It’s 12:30 on a weekday afternoon in January, and Jefferson School is empty. Right about now, all across the county, children are erupting joyously from classrooms and cafeterias for recess. But in Jefferson’s asphalt playground there’s nothing but weeds, graffiti and long shadows cast by the winter sun. By the back double-doors, in a cold, concrete-floored vestibule, evidence of a lonely night: a blanket tossed on flattened cardboard boxes and, on the step below, a sauce-smeared KFC box with a lone boneless chicken wing lying turd-like on greasy wax paper.
Like most other WWII-era American elementary schools, Jefferson was designed for utility rather than style. Single-story and boxy, it’s fronted by grids of rectangular windows, like empty Jeopardy! screens, displaying dark, barren classrooms. Many of the panes have been broken and replaced by particle board, now warped with rain damage. In the surviving frames the blinds are dusty and bent.
The building’s physical deterioration invites thoughts of larger social declines — like the drop in district-wide enrollment that prompted Eureka City Schools to close the school back in 2005. Or the economic slump that has led many Humboldt County families to seek greener pastures. The list goes on: declines in funding for education, in achievement by American public school students, in the American empire itself.
A yellow plastic sign has been cinched to the chain-link out front. In handwritten block letters it reads, “FIGHT NEIGHBORHOOD BLIGHT.” For more than 60 years Jefferson School served as the cornerstone of Eureka’s West Side. In the five-and-a-half years since it closed the property has been in the eye of an increasingly heated political firestorm. A group of neighbors — first assembled through a city-sanctioned Jefferson School Committee and charged with exploring future uses for the site — has spent years steadfastly pursuing an array of moving targets for both tenants and funding sources while urging the city to spend precious redevelopment dollars to purchase the property.
With dreams of converting the campus into a public park, a charter school, a community kitchen and more, the committee — now called the Westside Community Group, or WCG — has gradually increased both in size and determination. Over the past two-and-a-half years, each time the group’s quest hit a roadblock — and there have been several big ones, including a competing offer for the property from College of the Redwoods last January and, in August, a last-minute pull-out from a proposed anchor tenant — the WCG simply redoubled its efforts, working harder to firm up plans and persuade the City Council. They pledged as a group to assume some responsibility for the maintenance of the site, should the city move ahead. In September, following months of deliberations, the council unanimously approved the purchase of Jefferson School from Eureka City Schools for $600,000 in redevelopment money. The WCG rejoiced.
But their jubilation was premature. With the purchase still in escrow, a new roadblock appeared, one that’s evidently unmoved by the WCG’s assurances of success. On Election Day, the Eureka City Council was turned upside down: Three new members were swept into office — Mike Newman, Marian Brady and Lance Madsen — and Fourth Ward incumbent Frank Jager was elected mayor, requiring him to vacate his voting position on the council. At the first meeting of the new guard on Dec. 7, Newman made it known that he wasn’t comfortable with the pending real estate deal, much to the horror of the WCG as well as Second Ward representative Linda Atkins, the lone holdover from the previous council. Newman argued that the particulars of the deal were shaky, that if it fell apart it could impact the city’s shoestring budget. Redevelopment money, he argued, would be better spent elsewhere. And with that, Newman recommended putting the deal on hold.
Atkins was taken aback. While it was widely understood that the new councilmembers were more conservative, more “business-friendly,” than the candidates they’d defeated (and thus Atkins’ political foils), this was a particularly bold gesture by Newman, one that suggested undoing the work of the previous council. “This is wrong. …” Atkins said angrily. “You’re not going to be able to do whatever you want.” Given the makeup of the new council, however, Atkins’ conclusion was arguable. Brady and Madsen immediately joined Newman in expressing reservations about the deal, saying they weren’t convinced it was fiscally responsible given the costs of renovation and maintenance and the lack of guaranteed tenants.
At the next meeting, on Dec. 21, the new council voted 3 to 1, with Atkins strongly dissenting, to put the Jefferson School purchase on hold. They did so despite vociferous objections from members of the WCG (though it should be noted that a few community members applauded the move). Livid and in disbelief, nearly half of those in attendance stormed out of the meeting in a huff while Newman was mid-sentence.
Thus was a showdown born. Newman, Brady and Madsen, on the one side, hold that the previous council acted irresponsibly and that it’s simple prudence — in fact it’s their duty — to examine the numbers more closely. The WCG, on the other side, contends that that’s a smokescreen, that in truth the new council is deliberately sabotaging years of community efforts in a dastardly plot to hand Jefferson School over to their high-powered friends — property developers, say, or maybe College of the Redwoods.
In his office on the second floor of City Hall one recent afternoon, Lance Madsen sat cross-legged, hands clasped in his lap, leaning back slightly. In blue jeans and Doc Marten slip-ons he calmly explained his reservations. Essentially, he said, his experience with community groups and nonprofits has taught him that despite their best intentions, things often don’t work out as planned. He has personally served on the board of the Eureka Theater and the local chapter of the Boys & Girls Club, and in both cases he’s seen projects fall through and grant monies evaporate unexpectedly. The WCG, he said, has even less clout.
“This is a neighborhood group that has no substance,” Madsen said. “They have a title, but they don’t even have a private nonprofit status.” The group does plan to pursue that status, but Madsen said he requires more than plans and verbal assurances. For example, while the WCG and their de facto leader, Heidi Benzonelli, promise that maintenance costs won’t fall to the city’s depleted general fund, there’s no guarantee, given the current economic climate, that city government won’t end up holding the bag. “Community groups have a lot of enthusiasm,” he allowed, “but they come and they go, unfortunately.”
Madsen suggested that he’d prefer to see College of the Redwoods purchase the property. Last year, CR President Jeff Marsee pursued Jefferson School, aiming to convert it into a vocational training and education facility to replace the college’s existing downtown site. Their January 2010 offer was accepted by Eureka City Schools despite being $50,000 less than what the City of Eureka had on the table. (ECS said they accepted CR’s offer only because the city had been incommunicado for months. See “Schoolyard Scrap,” Feb. 18, 2010.) But in the face of fierce community objections and threats of a lawsuit from city officials, who felt CR had interrupted active negotiations, the CR board withdrew its offer.
Nevertheless, Madsen said he’d recently spoken to a CR board member, someone he’s know for years (though he declined to identify who, specifically), and that in light of this private conversation he feels “pretty reassured that CR does have the capacity and they do have the interest [to purchase the site].”
In an interview at Ramone’s in Old Town last week, Newman said that he, too, has it on good authority that CR still wants to buy Jefferson School, provided there’s a change of heart from both the City Council (check) and the community. Like Madsen, Newman refused to reveal the source of this information beyond “someone placed up high” at CR. The most likely suspect would be President Marsee, who serves on the board of directors of the Greater Eureka Chamber of Commerce; until recently, Newman was president of that board. “I don’t know if [Marsee] was the one I talked to,” Newman said coyly.
CR last week issued a press release patently denying renewed negotiations for Jefferson School. According to CR spokesman Paul DeMark, the CR Board of Trustees held a closed-session meeting Jan. 4 to discuss the matter. The press release, issued two days later, said CR would not re-enter negotiations unless a) the city backs out and b) the community becomes supportive of the idea. Eureka City Schools Superintendent Gregg Haulk confirmed that he’s heard nothing from CR since they pulled their offer last year. “There’s only one offer on the table for Jefferson School right now, and that’s [from] the City of Eureka,” Haulk said.
But Atkins, after watching the unified actions of her new council colleagues, is convinced there’s more going on behind closed doors. “I don’t know where they’re meeting but it’s not out in the public or with me,” she said. At the Dec. 21 council meeting she argued that putting the purchase on hold not only insults the work of the previous council and the WCG, it’s also a waste of money. The city spent $15,000 for an April 2009 feasibility study from SHN Consulting, plus $20,000 to $25,000 in legal costs related to the project, according to City Manager David Tyson — not to mention untold hours of staff time. From Atkins’ perspective, all the ducks were in a row: funds to purchase the property, grant money to renovate it and a list of tenants ready and eager to move in.
She’s now convinced that none of that actually matters to the new councilmembers (excluding, for now, Melinda Ciarabellini, who was sworn in as Jager’s Fourth Ward replacement on Jan. 4 and who told the Journal she’s still researching the Jefferson School issue). Atkins suspects that the purported objections of Newman, Brady and Madsen are in fact red herrings and that the threesome is receiving marching orders from on high. All three of them, she said, were swept into office thanks to a political campaign unlike anything the county had seen before — a campaign carefully orchestrated and generously financed by a relatively small group of monied interests. “Whoever the monied interests [are] who did that … their interests are gonna be the ones that are put forth,” Atkins predicted.
Newman, Brady and Madsen called the accusations ridiculous and insisted their concerns are well grounded. In a recent phone interview, Brady pointed out that the SHN report from almost two years ago fell short of a ringing endorsement of the project, especially considering that several of the proposed tenants have since backed out. The report concedes that the cost of upgrading the campus to comply with current building standards and the Americans with Disabilities Act “appears to be financially feasible only if [the owners] can obtain a larger site lessee, such as CR.”
Newman, for his part, said he’s simply not comfortable with the city assuming ownership of any new properties right now. And he said redevelopment money should be used on projects that have been sidelined by the Jefferson deal, including the city’s first-time homebuyers’ program, the facade improvement program and the seismic upgrade loan program. Plus, he noted, there’s talk that Governor Jerry Brown wants to eliminate local redevelopment agencies altogether.
The bottom line is that neither Newman, Brady nor Madsen fully trust the WCG. The group’s enthusiasm is laudable, Madsen said. “I don’t want to belittle that in any way, shape or form. But they aren’t an entity that we can work with at this particular point in time.” Brady doubled down on that, suggesting that the previous council’s approval was based on little more than hope. “I mean, it was like, ‘Yeah, we think this is a good idea. We think the city should buy this.’ But there was no plan in place,” she said. “I guess they were just optimistic. They were just hoping that everything would work out.”
The WCG disputes that, saying they have a solid plan to finance the project, including renovation and maintenance, but Newman remains dubious. “That’s a wing and a prayer,” he said. “It’s not guaranteed.”
If, in the wake of the new council’s actions, there’s a prevailing mood among members of the WCG, it’s somewhere between flabbergasted and irate. Heidi Benzonelli, the group’s informal spokeswoman, put none too fine a point on this sentiment at the Dec. 7 council meeting. “I feel like I just got a shotgun leveled at me,” she said in response to Newman’s comments. His underlying implication — that the group was just a fly-by-night assemblage of starry-eyed dreamers — was a slap in the face, she said. “I’m educated. I’m professional. … I’ve spent hundreds and hundreds of hours on this. I have a Plan A, a Plan B, a Plan C.” She paused and took a breath. “I don’t like to come up here and speak in anger, but I’m angry.”
That anger hadn’t faded much by last week when nine members of the group — just “the core” of roughly 60 altogether, they said — came to the Journal offices to tell their side of things. Despite reminders from Benzonelli to “stay positive,” the group’s collective indignation was such that few sentences were allowed to finish before a fellow WCG member interrupted with more tales of civic effrontery.
Richard Evans, a longtime WCG member (and sometime author of the Journal‘s “Art Beat” column), echoed Benzonelli’s point. “There doesn’t seem to be a belief that in the neighborhood there are people who have talents, who have education, who can seek funding and grants, who can do things. I mean, we have proven this again and again,” he said.
Over the past two-and-a-half years the WCG has undertaken a variety of projects in service to their banner objective: “Fight neighborhood blight.” The property may appear run down, they said, but it would be far worse off without the group’s maintenance, cleanup and security efforts (the latter in cooperation with the Eureka Police Department). Last year they decided to enact an “adopt-a-window” program, and in short order they gathered enough pledges at $100 apiece to replace every broken pane in the building. (Like many other efforts, they said, this one was ultimately thwarted. Eureka City Schools told them that the building couldn’t be modified while in escrow.)
On top of all that, they said, the group has worked tirelessly with city staff to line up tenants and financing despite missed grant deadlines and tenant bail-outs caused by the seemingly endless bureaucratic delays. WCG member and former Eureka planning commissioner Ron Kuhnel — who lost to Newman last November by 183 votes, with more than a thousand other votes going to fellow progressive/WCG member Xandra Manns — said the new council’s calls for guarantees are unreasonable. “The only things guaranteed are death and taxes,” he said. “Everything else, to some degree, is a leap of faith based upon probability and credibility.”
The WCG feels they’ve established that credibility. In response to the new council’s skepticism, Benzonelli enlisted the services of Michigan-based Sigma Financial Corporation to reassess the project’s feasibility given the current conditions and the latest list of proposed tenants, who include the Red Cross, the Humboldt Literacy Project, a local food production company and, most importantly, Fuente Nueva, a publicly funded Spanish-immersion charter school currently located in Arcata.
If Fuente Nueva could commit to becoming a tenant it would resolve many of the stated concerns of Newman, Brady and Madsen. It would also allow the WCG to realize the key goal of their efforts: the return of children to Jefferson School. But Fuente Nueva’s administrators weren’t quite prepared to be caught up in a political maelstrom. Charter Director Beth Wylie told the Journal via e-mail on Friday that the school’s board of directors was set to meet this Tuesday, and she’s hopeful that they’ll approve a letter of intent toward becoming a tenant.
That’s still no guarantee of fiscal soundness. Nor is the WCG’s claim, which they made to the Journal, that they’ve received a pledge for a $100,000 donation from an unnamed private donor. Nor, for that matter, is the report that Benzonelli commissioned from Sigma Financial, which suggests two possible financing methods for the project — traditional financing, whereby the city retains ownership of the land and the facilities, or a third-party lease agreement, in which the city would own the land while another party (say, a nonprofit) assumes responsibility for the building’s development, renovation, maintenance and tenant management.
Is this latest batch of homework enough to establish credibility in the eyes of the new council? Val Martinez thinks it should be. She’s executive director of the Redwood Community Action Agency, one of several local nonprofits that have worked with the WCG. “To me it looks like a sound business model,” Martinez said. “They’ve been working for the last two and a half years with the city, the redevelopment agency staff and city planning staff to bring this to fruition. I would hope and I would encourage the new City Council to give them every opportunity to succeed.“
City Manager David Tyson, on the other hand, is withholding judgment. He said he’s familiar with third-party leases; the city has considered using them for several projects in the past. Still, he believes caution is appropriate. “I think the concern of the council is valid. We do have a tight budget,” he said. City staff is in the process of gathering more data, including a new report from SHN Consulting and an analysis of maintenance costs under the worst-case scenario (that is, assuming the WCG and/or the new tenants can’t take care of it as promised). The city is also making inquiries of potential grant sources, as is the WCG, Fuente Nueva and local nonprofits.
Whichever way the council ultimately votes on this issue, their decision will likely be interpreted as a sign of what’s to come over the next four years. Like Atkins, the members of the WCG suspect dirty dealing. They believe the Jefferson School site to be worth far more than the $600,000 price tag, especially if it were to be subdivided and turned into apartments. Should the new councilmembers reverse the decision of their predecessors, many will interpret it as proof that an invisible hand is pulling strings for the enrichment of a select few. “My biggest fear is that this is just the tip of the iceberg,” said Kuhnel. “For people who live across the street [from Jefferson School] this seems like the end of the world. It’s not. But what it portends is maybe bigger than people realize.”
Newman, Brady and Madsen, meanwhile, will argue that the vote was in line with their campaign promises (or implied promises in the case of Madsen, who ran unopposed) to practice fiscal prudence. Interviews with all three councilmembers suggest that they’re strongly inclined to go in that direction. If they do it seems unlikely that the West Side will welcome College of the Redwoods, in which case the search for a buyer will start again from scratch.
All the while, Jefferson School remains empty.
This article appears in The Council that Kicked the Hornets’ Nest.
I know Greg Pierson once spoke of acquiring that property, applying for a zoning change, then subdivide and develop. The analysis concluded that such a scenario would be very profitable.
This proposal still may be possible given the newly elected council.
Moot issue without the State redevelopment funds WCG was counting on.
That was a great article, Ryan. Excellent job.
I wonder about the maintenance budget at CR and their track record. I notice that the three council members in favor of killing the neighborhood plan seem to assume that CR has a stellar record of maintanence for the properties it owns. It doesn’t. One of their maintenance men said that they currently have $25 million in deferred maintenance projects on their main campus. So, why would they treat Jefferson School any differently if THEY acquired it?
Linda Atkins is right, this stinks. And it appears there may be Brown Act violations if three council members are making policy decisions outside of council meetings.
How can the Brown Act be enforced?
This “neighborhood group” claims it is “educated” and experienced but none of them has ever been involved in any organization that has attempted anything like this.
Their “studies” and reports are amateurish at best. It included forecasts of annual rent of $215,000 a fall off your chair laughing amount.
Then this group walks out in a huff & disrupts a city council meeting in progress because they met some resistence. They accuse all the council members who merely question the wisdom of this move, of breaking the law.
There is no money to even purchase this building much less the millions to fix it up. There are no real plans for what to do with the building (hint; you better take a closer look at that charter school folks!). There are no tenants committed.
The WCG is all hat & no cattle. Their immature response to tough questions proves that.
Your criticisms of the WCG have nothing to do with the fact that the Brown Act might have been broken. Who would would one go to for an investigation about this possible violation of State law?
According to news sources, redevelopment projects which have already been approved will be funded. This includes Jefferson School.
It is disgusting for Linda Atkins & others to make the charge that three city council members broke the law.
You have no proof of any kind. No facts to back up your charges. The mere fact you don’t agree with them does not give you the right to make that charge.
The fact is, Newman, Brady, Madsen & maybe, hopefully, Ciarbolini do not like this purchase is because all people with good common fiscal sense know this is a terrible idea.
Neal and “Yes, But” – please enlighten us as to how the Brown Act was violated.
How exactly were “policy decisions” made outside of council meetings? They may have a strong opinion about whether or not the city should use funds on this project, but again, Neal, how does this violate the Brown Act?
Let’s put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Let’s say the voters elected you to a seat on the Eureka City Council, and the same Church with the same Cell tower aspirations came before the council – only this time, you, Neal are a Councilmember – are you going tell me you didn’t already have your mind made up about that one?
Hells, bells, lets take it a step further – Linda Atkins and Larry Glass both stood in front of the church with anti cell tower signs before the issue was brought before the council. Brown Act violation? Nahh, I don’t think so, but neither is Newman, Brady and Madsen having strong opinions about the proposed school purchase.
I think the Brown act allegations are related to discussions Newman & Madsen admitting having with CR exec’s outside of the council chambers. Nothing to do with any preconceived opinions, just that such negotiations with CR should have happened in open view.
But, by all means, please continue your meaningless rant
A “meaningless rant” would be the Jeffersonistas, lead by Heidi Benzonelli saying they have everything all lined out, yet not providing any specifics. Then saying it over and over again, as if repeating this mantra would make it magically so.
Sorry to burst your bubble there, JJ, but there is no Brown Act violation in having a private conversation.
If multiple council members had conversations outside of a meeting, with CR board members about this, well then, padnah, that’d be a Brown Act violation. This – not so much.
You don’t think Larry Glass had conversations with his buds at CREG? Sheesh, when the shoes on the other foot it doesn’t feel quite so good, does it?
How about Linda Atkins meeting with those who opposed the cell towers “outside of the council chambers”?
Hank absolutely NAILS it in his exchange with Neal Latt on the RREDC thread:
“But you do no one a service — yourself least of all — if you sort of willfully avoid thinking through the conundrum. American politics is riddled through with bullshit, I think you will agree. To what degree am I obliged to play along with it?
Leave aside my very strong suspicion that if the shoe were on the other foot — that if it were one of your candidates who had been popped — that your response would be quite different.”
There are lots of things that we would all like the govenmnent to do for us. It is a moot point, though. Right now, we just cannot afford to go through with this project. It is a risk that we can’t take. That’s the bottom line.
The anonymous hypocrite “decorum” (above) feigns shock about Linda Atkins et al claiming “that three city council members broke the law,” and then goes on to claim that “all people with good common fiscal sense know [Jefferson School purchase] is a terrible idea.” Where’s the “decorum” in that?
Well, I suppose I’d like to have specifics as exactly how three members broke the law, Joel.
I would like this project to succeed. I just don’t think the financial resources are there.
I ask of Heidi or any WCG member:
Simply provide a link to plan A, B or C.
And to Ms. Atkins:
You are offensive when ranting about council members being bought and paid for. Why not just come on out and say that you think Rob A has designs on the site? And spent buttloads on campaigns to get there.
Silly progs.
No JJ, the fact that Newman and Madsen may have talked with C/R is NOT a Brown Act violation. Jeff Marsee himself could talk with all five council members as long as he did it one at a time or at least no more than two at a time.
Individual council members can talk to who they wish as long as THREE board members do not talk among themselves about a specific policy decision.
Everything must seem simple to “Easy Solutions,” and the other slavishly unoriginal clowns who calls people “progs.”
Nevertheless Joel, he has a very good idea. Let Heidi provide a link where we can take a look at her secret plans. What little she told us at the Herald was very poor & scary in its assumptions.
Common Sense was also correct when he said that Linda Atkins & the others who accused the other council members of breaking the law were extremely offensive. There are no grounds at all for making the spurrious charge. All the other council members did was disagree with Linda, Heidi and her little group.
High Finance, you’re typing with your ass. There is no such rule expressed or implied. You are a career troll who in every single instance demonstrates an ideological double standard. YOU are part of the problem with politics in general.
“Let Heidi provide a link…”
I think that she’s done enough work on behalf of the community. How about critics of the plan get off their very loud asses and “provide a link.”
Troll Detector knows nothing about the Brown Act evidently.
Joel, I think it’s incumbent upon Heidi and the Neighborhood group to provide the links – they are the ones saying the funding is there. I hope she’s right.
The thing that jumps out at me from the article is the fact that the group has not formed a 501c3 yet. I hope that is remedied soon – then they can go out and write and solicit grants.
BTW, there aren’t many out there right now – cdbg grants are drying up right now.
Wrong, P. Nowhere is it written that more than two…er…three?…er…maybe three at the most? members can’t get together and discuss life as we know it. What nitpicky shit to even pretend so. It totally blurs necessary focus. This whole thing is sad beyond my wanting to participate. A perfeclty good piece of property that could really benefit the area and people fighting over the usual while it falls apart. GIVE the damn building away for crying out loud.
I don’t see how it’s “incumbent upon” anyone to make information a click away for P’s convenience. Again, I would say how about critics of the plan get off their very loud asses and “provide a link.”
There has to be a “plan” for there to be a “link”. See how that works Joel ? Maybe and wishing are not plans, sorry.
Thanks TDetector for proving the point that you know absolutely nada about the Brown Act.
Joel – it’s simple, really – Heidi and the neighborhood group say there is a sound fiscal plan that will sway critics. They haven’t provided one.
Critics would like to see it.
Those on the fence would like to see it.
Hell, they don’t need to provide it, and guess what – the purchase will be stopped.
That’s why Heidi and her group need to provide specifics. See how that works? See why it’s incumbent upon them to change minds?
It’s not for my “convenience”; in order to win the hearts and mind of this council, they need to provide a bit of proof that this project is viable. They have not done so.
It would be nice to have an actual conversation with you, Joel, but it seems you are more interested in trying to get off a snarky rejoinder, and in doing so, you’re reading comprehension takes a nose dive.
Perhaps you can ‘toon that one and poke fun at your inner luddite.
You’re a “brown act”, P…if you were a member of the board of anything, addressing you would be like talking to a wall covered with protocol documents. That area should be a park, community garden…something for the people to enhance the area. I witnessed the Oakland board of supervisoers in action in the 90’s, they had plenty of jefferson school’s to work with. Same thing…bla bla bla bulldoze.
As it’s going, come ten years the site will have been leveled, multi-residential buildings will be in and/or the usual mix of insurance brokers and a minimart etc….as usual. Development money will have weaseled it’s way into the growing lameness. Anybody wanna bet on it?
Ohhhhhh, very witty, there TD, lmao.
C’mon now, TD, you’re the one crying foul vis a vis the Brown Act, and well, gosh – bullshits been called, and you are the one covered in it.
Methinks perhaps you need a lesson in comprehension as well. I think it would be great for the neighborhood group to succeed – but TELL ME – where are the funds to do it?
What are the specifics?
Nobody can answer this, least of all the Troll, TrollDetector, becuase there are not any.
Troll Detector, 11.24pm. Your nastiness not withstanding, you simply know nothing about the Brown Act.
It is obvious that you are one of the immature idiots in Heidi’s group that is causing her to lose support fast.
Joel, it is Heidi that claims she has a great plan that will make the city a ton of money. Since she is the one that is making the claim in order to convince the council to spend $600,000 now (& potentially millions later), it is her responsibility to back up her claims.
I believe her refusal to make it available is because she knows it is not viable.
Give me the green light, I’ll go there tomorrow and start installing raised beds for a community garden. I’ll remove the fence, set up benches, organize people to take care of the place, let kids use the playground etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. while everybody babbles until it’s bulldozed.
P and High Finance…demonstrate your wisdom. Show us the almighty power of your knowledge…carve it in digital stone. What’s the property going to look like in ten years? I’ve told you already…leveled and stacked with more of the same. Nothing for the community. What do you knowitalls think?
Gee, that’s great Troll Detector – that is really admirable. Have at it.
However, tell me where the funds are going to come from to pay for the loans that will need to be taken out to pay for improvements?
Where is the plan that shows exactly how operational costs will be paid for?
Who’s going to pay for the liability insurance on the playground that you’ve set up?
Surely you won’t be personally liable for any of this.
Once again, your comprehension skills are for shit. They suck. Once again, I think the neighborhood vision is a great vision; it’s just too bad that nobody seems to have an idea as to how to pay for it.
But, if you need dragons to slay, by all means, prop up your strawman and have at it.
Just like talking to a wall. The money’s going to come from yo mama’s hookin’, where else. You’re a nimrod with the variable cognizance of kelp.
Sooo…what do YOU think the property is going to look like in ten years? Let’s see what you THINK, not what you claim to know.
http://tinyurl.com/35ob2we
“The money’s going to come from yo mama’s hookin’, where else. ”
So in other words, you have no fucking idea how to pay for this. MMkay. Gotcha.
What do I think the property will look like in ten years? I think it will continue to look just like it does now, only more rundown, given the condition of the state and local economies. Not too far fetched, given the school has been closed since 2005.
I sincerely hope that TD is not part of the neighborhood group, but sadly, I suspect he or she is, especially given the childish nature of the group stomping out of the council meeting when Newwwwwwmann!! raised concerns about – how the city would pay for the this.
Once again, dipshit, I think this is a good project. It’s just too bad nobody can provide any specifics on how its costs will be covered.
Humboldt is enough of a microcosm, surrounded by at least 150 miles of nothing in all directions, that we’re more capable here than anywhere else in the state to completely revolutionize the way local government supposedly has to deal with public beneficiaries like parks and rec etc. Insurance? FUCK insurance. Tell whoever’s going to mandate that to move to Bakersfield. Let the world watch as Humboldt County falls under martial law with storm troopers herding citizens into pay booths…because we figured out and agreed upon a way to have free parks. It could be that simple. Like I said, it’s beyond sad. The reality of the pointless beaurocracy and neverending paper shuffling, that you recognize as well, has become carved into most peoples’ brains as absolute, but it’s as arbitrary as the rules to any game.
This chart explains it better than I can:
http://tinyurl.com/8w7hmq
“Insurance? FUCK insurance.”
Tell that to the parents of the first kid who breaks an arm at the insurance free park.
“because we figured out and agreed upon a way to have free parks.”
You haven’t figured out bupkiss, TD. The parks are not free. There is a purchase price involved, as well as maintenance, upkeep, and, yes – Insurance!
But, “FUCK” all that, right?
If you are advocating this as a part of the neighborhood group, you are its own worst enemy.
Jeebus fuggin crisco…no kidding hte parks are not free. Excuse me while I quickly research and write my dissertation on how to reorganize local funding and I’ll get right back to you. You’re a real revolutionary thinker. Yes, FUCK insurance. There is no kid with a broken arm but the one you just hypothesized. Is that too meta for you? No, I’m not part of the neighborhood group…and for the sake of everybody who wants to see some real change go down sooner rather than much much later, I hope you’re not part of anything other than blogging. Good night, Pee…I’m done trolling you.
Wow. Just Wow.
No, I’m no revolutionary thinker, I just want to know how this thing is gonna be funded; you, on the other and ARE some kind of revolutionary thinker.
To Wit: at 653 you say the parks are free.
at 714 say the parks are not free (right
answer, btw).
And if the City were to fund this puppy, your “FUCK insurance” notwithstanding, insurance coverage would be required – cause, ya know – sooner or that kid and her broken arm won’t be a hypothetical.
Sheesh, whadda maroon!
How would CR have the money to buy this building when they are going broke?? They have cut classes to ridiculously low levels!! Some people have to wait more than one semester to get the last class for their degrees! I think CR needs to focus on what they already have and not take on a building that needs tons of repairs. I have heard plenty of comments from some of the Cr staff about the president and his mistakes, maybe someone else needs to take control…
You’ve got to be kidding me. NCJ, when are you going to do something to fix the comment section. This is rediculous. It degreades to namecalling and playground arguing far too often. It’s not fun, productive, or intelligent.
Also, it might be a good idea to have consistent contributors to the NCJ avoid entering into the back and forth banter and namecalling too. Seriously.
I’ve enjoyed the last couple months of the Journal and the coverage but the comment section really affects the image. It needs to be fixed and put in check. There are a lot of people like me who would love to get involved in it but not if its like this.
Thank you to the above writer for stating my exact thoughts. I’d love to share more, but not in the midst of the above immature debate.
To the two non-respondents above…
If I’m talking too loud, perhaps turn down your computer speakers. If my text is taking up too much space, maybe move some furniture out of the way. Sorry, I sometimes forget the internet exists entirely in the comfort of YOUR living room…and that the only way to discuss matters is while sipping a martini in a tuxedo near a stuffed moose head trophy.
Seriously though…if you want to discuss something, try. Maintain a specific correspondence with somebody, scroll right on past what you don’t want to read. You’d be surprised how well that works. Otherwise, in my humble opinion, you’re complaining about the stupidest thing in the world to complain about. Lighten up and speak your peace!
Funny how those demanding to see the books on the Jefferson plan will continue sending millions in taxpayer subsidies to one of the richest private clubs in town, (Eureka Chamber of Commerce), with ZERO public access to its books, for a service easily deferred to the Visitor’s Bureau.
No, it’s the true Luddites who dictate that Jefferson will NEVER be a school again while shoveling $600,000 a year to a zoo.
Bread and circuses…
Oh my goodness, what a strawman that is, Hilarious.
I most certainly do NOT want the City to be giving one dime to the Chamber in these harsh economic times, nor do I support funding the zoo – if the zoo is to be funded it should be put to a county wide vote for a parcel assesment.
Sorry I don’t fit in your little box there, Hilarious.
It’s only funny to you that we want to see “the books on the Jefferson plan”, because as its been stated ad nauseum here, the Jeffersonistas have claimed that they have a financial plan that works, yet have not yet disclosed it.
“My little box” was a fully-attended public school in a deserving neighborhood.
It is well-known that private businesses and organizations face huge risks in revealing their intentions. It’s why the N.C. Coop told members NOTHING about their plan to expand and partner with Arkley, until the deal was done.
Requiring working families to hold bake-sales to retain their elementary school property, while the wealthiest members of this community loot millions in public subsidies, is disgusting. An irony that deserves the outrage and focus from a typically negligent “community media”.
Calling the struggling victims in this neighborhood Jeffersonistas is purely sadistic.
Heidi does not even live in the neighborhood anymore. She lives out on Campton, in the County.
Heidi deserves even more credit for still caring about the old neighborhood. I wonder what the bellyaching MMM does for his community, or any community for that matter.
My point is Joel, that it sure is easy to spend other peoples’ money, as Heidi is doing here.
I wonder when Joel will actually post something that is productive and not a smart ass retort, in this forum, or any forum for that matter.
Your point, MMM, was poorly made. And any public endeavor spends “other peoples’ money,” so why don’t you grow up and debate the merits of the proposal?
Joel,
It is impossible to debate to merits of the proposal as we do not have the whole picture; how can we? The neighborhood group has yet to divulge any financial specifics.
Why don’t YOU grow up and try and write an entire post without being an asshole.
Would “the whole picture” make a difference to someone like MMM?
Sorry for saying “Silly progs”.
The Brown Act is administred through the Office of the Attorney General of the State of California. State and District Attorneys General are responsible for enforcement, however, there are no real punitive damages for violations, which are easily corrected. The official Brown Act pamphlet is available at the website, along with other useful information regarding open meetings laws (http://ag.ca.gov/open_meetings/) and all public officials and trusteees should receive a copy of the pamphlet and training from their agency’s attorney, as soon as possible after they take the oath of office. You can read the Brown Act pamphlet and determine if a violation has or has not happened. Any meeting to discuss board or committee decisions privately and come to a mutual agreement on the matter outside of the open and formal meeting, is a violation under the Act. Also, serial meetings, in person, by telephone or email, whereby individuals meet and confer with each other, or one at a time with the chair, to arrive at agreement or understanding on a decision or course of action, is also a violation. Recourse of public citizens is to the local districts attorney general. If that does not resolve the matter, there are civil and criminal penalties outlined in the Brown Act handbook linked above.