I am so sorry to hear this, he really was an enlightened and peaceful man.
The court system and prison system are a mess. 90+% of all court cases are handled by plea (and many of those are requested by the victim's families). Our local jail is so overcrowded from State prison transfers that there is not room to keep people locked up pending their sentencing. Remember just a little while ago a woman was picked up and released three times in one day due to overcrowding. This guy was out on the streets for a number of reasons.
The new trucks ARE NOT mandated by law.
CA-Legal trucks continue to be manufactured. They are not becoming obsolete. Urban areas, regions with unique and challenging geography, and remote locations throughout the State are only accessible by CA-Legal trucks. For more information check out a map of California's highway system--you'll see that the state is littered with highways that are only accessible to CA-legal truck (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/trucks/truckmap/truckmap-d02.pdf)
This is what CalTrans' own website says, "... states are encouraged to allow access for STAA trucks on all highways." Note the word: encouraged, not mandated.
All highway vehicles must comply with the same emissions standards and all existing trucking fleets are fully compatible with the new Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel that is legally mandated.
The sole purpose of Caltrans’ project proposal is to allow two STAA trucks to pass side-by-side. These changes to Highway 101 are likely to exacerbate safety conditions by increasing the number of large trucks on the road. The “rounding” of the curves is likely to increase driving speeds and will reduce the distance between vehicles and trees.
Bigger trucks are more of a safety threat to passenger vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians, this will be especially dangerous in Eureka and Arcata—not to mention big and heavy trucks wreak havoc on roadways.
This project is absolutely unnecessary and has too much potential to negatively impact our community to just go ahead without looking at alternatives. Very few people will benefit while many will suffer. Save Richardson Grove!
Speculations and insinuations abound...
"The Balloon Track could sit there as is for another 100 years, leaching its ugly self into the Bay, and the Coastal Commission would never say boo."
It is not the Coastal Commission's mandate to say "boo" until a project which requires a permit from the C.C. allows them to say "boo" (which is now).
"Much of the opposition..." Hank, you are insinuating that the env.orgs that are making the appeal to the C.C. are the same as other "anti-Arkley" opponents--they are not.
Humboldt Baykeeper and other environmental groups, want nothing more than to have the Balloon Track cleaned up to the fullest extent for the health of our bay and community. Period. In fact, Humboldt Baykeeper has worked longer and put more time into getting that property truly cleaned up than anyone else--including the City of Eureka! Baykeeper has stood alone in it's lawsuit against Union Pacific and then Security National to fully clean-up the Balloon-Track.
It has always been Baykeeper's contention that Security National can build whatever they like--so long as they "fully characterize" and clean-up the Balloon-Track.
Hank, stop making these woefully wrong allegations and sweeping generalizations. You are supposed to be a source of truth and information--not a beacon for rhetoric and insinuations.
In Print This Week:
Dec 5, 2013
vol XXIV issue 49
The North Coast Journal Weekly
Website powered by Foundation