Tuesday, April 10, 2007

How much do they want?

The predatory litigious "Baykeeper" is threatening another lawsuit. That means they want "go-away" money. How many millions do they want? How many "environmental" ambulance chasers do they have working on this?

Where does "Baykeeper's" money come from? Go-away money from another predatory lawsuit filed by the predatory parent, the "Ecological Rights Foundation." How much of the money they extorted is actually going back into cleaning up the Bay? Oh, they bought Pete Nichols a new boat so that he could patrol the Bay looking out for "v-i-o-l-a-t-i-o-n-s." And take possible donors out on Bay "tours." Nice. Got a nice phonebooth office in Old Town, too. Must be time for a new cash infusion.

Baykeeper to sue over SN project
Baykeeper threatens suit over Balloon Tract road work

Related:
The agenda - Richard's List

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Someone must be held accountable. It must be a 2007 somebody with a bank account. When toxic issues come up on the island in the bay will a 2007 someone be held accountable?

Anonymous said...

Besides possible go away money - since the Coastal Commission has stopped the work - what is the lawsuit trying to accomplish? I am truly confused.

Rose said...

Word is that Team Salzman member Andrea Davis (conveniently environmental something or other for the Tribe) felt safe - protected by the "friendly" "Baykeeper" assured that he had a different target in mind, and would turn a blind eye to the toxins (read Dioxin) she was sitting on.

As I said before, "Baykeeper's" mission statement oozes with piety, because professing to care about the Bay sounds so much better than the true mission - "We're here to sue the shit out of Red Emmerson and Rob Arkley, who are the deepest pockets we can find."

Taken in concert with Salzman's constant drip, Greg King's new not-kinder-and-gentler-NEC's new round of attacks, the wolves have surrounded the prey and are going for the jugular.

Anonymous said...

hey there was someone actually in the office today and they had an open sign in the window. first time I've seen that.

Anonymous said...

Holy shit - I just found out the the supposed "road building" was actually "road maintenance." As a person who has advocated for protecting the environment all my life I am offended by these litigator types that only want to get their name in the press and don't care how they do it. If Nichols thinks that placing gravel over an existing road to level it is road building, he needs a lobotomy and some old fashion common sense.

Rose said...

What'll be interesting is tracking the nitpicky obstructionist tactics thrown up as road blocks every single step of the way on Arkley's project because they hate Arkley, and the lack thereof on the EcoHostel project, for which they will beg for constant public funding, and exemptions from the very types of cleanup they so strongly advocate in this case.

Anonymous said...

Has there been requests to make environmental exemptions for the Ecohostel project Rose?

Do you have any links?

Thanks

Rose said...

No links. Last thing I saw was a letter to the editor in The Journal, and letters are not available online. It's not an issue I am following, except with bemused exasperation at the contrasts in attitudes towards the two projects, one perceived as politically correct and the other under attack. Both of which I support in general.

Anonymous said...

Contamination confirmed at old lumber mill site
Report says dioxins may have traveled through the soil

John Driscoll
THE TIMES- STANDARD

EUREKA — A consultant for the Simpson Timber Co. has found an area next to the com pany’s old plywood mill off Del Norte Street is heavily contami nated with the potent carcinogen dioxin.

A byproduct of a now-banned wood preservative containing pen tachlorophenol, the dioxins are present at their highest levels in a ditch not far from a booth where the chemical was sprayed on lum ber. The Geomatrix report said the dioxins might have moved to the ditch in runoff or migrated through the soil, and recom mended further removal efforts.

The site has undergone cleanup before. In 2003, after tests showed pentachlorophenol contamina tion, Simpson removed 1,900 tons of material from the site as called for by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.

In 2005, the environmental group Humboldt Baykeeper tested sediment in the drainage ditch and found high levels of dioxins. Later that year, the group sued Simpson — which no longer owns the property — the current owner Preston Properties, the North Coast Railroad Authority and SHN Consulting Engineers for alleged federal Clean Water Act violations.

Geomatrix’s most recent round of testing roughly confirmed Bay keeper’s findings, and in some cases found higher levels of dioxin in shallow sediment.

Rose said...

Yes, Thank You Richard. Now how much do they want? - "MONeyKeePer" I mean...

Anonymous said...

Rose, I assume that what they want if for the dioxin contamination to be cleaned up plus, presumably, court costs and attorney fees. Do you have any factual basis for your assertion that they are driven by money? Do you have any data to show whether environmental litigation, in general, is a winner or a loser, financially? My guess is that environmental and public interest organizations generally loose much more on litigation than they ever recover. The goal is compliance with the law. Is that a bad thing? Sometimes litigation is simply the necessary means to obtain that compliance.

Rose said...

Really? Turn that question around. The so-called "Ecological Rights Foundation" walked away with HOW MUCH? Wasn't it $700,000.00 or $800,000.00? And HOW MUCH has gone back into the bay?

And how much does "ERF's" spawn, the predatory litigious "Baykeeper" hope to rake in in go-away money for this lawsuit they are threatening?