Monday, December 03, 2007

Well said, Mr. Morris. w/update

Pat Higgins arrogant statements following the recent election were only topped by those of the triumphant Moneykee--- I mean "Baykeeper" Pete Nichols. HIs declaration of a mandate for his candidate, and his not-so-thinly-veiled threats to local politicians who endorsed Charles Ollivier - that they better get on his bandwagon or else did not go unnoticed. Now one candidate is speaking out.

Oil spill column was all wet

Pete Nichols wrote a recent Forum article titled “Reflections on the San Francisco oil spill.” Mr. Nichols really used his article to trash the elected officials in our county rather than teach us something new about the environment of the Humboldt Bay.

First, the more I read, hear and learn about Humboldt Baykeeper, the more I realize that they are a political group disguised as environmentalists. I know this because I am a guy who used to belong to the Sierra Club.

Win or lose an election, most candidates gracefully thank their supporters and the other candidates for a well-run race that helped to bring out the issues to the voters (that last part is called good sportsmanship). Although Mr. Nichols was not running for office, a candidate he supported was running. During that election, Mr. Nichols and his supporters wrote and said whatever they wanted, but that was not enough. Now, Mr. Nichols comes out after the election and further trashes the former incumbent and other elected officials as if they were responsible for the recent San Francisco Bay oil spill. He implied that it is incumbent Commissioner Ollivier’s kind of thinking that will eventually cause the same thing to happen here.

What? The incumbent losing the election wasn’t good enough for Mr. Nichols? He seems to have a need to keep blaming Mr. Ollivier and other officials for action they had nothing to do with. I’d say that’s bad sportsmanship.

Let’s just forget about the good service these elected men and women have given to our community in their efforts to create sustainable and consistent jobs. They do not agree 100 percent with the Humboldt Baykeeper political agenda, so let’s just work on getting anyone who even slightly disagrees with Baykeeper out of office.

It is my hope that Nichols and his newly elected candidate-elect will instead use this golden opportunity to work with those around them. This time, try working with all those who have a vested interest in the bay and the economy, and not just your agenda. Do not use this time you been given to point fingers at others who do not agree with a “no-growth” policy for our community, and thereby continuing to further polarize residents of this community.

If this does not work for you, then perhaps, Mr. Nichols, you should try running for office yourself. Maybe that is what you are thinking about in any case. On the other hand, maybe you should stick with being Humboldt Baykeeper executive director and point fingers at others because from what I now know about your group, it is the only thing — besides suing those who disagree with you — that you seem to be good at.

Let me be the first to say that you and your candidate-elect have already made one mistake. You and he interpret the recent election results as a mandate from the people of Humboldt County to stop all development on the bay. I suggest you step back and take a good look at what happened in the election. If not, I think your newly elected candidate will find himself out of office in four years.

I further suggest that you and your candidate-elect take the time to learn to work with those other elected officials in and around the bay. If you do not, you may soon find that winning a skirmish (this month’s election) is not the same as winning the war (the future of the bay).

Lastly, Mr. Nichols, I personally worked very hard in the military overseas to protect your right and mine to freedom of speech. That freedom comes with responsibility and accountability to tell the truth and not to use scare tactics or, as your candidate did, promise the good people of this county something he will not be able to deliver.

by Steven Morris, 12/2/2007 (Steven Morris lives in Fortuna.)


Salzman/"Baykeeper's" blogger "heraldo" trashes Mr. Morris. Aside from "heraldo's" characterization of this as "sour grapes" - I don't see him disputing any of the statements Mr. Morris makes. What? Can you pretend Higgins/Baykeeper is for jobs? Working people? The Labor Unions all recognized the truth, and endorsed Higgins' opponent, longtime incumbent Charles Ollivier.
***
ER 12/8/2007 Port shipping feasibility report draws standing-room-only crowd
Also during Thursday’s meeting, commissioners and district staff honored outgoing Commissioner Charles Ollivier for his 16 years of service to the board.

Ollivier downplayed his personal contributions to the district, saying that his accomplishments had been a collaborative effort with staff that “helped make him look good.”

“It was a team effort all the way,” Ollivier said.

Ollivier, who spent 30 years on the waterfront as a longshoreman, was lauded by fellow commissioners for his unwavering passion and support of Humboldt County’s port, which he said he will never give up on.

44 comments:

  1. What has Pat done so far in his term that is so upsetting to you?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rose: I'd like hear why a government agency with a 10-year record of non-performance and a price tag in the high hundreds of millions of dollars is so appealing to a person such as yourself. I'm trying to understand this from all the angles, and yours is one I just don't get.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not all the unions endorsed Ollivier.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think Pat did a good job laying out the issues and even answering Mr. Morris's accusations on his web site.

    "By truly taking in to account the commercial, recreational and conservation elements of Humboldt Bay I believe that the District can help create a sustainable working port that is vital to our economy while protecting the environment and preserving our quality of life."


    "Increased Inter-Agency Cooperation
    I will bring my extensive experience with various state and federal funding and permitting agencies to increase the available opportunities to bring funding to our area for commercial, recreational and conservation projects to benefit us all."

    "Economic Development
    I will actively promote a diversity of sustainable economic opportunities around Humboldt Bay that are realistic and achievable. We need a sensible and balanced approach to development on Humboldt Bay that helps stimulate the economy and fits our environment."

    "Port Development
    I will work to expand infrastructure to support local shipping needs that are both feasible and desirable. Any development on Humboldt Bay must be done in a way as to protect the environment and our quality of life."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yup, he is for sure against jobs. Says so right there.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I posted this on my blog in response to another one of Mike Buettner's claim Pat Higgins is open-minded about port development.

    "It's in the talking points he shares with the anti-Arkley, anti-port development Luddites who's ideas of
    "economic development" include kayaking and eco-tourism so that any remembrance that Humboldt County is a timber production center is virtually forgotten. Under Higgins and Baykeeper types, Humboldt Bay will not be used as a human-oriented environment, but a place for birds on top and the limited environmental choices the present bay offers. Instead of seeing human beings as conscious agents of ecological stewardship of the bay with the aim of improving port facilities AND bay fishing by providing habitat for more bay species as a by-product of ecologically sound port development facilities, e.g. deeper channels to let more fish in and actually creating attractive habitat conditions for more fish species.

    The Luddite frame of mind, which is based on a political ideology, anti-corporate capitalism, wants always to shut down corporate capitalist enterprises where the owners look powerful enough to influence County politics away from the Progressive political agenda. Shutting down the timber industry, attempting to shut down Evergreen Pulp, attempting to shut down Arkley's development which serves the needs of mainstream community residents vs. establishing boutiques serving eco-tourists primarily and then of course, the back-up buyers, the local Progressive types who are used to such boutique businesses from places like the Bay Area."

    You see, Mike, I've had personal experience with Pat Higgins, seen him in action at HCDCC meetings, and I tell you honestly that Pat has a long long way to go to prove himself not a camp-follower of the Progressive activist cliques in Humboldt County. I feel sorry for the other Harbor Commissioners he is supposed to cooperate with. Hopefully, Pat will prove me wrong but at this time, the signs are clear that Pat's the Prog man in the Harbor Commission and so political war against port development will be the main focus of Harbor Commission meetings.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Deeper channels to let more fish in?

    ReplyDelete
  8. You can convince yourself of almost anything. It isn't hard. The bays polluted,our air quality is horrible,our oysters and crabs are poision,Pete isn't an opportunist he's a savior and Pats not out to lunch he's just an odd ball. There's a rainbow out I think I can fly!

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Deeper channels to let more fish in?"

    Lantern fish and giant deep sea clams.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, Hank, I don't know enough about the day to day operations of the bay to make a statement about the effectiveness of the Harbor Commission, but I'd say your view is a bit jaded.

    A 10 year record of non-performance? Really?

    Seems to me Robinson alone was working on quite a passel of projects.

    And if the long delays on harbor dredging are included in what you're saying - I'd ask you who is to blame for that?

    Higgins, armed with his "Baykeeper" talking points, talked about jobs declining under Charles Ollivier's 16 years of service - and I would ask you - who is to blame for that? Seems to me it is the result of the drastic decline in timber harvest/logging. And you sure can't blame the Harbor Commissioners for that. But you can lay some of the blame at the feet of the Salzman/Lovelace/Miller'HWC groups.

    Instead, what I heard from the Labor leaders who lined up behind Ollivier (at a pretty impressive press conference that had ONE ER reporter in attendance, meaning no one else cared enough to show up) - that Ollivier had been a long time advocate who helped LESSEN the blows dealt to the men who work the bay over the years.

    Ollivier's loss had more to do with the fact that he had "been there too long" than a "mandate" for Higgins. It seemed like Higgins was running for trail commissioner - a job that would probably pay more than the Harbor Commission.

    Higgins won, and instead of thanking the man who had served for so long, he started out trumpeting his victory as a mandate, but his disrespectful Op-Ed paled in comparison to Pete Nichols' piece.

    And make no mistake - it is a victory for "Baykeeper" who, with Salzman has an agenda in play - and it doesn't bode well for the bay.

    Just how much of that ill-gotten lawsuit money has "Baykeeper" spent on restoration? Ahhh, yes, a Boston Whaler for taking KPIX reporters on "bay tours" to slam the railroad and talk about pollution right before the election....

    While by nature I tend to favor the "throw the bums out" approach to government, until you get rid of the Salzman factor, I am in favor of keeping people in office, because until we can return to the day when we know people are running because they truly want to serve, we are setting ourselves up.

    Because all you have to do is read Eric's posts on the upcoming Supervisor race - he will support someone who will win over someone he thinks might be the best person, because it is about gaining power for progressives, not about serving the best interests of the community.

    Long answer, Hank - sorry. The short answer is I don't think you can blame the shortcomings of the Harbor District all on the commissioners.

    And as I have said before - in the past it has been a thankless job, an unnoticed elected position, with no money flowing into the campaigns, with those who ran funding their own campaigns, for the love of it.

    Not for the power. Not for an agenda.

    This time was different. Why? Because the predatory litigious "Baykeeper" needs to be able to "count to three" on that Commission.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So Hank says:

    "I'd like hear why a government agency with a 10-year record of non-performance and a price tag in the high hundreds of millions of dollars is so appealing to a person such as yourself. I'm trying to understand this from all the angles, and yours is one I just don't get."


    And Rose responds:

    "Because the Baykeeper supported Higgins... and Salzman stuff."

    ReplyDelete
  12. So Rose what has Pat done so far during his tenure that makes you despise him other than your disgust with some of his political affiliations?
    I mean Pat,personally.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I don't despise him.

    What's he done? It's more of a question of what will he do - say when the right thing to do goes against his "Baykeeper?"

    Right now he's just a guy who just got done running for Supervisor - whose given reason for that was that he didn't like Jill Geist's vote not to give Gallegos and Stoen their way when they wanted to hire Joe Cotchett to handle the Palco lawsuit.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Ollivier had been a long time advocate who helped LESSEN the blows dealt to the men who work the bay over the years"

    How?

    "it doesn't bode well for the bay."

    Again, how?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "I'd say your view is a bit jaded."

    By actual facts and research.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm guessing Higgins will find that there's more being done than he ever imagined.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The only reason labor backed Charles is because he was a past union worker. Not because of his performance. That was a nice gesture. Pat is not for no growth. He has witnessed what that has done. Rose, give him a chance.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Rose: I was referring to the railroad, not the Harbor District. That's the agency with a 10-year record of nonperformance.

    And as I have said before - in the past it has been a thankless job, an unnoticed elected position, with no money flowing into the campaigns, with those who ran funding their own campaigns, for the love of it.

    Not for the power. Not for an agenda.


    Oh, come now. You can't pretend that only the Blue Meanies "have an agenda."

    ReplyDelete
  19. Certainly the perceived agenda for both the Bay District and the NCRA has been lack of transparency.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ollivier was running for NCRA?

    Odd. I must not have been paying attention. I thought the race was for Harbor Commissioner, not trails commissioner, not NCRA.

    The NCRA was an appointment made by the Board of Sups, and as far as I know, Ollivier still sits in that seat. I'm sure Baykeeper will try to do something about that, won't they, Buettner? How will it be done?

    What's next? Nichols moving to Eureka to run against Hunter? How well funded will he be?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Yes, Ollivier was running for NCRA. Inasmuch as the long-odds bet he and the Harbor District have been making require an operational railroad to have a chance. Inasmuch as the Harbor District has been financially propping up the NCRA with your tax dollars and mine.

    See? "Agenda." In a democracy, everyone has one.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I suppose you can make that argument, Hank. In my art classes they used to have esoteric discussions about "what is red?" It was a pointless waste of time, in my opinion. But for the purpose of discussion we can agree "everyone has an agenda."

    Maybe what we're really talking about here is no the candidate's agendas, but the handler/supporter/endorsers/contributor's agendas - and they vary.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hank says everyone has agendas not just the blue meanies Hank would mother Teresa's agenda be a positive thing? Would you think Irans national agenda would be positive? I guess it all depends on perspective. If you're getting a cup of soup or help with your suitcase bomb. A little extreem,sure, but the question is valid even in local issues.

    ReplyDelete
  24. OK -- that's all I wanted with that. It would be nice, in the future, if everyone could agree to say "I don't like his agenda" instead of "He has an agenda."

    Because the phrase "He has an agenda," spoken sotto voce, seeks to make something sinister out of something that's kind of essential to democracy. He's in politics? Of course he has an agenda! Why else would I vote for him?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Guess that makes us different, Hank. I try to vote for people who don't have an agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "until we can return to the day when we know people are running because they truly want to serve, we are setting ourselves up"


    Quite the statement Rose... are you going on facts here?



    "Maybe what we're really talking about here is no the candidate's agendas, but the handler/supporter/endorsers/contributor's agendas - and they vary."


    I'd say that statement is as shallow as Eric Kirk's reasoning for supporting Clif. Actually probably shallower.

    You make little to no sense Rose.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "I try to vote for people who don't have an agenda."


    You better then join the majority of people and refuse to vote

    ReplyDelete
  28. Rose,I love it when they try to cut you down. It makes them look foolish and uninformed. As usual you are rational,well informed,and your point of view is well delievered. You even help Hank crawla bit out of the gutter. If you want to see real dumb opinion just skip right over heraldo

    ReplyDelete
  29. I don't get it. What's "an agenda"?

    ReplyDelete
  30. What was Salzman's agenda. Hank? Did he have one?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Sure he had one!

    Now my turn: Does Pacific Lumber have one?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Mr Sims:

    Of Course.

    Question One: WHAT IS Bonnie Neely's agenda?

    Question Two: Is Salzman's NEW agenda the same as Neely's?

    Question Three: Is Salzman leading the Baykeepers behind the scenes or is Nichols leading or is a third person pulling the strings?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Does Pacific Lumber have one?

    Heh. Yeah. I think it is called trying to stay in business.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Does Jill Geist have one?

    Maybe you should try "secret agenda." That would solve the problem, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  35. No. I don't think she does. Salzman thought she did, though.

    I don't think I gave been particularly sotto voce, Hank, when I have spoken about the predatory litigious Baykeeper having an agenda - and I think I have been pretty clear about what his and Salzman's agendas are. And getting to where they can "count to three" on various Boards and Commissions is a big part of it.

    You may disagree, but I think Gallegos is a pretty clear example of the fact that they don't care a whit about the day to day job of the positions they get people into, or the effect on the community when someone like Gallegos utterly destroys his office - losing your highly trained and experienced staff, losing grants for programs that are needed by the community... the litany is endless, and you have heard it all before.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Wrong! Of course Jill has an agenda! She'd tell you so, I hope!

    She wants to find a settlement on the Klamath, right? That's an item on her agenda.

    She wants to get Hoopa representation on HCOAG. That another item on her agenda.

    She's got plans and priorities and things she cares about and works to accomplish, right? That's her agenda.

    It's not a freakin' dirty word! Or it shouldn't be! That's all I'm saying!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ok, Hank. You win. Simply wishing to serve the public is an agenda.

    Now, how do you distinguish - - - - achhh, what's the point.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Fairs fair Hank but in the case of giest the agenda's a bit closer to the needs of a future cush job with some 117K annual state committee, alla cheesebro. now there's an agenda worthy of screwing all TPZ owners.

    ReplyDelete
  39. But a lot of those people "with an agenda" are simply wishing to serve the public. It's just that they're simply wishing to serve a segment of the public you happen to disagree with, politically.

    If you're searching for a term of abuse, you should try "hidden agenda" or "secret agenda." If those apply. Because to penalize someone for simply trying to accomplish something in a democracy ... hell, that's un-American!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hank +1

    Rose -1

    ReplyDelete
  41. Shall we agree the same applies to 'bias'?

    ReplyDelete
  42. I'm not sure what you're getting at, but sure, why not?

    ReplyDelete
  43. ER 12/8/2007 Port shipping feasibility report draws standing-room-only crowd
    Also during Thursday’s meeting, commissioners and district staff honored outgoing Commissioner Charles Ollivier for his 16 years of service to the board.

    Ollivier downplayed his personal contributions to the district, saying that his accomplishments had been a collaborative effort with staff that “helped make him look good.”

    “It was a team effort all the way,” Ollivier said.

    Ollivier, who spent 30 years on the waterfront as a longshoreman, was lauded by fellow commissioners for his unwavering passion and support of Humboldt County’s port, which he said he will never give up on.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are closed for the time-being.