Interesting turn

◼ Coastal Commission director says Marina Center lawsuits are frivolous
The executive director of the California Coastal Commission responded Thursday to a pair of lawsuits challenging the commission's authority to hear an appeal of a preliminary cleanup plan for the proposed Marina Center development, calling the suits “frivolous.”

The Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing the freshly formed Citizens for a Better Eureka, and the project developer both recently filed lawsuits in Humboldt County Superior Court alleging that the commission overstepped its legal authority.

The suits center around the commission's Dec. 10 decision to hear an appeal of a coastal development permit issued by the city of Eureka. The permit cleared the way for CUE VI, a subsidiary of Security National, to begin a preliminary clean up of the contaminated Balloon Track property.

The property, which sits at the foot of Eureka's downtown commercial district off of Waterfront Drive, is the site of a former rail yard, and CUE VI is proposing to turn it into a 43-acre mixed use development that will include retail, office and residential space, as well as an 11-acre wetland reserve.

Proponents of the cleanup and the developer allege in the lawsuits that the Coastal Commission had no authority to take up the appeal. Supporters argue that the commission can't legally take an action that runs counter to a water quality ruling made by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. The board had approved the cleanup plan -- known as a supplemental interim remedial action plan -- before it came to the City Council.

They further argue that the commission has no jurisdiction over the city's power to abate a public nuisance, which the property was officially labeled when the city issued the coastal development permit in November.

Calling the commission's intervention a “flagrant abuse of power” and charging that it puts public safety at risk, Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Damien Schiff said Tuesday that the commission's only legal obligation is to “butt out.”

On Thursday, commission Executive Director Peter Douglas said simply that he thinks CUE VI and the Pacific Legal Foundation have no case.

”We totally disagree with them,” Douglas said in a phone interview. “I think it's a frivolous lawsuit, but it's typical. It's what we see all the time from the Pacific Legal Foundation.

”Clearly, we have jurisdiction,” Douglas continued, “but if they want to waste public resources ... they have a right to go to court. That's kind of the nature of our system.”
******

Yeah. It is pretty sad that it has come to this. It's even sadder that the predatory litigious groups who have led us to this point are continually brought in to important issues like the Klamath Agreement and the MLPA as "stakeholders." Then after sitting at the table participating in the negotiations that result in an agreement, they turn around and sue anyway.

What's sad is that those same predatory litigious groups are allowed to make their living extorting 'go-away' money from businesses up and down the state, and around the nation.

In this case, the target, Rob Arkley, has taken a stand and refused to pay the protection money. It's gotten ugly.

And this time, a citizens's group has arisen to fight the multi-headed groups of the EPIC/ERF/Paykeeper sort. Even using their own weapon of choice. A lawsuit.

It's sad.
******

◼ from the comments:
reader said Fisrt(sp) of all why doesn't Peter Douglas's name appear within the first paragraph so he can receive the name recognition he deserves.

Secondly why is the executive director opening his mouth regarding pending litigation.

Thirdly Mister Douglas states: "Clearly, we have jurisdiction," Douglas continued, "but if they want to waste public resources ... they have a right to go to court. That's kind of the nature of our system."

Well now there is an accurate statement: "but if they want to waste public resources..."

Mister Douglas was merely projecting HIS reality. The California Coastal Commission has been wasting public resources since 1972.

They have become an out of control behemoth.

Mister Douglas must feel threatened by the PLF's action. Otherwise he would have kept his mouth shut like he should as an executive director of a quasi-public agency.

Kamikaze says
ACE wrote: The biggest mistake Arkley et al made with this project is they tailored a clean-up to suit the development. If they had just characterized the site correctly, separated the clean-up, and then unveiled the plans for the development they would have had an easier time with the coastal commission. The phased nature and "customizing" the clean-up around the big-box etc., was doomed from the beginning. As much as I'd like to see the property developed, CUE IV is going to lose this one. Too Bad.
I disagree. His biggest mistake was to let Pierson pay Neely more money than he did.
Penny wise, pound foolish.

Quote of the day - Can't resist

Polar opposite views - Gotta love the dueling headlines:
◼ Quote of the day The Humboldt Mirror
◼ Quote of the day The Humboldt Herald
And the funny thing is it's the crowd on heraldo who, not so long ago, was "balls to the wall" out to get Bonnie Neely.
◼ Dozens turn out for Marina Center lawsuit announcement

...”They're no strangers to issues of jurisdiction -- they've been challenged in the past -- but, I'll leave it up to counsel for the coastal commission to comment on the lawsuit,” (Bonnie) Neely said before turning her attention to the attorneys representing the local citizens group. “The Pacific Legal Foundation is a Sacramento special interest group funded by big oil and tobacco companies, and I don't think anybody in Humboldt County trusts them to clean up a toxic site.”...

Just a Sacramento "special interest group" - once again the Orwellian turn of phrase, that odd Bizarro Superman juxtaposition. WHO is the "special interest group" here? Why, it is the ones you have aligned with, the predatory litigious groups.

Either way it is going to be interesting to see this play out - what I am looking for is how they explain the "special interest" enviro groups filing suit one day, and within about 24 hours some 87-page staff report WITH a recommendation is released. It seems to me that the only way that could have been done (we all know how long it takes staff anywhere to do anything) is if the staff report was written first, and then provided to the appellant so they could write up their complaint. There's a word for that, and it starts with c-o-l-l-u-s-i-o-n if that happened.

With regards to Neely - and this is directed TO Neely - this isn't high school. You don't get to indulge in petty wars with your constituents, cliques and alliances have no place in the world you have chosen. You don't like somebody, tough. Rob Arkley is a citizen in your town, your County. He is a successful businessman and employer in your town. He has donated a boardwalk to your town. A building for your zoo, and not some cheap metal building. He has enabled your Co-op to build and move into a building they will enjoy for a hundred years. He has rebuilt and stayed located in your dying downtown, and given the town, the County, an entirely new performance arts theatre.

For you to now, when he has another project, not a seat-of-the-pants project as so many other's in the past have been, to build business and retail space, bring business to your town, and provide jobs to the people of your town - your petty hatreds and vendettas are not only wearing thin, they are on full display. It is not statesmanlike, it is not appropriate, and it is not in the best interests of your community.

As a Supervisor, you could have gone out begging businesses to locate in your dying downtown - you could have gone begging for funds to rebuild the Daly building, for any purpose, same with the zoo, same with the Boardwalk, and same with the Co-Op - if you had come back successful in any one of those endeavors you would have touted it to the heavens as an accomplishment.

It has all been given freely. from one source. Without any effort from you, and in fact in spite of you. The only conclusion for people to reach is that you have let your personal vendetta get in the way of your responsibilities to your town, and to your County. That is nothing to be proud of.

◼ Enter the Backlash - The Journal, Town Dandy

Fire With Fire... What Salzman -- and now Neely -- hath wrought.

Expensive elections, lawsuits and "groups." Long the hallmark of Salzman and his side of the fence - the other side is fighting fire with fire.

Whether I like it or not, I have to say it's about time, and more power to ya. Sadly.

◼ Ballon Track: It’s On - Hank at the Blogthing
◼ New group sues Coastal Commish over Balloon Track - heraldo
◼ Citizens group and Pacific Legal Foundation sue over Balloon Track property appeals - TS

◼ Citizens group sues California Coastal Commission over Balloon Track delay - TS

◼ Enter the Backlash - The Journal, Town Dandy