Friday, September 29, 2006

Sold! So Soon?

Security National closes the deal on the Balloon Tract.

I don't think I would of done it, at least not so soon. Eric commented elsewhere it might have been a bad move politically to close the deal on the Balloon Tract so soon. My take is just a bit different, although he makes a good point.

My concern is more along the lines of buying something and not being sure you'll be able to do what you want with it. What if the forces of darkness win out and the powers that be decide they won't allow a privately funded project be built on that property?

It sure would be a drag to pay two million bucks, plus whatever cleanup costs, then find out the only thing that they'll allow you to build there is some government project. I would have waited until it was a little more clear as to what was going to be allowed there.

Then again, maybe they'd have to buy the property first just to get started in going through all the hoops they'll need to go through before they begin construction?

95 Comments:

At 9:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cherie Arkley looked pretty stretched in that photo on the cover of the ER...

Must be approaching double digit territory!

 
At 9:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

They obviously focusing on "Local Ownership" as their key term regarding the project, drawing attention away from the Home Depot aspect

 
At 10:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So what's the BFD about having a Home Depot? Do you really like paying 20 to 45% more?

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

I don't really care what kind of retail development occurs on that land just so long as it is truly cleaned up... no portion of polluted soil just paved over. Otherwise, we'll continue to pay for another hundred years.

 
At 11:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Capping it saves SN alot of money... and produces a giant parking lot. Thus, the home depot.

Wow, pop the bubbly! Who wouldn't want a giant parking lot on their waterfront!

 
At 11:35 AM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

I was thinking about your question Fred. I was asking the same question myself. Maybe they feel they can muscle the permits and variances through before January, when the new council would take over.

 
At 11:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those of you who oppose the legal cleanup measures, i.e. Concrete capping, need to be consistent, and march up to the City of Arcata and demand the same for the eco-groovy marsh site, where there is a concrete cap over the former landfill site..thats right a dump was there at the site of the wastewater treatment plant.

 
At 12:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You've already gone through this on Humboldt Herald, you idiot, and it has been explained to you.

If there is a concrete cap at the plant, it's already done. The Balloon Tract hasn't been capped yet. There's still time to clean it up before anything is built on it.

 
At 12:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I won't listen to anything CREG pitches unless it involves 100% private funding... I don't want taxpayer money spent here, when someone else is willing to pick-up the bill

 
At 1:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ohhhh so I'm an "idiot" because I dont agree with you...ever stop to consider that this blog gets a bit more play than Heraldo's, and that others here may not see his blog at all?? BTW, you still have not addressed the point that the concrete cap was placed on the arcata site because it was AND REMAINS the viable LEGAL remedy... , the point with capping is that they DO work, and the Marina Center Project is going to FULLY COMPLY with the law in cleaning it up...but because some of you do not like the Arkleys, or whatever, you want them to do something beyond what the City of Arcata did with their Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Not going to stoop to your level and call you names, because it’s silly….So, once again, when are the Humboldt Baykeepers going to march on up to the Marsh and file a lawsuit, demanding a full and total cleanup??? Beyond that, why don’t they stand fully behind the State of California and their issues with the Marsh and how it is polluting the bay????? Ahhhhh consistency….or lack thereof, gotta love it…

 
At 1:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And when you are getting your ass kicked by logic and cannot respond, take a page from the extremists handbook, be it from the left or the right - start calling those who disagree with you names, or change the subject entirely...hmmm are we going to get another movie discussion going anytime soon?

 
At 1:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 12:05: there is no "if" about it. Go read the ts article about the former mount trashmore, and in fact how that whole parcel was one of, if not the most polluted on the entire bay. If that was an Arkley project you would be shouting to the heavens for a full cleanup, with lawsuits and threats of them, even though it was "already done". Dont pretend otherwise. Link -
http://www.times-standard.com/ci_4130237

 
At 1:29 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Eric wrote, "Maybe they feel they can muscle the permits and variances through before January, when the new council would take over.".

Except I believe there's more agencies at stake here than just the Eureka City Council. They may or may not be the first hurdle. I don't know. But they've still got the Coastal Commission and whomever else to deal with.

 
At 1:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brian Morrissey's chin looks funny... He is a dead on for Peter from the family guy. Come to think of it, Rob bears a similar resemblance too

 
At 1:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There you 1:34...let's talk about Brian's chin instead of the facts, and how they arent used when they dont fit your cause.

 
At 1:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Rob looks more like the family guy character than Morrissey-

 
At 1:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just hope the Marina Center ends up looking just like the new Co-Op


Thats gotta now be the ugliest building in town, narrowly defeating the jail.

 
At 2:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Give me a break 1:57, the Coop looks GREAT. I went today, and it's really a fabulous store. WHATEVER they do on the balloon tract will look better than the blighted property it is now.

 
At 2:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 2:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Keep deflecting with personal attacks (not very p.c. with the mental/looks slams though)...
How about a little honest discussion now...

 
At 2:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred:

Once the draft EIR is ready, there is a 45 day public comment period. Then the city staff has to respond to those comments, which will take a couple of weeks. Then it will go before the city planning commission before the city council meaning more time for public input. Best guess, even if things run like clockwork, and remember this is government bureaucracy, it can't get to the city council, no matter who sits there, until well after the first of the year, when there will be time for more public comments.

 
At 2:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

2:22 Yes the new Co op does look great. A real eye catcher. I can't wait to shop there.

 
At 2:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Give me a break 1:57, the Coop looks GREAT. I went today, and it's really a fabulous store. WHATEVER they do on the balloon tract will look better than the blighted property it is now."

You have absolutely no taste

Unbelievable!

You have to be kidding, right?

 
At 2:50 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Hey, from what I've seen, the Coop looks fine. Rembember, there's no accounting for one's tastes.

 
At 2:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great....a new giant CO-OP was built in Eureka. I guess now all of the little grocery stores in Eureka will be going out of business if current theories stand up. Although, it's a rather colorful Big Box.

 
At 2:57 PM, Blogger Fred said...

2:33 wrote, "it can't get to the city council, no matter who sits there, until well after the first of the year, when there will be time for more public comments.".

But that's just the local bureaucracy, what about county, state and the feds? Won't there be some hoops to go through there, as well?

 
At 3:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

256 you are a dumbass a coop is owned by the coop members...and is not a big corp so NO you your atempt at a joke is LAME

 
At 3:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have no issues with the Co-op other than the design. It's horrible. Unbelievably bad. Too bad such a great store has to call that place home.

 
At 3:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If any of you think Robin Arkley bought the Balloon Tract without knowing in advance that he would get all of his approvals, you don't know how Robin Arkley works. It's a done deal boys and girls. Move on.

 
At 3:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the Arkleys should forget about suing the county and go after Cherie's plastic surgeon.

 
At 3:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I doubt they will able to build till the lawsuit is dropped

 
At 3:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, you're right! Morrissey looks exactly like Peter from Family Guy!

Haha!!

 
At 3:55 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Are the comments about peoples' physical characteristics necessary? I'm just asking, and I'm assuming that everybody typing these things look like Mr. Universe or supermodels.

 
At 4:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Noticed on Ron Kuhnel's web site he already has a press release about what he thinks is OK for the clean up of the Balloon Tract. Trouble is, in private he says that he will hold out for 100% cleanup, and doesn't care if it sits there in it's present state for another 30 years...

Great future for us eh...

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

Fred: 2:57

Yes. That's just to get though the city hurdles. Probably not before the city council until March...

Then it goes to the California Coastal Comission. Staff reports and hearing before the Comission will take another six months.

Then, since there certainly will be changes demanded by the Coastal Comission, more time will pass. And another hearing.

If this gets approval, in whatever form, much before the middle of 2008, I would be surprised.

And outside of input of letters or comments during the City Council or Coastal Comission hearings, the county has no real say in the matter. This is why Bonnie is keeping her mouth shut as she sits on the Coastal Comission and will have a vote on the project.

 
At 6:27 PM, Blogger Brian Morrissey said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 6:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well it looks like Brian Morrissey has a sense of humor. Although I don't care for his boss, at least this is a quality indicative of his own sanity. More than I can say for David Cobb, Michael Smith and the rest of the DUHC gangsters who all have this perpetual scowl.

 
At 7:24 PM, Anonymous mresquan said...

6:33,Brian had a bit of perpetual scowl going when he told me I was going to have to leave a Marina Center event at the Wharfinger building because I asked him if he felt the majority of the community agreed with Security Nationals business ethics,and how they make money.Other than that,Brian has answered the few other questions I've asked with no problem.He isn't a relpica of his boss,like some assume.He has a sense of humor and is usually approachable,except when asked questions like I did.But Brian,now that the event is over,please feel free to address that issue.

 
At 7:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

David Cobb looks exactly like a bubblehead doll.

 
At 9:58 PM, Blogger Brian Morrissey said...

Sorry .. I missed up my earlier post...


Well... I have spent two years of my life and a couple million dollars of Rob's money to get some local control of the balloon track.

It was more work than I ever expected.

I suppose that Fred, Erik and others are right; timing could have been better from some sort of strategic political viewpoint. Their underlining assumption is that the Marina Center is political: I view it differently. The Marina Center is a project that brings certain benefits to the community – environmental clean up, wetlands restoration, jobs, affordable housing, etc. at a cost of perhaps more competition or more development.

But frankly, we believe that SOMETHING has to be done and sooner was better than later. We intend to start working on the property immediately, again not necessarily the smartest move politically – but the right decision for the community.

As for the Peter Griffin comments... I can only say “aaaahhhhh aaaahhhhhh aaaaaaaaahhhhhhh - oh wait that's freakin' sweet - nope ...that hurt aaaahhhhh aaaahhhhhh aaaaaaaaahhhhhhh"

 
At 12:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps Security National should do drug testing of its employees?

 
At 1:10 AM, Blogger Anon.R.mous said...

I can't wait for whatever is going to be built on that place to be built. I'd like a new job.

 
At 1:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What, you'd rather stock shelves at Home Depot than beat your head against your padded cell at Sempervirens?

 
At 1:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Ohhhh so I'm an "idiot" because I dont agree with you..."

No, Brian, you're an idiot because you're like a broken record, you're on automatic pilot, lots of noisy output but no input jack for your fat head.

The point was made on the Humboldt Herald thread that your boss Arkley stopped the master plan for the Balloon Tract from being carried out. And the master plan included an environmental study.

Arcata Marsh's "Mount Trashmore" is irrelevant to this discussion because it's already capped. We're talking about the Balloon Tract with its soil soaked with diesel oil and fuel which has not been capped yet -- and could therefore be cleaned up first.

As for "getting your ass kicked by logic" -- that's exactly what is happening to you, but you're too intoxicated to see it. Maybe you should lay off the champagne for a bit and try to respond logically.

 
At 7:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Morrissey keeps saying "capping WORKS", but he doesn't really know if that applies to the Balloon Tract with its diesel-oil-soaked dirt. To know, we'll have to wait for an environmental study on it.

If Arkley hadn't gotten Leonard and others on the Eureka City Council to dump the master plan we would know by now.

See the NCJ cover story for details.

 
At 9:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

David Lippman ( Times - Standard ) is with the RCAA . You can look it up on the site . He is intentionally not giving , Jerry Droz any publicity in the Times - MisStandard because Droz is against all the shelters in this City . They want Lavalle to win because he is Director of the RCAA and a flat out liar about hiding the fact ( The league of women voters ) that he is employed full time bringing in white trash into , Eureka . The stupid , Times - MisStandard wants the shelters .

 
At 10:09 AM, Anonymous mresquan said...

What does Jerry Droz do for a living?Looks like he tries to have homes condemned ,so they can be turned into shelters.Then he tries to sue the city for putting up those shelters.

 
At 10:22 AM, Blogger Fred said...

I believe he listed himself on his candidacy papers as a "real property" remodeler, or some such. He buys property, fixes it up and sells it. I think he has it mentioned on his Smartvoter page.

Interestingly enough, the guy who owns the house behind me, who Droz tried to file a restraining order against for parking his cars next to Droz' house, does the same thing: Buy and fix up old houses.

 
At 11:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon - 9:16

While I agree the T-S has a La Vallee bias, how does this relate to a nut case like Droz not getting any coverage?

 
At 11:51 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lavallee is not the director of the RCAA. He is and has been the director of Youth Services for the RCAA.

 
At 12:04 PM, Anonymous mresquan said...

anon 9:16,What has Droz done that you know of that he deserves credit for?For all I know he could be selling his fixed up properties to people who would in turn convert them into the same shelters he despises of.Maybe he sells those homes to people with prior convictions.And maybe he is a perfect candidate with a lot of great solutions to problems.I just can't find anything great about the guy anywhere.So please let me know where I can find info about positive things Droz has done to benefit the community,other than lashing out at others whom he feels screw up the community.

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

The problem lies with the greedy folks who fill their pockets by putting these homes in our neighborhoods. Someone needs to start outing these folks. I think we might be surprised at who the landlords are.

 
At 12:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can try and blame Lavallee all you want but are wasting your time. Go to the heart of the issue. Its about money and the folks who make it by screwing us all over by putting these miscreants in our community. Its the property owners!

 
At 5:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have any of you actually been down to your “pristine waterfront property”?
It’s not pristine – it’s a rusted, polluted, embarrassing piece of blight.
It’s not waterfront -- it’s a block and a half away from the water.

The reality is that since SN made their first proposal of the balloon tract purchase for their proposed Marina Center we’ve already had 7 1/2 hours of public comment. This will only increase once the EIR is filed with the City.

You can no longer demand a full clean up from Union Pacific. Union Pacific doesn’t own the property anymore, SN does. Besides, you can’t make demands of private property owners unless their property presents a health and safety hazard to the community.

And the most ridiculous propaganda and lies promoted by the radical extremists is that Arkley made some backroom deal with the City Council.

Ask Eureka City Manager David Tyson what the process is if you want to purchase one of the many remaining waterfront properties that the City of Eureka has for sale.

In any California city the City Manager would set meetings with the local City Council on your proposed development, business plan, financing, etc. That’s SOP for any city, not some “backroom deal”.

 
At 5:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh they don't want to BUY any of the property, 5:19, they just want to howl and cry fowl when someone ELSE buys it. then they'll stomp their feet and gnash their fearsome teeth and talk about the huddled masses and claim they have no representation, then they'll all be in line for jobs at Home Depot, or sleeping in the doorways in the morning.

 
At 3:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And the most ridiculous propaganda and lies promoted by the radical extremists is that Arkley made some backroom deal with the City Council."

So do you think Arkley never makes any backroom deals?

Or do are you saying that he didn't make a backroom deal just this particular time? If so, the facts would seem to indicate otherwise:

Hank Sims: IT WAS EXPECTED TO BE A ROUTINE BIT OF BUSINESS FOR THE EUREKA CITY COUNCIL. At the council's meeting on Oct. 5, city staff were prepared to hire a consultant to help them develop a master plan for the most valuable piece of vacant land in the city limits -- the so-called "Balloon Track," a 34-acre plot on the western edge of Old Town, with frontage on Broadway and Waterfront Drive. The parcel, an old rail yard owned by Union Pacific, became the focus of intense controversy five years ago when Wal-Mart proposed to build a store on it.

The money for the master plan -- which was intended as a public effort to determine the future of the property -- was already in place. In November 2003, the county board that oversees the Headwaters Fund awarded the city a $45,000 grant to help fund it. The city was prepared to match that amount with $55,000 from its Redevelopment Agency. The feeling was that it would be money well spent. Even Eureka resident Aldo Bongio, a strident critic of government spending who spoke at the Oct. 5 meeting, said that it "isn't really a big amount."

But suddenly, Councilmember Jeff Leonard didn't agree. Despite the fact that the plan had been standing city policy for almost a year, re-confirmed by unanimous vote as recently as the previous meeting on Sept. 21, and despite the hundreds of hours of staff time spent writing grant applications and interviewing prospective consulting firms, Leonard had experienced a change of heart.

"With all apologies to council and staff, I'm not willing to go any farther forward down this particular road," he said. "A hundred thousand dollars is actually, in my mind, a lot to pay for a study."

Leonard said that unlike in other cases when the city had partnered with private interests, Union Pacific showed no interest in working on the master plan.

"Until I see someone out in the community who really thinks this study needs to be done to help them get this piece of property developed, I personally don't think we should go forward," he said.

With these concerns in mind, Leonard made a motion to put off hiring the consultant city staff had picked to lead the work on the plan. Councilmember Mike Jones quickly seconded Leonard's motion, and a vote was taken. With Councilmember Virginia Bass-Jackson's support, the contract with the consultant was delayed, for the time being.

Debate on whether to kill the study completely was scheduled for the next meeting on Oct. 19. In the meantime, Union Pacific had written the city to say that the company was in negotiations to sell the parcel to a developer, and the developer [Rob Arkley Jr.] had made it known that he didn't want the city to do a master plan. He would prefer to do the plan on his own. If the city were to go forward, the letter implied, it could derail the deal. With the letter in hand, the council voted 4-1, with only Councilmember Chris Kerrigan dissenting, to send the Headwaters grant back and abandon the project.

A week after the vote was taken, Kerrigan was still reeling from the inexplicable reversal of the council's long-held position on the plan. "It was probably one of the most shocking incidents I've seen in my time on the City Council," he said. "It was, in my opinion, really, really unfortunate."

 
At 8:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

With respect to Hank Sims 2004 article, he has many factual inaccuracies in his article.

Here are the facts...

In regards to the Headwaters Grant, you can’t force a study on private property.
Can I demand a study be completed on your private property? No. Nor could the City of Eureka.

Union Pacific could have just said, “no thank you” to the study. You may not enter my private property. That’s the end of the Headwaters Grant study.

And we all recently witnessed how well the Humboldt County Supervisors spent approximately $500,000 of our tax dollars without even consulting with the various cities in which they were going to force “development” on the citizens in the outlying areas.

This is no secret what happened with the blighted balloon tract.

Rob Arkley Jr. made a proposal to the City of Eureka to purchase this private land from Union Pacific.

A private developer was going to use private funds (not waste $100,000 of tax dollars for a “study”) to purchase and develop a blighted piece of land to produce a true “smart growth” mixed-use development consisting of retail, housing (including affordable housing), commercial office space and now the wetlands preserve.

This proposal was disclosed in meetings to all five Eureka City Council members, including Chris Kerrigan.

Why would the Eureka City Council waste $100,000 of our tax dollars for a study when a private development was proposed?

Are you in favor of wasting our tax dollars?

Or are you against jobs, housing, preserving our environment and the clean up of blight in Eureka?

You yourself could have purchased this land. Why didn’t you?
Let’s say this purchaser was YOU and not the Arkley's.
Would we being having this noise from the leftist extremist?
I sincerely doubt it.
In fact, I would be writing these same words in favor of YOUR private development.

So what’s your point?

 
At 8:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 3:45
That's really funny. You say you're going to show us the facts and then you quote Hank Sims???? Facts....Hank Sims. I'll be smiling all day at the association of those two terms....

 
At 9:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"With respect to Hank Sims 2004 article, he has many factual inaccuracies in his article."

And yet your comment provides not one single example of those "many factual inaccuracies". Hmm...

"Why would the Eureka City Council waste $100,000 of our tax dollars for a study when a private development was proposed?"

If you had actually read the comment you were responding to you would know:

"The...master plan...was intended as a public effort to determine the future of the property"

Such a plan would be considered a "waste" only if you're a deceitful blowhard like Brian Morrissey or Rob Arkley.

 
At 9:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My comments were all documentable facts. Call David Tyson, City Manager to verify.

Which part of "the public can NOT determine the future of private property" do you not get?

Union Pacific could have left this blighted, polluted balloon tract a piece of polluted, blighted for another 100 years and there would have been nothing you could have done about it.

At least SN will clean up the balloon tract. And provide jobs and housing.

How many jobs and housing have you provided?

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

"My comments were all documentable facts."

You're evading what the 9:30 comment said.

Your comment said that Sims' article had "many factual inaccuracies". And the 9:30 comment said you provide no example of the so-called "inaccuracies".

"Which part of "the public can NOT determine the future of private property" do you not get?"

Which part of -- "The...master plan...was intended as a public effort to determine the future of the property" -- do you not get?

The City of Eureka determines the zoning of the private property. And the public CAN and SHOULD determine the future of private property when there are serious environmental issues that affect everybody.

"At least SN will clean up the balloon tract"

Not if it caps the Balloon Tract. That's like welding a lid on a garbage can, instead of emptying the can.

 
At 10:20 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Right, 10:11; Dumping the contents of the can on some property somewhere else.

 
At 10:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right Fred, like a place that is already a garbage dump -- instead of letting it sit on the Eureka waterfront seeping diesel oil into Humboldt Bay for the next 500 years.

 
At 10:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ER: In May, nonprofit organization Humboldt Baykeeper filed a lawsuit in federal court against Union Pacific Railroad Co. for what the group claims are violations of the federal Clean Water Act. North Coast Railroad Authority is also named in the lawsuit, because it has a rail easement across the property.

Baykeeper Director Pete Nichols said during a phone interview that Baykeeper will issue a 60-day notice to Security National about it becoming a third defendant in the lawsuit."

Citizens for Real Economic Growth issued a written statement on Thursday that it believes Union Pacific is “still liable for full cleanup of the Balloon Track property.”

“The recent announcement that Security National is buying the Balloon Track property means that there is now a second party who is also liable for the full cleanup,” the statement said. “Union Pacific and Security National cannot be allowed to circumvent the laws of the State of California.”

 
At 10:47 AM, Blogger Fred said...

10:31 writes, "instead of letting it sit on the Eureka waterfront seeping diesel oil into Humboldt Bay for the next 500 years.".

As I've said here before, there doesn't seem to be a problem with pollution in the bay. The fish, both shellfish and otherwise, seem fine to eat. The cure your asking for is worse than the supposed disease.

I'll even go out on a limb, as I have before, and suggest the Balloon Tract probably isn't all that much polluted than many other commercial and residential lots around town.

Years ago, before recycling of lubricants became the norm, people often dug sumps in their yards to get rid of used oil and such. If you really wanted to get picky about things like that, maybe we should start looking at some of the residential lots around town, as well.

10:39 wrote, "“Union Pacific and Security National cannot be allowed to circumvent the laws of the State of California.”.

Seems to me, Security National has already said umpteen times they were prepared to clean up the tract to fully satisfy any applicable laws.

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

Right Fred, and you'll believe whatever they say. Like you believed Cherie Arkley when she said: "It's not going to be a big box. Repeat: It's not going to be a big box."

Fred said...
"I'll even go out on a limb, as I have before, and suggest the Balloon Tract probably isn't all that much polluted than many other commercial and residential lots around town."

You're going out on a limb alright! Do you really think that a large tract of land that was a railroad yard for what, over 100 years? -- soaking up diesel oil, diesel fuel and other toxic chemicals used by the railroad all that time -- that it "isn't all that much polluted" more than other lots?

Give me a break.

 
At 11:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Railroads used the Balloon Tract site for almost 100 years, starting around 1888, and discontinuing operations in 1986. [source]

From a NCJ news item:

Cleanup of Eureka's balloon tract has been ordered by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.

The former rail yard and one-time potential Wal-Mart site was the subject of a cleanup and abatement order issued May 9 [2001]. The 50-acre site suffers from petroleum hydrocarbon -- fuel -- contamination in the soil and groundwater. Also present are arsenic, copper, lead, zinc and chlorinated volatile organic compounds.

The Union Pacific Railroad Co., which owns the site, has until June 15 to submit a work plan. The company must clean up the contaminants and ensure they do not seep further into the groundwater or Humboldt Bay.

 
At 12:01 PM, Blogger Fred said...

11:25 asks, "Do you really think that a large tract of land that was a railroad yard for what,over 100 years? -- soaking up diesel oil, diesel fuel and other toxic chemicals used by the railroad all that time -- that it "isn't all that much polluted" more than other lots?"

All things being equal I do. I imagine if you could track down places where people did a lot of work on their cars back in the old days, it probably would be just as polluted, except for the size of the lot, of course.

Yet the wildlife in the bay doesn't seem to mind. People have been eating fish, shellfish and birds from the bay for decades and there doesn't seem to be a problem. And that's with nothing
done to the balloon tract at all, at least so far.

 
At 1:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I imagine if you could track down places where people did a lot of work on their cars back in the old days, it probably would be just as polluted, except for the size of the lot, of course.

Has the happy weed gone to your head, Fred?

You're equating "places where people did a lot of work on their cars" with a 50-acre railroad yard that was soaked with diesel oil, diesel fuel, arsenic, copper, lead, zinc and chlorinated volatile organic compounds for 100 years.

 
At 2:00 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Yep. And during those same hundreds of years people likely used those same things around their homes and businesses. Back then there wasn't much concern about pollution, so much of it probably ended up in the ground.

Yard per yard, acre per acre, it wouldn't surprise me if many lots around the county were heavily polluted.

Maybe I'm wrong. No way I can prove it. Just makes sense to me. About the only thing I would think might make some residential lots less polluted would be that they changed uses over time, so they might not have had the continual spillage (or dumping) that Balloon Tract did.

Nonetheless, we hear a lot of hype about all this pollution from the Balloon Tract, yet the wildlife in the bay isn't contaminated. The only contamination I recall hearing about is dioxins in some oysters. That was believed to have come from a lumber mill in the north bay, not the old railyard.

 
At 2:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The article said, "contaminated", not soaked with diesel. Also, the arsenic, zinc, lead, etc. were "present", not "soaked" or even "contaminated". There is a difference.

 
At 2:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"so they might not have had the continual spillage (or dumping) that Balloon Tract did."

That's right. They didn't have 100 years of being a 50-acre railroad yard next to the waterfront.

That's why a cleanup was ordered by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2001. And that's why Humboldt Baykeeper has filed a lawsuit against Union Pacific Railroad Co. for violations of the federal Clean Water Act.

And you call that "hype"?

 
At 2:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous 8:23 AM said... Are you in favor of wasting our tax dollars?
Or are you against jobs, housing, preserving our environment and the clean up of blight in Eureka?

I notice most of the anonymous posters didn't answer those two questions.

Instead it's the usual noise.
"Arkley", "pollution", "full clean up", "big box", "Home Depot", blah, blah, blah.

And while we're on the subject of noise, please name one real economic growth project that CREG (Citizens for Real Economic Growth) has proposed?

 
At 3:06 PM, Blogger Fred said...

2:39 wrote, "That's why a cleanup was ordered by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2001.".

And as I've recently said, Security National said they would clean up the tract as required by law. I'm not completely up to speed on this, but my understanding is some areas will be capped, others will have contaminated soil removed. That, and however else they deal with such things.

Problem solved, seems to me.

 
At 3:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bingo...
Of course as i have stated before, these people here certainly had NO problem when mount trashmore was capped to make room for the Arcata Marsh/wastewater treatment plant. All I got in response was namecalling, and "ITS ALREADY BEEN DONE" shouted at me, as if that excuse would work if it was something they had opposed. Once again, CAPPING WORKS!! No matter how much you want to deny it, it satisfies the legal requirements, and by golly, if it was good enought for our enviromental jewell that is the Arcata Marsh, then it's good enough for the Marina Center, Otherwise I want to see a lawsuit filed by our fearless watchers of the bay, the Humboldt Naysayers, errr Baykeepers.

 
At 3:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And as I've recently said, Security National said they would clean up the tract as required by law."

And as others have recently said, Cherie Arkley tells lies.

So we'll just see if Security National really does do what is required by law. If the law is something they don't like they'll just drag it through the courts, like they're threatening with Measure T.

 
At 3:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon 2:54
I remember reading a letter in the TS (I think) that CREG will unveil their "alternative plan" on October 13th.

Let's see what they've come up with. It should not have any component that uses tax dollars.

Maybe CREG has been furiously fundraising and plans to purchase the property and clean it up?? Oh, I forgot, they've been too busy pushing their slate of no-growth, no-Home Depot, no-Arkley anything candidates.

I do remember that Neil Latt wrote the letter. Whoever that is.

 
At 3:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"All I got in response was namecalling, and "ITS ALREADY BEEN DONE" shouted at me... Once again, CAPPING WORKS!!"

Brian, you're the one who does most of the shouting IN ALL CAPS!! Alas, your capping does NOT work. It just makes you ANNOYING.

As for capping the Balloon Tract, rather than take your biased word for it, it would be much wiser to wait for the results of a environmental study done by an unbiased professional agency.

 
At 4:45 PM, Blogger Brian Morrissey said...

I should probably not respond to your baiting.

But to be clear, I post under my name. I also don't yell. If you have had chance to meet me, you'd know theatrics are not my gig. I am impressed with a number of the posters - they seem to know an awful lot about our project. I even see some of our materials repeated back in this forum.

I realize I am fat, retarded, ugly, a liar, have bad hair and now annoying. Sorry for that.

For the record, SN is committed to following every local, state and federal law in the cleanup. I am confident that the half dozen or so gov’t agencies that review, analyze and approve/disapprove any environmental cleanup will keep us in line (not to mention our friends at CREG, Baykeepers, Local Solutions, EPIC, CATS et cetera).

 
At 8:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I realize I am fat, retarded, ugly, a liar, have bad hair and now annoying. Sorry for that."

Well you certainly can be humble! And while I don't like your boss, you look like a nice guy, from that recent photo. You're not at all ugly, your hair's fine, you're clearly not retarded, and there's nothing wrong with being fat. But if you're a liar and ANNOYING, now THAT'S something you can DO something about!

(oops. sorry for the annoying caps)

 
At 9:07 PM, Blogger Brian Morrissey said...

8:24 Well there may not be anything "wrong with being fat." But I have jogged more in the last few days than the last few months. :-)

As for being annoying... I don't post anonymously so you can judge my annoying qualities yourself. My wife will tell you that I certainly can be annoying but I try not to be. As for being a liar – I tend to be an objectivist, so l view lying as counter-productive.

You are welcome to call me – my direct line is 476-2713.

 
At 10:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As for being annoying... I don't post anonymously so you can judge my annoying qualities yourself.

I never post anonymously either. My actual name is Anonymous, so it just blends in with all the others. I am very annoying though.

 
At 10:59 PM, Blogger Matthew Owen said...

Brian: If you want I'd be willing to do some old-fashioned back-to-basics get back in shape workouts starting at 6:00 A.M. at the Cutten Cal Courts.

Lord knows I could stand to lose a few pounds and firm up myself.

This is a non-partisan offer to anyone who can avoid talking politics for 90 minutes.

Stretching, little weights, 30 minutes of cardio.

Now about the hair…

 
At 10:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's not hair.

 
At 1:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

brian you are an idiot its not CATS like the broadway play its CCAT dumbass

 
At 1:30 PM, Blogger Brian Morrissey said...

I'm sorry, I thought that Californians for Alternatives to Toxics would be abbreviated CATs. My apologies to Patty Clary and her staff.

http://www.alternatives2toxics.org/

 
At 1:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well 1:02, once again when confounded by the facts, you just resort to name calling, a clear sign you are losing the debate.

 
At 1:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I mean, Crikey!!! Brian left a C out of the acronymn....he must be wrong, lol lol lol...

 
At 3:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1:02 isn't debating anything. He/she is just an adolescent blog troll (sounding like Nick Bravo) who likes to call people childish names for trivial reasons. This troll wouldn't have the intelligence to debate the way the earlier commenters were.

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

With respect to blog trolling 3:03 and what in hell were you not sleeping about last night...the post was about timing which by the way wasn't so suspicious.

The Arkley family has been interested in clenaing up the Balloon Trackt for several years (Soccer Fields shot down 2004?). Anyway, about capping-over 100 sites in and around Eureka have partial caps and this is dictated not by the city but by the Regional Water Board which is in Santa Rosa.

Where were all the complainers when the metal buildings went up ON the waterfront (Dave Snyder isn't hated by anyone or is he ok because he's Jack McKeller's son in law?)

Arkley may not have taken the time to visit everyone in town oh Arcata I mean and asked their opinion first but so what?

And yes he is pretty sure he will get those approvals. Even if he doesn't the Balloon Track will be cleaned up and ready to build something. Another jail maybe and we can be just like Crescent City!

Or how about Larry's industrial incubator so we can get some jobs like Yakima Racks again and when they want to expand we can send em packin, again. Why not give a developer with his own money and a pretty good business sense-a little room to work. Quit yer bitchin unless you can actually do better which we know you can't.

 
At 11:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1:02 is a nitpicker not defending him/her but this blog is about timing isn't it cant we get back on THAT horse?

 
At 12:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Quit yer bitchin unless you can actually do better which we know you can't."

What a retard. People can state any opinion they want without having to be a developer.

You're just mindlessly rehashing what has already been addressed in previous comments. Go back and read them, idiot.

 
At 3:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:51 merely stating my opinion and I'm not a developer, idiot yourself!

What's your really great idea for someone else to do with their own property-and I don't like your house either why don't you paint it sometime?

 
At 7:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right on !!! I'll tell you what you can do with your property , too .....er - ah i mean if you were smart enough to own property . Your clever , Mr. Lavalle or Bass with all your fake names . Your stealing , Mr. Droz's votes . Whad'ya say and give it up to someone that speaks the issues . I don't hear you talking about crime , abandoned vehicle , meth houses every where . Seems you bubble baths are avoiding the issues here .

 
At 9:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What an Arkley suckass.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home