Comment / By Bilvis / Aug. 26, 11:45 a.m.

Great article!

Comment / By Samantha / Aug. 26, 6:16 p.m.

If Security National’s cleanup plan is indeed sufficient given the law, why don’t they respond to the questions from the Coastal Commission, rather than sue them? They complain about the Baykeeper suit delaying “progress”, yet aren’t they doing the same by not simply addressing the questions from the Coastal Commission?

The way I see it, the only way to move this forward is to work with Coastal Commission, not ignor them.

Comment / By Luke / Aug. 26, 6:54 p.m.

Editor: “PCBs” are not the same as, “PCPs”. At a point in the article the writing starts referring to, “PCPs”, which is kind of non-sensical.

Comment / By Heidi Walters / Aug. 26, 7:32 p.m.

Luke: When I refer to PCPs, I mean PCPs. When I refer to PCBs, I mean PCBs. Nothing nonsensical about it.

Comment / By Anon / Aug. 27, 7:45 p.m.

PERHAPS the Simpson plywood mill situation did point to a slip-up in the investigation process??? Heidi, come on now.

Comment / By Neal Latt / Aug. 27, 9:30 p.m.

Yes, Anon 7:45 has it spot on: Heidi, why didn’t you probe Caryn Woodhouse or Miles Slattery about how badly the Water Quality Board screwed up, big time, with authorizing a cleanup plan for Simpson Ply that left levels of dioxin 50,000 times the allowable level, before walking away and calling things good? Who’s playing favorites? A good question might have been: “Why must a private watchdog group like Baykeeper come in to do your job competently for you?”

As for the Balloon Track, I would suggest attending the hearing this Monday (August 30) in San Francisco, where SN will finally be called to task on its refusal to adhere to the standard of minimal legal cleanup for its commercial development of the Balloon Track into a Big Box mall. It’s unfortunate that SN’s courageous attorney, Michelle Smith, wasn’t able to return your call; no doubt it had to do with the imminence and sensitivity of that court date. Stay tuned, folks: the fat lady has yet to sing. Hope y’all cover it.

Heidi, your story isn’t bad, but your characterizations of critics of the Marina Center might have been more apt and accurate had you been a bit more familiar with state law as it pertains to the actual cleanup proposed by SN for the Balloon Track, instead of relying on people like Randy Gans to characterize it for you. A good place to start is the eleven-page report that breaks it all down in simple terms from the staffers at the California Coastal Commission (yep, the ones who you characterized as somehow going beyond the pale to speak up and object to the Coastal Act being violated in five or six ways by SN’s proposed “we’ll grade the place, bury the toxins, then we’ll do some testing” plan.

Here’s the link (read first eleven pages):

http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2009/12/Th-14c-2009.pdf

Thanks Heidi, for at least bringing to the public’s attention the very hot and controversial issues surrounding brownfield cleanup around the Humboldt Bay.

Comment / By Richard / Aug. 28, 8:55 a.m.

I noticed when the Bay Keeper ordered Simpson cleanup commenced; the channel along the railroad tracks was dug out but only to Del Norte Street. The channel south of Del Norte, conceivably as contaminated as the north side just sits. Why no cleanup? Could public ownership of that portion play a role? Bay Keeper should quit playing favorites with its Dioxin sleuthing.