You have in your hands the second part of Journal freelancer Cristina Bauss‘ exploration of the controversies surrounding Caltrans’ proposed Richardson Grove Improvement Project. This is the first time in my editorship, and possibly in Journal history, that we have devoted two consecutive covers to the same topic. There are two reasons that we decided to break the rule: Bauss’ excellent reporting, and the mountain of confusion and disinformation that has surrounded the project.
The Richardson Grove Improvement Project is, by Caltrans standards, a tiny little piece of road work, costing $7 million from soup to nuts. The aim, as Bauss catalogued in last week’s installment, is to make Humboldt County accessible to industry-standard trucks, which are slightly larger than the ones currently allowed to enter the county. It would accomplish this by smoothing a couple of curves in Highway 101 through Richardson Grove State Park. Some trees — scrub oak, mostly, and a few very young redwoods — would be removed. Some of the roots of a few old growth redwoods would be carefully excavated and cut; there is no reason to believe that these trees’ overall health would be hampered. (As Bauss points out, the old growth currently lining the highway survived much less tender treatment 100 years ago.) In the end, small manufacturers and retailers would experience significant savings on their shipping bill.
For whatever reason, and post-Timber War boredom is as good an answer as any, the opposition to the project — led by the Environmental Protection Information Center, the Northcoast Environmental Center and McKinleyville’s Dr. Ken Miller, intellectual author of District Attorney Paul Gallegos’ failed lawsuit against the Pacific Lumber Co. — have been hyperbolic in their denunciation. Their Grovies’ radio ads tell the tale: The project will “blow a hole” in Richardson Grove! Big box hell, everywhere! (Notwithstanding the fact that Costco and Target, along with innumerable other retailers, survive the lack of STAA access just fine.) Humboldt County will become Santa Rosa! A retaining wall would be built!
This is the problem. When once-respected enviros froth in rage at the horror of someone somewhere building a new retaining wall, who loses? There is a segment of our citizenry — a not-insignificant minority — eager to believe that big box America is cloistered over a map somewhere, plotting the deflowering of virgin Humboldt County. When they are continuously stroked and flattered with the absurd idea that the Richardson Grove Improvement Project is the culmination of these mustachioed evil-doers’ schemes, who pays the bill for that?
Sure, in the sense that our politics become even stupider and more paranoid than they already are, we all do. More specifically, though, they do. Because the previously baseless slam against Humboldt County lefties — that they just hate jobs! — suddenly becomes somewhat less baseless. Because the organizations that they’re hurting most — small manufacturers like Cypress Grove Chevre and Lost Coast Brewery, a nonprofit like the Arcata Recycling Center — are lost to them as allies in the much more real and much more serious fights over the future direction of the county, for instance in the still-pending rewrite of the county’s general plan. Because they waste all their time and energy and political capital on a bunch of nonsense, instead of actual, important, maybe life-or-death environmental issues like the general plan or global warming or agricultural reform or the Pacific Trash Gyre or a hundred other things. If I were one of the big bad boogiemen of the Grovie subconscious, I’d be twirling that mustache in glee at the site of the Humboldt County left upending itself in such an inconsequential bog.
Anyway, stroll on over to northcoastjournal.com a couple of hours after this column and the second part of Bauss’ article go live. Click on one of them and scroll down a bit until you get to the comments from Jeff Muskrat, who came to Humboldt prominence several years ago as a member of Earth First! My bet: You will find paragraph after paragraph of the frothing and righteousness referenced above, salted with random accusations that Bauss, myself or the Journal at large must be now be in the pocket of Rob Arkley or Home Depot or God knows who else. Read Muskrat’s work — widely available at a million other spots on the Web — and you will have the Grovie campaign in a nutshell. If you find anything sensible in it, or anything that hasn’t already been asked and answered, do let me know.
This article appears in Roads and Redwoods April 2010 (North Coast Journal).
Humboldt enviros have always been discredited to those with more than just a passing understanding of the issues. Hank gets one virtual beer for this article, but only one since he’s been behind the curve until now.
This is a terrific commentary, Hank. Bravo!
"no reason to believe that these trees’ overall health would be hampered"
You’re entitled to your opinion, but it seems more of a wishful guess than anything.
As if we have every reason to believe that it’s fine for the health of the Ancient Redwoods to excavate the soil that nourishes their roots, replace it with concrete and then slap asphalt on top. Perhaps your opinion is based in some scientific facts you didn’t care to share? Some precedent?
The old-growth that currently lines Highway 101 though Richardson Grove.
Pacific Trash Gyre – now that is a real issue that we should be looking at and putting our science, discovery and problem solving muscle behind.
OK Hank, some questions,
The article from last week cites a figure of $1,000 per truck to switch cabs to get STAA trucks through Richardson Grove. So CalTrans’ solution is $7 million, which you call a drop in the bucket. That’s equivalent to 7,000 trucks being switched at $1,000 per truck.
So, my first question: how many 48/53 foot trucks per year do all of Humboldt’s businesses use to ship goods out of or into the county? (Not across the county, but in or out.)
My second question: since the cost of keeping a single trucker and cab on "standby" to move things across Richardson Grove in a "day cab" would probably be less than $200,000/year, has anyone considered this as a way to save $7 million at a time when the state is broke? That approach would create four permanent jobs — three 8 hour shifts plus the weekend.
My third question: right now, the expense of switching cabs is born by local businesses. Why should the taxpayer be charged $7 million to save those businesses the $1,000 per truckload? Especially when the majority of local taxpayers might be perfectly happy to NOT do a construction project in one of the world’s tourist and environmental gems.
I haven’t paid much attention to this issue at all, but I /like/ the fact that some places don’t automatically conform to American monoculture.
And I think you’ve unfairly trivialized the concerns of the project’s opponents by choosing one person — who you claim "froths" — as your selection for the opponents’ representative.
It’s been a few hours since this hit the stands. Am I now a frother, too?
By my read of the history of the case it is actually the result of the work of the so-called "frothers" that has made CalTrans actually follow the law in the review process and planning of this project, resulting in the possible mitigation efforts (i.e. wildlife surveys, careful cutting of roots) raved about in your article(s). Essentially, within the clear bias of the NCJ coverage of this issue (opinion v. feature news piece?) you have totally downplayed the procedural irregularities that have occurred in the planning of this project.
The fact that more detailed mitigation would be required in project implementation is a tribute to the success of the "Grovies" in this case.
Finally, as a Southern Humboldt resident I say thanks to all the people that have participated in the effort to stop this CalTrans project–at the very least you will have helped make sure that they treat the place with respect.
Speaking of "respect," Gary, you might try "respecting" your neighbors who do not grow pot and choose to work for a living.
Home run, Hank.
at long last, the General Plan Update gets a mention in the North Coast Journal! and here I thought you weren’t paying attention…
Thus far, all the frothing seems to be going on underneath Cristina’s story.
Mitch: I couldn’t tell you precisely how many trucks come in and out of Humboldt County, but 20 per day seems like a reasonable guess. So if you want to back-of-the-envelope it like that, let’s say the project pays for itself in a year.
Your $200,000 budget for a 24/7/365 shuttle service isn’t going to cut it. That’s 4.2 full-time equivalent jobs, plus a lot of equipment and insurance and such. And then, of course, there’d be costs on top of that associated with delays, especially since you could only haul one trailer at a time.
You say that local taxpayers might not support the project if it were put to a plebiscite. I disagree — I believe they would — but that is beside the point. It isn’t local taxpayers who will foot the bill, it’s California taxpayers. Why should those taxpayers foot the bill to save Humboldt County businesses $1,000 per truckload? You might as well ask why they should support a highway to Humboldt County at all. It’s part of the state’s mandate to provide adequate transportation facilities. As Cristina mentioned, there’s also a federal mandate involved.
(Actually, come to think of it, it’s probably misleading to say that "California taxpayers" are paying for it. Unsurprisingly, a quick Google tour doesn’t yield much concrete about the specific line-item funding sources for a Byzantine agency like Caltrans, but it appears that its State Highway Operation and Protection Program — which will pay for the Richardson Grove project — is partly funded by federal stimulus monies on the one hand, and partly by gas taxes on the other.)
You say that you like it that there are some places that "don’t automatically conform to American monoculture," and brother I am right there with you. If Humboldt County weren’t exactly that, I wouldn’t be living here. It’s just that all the evidence points toward the conclusion that this wouldn’t have much of an impact on our soul, or that what impact it does have would be positive. Our small manufacturers, many of which spring from the county’s hippie-dippie dreaminess, are, to me, a key part of what makes this place unique and soulful. They’re going to be more important than ever, post-legalization. Poverty isn’t much fun.
Gary: Yep, that’s the history of the case, and I wouldn’t disagree. Caltrans has adopted more rigorous environmental review and some very serious mitigation efforts, including a complete redesign of the project, in response to public pressure. But now they’ve done that, and contrarily the Grovie position has become more frothy than it was previously — the Grovies became the Grovies, essentially. Why is that?
Secondly, Gary: I like your blog. I’m gonna RSS that thing.
Hank,
"20 per day seems like a reasonable guess"
Based on what?
"pays for itself in a year"
Ah, based on the figure of $1,000 per cab change (think about that for a moment) and your guess of 20 trucks a day, it does pay for itself. GIGO.
"your $200,000"
OK, $300,000. Four $40,000 jobs with benefits, plus $60K annually for the cab and miscellaneous.
"taxpayers"
You’re absolutely right that maintaining a transportation infrastructure is a vital government task, and I don’t mind paying my part of $7 million to upgrade a road if the road should be upgraded. But I don’t want that $7 million paid until the schools have enough money to pay /their/ staffs and there’s enough money going to programs like In Home Supportive Services.
IMO, it doesn’t matter whether the $7 million is federal or state money — it’s still taxpayer money.
It’s always intrigued me that the right wing will work itself ferklumpt every time $7 million is set aside for people who are in desperate need, but it always sees $7 million to replace the costs born by a few privately owned businesses as vital government expenditure.
Thanks for the respect Hank, I will try to get a new post up on that blog more sooner than later just for you. I will agree that the frothing under Cristina’s article is disagreeable–though the ongoing disrespect for those of us who live in Southern Humboldt is present in this thread as well. Why the "Grovies" have become the "Grovies" (I keep thinking you should have titled the articles "Fear and Groving in Humboldt County") is a phenomena that the environmental movement here on the North Coast has struggled with since all sorts of "drainbow" types started showing up during Redwood Summer. It certainly was not EPIC’s fault back then anymore than it is now, though EPIC seems to serve as a punching bag for the NCJ here because of the lack of grace of those very loud and "frothing" voices.
Remember though, the Final EIR on the Richardson Grove project has not even been released, and until then all announcements about potential mitigation made by CalTrans are just PR designed to reduce public opposition to a project that was very poorly designed at the beginning. As well, there are serious and real concerns about whether CalTrans will take advantage of legal loopholes to avoid obligations to follow through on their mitigation promises once project implementation has begun. That is why it is important to stay on this case to the very end, including advocating for the "take no action" alternative or even pursuing litigation to insure that the agency does not ignore what is at stake in one of the worlds few remaining stands of ancient redwoods.
Mr. Muskrat, tear down this (Redwood) curtain!
Hank Sims
Thank-you for telling the story. I am in lockstep agreement with you on the grove realignment.
I know you have spent a conciderable amount of time on this story. The truth needs to be told, and we depend on honest jornalist like yourself to get the real story out. There is a lot of red herrings, strawmen and other forms of leading us away from the truth. Please stick to your truth and telling it like it is….
More later.
Ernie
Gary, your points about Caltrans needing to be kicked in the butt on several issues – including commissioning an EIR – are spot-on (and I listed some of them in the conclusion to the article). I’m not arguing that there weren’t concerns with the project, or that project opponents’ efforts are futile. The things I’m arguing against are the hysteria, hyperbolic language, and in some cases, outright lies that are being told in order to raise the ire of the public. A case in point: in the first letter in this week’s issue, the writer referenced the "40 or so" redwood trees that would be affected by the project. Well, the DEIR lists 30, of which about 20 are big trees. I do believe the 40 number came from a letter that was printed in the local papers last week, alleging that "40 to 60 old-growth redwoods" would be affected. The number was magically doubled or tripled, and that’s what sticks in people’s minds!
I AM an environmentalist. But many of the local environmentalists are seriously undermining their own case by feeding on fear instead of sticking to facts. THAT is one of the things I really tried to get across – along with how this fight is one of several that is splintering the left in Humboldt County – and I do hope that it’ll at least make some people think.
Hank, I think you and Cristina did a great job laying out the arguments. I’ve avoided entering into the public debate on this issue, as I think it is a tempest in a teapot, but the position you articulate is largely consistent with what I’ve expressed in private. The good folks in our environmental community need to focus their energies and credibility on bigger threats, such as the pattern of future land use (and conversion of resource lands) being debated in the county general plan update.
the sky is falling, the sky is falling
I hear so many people say they don’t want the "big box" stores to move into humboldt, but aren’t they already here…what is KMart, Target, Costco, Sears…What makes Walmart a big box store and not KMart…What makes Home Depot a big box store and not Costco?
Altering places like Richardson Grove in any way other than to strengthen their sacred status among us is complete insanity, especially in this age of proclaimed global awareness. They are as much treasures to Humboldt County as the pyramids are to Egypt.
Failing to see how the government’s demand to cut into Richardson Grove is small part of "actual, important, maybe life-or-death environmental issues" is willful ignorance…naive at best. Or did I forget that those problems happened overnight? It’s just plain stupid, Hank, to lump outrage toward the freeway project under a faceless Grovie label. I don’t go for that tabloid-journalism "anger your readers" crap…your assertion is really dumb. People from all walks think the plan stinks, sharing an unspoken understanding that the mandate’s supporters (most, like yourself, being just ho-hum about it) fail to grasp. If you spent half the time enjoying places like Richardson Grove that you do staring at a computer and living life like a neverending highschool yearbook on social networking websites, you’d feel differently about it too. If you see Grovies, then congratulations…you’re an Old Fart. From now until forever, it doesn’t matter how much clearcut logging companies benefited the local economy back in the day. More old growth forest would be good for everybody living here right now…economically and otherwise. Who’da thunk it would take 500 years to grow back a 500 year old tree? Richardson Grove is priceless.
The Richardson Grove Improvement Project is a government order, neither conceived nor delivered by anybody from Humboldt County. It won’t “improve” the grove itself at all. The same happy, well spoken PR reps and project managers who choose not to call it the Richardson Grove Freeway Mandate have already injected some locals with the idea that we will only lose financially if the government doesn’t have their way. It’s what they’re paid to do…but all their numbers and statistics supporting the freeway are irrelevant in light of what’s clearly visible to anybody anywhere. What has every previous plan of the exact same nature brought us? It is ass-backwards thinking that more of the same will fix the problems the status quo has already delivered. If you argue it as a matter of jobs, realize there could be just as many jobs being created in environmental repair and maintenance…positions of real long-term employment that benefit everybody. It’s a no-brainer. Don’t be fooled: Caltrans serves the interests of the government at large, not the people of Humboldt County. Richardson Grove is their speedbump, not ours. Do not support the concrete jungle!
Here’s an idea: If you can’t fit through Richardson Grove heading north, do Humboldt a favor and stay out. If you feel you can no longer squeeze enough of yourself through Richardson Grove heading south, you’re getting too big for your britches…it’s time to reevaluate what’s really important in life for everybody.
The Gallo report calculates that the annual impact of restricting maximum size STAA trucks is "55 full and part time jobs eliminated" (page 5). However, as I explained in detail (reply 30 in article II posts), using figures from Gallo and this article, there will be job losses in the local trucking industry. However, Gallo does not factor in this reality. The lily industry (Humboldt & Del Norte) alone accounts for about 2000 truckloads per year or roughly 8 trips per day, 5 days per week, 50 weeks per year. While 8 loads are headed south daily, 8 returns are headed north to be available for next day’s shipments. This means 16 local drivers and their support personnel will lose their jobs when the lily operations switch to national STAA carriers coming through the area. However, and Gallo states in footnote 3 and this article confirms, the local lily industry dominates their market, so no local jobs will be added as a direct result of allowing STAA trucks through.
Gallo also states in footnote 3 that since at some point in the long-term there could be another area offering such conditions that would allow a lily competitor to challenge Sun Valley’s market control, he counted all of their freight savings as going into increased employment. In other words, the employment gain he calculated is overestimated by about 40 percent. But even without that, we are now down to less than 40 jobs projected after the local freight jobs are deducted. Now, how many truckloads from the handful of local manufactures identified will have to be switched from local trucking firms to national STAA carriers per new job created?
Some folks should be careful what they wish for. I’m afraid we will find that the gain in freight cost and time will turn out to be nominal, especially as local trucking services decline. Our local manufacturer’s ability to expand into other’s markets may be less than their competitors’ ability to expand into ours.
Dave: You have an interesting point, and not one that should be thrown away out of hand, but it is rather like what the Harbor District tried to do a while ago — mandate that the gas barges carry pilots so the pilots would have some work to do. In other words: If we want to create new trucking jobs, maybe we should think about local ordinances that would mandate that all goods be shipped via pickup.
chortle chortle! Good one, Hank! fart Our grandkids will be proud when we’re all sittin’ purdy in the future! I’m ‘spectin we’ll all get a dollar an hour raise right after they pave that sumbich. Them grovies can’t tell progress from congress! HAWHAWHAW!
With all due respect Hank, your analogy is off the mark. I am suggesting no such thing. If you cannot refute the facts above then let’s move forward and deeper with an objective discussion.
There has been no measure of how more competitive we will supposedly be by opening the 101 Humboldt/Del Norte corridor to maximum size STAA trucks than what is contained in the Gallo report. I have used data from that report and your articles to calculate some specific local jobs that will be lost. Before we go further, please show me some data as to exactly what jobs will be created. And, if you think new industry will be attracted, please provide facts as to how we will compare to other communities on the STAA National Network that would attract new industry here as opposed to somewhere else, like those with a railroad or container port, or labor supply.
After you do that, we can take the discussion a little deeper still. Something those in public office and their staffs should have been doing from the get go.
By my read of the history of the case it is actually the result of the work of the so-called "frothers" that has made CalTrans actually follow the law in the review process and planning of this project, resulting in the possible mitigation efforts (i.e. wildlife surveys, careful cutting of roots) raved about in your article(s). Essentially, within the clear bias of the NCJ coverage of this issue (opinion v. feature news piece?) you have totally downplayed the procedural irregularities that have occurred in the planning of this project.
Gary, I agree with the first part – the opposition did indeed bring to light Caltrans’ procedural inadequacies and omissions. But the second part has me confused, because Cristina clearly slammed Caltrans on the procedure. Did we read the same article?
Dave, I haven’t heard where this project will create jobs. Rather, it will lower the costs to businesses, so we can preserve jobs. Now hopefully it will lower the transpiration costs so business might relocate here, thus increasing jobs.
That’s what I’m talkin about, Cap’ndiamond! You’d hafta be dumber than a brick not to see how everybody south of Richardson Grove is swimming in wealth and prosperity!
The fact that the Old-growth Redwoods survived previous damage, the extent to which you have only speculated, does not convince me that further damage is ok.
Why not just lower the speed limit + have one way controlled traffic at certain times of day/night?
Cap – you say, now "hopefully" it will lower costs and business "might" relocate here. I have taken the time to show details of specific jobs that will be lost related to 1 specific industry with no related gains in local employment.
The county’s CDS has indeed sold this as an economic development project leading to job creation, evidently with little more than "hope" and "might" to back it up themselves. Can you be more specific?
Dave, it will help businesses, period. The hope is it will attract businesses. Do you not understand how much money and jobs we have lost because our transportation sucks? Or the same in jobs and money we could of had? A thousand bucks a load is a lot of money. That could greatly help a business stay in business, be more competitive, afford better pay or benefits to it’s workers.
I’d buy the argument that 7 mil is a lot of money, except it is different funding source, as pointed out before, plus grovies are wanting more expensive fixes such as a bypasses. Then you have other, real widening projects on 101, such as the Novato Narrows project. That project alone is estimated at 800 million dollars for 17 miles!
Cap – do your homework and come back with some specifics or stop wasting our time.
How many and what local businesses are using freight trucks right now? I believe there are less than five. There’s certainly no general demand for it. The bulb farm is a sweatshop, anybody who lives here has always known that. You work there as a last resort. They’re not even local, a european company owns them. The bulk of their money goes to corporate nationals, just like big box.
Dave, I have done that many times. The problem is the opposition will not listen, and I’m tired of wasting my time going over the same points, for something that will happen.
Hank said:
"My bet: You will find paragraph after paragraph of the frothing and righteousness referenced above, salted with random accusations that Bauss, myself or the Journal at large must be now be in the pocket of Rob Arkley or Home Depot or God knows who else"
I submitted my 250 word retort to your "calling me out" on this blog as a letter to the editor for print in next week’s NCJ.
Let’s see if you print it…
Cristina said: "I AM an environmentalist"
Is your partner/husband?
Does he have anything "personal" against EPIC, the only SRG coalition group that you attacked/mentioned?
Come on now Cristina, be honest…at least this once.
I too attended the Richardson Grove forum held at the Bayside Grange. The main reason for my attendance was to educate myself on the proposed project. Prior to the forum, (which was more like a rally), I had read information that was on the SRG web site, opinions, newspaper articles, and listen open mindedly to business concerns. This blog and the one under Cristina’s well written article, have managed to take the Cal Trans project and turn it in to a fight between the enviromentalist and the business many of whom are one in the same. My question is this: have you ever sat down with the local businesses to discuss their needs (like the NCJ did)? It seems that while you claim to be doing your homework regarding STAA trucks that you’d look at the project from both sides (because you’ve managed to turn this into a them vs. us situation)instead of wasting time spreading rumors– host a real "forum" or roundtable discussion with the local businesses and the environmentalist to discuss needs and concerns of our community instead of relying on information or in this case misinformation of content located here in this blog. Quit spreading ingornance and hate through this blog and taking pot shots at your neighbors.
steve said "The good folks in our environmental community need to focus their energies and credibility on bigger threats, such as the pattern of future land use (and conversion of resource lands)"
Steve, the topic at hand is just that. It is today what has long ago been recognized as part of a pattern of land use, and Humboldt’s old growth parks are an irreplaceable resource.
So how about that beer, Hank?
Hugs are optional 🙂