I was also at that game and agree with Sam on one point. Sergio should not have thrown the bat. The ump should have stepped in sooner to stop the pitcher. On the crowd side of things, this is that team's first year playing here. Yes. There is heckling. Yes. Sometimes it's offensive. Most of the time the crowd stands up for the one being picked on. I have been going to Crabbies games for 13 years, and have been a season pass holder for 3 years. I have never been so offended by another team. The statement made about one of their larger players was "do you need a tweenkie". The other team got greatly offended, I tried to tell them it wasn't meant to mean harm, that Crabs fans just heckle. The other team's response was " they are just kids". We apologized again if anyone's feelings were hurt and hoped to move on. Nothing was said for the rest of the game. Upon leaving the park, with my 1 year old son and husband, there's one who was so offended by the Twinkie comment called me a "fat ass" on my way out of the park also saying that " if she saw any of these mother f$ckers out at the bars that she would f&ck them up". As I said I had my 1 year old baby at the game, we really do think of it as a family ballpark.
i was at the game. that description of the series of events is completely wrong.
the first pitch was not high over his head, it was at his head. as was the second pitch. Sanchez did not then start for the mound. the umpire did not warn anyone at any point. the pitch that hit him was on the shoulder. Sanchez tossed the bat, almost sidearm, out of frustration on to the field. it absolutely did not "sail over the pitcher's head". you can see in the video that it lands in front of the shortstop, nowhere near 2nd base. Sam H. Clauder II must be talking about a parallel universe.
Thanks, Mr. Clauder. I think that we Crabs fans can do better.
Certainly it is not just a matter of KEET serving a smaller more rural coverage area. It is also a matter of a lack of innovative effort on the behalf of KEET management. It is simply a fact that times have changed and those changes are NOT favorable to entities like KEET.
On one hand, the digital age is taking its toll on both on air broadcasting and printed media. Who needs a newspaper anymore when nearly 90% of its content is provided for free online? And who needs a TV station when the same is true of broadcast media. A whole lot of it is available online in a much more convenient package (watch anything anytime anywhere on any device). This is the direction that media has to move. For premium or unique content there are always paywalls and people WILL pay for online content which has value and is unavailable anywhere else. In the case of public television, the best of it ends up on Netflix sooner or later and probably on other subscription services as well.
On the other hand the continual advance of corporate control of government is resulting in less and less support for public services like PBS that are deemed to be "inefficient" or "nonessential". That means less federal support and that situation is only likely to get worse as well.
So both technology and politics form a strong headwind for KEET that they are unlikely to be able to overcome. There are going to be a lot of losers and few winners in this transition, but if anyone wants an example of a winner, look no further than JPR. JPR has done in the public radio realm what KEET needs to do in the public television realm. KEET needs to strongly consider the following: Place an emphasis on DIGITAL. Expand, expand, expand and I mean geographically. I think an outright merger with KXIE is in order although that would be a bitter pill for both entities. If they don't they are VERY unlikely to be around ten years from now. Combined, they would gain the critical mass to better serve BOTH communities AND many more surrounding communities both on the coast and in the valley and beyond AND become a major regional online content provider. There is no way they can coast through this. They will either have to grow or die. And neither have the resources to survive on their own, let alone grow. Like JPR, they need to be "lean and mean". They could continue to maintain offices both here and in Redding, but there needs to be one parent company dealing with PBS upstream and with contract issues.
KEET is a huge asset to Humboldt county. KEET management has a huge responsibility. If they don't get this right and soon, they will not be around anymore. There will very likely be a new PBS outlet in our area, but it will almost certainly be controlled from outside like JPR is. The choice is KEETs. They can walk into the 21st century or the 21st century will walk over them.
We lost Humboldt Creamery because of management failure, we don't need to suffer another traumatic loss of another non-profit in our community for a similar reason. REMEMBER, Humboldt Creamery is still here, but it is controlled by outsiders. Do we really want this to happen to KEET? With a combination of KEET and KIXE, it wouldn't have to. That combination would guarantee sufficient local support for PBS guidelines AND at the same time guarantee continued local control, albeit in a regional context. But that is far better than outright control by some distant entity. like JPR. The colaboration effort is a good start, but KEET management really needs to think seriously about taking this further. Much further. In short, they need to have a REALISTIC vision for the future.
I volunteered at KEET-TV alongside Matt Knight for almost five years. KEET is a great resource to our community and I completely emphasize with him on this. There is a serious disconnection between the board and the people who actually run the station. When Matt Knight left KEET it was truly sad indeed, not only for him but for all of us volunteers. Matt was a true joy to work with and his departure from the station left the atmosphere less then desirable to volunteer in.
I agree it is important that we as a community continue to support KEET, but the board should be reviewed periodically to make sure that the station is caught up with the times.
A 10 percent annual return to investors on a billion dollar investment like this would be over $277,000 per day plus operating costs like wages,fuel,maintenance,repairs and insurance.Total daily revenue needed could easily be over $400,000.If they made $1,000.00 per car of coal they would need 400 train cars per day everyday 365 days a year.The rail corridor on the peninsula is too thin to have coming and going tracks.They would be diverted towards Old Town.The bay is way too small.Only has room for a few shipping berths.This would be like trying to keep a whale in a pond.
The Confusion Hill Bypass alone cost $70,000,000. This ain't gonna happen.
It's astounding how a public representative can wax poetic over "economic feasibility" in the absence of an economic feasibility study, (that would cost a small fraction of the construction feasibility study they're calling for).
It's outrageous for Mr. Madsen to compare a multi-billion dollar train to Eureka's bay side improvements.
The Eureka city council remains composed of the same kind of dunderheads that spent $30,000 on the "Bay Area Economics" professionals warning that Eureka was saturated in low-wages in 1999. The results didn't comply with their right-wing, faith-based, "free-market" ideology so they ignored it, supporting additional low-wage hotels, big boxes, and the subdivisions the working-poor cannot afford.
It's been a win-win for those who love to complain about record pedestrian fatalities, and the record crime and homelessness associated with policies that worsen poverty.
The legacy continues....
It's ironic that Mr. Madsen would argue that the benefit of "transparency" makes this murky scheme worth a public investment, when we've already had a well-paid city manager spend a year promoting the rail on our dime without sharing any useful information about it.
Lance wrote, "It is probable that a wholly privately funded feasibility study could be completed with little or no public input. In that case, the first time the public might get to review and comment on the private work product would be after information has been collected, analysis completed and a plan developed."
What's wrong with that? Seems to me the purpose of the feasibility study is to find out if an east- west line would be feasible. I'm not sure we need nay or yay sayers involved trying to skew the the study, which is what Lance seems to be suggesting.
Once the feasibility study is done, then the hard work of selling it to all interested parties would begin and those who support or oppose the line can give their input. There would still be a long way to go after a the study was completed.
FWIW, I'm skeptical of the plan for a number of reasons, but would love to be proven wrong. I'm not necessarily against at least partial public funding of a study, either, but think the price being quoted is high.
Apparently there is another study out there. The Harbor District commissioned a study of connecting Humboldt Bay to the east in the 1980's and the report said it was not feasible. In the 1940's Southern Pacific investigated the idea and it was infeasible. I realize that times have changed but someone should produce a mini report to show us what has changed before spending public funds.
Also, I checked with the Six Rivers National Forest people who the proponents say are "on board" and they do not care of the study is done but indicate the placing of a railroad thru the national forest is frought with difficulty, ESPECIALLY IF IT IS A PRIVATE VENTURE. It is a decision that would have to made at a very high level.
So far, Mr. Murray has given us more information than the people who are promoting the "land bridge."
Is there another economic feasibility study out there other than John Murray's? It's faster and cheaper than a route-feasibility study, and yet, the city council of Eureka, (aka, The Bill Barnum Martini Club), already resolved to support the train on pure blind-faith!
And why not?
Local elected and appointed offices are controlled by local developers precisely because they can continue milking public subsidies for decades to build their high-profit McMansion subdivisions regardless of infrastructure limitations, impacts on quality of life, or home affordability for all of us who pay the "external" costs of GREED. Why not claw for an even bigger transfer of public wealth to the wealthy?
Mr. Murray and all the other bureaucrats, institutions and media in this county have understood this forever.
Their silence is deafening and came home to roost in the biggest collapse since the Great Depression.
All this just to send more dirty coal to China.
Proposed terminals in Oregon and Washington are under fire, so someone's thinking that Humboldt County, already heavily selling its natural resources to China, would be a good substitute.
What do you mean "where has he been"? John has been a bureaucrat pulling the wool over the public's eyes for YEARS! It's funny he calls others what he thinks are clever little names; he is and has been the biggest horse's ASS for decades --- he thinks he's the lord re-incarnate though - just ask him.
"Railroads are investing $14 billion in capital improvements" States headlines shared in several magazines. BNSF laid a third mainline through a national park on it's Cajon Pass in California. Union Pacific recently lowered their mainline through Reno NV so they could run more transcontinental trains. These projects weren't cheap! I bring this up because many don't understand the Class I railroads have capital and financial backing to take on large projects. Projects that would certainly bankrupt many companies. If there is a potential for freight revenue, the railroads will make it happen.
Personally I'm on the fence about public money being utilized. Some ways I see the railroads well off and preparing themselves for a boom time, further strengthening themselves. In this case I agree and say "No"...they have the resources to pull it off with out any public impact.
On the other hand, I think that an East West railroad route is of great utility to the public and the future of a region for generations to come (remember the great visionaries that built our nation and it's railroads, they thought beyond benefiting themselves immediately). This route makes sense to potentially create jobs and tariffs for California...instead of losing out to other states and perhaps Mexico. But to what extent is the public going to assume the risk of getting the route built THEN established.
An East West route for Eureka makes so MUCH more sense to California, and to spend public money on, then a bullet train...yet that will be publicly funded.
Good heavens! Where has John Murray been? Finally a voice of intelligence and rationality, contrary to the pie-in-sky foolishness, demonstrated by some of our "leaders."
"...there are those who promote the notion of 'no public funding for the feasibility study...'"
Yes, and these people would be known as the Eureka City Council, the former City Manager, and everyone else who has been a supporter of this bizarre scheme.
Thank you Jennifer for this wonderfully written piece, I felt like I was there myself.
Good god.... a bunch of scary people care way too much about something they don't know enough about...I've lived here my whole life and generations before and nothing besides this convo has scared me so bad and made me want to just move away......destroy all the land to grow your pot and make your millions....grow your dreads greedy white boy...sing your songs about destroying good people based on their sexual orientation.....One love to kill all others,,, nobody knew the lines you would cross, but now it is clear..
Karma is your woman, and she will show you how to love her; you pieces of floating debris....
Luckily there are good people too and they will prevail. they might even protest your stupid sh>? and try to stop you... they are probably your neighbors.
In Print This Week:
Dec 5, 2013
vol XXIV issue 49
The North Coast Journal Weekly
Website powered by Foundation