Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Baykeeper Toxicity Forums

The Citizen's for Real Economic Growth, the anti- Marina Center folks, have been hosting a series of forums on pollution in the Balloon Tract. I'll have to admit that, when I first heard these forums announced, I figured they'd be akin to the one sided forums the Yes On Measure T folks have been doing.

From the way the Eureka Reporter writes it, it looks like there might have actually been some back and forth from opposing sides on the issue, at least in the one held yesterday. But that's just the way I read it.

65 Comments:

At 9:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It was a good and open forum. The conclusion seems to be that Union Pacific can afford the high estimate of $10 million to clean up the property properly. After all, they are showing a net income of $100 million per MONTH and their stock is up 46% over the last 12 months. http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_3787114

 
At 9:51 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought the conclusion was that "Dunbar told meeting attendees that the board is satisfied that UP has done the required soil sampling and ground water monitoring."

The Baykeeper's plan is to sue the Railroad and then spend tax dollars to study what should be done with the site.

The Marina Center's idea is to clean it up now and build something that is good for Eureka.

 
At 9:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe there is a common conclusion in this somehow. Whether or not the Baykeeper lawsuit proves their contention about the railroad's abatement order, as the water quality board staffer pointed out, the abatement requirements for a vacant lot are less than those for a developed parcel. This particular parcel is so polluted and so involved with slough, tide and bay hydrology, it should be cleaned thoroughly before anything is built on the land. Even my republican friends agree with that one.

 
At 10:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

at least the balloon tract folks have to stick to science. the measure t nutjobs verge on religiosity with their belief in the original sin of allowing corporations to exist.

 
At 10:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It sounds like they are questioning whether Nichols is spiking the mud.

The trouble with all these "groups" is there is no oversight, no regulation, no requirements that they be accurate, not requirment that they meet certain standards, and no means of holding them accoutnable, and tehy can file lawsuits right and left and hold things up, cost people and the county money, ruin people's reputations - and under Measure T, they would have free rein, with no business/corp they attack able to fight back.

That's the monster that has been created with all these special interest groups, and Baykeeper is one of the best funded of these groups.

Damn time to hold THEM accountable - they way they squawk so loudly that corporations must be held accountable.

when they are able to affect public policy, they should be subject to oversight and regulations demanding truth and accountability, not just allowed to make wild accusations with no consequences.

 
At 10:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, the ravers are out.

 
At 10:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So someone whose favorite term of insult is "nutjobs" is posting on Fred's blog everyday about Measure T, even if the post has nothing to do with that topic.

Get a life loser.

Fred, you shouldn't let people SPAM your site.

 
At 11:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the No on T website:

10. MEASURE T WOULD BE ANOTHER NATIONAL "WHACKO FACTOR" DISCREDITING OUR COMMUNITY – I, for one, don’t look forward to the national media branding of Humboldt County as a haven for anti-business, anti-job, anti-growth nut-jobs.


Looks like Crawford is the "nutjob" poster. Crawford, why don't you start up a real campaign to oppose the T people, rather than just type on Fred's blog all day? You are letting Arkley down.

 
At 11:06 AM, Blogger Anon.R.mous said...

It's sad that I am the only anonymous one signing my posts.

=)

 
At 1:17 PM, Blogger Brian Morrissey said...

We intend to clean the site to the letter and spirit of the law. We have never held anything off the table, other than higher than legal, arbitrary standard that some would impose. With Marina Center, the Clark Slough will be restored and maintained.

We have agreed to purchase environmental insurance that would cover the costs associated with a new (or greater) discovery out there.

 
At 1:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since a Federal Court is now involved and things move so very slowly once this occurs, I'm curious how this effects the timeline of the project? Any comments Mr. Morrissey?

 
At 2:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

and there you have it - the goal of Baykeeper, shut everything down using the courts, isn't that just the most honorable thing one can do in life?

 
At 2:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

funny, didnt fred compare the open forum on the balloon track to the biased closed and loopy forums on measure t? sounds like fred thinks its on topic which is good enough for me. too bad shane takes these things so personally.

 
At 4:22 PM, Blogger Bitxxx said...

The Baykeeper is doing what the city should have done years ago.

 
At 5:10 PM, Blogger Brian Morrissey said...

The lawsuit...

I have not read the Baykeeper lawsuit, but nothing they have said in public can be corroborated by any of the investigations we have done. If we want to buy the Balloon Track, Union Pacific has now required us to take the liability of the lawsuit. I suspect it will cost us money and time; how much of either? I am not sure.

As for Bit’s comments…The State has been monitoring and enforcing the law for years on the site – no one had a problem with the State until we came along and suggested Marina Center.

 
At 5:20 PM, Blogger Fred said...

That's a good point:

This is all about Home Depot, aka Private Enterprise.

That's what it all boils down to, in my opinion.

 
At 6:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 2:04pm

At least they can't use the filibuster!

 
At 8:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually wasn't Baykeeper planning to sue before word got out to the public about your little one-on-one sit downs with each of the Eureka City Council members? That was the first anyone heard about the Marina Mall, but I had heard rumblings of a suit before that.

 
At 10:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Baykeeper - another fine example of NON LOCAL orgs trying to affect LOCAL events.

Why do they get a pass? And why do they remain free to practice their poisonous obstructionist tactics under Measure T?

Answer is easy. All pigs are equal but some pigs are more equal than others.

HYPOCRITES!

No surprise that Nichols is Sterling-Nichols husband... Gallegos is intertwined with the activist community up to his eyeballs in slimy, spiked mud.

 
At 10:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would like to hear the Baykeeper justification for its fancy boat. I mean, I can understand that it might need a boat, but as a non-profit wouldn't it purchase a more modest boat? There are commercial fishermen who ply the waters daily with lesser boats. Why didn't the Baykeepers buy a respectable aluminum boat with a single engine? Why the dual engines?

It may sound like a petty beef, but it's the equivalent of the a local non-profit purchasing a top-of-the-line Mercedes Benz for its director to get around in when a Ford Taurus would do the job.

 
At 12:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

they're a well-financed non-local activist pressure group...oughtta be run outta town on a rail...mud and feathered

 
At 6:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Attention folks,

The Marina Center is virutally one gigantic parking lot with a few strip mall buildings placed around... with a giant warehouse building as the "hub"

What a dream project!

 
At 7:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

nice try. we've seent he renderings, it is much nicer than that. and any building can be described as a box

 
At 8:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

At 10:50 PM, Anonymous said...
I would like to hear the Baykeeper justification for its fancy boat. I mean, I can understand that it might need a boat, but as a non-profit wouldn't it purchase a more modest boat? There are commercial fishermen who ply the waters daily with lesser boats. Why didn't the Baykeepers buy a respectable aluminum boat with a single engine? Why the dual engines?

It may sound like a petty beef, but it's the equivalent of the a local non-profit purchasing a top-of-the-line Mercedes Benz for its director to get around in when a Ford Taurus would do the job.



No kidding. These guys know that all they have to do is call themselves a "group" get a good name and then bilk money from the public which truly believes in environmental issues - they get their money from all over the country - what a scam.

 
At 9:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes, the orgs are the new snake oil salesmen.

 
At 9:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The renderings are a fancy curtain to the real thing...


You wanna idea about what this is gonna look like? Go check out any roadside strip/big box mall in Santa Rosa. Tack up a few fancy architectural corbels and call it a day.


Wake up

 
At 9:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

you can say the same of any building anywhere
you might also notice that those "big box" parking lots are full
people obviously need and want the goods and services they have to offer

 
At 10:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Come on - how much unneeded crap have you bought in Bix Box stores? People obviously NEED Big Box stores?? Haaa

 
At 10:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

i buy alot of stuff i need and much of it at better prices than you can imagine, you can buy unecessary stuff anywhwerre, especially little boutique-y places, it's not limited to costco ro home depot. get real

 
At 11:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Someone should build a big box store on the old State Theatre site... better than the Balloon Tract

 
At 11:44 AM, Blogger Fred said...

10:03 wrote: "how much unneeded crap have you bought in Bix Box stores? People obviously NEED Big Box stores?? Haaa...".

I find it disturbing that you're taking it upon yourself to decide what other people do or don't need to buy or where they buy it.

 
At 5:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

They can afford the fancy boat because they get lots of non-local funding. And because you don't dare criticze them.

Hypocrites!

 
At 5:29 PM, Blogger Lena said...

So Libertarians are calling for MORE regulation? They don't want government regulation over industry but they think that independent citizens groups should have more oversight, be regulated and meet some kind of requirements before they are allowed to just go into a court room and file a suit under the law as if they were... Americans!

Oh yea, we are a country of laws and the law themselves are the "regulations" these groups abide by.

I love how they can get middle American right wingers to oppose lawyers who work on behalf of the people or the environment while corporations file the greatest number of lawsuit of all. Just like Bush was the first one to run to the courts (and overturn state's rights) when he saw he might lose the election in Florida.

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

And just who does oversight for our Harbor District? They hire a sediment test by a contracter who happens to be under additional contracts with the District for what seems like conflicting services like dredging. Not to mention he owns a dock that would benefit form dredging.

Nice to hire local but who's watching the hen house?

 
At 7:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ohh their boat is too fancy. I'm jealous!
Waaaahhh.

 
At 9:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you Lena!

 
At 5:27 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Lena writes, "So Libertarians are calling for MORE regulation?".

Where did I call for more regulation?

 
At 4:52 PM, Blogger Bitxxx said...

I also think Fred is off base saying its about private enterprise. Perhaps thats the view of some but please don't generalize. There are plenty of use who believe the Baykeeper is doing the right thing in asking for the clean up and care less about the development. I am personally not fond of Home Depot coming but that is a seperate issue.

To question the validity of how Baykeeper goes about their business is unfounded. I believe their integrity is without question. They use their own experts and wouldn't put the credibility of their efforts or that of the parent Waterkeeper Alliance on the line doing otherwise.

 
At 6:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

don't be so sure, bit.

 
At 9:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why would you think Baykeeper is above reproach? And can police themselves? Funny.

 
At 11:24 AM, Blogger Bitxxx said...

It just wouldn't make sense to fudge something that will be going to court and need to be proven. I doubt they would set themselves up like that.

 
At 1:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How did the Baykeeper suit against the Harbor District turn out?

 
At 4:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If I am not mistaken that suit was never filed. After the Baykeeper brought the issue to the Coastal Commission that board voted to allow only one dump on Samoa and after that it has to go out to the ocean dump. I beileve there were some additional restrictions.

And again this was based on testing done by a contractor for the Harbor District who will benifit from the dredging.

 
At 6:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh, please, bit, you have the perfect example of what is wrong with your logic in the pl suit.

 
At 11:39 AM, Blogger Bitxxx said...

PL suit?

 
At 5:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

it shows quite clearly that the special interest groups cannot be trusted to adhere to the high standards you might uphold and expect from them.

 
At 7:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is suggesting the validity of samples or the local of donors the only way haters can criticize Humboldt Baykeepers?

Pathetic really...

 
At 7:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Is suggesting the validity of samples or the local of donors the only way haters can criticize Humboldt Baykeepers?"


Typical comments from the mouth of a developer-

 
At 10:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

questioning the honesty and validity of an activist group? why that is sacrilegious. why, they are above reproach, these high priests of the environment. so much more aware and enlightened than you. daring to suggest that they might spike their samples, or be using the courts to suit their aims and relying on a disinterested populace to get away with it. really anon, what were you thinking?

 
At 10:57 PM, Blogger Bitxxx said...

Unlike corporations.

 
At 12:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

and maybe it's time the orgs were called on it just like the corporations, or we're going to end up in 10 years or so with baykeeper as enron, and realize we could have prevented it

the point is, the orgs are not above reproach, they need to be watched and checked and subject to regualtion because they are out of control, but the religion of environmentalism makes them the high priests, and it's off with your head if you question their sincerity, their purity - or even their qulaifications. baykeeper is one of the worst, from what i hear.

 
At 7:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"baykeeper is one of the worst, from what i hear."

Enlighten us, oh wise one...

 
At 8:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why don't you leave it up to the courts to decide if their findings are legitimate rather than make accusations without any evidence other than your biased opinion...

Shame on you

 
At 10:24 AM, Blogger Bitxxx said...

Yeah... let's here about the BayKeeper being one of the worst.

This should be good.

 
At 1:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I want to hear from Brian why they don't just do a full clean up. I have heard about lots of trucks needed to haul away the dirt, but hey, Home Depot is going to have lots of trucks coming and going for a lot more years then the clean up would take. Why not just spend the money for a full clean up? Can it really cost that much?

 
At 4:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Why not just spend the money for a full clean up?"

Because the project is basically is large parking lot... capping the project makes sense.

 
At 7:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

start here

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/25

in part: Already, the Waterkeeper legal machine has filed suit in North Carolina, Missouri, and Florida, demanding triple damages under the same RICO statutes (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) used by prosecutors to combat modern-day organized crime families. Along with the Waterkeeper Alliance, the Sierra Club, the Animal Welfare Institute, and the rabidly anti-consumer National Farmers Union are co-plaintiffs in these legal actions.

The effort suffered a setback in March 2001 when the first round of lawsuits was thrown out of court by a North Carolina judge who ruled that the plaintiffs had “failed to state a single claim” warranting a trial, much less a financial award. Still, Kennedy insists that his legal team will prevail. “We have lawyers with the deepest pockets,” he told the Associated Press on April 18, 2001, “and they’ve agreed to fight the industry to the end. We’re going to go after all of them.”

sound familiar?

 
At 7:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This might sound like a rather improbable way for environmental zealots to run amok, but Kennedy and the Waterkeeper lawyers just might win a significant payoff from their anti-corporate jihad. A big enough jury verdict (remember, tobacco companies were on the hook for $360 billion) could force mainstream corporate producers from the marketplace entirely, drastically raising food prices and ultimately narrowing the choices open to American consumers.

 
At 7:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It’s abundantly clear that money makes the world go ‘round for this group of Kennedy-led ambulance chasers. The world of class-action torts and nuisance lawsuits is based on the simple premise that attorneys get paid on “contingency” -- that is, they pocket a percentage of whatever a judge or jury awards their clients

nahhhh, Baykeeper is pure of heart and soul and intent

 
At 10:00 PM, Blogger Bitxxx said...

Aren't we all pure of heart and soul and intent?

I always view the posts I read here as being so.

 
At 10:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wish it were true, bit.

 
At 12:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah... let's here about the BayKeeper being one of the worst. This should be good.

Was it good for you, bit?

Baykeeper “We have lawyers with the deepest pockets,”
Baykeeper "world of class-action torts and nuisance lawsuits"

Oh yeah, that's their Baykeeper "parent company" they're kinda like the maxxam bully of the activist world... bottom line, that's a non-local funding for a group that is pretending to be local, Sterling Nichols and her Baykeeper husband Nichols...using their out-of-area, make that non-local money and influence. All allowed under Measure T. n'est pas?

 
At 12:50 AM, Blogger Bitxxx said...

Hmmm... gosh you're so right. What was I thinking? I'm gonna stop my membership in the Baykeeper right away. And I will start drinking Starbucks. I promise.

Rob was so right after all. I'll pick up the KY too.

 
At 12:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I heard the Baykeeper got busted by some private dick pouring used motor oil at the Balloon Track.

 
At 9:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

no, they just came up here to file more frivolous lawsuits, that's why the baykeepers wife is gallegos cmapaign manager, where else in the country do they have a Da in thier pocket

 

Post a Comment

<< Home