Comment / By Paul Nicholas Boylan / Jan. 14, 4:40 p.m.

At my age and at this stage of my professional career I object to being characterized as a “hotshot” attorney, although, to be honest, it does imply I am younger and far more energetic than I actually am, so maybe it was a backhanded compliment.

Comment / By Hank Sims / Jan. 14, 5:43 p.m.

I believe it was intended as a straight-up compliment, though I understand why attorneys would be sensitive about such phraseology.

Comment / By Paul Nicholas Boylan / Jan. 14, 6:28 p.m.

Well, Hank, truth be told, I really didn’t mind. But attorney’s like me jump at any chance to express sensitivity in order to appear just a little more human. But let’s keep it our little secret, shall we?

Comment / By I confess / Jan. 14, 7:49 p.m.

I confess that I am a bit confused. Is there an outcry amongst the citizens of Fortuna to stop this water tank or is just Ms. Egger?

A question that perhaps the Heidi Walters should have asked is, if Ms. Egger won with her first attorney, why did he not represent her a second time?

From what I can glean from the article, he won over twenty thousand dollars because the city withheld a single document due to homeland security demands. Why did she engage a second attorney when once again asking for records.

How then, can she express surprise when, asked for all records pertaining to the water tank, she is inundated with them; it seems prudent, in order to avoid a second fine that the people of Fortuna would pay for, that the city would avoid even the appearance of withholding anything from her.

Again, though, it does not seem that even in receiving the records she asked for, that Ms. Egger has been able to convince make her cause resonate with anyone else in the friendly city.

Perhaps that is why the writer asks if she really won anything at all.

Comment / By Heidi Walters / Jan. 14, 7:57 p.m.

To “I confess”: The way Ms. Egger explained it to me was, Mr. Boylan offered to help her again the second go-around, but she was worried that that would appear to be a return to litigation. She said she didn’t want to sue again. She’d been getting advice from the second attorney, Mr. Olson, and so she had him help her out. Sorry that didn’t make it into the story — only so much space.

Comment / By I confess / Jan. 14, 8:09 p.m.

Thanks for your reply Heidi. I do wonder, like the article, what if anything that Ms. Egger won.

I do admire the strength of her convictions though.

Comment / By Paul Nicholas Boylan / Jan. 14, 8:22 p.m.

I Confess - I cannot comment on your comment other to correct your comment that the petition I was involved with caused the City to produce only one record. I recall a full stack of papers being produced, too.

However, I can tell you from experience that, more often than not, one request produces records that prompt a desire to see more records, which leads to multiple requests. That isn’t unusual.

I do want to comment on our suggestion that there is something wrong with Ms. Egger because her cause is not a popular one. You confuse being popular with being right. We - as American and Californian citizens - have the right to question government, whether the questioner is popular or not. We have the right to examine governmental decisions, whether the popular majority want it or not.

Even unpopular causes are owed the protections of the law and even unpopular requests for records require local agencies to provide the records requested. Period.

Comment / By Janelle Egger / Jan. 15, 9:56 a.m.

Dear confess—I had heard the opinion that the new tank wasn’t necessary. I approached this whole thing as a series of questions.
Is it necessary? What about Vancil? Is the decision based on facts, or assumptions? What are the comparative cost estimates? Are there other priorities being ignored while we spend May to Dec 2008 look at alternative sights, trying to save one hundred thousand dollars on a 4 million dollar project? What isn’t being done Jan - Dec 2009 while they tried to figure out how to “build a piano in a closet?”

You get the idea. I have been busy trying to get that information. That, it appears, presents a problem for Mr. Rigge. I’m sorry, that isn’t my problem. Well, I guess it became a problem for me.

As for public opinion, most haven’t given it a moments thought.

Go by fortunacitizen.blogspot.com, haven’t updated it in a while, but take a look at what’s there.

Comment / By janelle / Jan. 15, 9:57 a.m.

Actually came by to thank Heidi. I have a hard time giving short answers. I imagine that makes a reporter’s job more difficult. Impressive overview.

Take no offense I need to clarify one small detail. I have never thought of my mom as “broke.” She always seemed like she was working hard making do with what god handed her.

Comment / By Ramon de Squences / Jan. 15, 11:12 a.m.

Duane Rigge has always been confrontational in his dealings with the public. I experienced that trait of his when he was the manager of our local Community Services District.Apparently he doesn’t like challenges to his authority and uses his position and the resources of his employer to get his way. Hooray to Janelle for standing up to this bully. And shame on you Mr. Rigge,for blaming the victim for your troubles. Sure there was a problem Mr. Rigge, and you caused it, and now the good citizens of Fortuna will pay the price for your arrogance.Janelle Egger didn’t cost the public $5.00 apiece, you did.

Comment / By Anne Nicksic / Jan. 15, 2:45 p.m.

Janelle’s questions regarding the necessity of building a new tank at the Stewart Street site should be seriously considered by the Fortuna City Council. Are we really serving the needs of the city of Fortuna by rebuilding the Stewart Street tank, when the city has limited funds and other city zones have need of improved storage and fire flow? As a Fortuna resident, I encourage the Fortuna City Council to take a serious look at Janelle’s research rather than rubber stamping the tank project. I recognize the merit of Janelle’s work. Thank you, Janelle!

Comment / By Govmint / Jan. 15, 3:59 p.m.

Citizens sometimes forget that government employees are simply fallible humans that work for them. It is also easy for staff to forget that the government is owned by those people (neighbors, friends and foes).

It is survival 101 to become a thick skinned bully when all you hear is bitterness. Nobody comes in and says “Hey Duanne, great job!”

But that what he’s paid for. So suck it up, turn over the docs and cash your check. The next quake could be much worse.

Comment / By Sharon Wolff / Jan. 16, 1:37 p.m.

It is up to every citizen to participate in their government; democracry relies on this. Whether or not there is a better option for the water tank is a fairly basic question that should be clearly answered before going forward. It shouldn’t take court actions to get the answer. It isn’t uncommon for the municipalities to stonewall public information requests, almost as a threat to their authority. Buring your opponent in paper is also a common technique used as a delay tactic when you are forced to turn over information.

The Rio Dell wastewater treatment plant project is a perfect example of not fully considering all options right off the bat rather than just the new plant that they already wanted. After spending thousands of dollars on studies by Winzler & Kelly and holding numerous public meetings, the city has reversed course on the project entirely. Rather than put the wastewater treatment plant at the old Eel River Sawmill site, as the city has been planning for years now, and after annexing the area specifically for this project, the city decided they will improve the existing site which will save millions (they will still dishcarge the treated effluent on the Mozzetti property in Metropolitan). The very few citizens that have attended meetings over the years have been asking why we didn’t just improve the existing plant (which everyone agrees is in terrible condition) and the city has always said that it wasn’t feasible. The city had high aspirations for grant money that hasn’t all come through as planned. At the last city council meeting, the council reversed direction completely due to cost (the new plant was projected to cost $16.7 million). Improving the existing site is an appropriate option for repairing the plant but that decision could have been made years ago. The Fortuna City Council needs to re-consider every possible option in consideration of the current economy and determine what is in the best interests of the citizens. The council is charged with making these hard decisions based on what is best overall and should be able to clearly explain why it is the best possible choice. It is a shame that more individuals don’t ask these types of questions and participate in their local government.

Comment / By I confess / Jan. 17, 8:08 a.m.

Paul Boylan said:

“I do want to comment on our suggestion that there is something wrong with Ms. Egger because her cause is not a popular one.”

That’s not what I am suggesting at all, Mr. Boylan, but it appears, that like many attorneys, you are twisting my remarks so that you can respond with your talking points.

My question was and remains, why is this a front page story, when it appears that there are one or two people opposed to this tank.

She absolutely has the right to do what she is doing. I’m just not sure why this is news.

Comment / By stony creek / Jan. 18, 1:22 p.m.

“My question was and remains, why is this a front page story, when it appears that there are one or two people opposed to this tank.”

Anytime there is a story that makes people think about their government and question where the bounds of their authority lie and what they are doing with the communities money, I would think that is the very definition of what makes a good news story. Regardless if there are 1 or 100 people asking the question does not matter, but the question being asked does. Your remarks do sound as if something is only newsworthy if it is popular. Mr. Boylan made an elequont point about what is important.

Comment / By stuart gold / Jan. 18, 1:26 p.m.

Duane Rigge said, “..she just cost every water ratepayer in the City of Fortuna $5”

This statement, at best, is arrogant, inept, governance.