crap that is proposed in this area.

 
At 11:34 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Well, that crap obviously hasn't succeded in getting built, at least I assume it hasn't, because you said "proposed".

All this stuff gets run through the process as it is. The subject here is whether a redevelopment agency needs to be thrown into the mix as well.

That and how much power anyone should have over a given project. I was kind of taken aback over the hassle over the new Eureka Co- op.

I don't have a problem with people giving their opinion as to whether the proposed paint job looked good or not, but when it comes down to it, I don't think I'd want somebody have the last word on what colors I paint my house or any other building.

There's no accounting for people's taste and I say each to their own.

 
At 11:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey fred,

You should put this quote on the No on T campaign website under ‘what people are saying’:
“Measure T is a piece of shit.” – Chris Crawford

http://www.arcataeye.com/index.php?module=Pagesetter&tid=2&topic=3&func=viewpub&pid=67&format=full

 
At 11:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The color scheme on the Co-op was horrendous

Anyone who likes that scheme has no taste whatsoever...

 
At 2:09 PM, Blogger Fred said...

11:39 wrote: "You should put this quote on the No on T campaign website under ‘what people are saying’:".

Actually, there's a link to the article you're quoting on the Measure T "What's New" page.

11:49 writes, "The color scheme on the Co-op was horrendous.".

Apparently a number of people thought so. Obviously some didn't, otherwise they wouldn't have picked it in the first place. I don't know as I never saw it, but each to their own.

I can think of one house, south of Harris on H Street with a paint job that's a bit out there. I'm not trying to get them to change it, though.

So, should we end up like some places where people have to clear it with some city council or housing association where the majority has to approve of a paint job, or only certain colors or combonations are allowed? I hope not.

 
At 3:12 PM, Anonymous plazoid said...

hey fred, won't you comment on the 9th circuit court of appeals decision that says that it is unconstitutional to punish people for being homeless? The decision means that Arcata's (and probably Eureka too) anti-homeless ordinances are UNCONSTITUTIONAL because they are CRUEL and UNUSUAL.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-041406sidewalk_lat,0,1735011.story?coll=la-home-headlines

 
At 7:06 PM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

A little background on plazoid's off thread crusade:
A panel of the U.S. 9th Circus Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision ruled essentially that bums blocking public thoroughfares can not be cited. The opinion was written by Judge Kim M. Wardlaw.

Profile of Judge Kim M. Wardlaw:
Appointed by disbarred President Clinton, July 1998

Born: July 2, 1954

Education: BA, UCLA 1976; JD, UCLA 1979

Law Practice: O'Melveny & Myers (1980-96)

Judicial Appointments: United States District Court for the Central District of California (1996-98); Ninth Circuit (1998-present)

Opinions Reported in Appellate Decisions Noted: * Berkeley's living wage ordinance is constitutional
(9/11/99)
In a federal civil rights action that threatened substantial financial loss and embarrassment to the City of Los Angeles, then-District Court Judge Wardlaw failed to advise the parties of her financial and personal contacts with the Mayor, or to recuse herself. The action was dismissed by Judge Wardlaw at summary judgment, in a hearing where the judge allowed no argument, and in an order which failed to discuss any of plaintiffs' evidence, which included a detailed admission under oath by one of the defendants. Shortly thereafter she was elevated to the 9th Circuit, which subsequently affirmed the decision of its new member, also without any discussion of the evidence, in an unpublished decision.

The 9th circus is the most overruled appeals "court" in the U.S.

 
At 10:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chris Crawford called it like it is.

Measure T is a piece of shit.

Shit legislation that will cost teh county money.

 
At 6:36 AM, Anonymous Priestess of Astaroth said...

No Dammit! The law favoring homeless people must be overturned or else the bums like Tad and others will take it as license to harass businesses and people even more than they already do now! I wanna be able to shop on the plaza without fearing a bums grubby hand in my face demanding unearned money. I've lived here all my life and my grandmother who has also lived here all her life told me that back in the 1800's when bands of gypsies would decend on the town the townsfolk would literally chase them off. Nothing against gypsies mind you, at least they will work for their bread and shelter. Unlike the homeless who demand to be pampered because they feel entitled! The bums are entitled to my fist in their scrunched face and my scorn! Nothing more! I will help the homeless person who needs and wants to find work to afford a place and food. I will NOT help bums who have CHOSEN to be bums!

HAIL ASTAROTH!
HAIL FRED!

 
At 11:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Removing hurdles to development will all little guys to do things. With the hurdles in place now - and more to come - only people like Arkley can take the risk to buy something and lose it all.

Bottom line - make development predicable and relatively short - less than a year, and smaller guys (or gals) can do projects.

 
At 11:42 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Point well made, 11:25!

 
At 5:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don Davenport screwed the Vets who put up the money to build a center to help those who are and will be returning from Iraq.
He said it was so the city could make more money by putting the property out to bid, but all they got was $4,000 more then the Vets were going to pay and Jack Daly acted as Don Davenports front man in the deal (as we all know that Jack is the family dunce who has never done a profitable deal in his life) and now Don can put up another fast food drive thru. Well, maybe some of the returning Vest can get jobs working for Don at minimum wage?
God Bless free market patriots like Don Davenport!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home