There are two major Humboldt County political parties. I call them the “progressives” and the “conservatives,” though I’m more than willing to field other suggestions. Regardless, the salient point of last week’s election was that it was the most lopsided contest since the rise of the progressive vote a decade ago.
The conservative sweep of Eureka and county government was all but total. Only District Attorney Paul Gallegos swam against the tide, and by his smallest margin to date. There are still nearly 13,000 absentee and provisional ballots left to be tabulated, which means that Fifth District Supervisorial candidate Patrick Cleary could conceivably overtake opponent Ryan Sundberg when everything is accounted for a few weeks hence. But it would take a considerably stronger late showing than anything Cleary received on Election Night. A few other losing candidates — including Dave Meserve (Arcata City Council), Ron Kuhnel (Eureka City Council) and Gallegos opponent Allison Jackson — have slimmer chances of turning it around.
The starkest change of regime was in Eureka, where conservatives now enjoy firm control over city government. The hot-button issue — Eureka kazillionaire Rob Arkley‘s big-box anchored Marina Center project on the edge of Old Town — received overwhelming support at the polls, in the form of Measure N. City government is, for all intents and purposes, out of the loop as regards the proposed development; only the California Coastal Commission and the courts now stand in its way.
^^^^^
They chewed over the results on KMUD’s Monday Morning Magazine show this week. Hosts Dennis Huber and Rondal Snodgrass welcomed progressive party leaders Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, Shane Brinton and Pete Nichols to their airwaves, and they all commiserated. To the credit of all involved, the conversation was inward-looking. They mostly agreed that the left had failed the electorate in this go-round. Too many campaigns chased big money instead of working the grassroots. Critically, they agreed, the left failed to articulate its vision: It did not put forth a tangible picture of the city and county it hoped to build.
Near the end of the hour, talk turned to a bit of unfinished business. Who would be appointed to take Neely’s seat on the Coastal Commission? The all-powerful state agency, which possesses the final say about land use decisions in coastal California, is a bulwark against wanton development (or against just about any sort of development at all, critics would say). Neely’s seat is designated to an elected official from the North Coast. Her defeat means that the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors will soon send a nominee, or list of nominees, to Governor-elect Jerry Brown, who will make the choice and the appointment.
Huber, Snodgrass and Nichols started throwing names around. For instance, they said, how about progressive Supervisor Mark Lovelace, the Board of Supes’ Arcata representative? All agreed that Lovelace would be a powerful representative, and one who should be given every consideration. (The panel, again to its credit, didn’t allow even a hint of vengeance into its tone of voice: “You Republicans don’t like Neely? Well, how do you like this?“)
I hazard that this would be a high hill to climb, regardless of the fact that Lovelace regularly masters arcane bureaucratic dominions in about a tenth of the time it takes readers of the Times-Standard technology column to figure out Twitter. In the first place, barring a Cleary miracle we are looking at a divided Board of Supervisors. More than that, two members of the previous left-liberal majority — Jimmy Smith and Cliff Clendenen, both of whom represent conservative districts — can reasonably be expected to tack at least slightly to the right over the next two years. So it would be unlikely that the board would give the nod to Lovelace, its last remaining dyed-in-the-wool prog.
Closer to the point: Do you remember the name Steven Glazer? That’s right — he’s the high-powered PR dude and former mayor of Orinda who Arkley hired to run outreach after lashing out at (outgoing) Eureka City Councilman Larry Glass a few years ago. (See “Town Dandy,” Sept. 27, 2007). Previous to that, Glazer consulted on the Marina Center project in some unspecified capacity. Previous to that, he ran a pro-big box political campaign in Cotati.
He’s been in the news lately, too. His latest job was to serve as Governor-elect Jerry Brown‘s campaign manager — a position that could conceivably give him a few cashable chips, one would think. If Marina Center critics are looking to replace Neely with one of their own, they’re going to have to contend with that unpleasant fact.
This article appears in R.I.P. Prop. 19.
“Conservatives”??
In a city saturated in poverty-wage big boxes, it’s nothing short of radical for a slate of candidates to advocate for even more!
You keep calling them “conservatives” because ZERO local media asked these candidates to back their erroneous claims of “economic benefits” from more big boxes, especially considering the plethora of research, (including the ONLY existing local economic research), revealing that big boxes have negative economic impacts on rural economies!
Please stop peddling myths, and start asking the uncomfortable questions when we most need to hear them!
Stop peddling myths?
I hope you are not seriously asking Hank Sims to do actual journalism? That would be a silly and futile request.
Confidential to RS: Watch it there, buddy!
No intelligent comment Hank?
Pathetic.
Conservatives think the NCJ is too liberal. Liberals (progressives? I’m out of the loop) think the NCJ is too conservative. Pay attention, it’s true.
Also, I pretty much agree with the first respondent to this editorial. Grill em when you can, NCJ. Guess that shows my personal slant?
Hank and the rest of the NCJ crew kick ass. Repeatedly. In a world where actual journalism proves more elusive than a real name on a blog comment. They don’t exist to tell you want you want to hear. Disagree? Maybe, instead of anonymously posting immature, insulting comments, try this novel approach: intelligent discourse.
Crazy, I know. Maybe we should all just watch Idiocracy instead.
Sure, Jen. The Journal will go out of its way to hound a clinically depressed air traffic controller insinuating she might be responsible for two deaths in a plane crash that had already happened, but meanwhile puts kind words into the mouths of the people who run one of the nation’s most nefarious financial institutions, the CEO’s of whom happen to live right here in our county, the bank of whom is planting the seeds of sprawl in our neighborhoods. The bank of whom is dangling its own debt over our heads. The archives are there for everybody to read: pussyfoot journalism where it counts in these matters. Makes you wonder if they’re getting substantial sponsership from them? Don’t want to be blacklisted? There have been countless opportunities to ask some real questions and press some real issues with high ranking people involved local politics. The NCJ repeatedly balks.
Idiocracy is a comedy, not a documentary. Dioxin in our water isn’t funny.
Here’s one of the most pathetic “interviews” with somebody who wants to change the shape and direction of our entire region that I’ve ever read:
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/011206/QA0112.html
Idiot: Now you’ve got me curious. What else would you have wanted from that interview?
As if you can’t think of at least few things yourself, Hank? Try, let’s see what you come up with.
Okay…
Nope, can’t think of anything. Your turn.
Bullshit. How about, for example, exploring this bank CEO’s attitude and ideas about Arcata that would have her suggest the city would welcome more homeless? Instead of telling her that’s not what she said. Tee-hee, just a little joke, oopsy. Tough questions can be done with tact. I’m sure she’s absolutely delightful in person and wears a great fragrance. Wouldn’t want to offend her, I know. She doesn’t care who it would have offended to drop a Walmart on everybody forever, it had to be voted down. “Yeah, maybe not such a good idea…bla bla bla…but only because everybody forced us not to.”
That’s it?
You tell me.
Evidently it is.
Of course it isn’t. Wasn’t her bank also involved in the collapsing housing market at the time through a now-defunct subsidiary bank? They’re certainly trying to dodge responsibility in the matter today. etc. etc.
Your “involvement” is meek and pretentiously indifferent. You’re in the newspaper business, I know. Some good points in your editorial above, but you can’t be surprised by the criticism.
Well, you got me there. I didn’t foresee the collapse of the housing bubble that would come in two and a half years, nor the extent to which — if any — Security National’s subsidiaries in Nevada or Louisiana would be responsible for it.
If I were a better reporter, I would have known for a fact that the crash was coming in two and a half years, and I would have inserted tough questions about her future culpability into an interview about the Marina Center.
That’s not expecting too much.
It would have been a piercing interview if Idiot had conducted it.
Two and a half years later, eh? Shows how little you were paying attention? And no comments on my other points?
Two and a half years later, eh? Shows how little you were paying attention? And no comments on my other points?
…concern for local wellbeing with banks doing the same thing in other states? You knew they were doing business in other states…no questions about how their agenda was flying over there? Do you consider me to be “frothing” about it?
Maybe you read her bank’s pamphlet that the housing market was still doing great, and could they talk you into maybe investing in another property or taking out a second mortgage?
Should my next question be “uh….” too?
Idiot’s hyperventilating hatred for the Arkley’s is all too typical of blogs in Humboldt County.
Instead of criticizing the politics of Bonnie Neely, her infantile detractors call her names and gush over moronic photoshopped pictures of her. And instead of emphasizing and examining the problems associated with a huge retail development and a major, predatory big box on the waterfront, critics on the blogs tend to express hatred for the Arkleys and their supporters.
Hyperventilating, Joel? What are you talking about? Sounds like you want to distract from the issue by making it a versus-other-politicians issue. Who are these Arkley’s you speak of? I’m talking about Security National…you know what they are and what they do, right? They want big changes in Humboldt with themselves established as the cash collectors. Maybe if they choose nice brick, people will like big box is what they suggest…like maybe if they put nice blue sailboat signs all over the place under a name like “Marina Center” people won’t ask too many questions about what it really is.
Sincere question: What do Hank and Joel think comes with hiring a multi-million-dollar paychecking PR guy to push your agenda? Hint: not just the pretty signs.
“…you want to distract from the issue…”
Au contraire, all I’m interested in are the issues. What does the collapse of the real estate bubble have to do with anything?
Hence the point of this column. You understood that, right?
You understand the point of the criticism, right? Joel, stick to comics. They’re actually worth paying attention to.
Idiot: I’m at a bit of a loss, actually. As best I understand, the Cherie Arkley interview about Marina Center was lacking because I didn’t take her to task for making a joke about Arcata, and because I didn’t use the opportunity to grill her about the collapse of the housing bubble three years hence.
Also, this column was lacking because it didn’t understand that a high-powered PR person buys you more that blue-and-white signs. Though the entire point of the column was that a high-powered PR person, in this case, likely bought you some juice in blocking an appointment to the Coastal Commission. So unless you have something else on this score, I’m going to mark it down to a misunderstanding on your part.
Is that right? I don’t want to misrepresent you, here.
“I’m at a bit of a loss, actually.”
No kidding.
Why don’t you just answer questions, Idiot?
Joel, why don’t you? If the snail’s pace of internet forum dialog can constitute hyperventilation in your mind, consider my question rhetorical.
Perhaps I was wrong to infer hostility in your demands that Hank’s interview bring up a future collapse of the housing bubble, but tell us, Idiot, what this had to do with the Arkley interview?
Once in a very great while, one of these foaming anonymice comes along and I think: “Wait a minute — maybe this one actually has something, underneath it all.”
And then, 98 percent of the time, the sneer was all that was there after all, and it becomes a total waste of a Saturday morning.
Demands? What demands? Your drawings are great, but you obviously didn’t play connect the dots much as a kid.
What’s the golden paragraph you’re waiting for, Hank? Even more description of the content often lacking in yours?
“…the sneer was all that was there after all…”
I guess that Hank had to “connect the dots” for me.
Idiot: OK, one more chance before I cut my losses. My summary of your case, at 12:41, above — is that accurate?
Your first point in 12:41 is completele wrong. Figure that one out yourself, reread if you want. It’s as beside the point as you’d say anything I wrote is.
Your second paragraph reads like backpedaling on your part, and I think it is. Your point about the six million dollar PR man was a small one in the last paragraph of your editorial. Printed signs and measure n account for only a fraction of what goes into and comes out of that firm’s practice of public manipulation. That’s not a misstatement either. It’s public manipulation. This blog and all the others are being watched and notes are being taken, that’s not paranoia or conspiracy, that’s another part of what you get when you pay big money to help build your international business network. Another would be to install political softies in media positions of yours. That’s deeper than I care to get into, I got other stuff I want to do today as well.
ya know, I’ve posted plenty of “nice” comments on the Journal’s blogs as well, just as anonymously. Making internet identity an issue really sidesteps the issue.
On point one: Well, we’ll have to let posterity determine whether or not that was an accurate summary, because I’m not here to play guessing games with you. I am giving you my time. If you want to make a point, then make it.
Two: The point about Glazer in this column was not a “small one” — it was what the entire second half of the thing was leading up to. It was the entire point. Later on there, you make hints that perhaps I, personally, am a patsy of the Arkley-Glaser conspiracy. I could point you to all the contrary evidence, if you like, and if you are sincerely interested I will be happy to do so. We are all Josef K. But it is my experience that once someone like you gets to this phase, no amount of couterevidence will suffice.
Yes, best left to posterity…no hint that you’re a patsy whatsoever, but that it’s being done.
“someone like you”…
…and you wonder why a person might feel it necessary to protect their contentedly meager livelihood from public broadcast while voicing an unpopular opinion of things? Doesn’t that last sentence of yours work both ways? Rhetorical questions, we’ve hit the brick wall.
Having experienced the 1999 Wal-Mart fireworks in Eureka, and the following decade of even more economic research, books, and documentaries, all confirming that big boxes have negative economic impacts on rural economies….a slate of candidates running on a platform of “open-arms” for big boxes wins!?
What made it so difficult for ALL our local media to fail to PRESS the OBVIOUS uncomfortable question:
“What is your source for the claim that another big box holds economic benefits for Eureka”?
OR
“How do you refute local and national economic research that contradicts your claims”?
No sooner did the 1980’s housing bubble collapse end, costing taxpayers $500 billion, they began building towards the next…costing taxpayers $2 trillion and counting. We’re still in its midst and they want to slather the Eureka area in subdivisions that NONE of the 1,000 new Marina Center employees will qualify for.
The Arkley’s have been purchasing land throughout Eureka and Humboldt County, you think they don’t want a piece of this next bubble and the additional profiteering from the poverty their business manufactures?
John Osborn’s recent article on the development community’s dominance of local campaign financing was a once-in-my-lifetime experience in Humboldt County journalism. It reveals the general failure of today’s media and begs for some historical context, a story that will languish along with our neighborhoods burdened by more malls, sprawl and the telltale fallout from inadequate infrastructure, and from the poverty this failed model generates: more drug abuse, crime, homelessness, and the busted public budgets that can’t keep up.
Except for a rare NCJ article, we NEVER see the uncomfortable questions asked when we most need to hear the answers.
“UP has a certain amount of liability because there are hydrocarbons on the property — diesel, things like that — and they don’t want to take on that responsibility and that liability. So they have said that we’re not going to sell it if there is going to be any public use, meaning residential or park. ”
That’s a very telling quote, no? Measure N just did what to promote public favor of a shortcut to why?
“All [the Balloon Track] does right now is suck money out of the city. It’s taxed like a public utility, so it’s taxed in the lowest tax bracket. So it throws off hardly any money to the city and the county.”
This is a game of nomenclature, the “sale” gimmic. However, there is no price but the price either you pay the city or the city pays you. In this instance, you pay the city, yet literally attempt to convince us of the opposite a mere sentence before, and again as a premis to your entire argument. So, wtf?
In order to make more money than the millions of dollars in taxes you brag that the property would pay to the city, the people of eureka and surrounding areas would have to offset at least twice that much in spending within the property. That is, their profit is you and me and everybody else you and I see anywhere and everywhere in humboldt county representing a monetary loss from ourselves to the company them. Retail/Residential clone zones, is what I call them…cash registers for the property owners. And are you, by any chance, one of the property owners?
NCJ article mentioned in the previous one I linked to: http://www.northcoastjournal.com/110404/cover1104.html
“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.
It’s now without question that there was absolutely no need for the city of Eureka to pay for the land owners’ “study”, yet that the land owners were more than willing to tell the people of eureka it was necessary and graciously accept our money to cover their expenses. This is not only made especially clear in the interview with one of the land owners that came two years prior, but in the article I just linked to now in which another land owner is interviewed:
Reached at his office Monday, Arkley confirmed this. He spoke of the duplicity of local government spending $100,000 on a study at the same time it was asking voters to pass Measure L, a 1 percent sales tax increase. He reaffirmed his ideological commitment to private property rights, putting his position in the bluntest possible terms.
“If you’re me, do you really care what the city thinks?” he said. “I don’t want to have an alternate plan out there because it might not be what I want.”
Security National and interested parties, many of whom now hold local government positions after spending lots of money during the most recent elections, want nothing more than for this to be swept under the rug as though it never happened. They would like for us to think there’s this great NEW boon for the city awaiting through these real estate investors’ good graces, if only we the people would see the light of their ways.
again, not taken out of context, a direct quote from the CEO of Security National and real estate mogul of several states…
“If you’re me, do you really care what the city thinks?” he said. “I don’t want to have an alternate plan out there because it might not be what I want.”
And they’ve recently hired one of the most expensive “public relations” firms in the state to convince us of the exact opposite of their directly stated intentions, as the public relations firm has successfully done for all of its previous clients. Demonstrating allegiance only to the highest bidder of their networked services.
And before somebody suggest I’m misstating the landowner’s intentions regarding accepting $100,000 from the city to pay for what they knew to be negligible expenses, realize they did in the very least openly persue political gridlock for over a year in having us believe it to be the case verbatim.
LOOK! It’s a dog chasing it’s tail. Silly dog…….
As this talk of big box businesses taking over — there’s a reason people want them here (not everyone agrees they are bad). Personally, about the only difference I see these days between the big boxes and small businesses is the number of people they employ. While the owners of the small, local businesses are nice and their employees know them, ask many of those employees and they will tell you they are treated just as poorly as they would be at a big box (low wages, lack of healthcare, etc.). Not every local business is this way, just like not every big box is the same. Business owners are capitalists through and through. Some are just smaller fish in a bigger pond, and they are the ones who often cry foul.
Doug Brunell says “Personally, about the only difference I see these days between the big boxes and small businesses is the number of people they employ.”
Acquaint yourself with some of the people big boxes employee. I know and have known plenty. Compare their accounts of daily work life to acquaintences of yours at tighter locally run businesses.
I’m neither chasing my tail nor talking out my ass. Once a big box is placed in Humboldt County, it’s like a permanent cyst.
If you’re refering to me, Brian, I wonder what it is you feel passionate about regarding Humboldt County. Smoke a bowl much?…and then think about it, that is?
This is such an important matter for the people of eureka, so much that the MULTI-MILLIONAIRES who are pushing the matter on us are nowhere to be seen or heard on the matter except in these few interviews from years ago. It’s so important, their representatives spent years beating on city council’s door to let them have their way. Years of it. They are so passionate and selfless in their cause that THEY AREN’T SPEAKING TO US AT ALL…in ANY of Humboldt County’s local media outlets.
They feel so strongly about their convictions that they hired a multi-million dollar propaganda firm do all the talking and advertising for them. The bribes alone hadn’t been enough, but now they even have their friends in positions to accept the bribes…they spin it as “money for the city”.
bump…for posterity. I believe I’ve raised very valid points. This week’s one-shot readers might be interested. If they disagree, hey I’m just another anonymous idiot.