Times-Standard says "Winter’s highest tides forecast for this week"
Baykeeper's gotta get you out there shooting pics, right? To use for "the seas are rising" propaganda materials.
Showing posts with label Baykeeper Lawsuits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Baykeeper Lawsuits. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Baykeeper wants you to gather their propaganda material for them - again
◼ Be A King Tides Groupie
Go take pictures of the high tide so they can pretend the oceans have risen due to - what is it now, Glogal Warming? Or Climate 'Change'? Some new term?
Then - sit back and watch, because if ANY of these pics DO show up in one of their scam fundraising letters, you ought to be outraged.
Then, start electing people that will rein in these new age con men.
NOTE: They've finally had to give up the price-y Old Town office space.
__________________
King tides to hit North Coast; no major flooding expected due to ...
Humboldt Beacon
For Humboldt Baykeeper policy director Jennifer Kalt, king tides provide a visualization of the impacts of rising sea levels on habitats and infrastructure ...
You thought I was kidding...
Go take pictures of the high tide so they can pretend the oceans have risen due to - what is it now, Glogal Warming? Or Climate 'Change'? Some new term?
Then - sit back and watch, because if ANY of these pics DO show up in one of their scam fundraising letters, you ought to be outraged.
Then, start electing people that will rein in these new age con men.
NOTE: They've finally had to give up the price-y Old Town office space.
King tides to hit North Coast; no major flooding expected due to ...
Humboldt Beacon
For Humboldt Baykeeper policy director Jennifer Kalt, king tides provide a visualization of the impacts of rising sea levels on habitats and infrastructure ...
You thought I was kidding...
Monday, December 16, 2013
Yes, Jason Singleton should rot in hell...
BUT.
He is no different than Baykeeper. EPIC. ERF, and ALL of the other predatory litigious orgs.
In fact, he MIGHT be slightly more honorable than they if you believe he, at least, does it on his own, without giant Foundation grant money.
But when it comes to being a despicable shakedown artist, making it rich using arcane bits of law, walking away with his 'go away' extortion money and breaking local business - there's no difference except for the fact that you like his targets and you've come to believe the org's targets deserve it.
...Funny, the Facebook discussions say 'something is being done about this" - which is laughable, because this has been going on for years, Clint Eastwood even testified before Congress detailing the abuses many, many, many years ago. But who dares stop these people? To do so implies you don't care about people with disabilities (not true), or the environment (not true), and on and on. These new-age con men have a license to steal, and they do so with abandon. They've learned how to milk the system, hijacking, bastardizing and twisting well-meaning laws to enrich themselves.
◼ Jason Singleton Strikes Again (5/8/08) - The Journal
◼ And again: ADA Beef Closes Barbecue Restaurant. Another Humboldt business has fallen victim to notorious attorney Jason Singleton’s lawsuit scheme, this time Arcata’s Porter Street Barbeque. - Mad River Union
◼ Piling On Jason Singleton - Andrew Goff/Lost Coast Outpost
He is no different than Baykeeper. EPIC. ERF, and ALL of the other predatory litigious orgs.
In fact, he MIGHT be slightly more honorable than they if you believe he, at least, does it on his own, without giant Foundation grant money.
But when it comes to being a despicable shakedown artist, making it rich using arcane bits of law, walking away with his 'go away' extortion money and breaking local business - there's no difference except for the fact that you like his targets and you've come to believe the org's targets deserve it.
...Funny, the Facebook discussions say 'something is being done about this" - which is laughable, because this has been going on for years, Clint Eastwood even testified before Congress detailing the abuses many, many, many years ago. But who dares stop these people? To do so implies you don't care about people with disabilities (not true), or the environment (not true), and on and on. These new-age con men have a license to steal, and they do so with abandon. They've learned how to milk the system, hijacking, bastardizing and twisting well-meaning laws to enrich themselves.
◼ Jason Singleton Strikes Again (5/8/08) - The Journal
◼ And again: ADA Beef Closes Barbecue Restaurant. Another Humboldt business has fallen victim to notorious attorney Jason Singleton’s lawsuit scheme, this time Arcata’s Porter Street Barbeque. - Mad River Union
◼ Piling On Jason Singleton - Andrew Goff/Lost Coast Outpost
Thursday, June 02, 2011
Saturday, February 13, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
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
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
◼ 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
Monday, February 08, 2010
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
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
What happened to Gary Bird's Op Ed in the TS? (Update: restored - THANK YOU)
20 years is too long to wait for action on Balloon Track
Missing.
Thank you for visiting Eureka Times Standard. We are sorry the article that you requested is no longer available. Please search for this article in our archive search.
The comments are still there.
Full story: Eureka Times Standard
My name is Gary Bird. I am a citizen and taxpayer of Humboldt County. I grew up in Eureka; water-skiing, crabbing and fishing on Humboldt Bay.
Share
Read 47 Comments
Something is very wrong.
2:03 - still not restored, Bear in mind this is an editorial that ran on Saturday - gone.
I was linking to it - because for one thing, I would like to know why Bonnie Neely, who as County Supervisor, has nothing to do with the Balloon Track, brought COUNTY Counsel with her to meet with this guy. As California COASTAL COMMISSIONER, she DOES have dealings with the Balloon Track matter. If she was a Eureka City Councilperson, she would have dealings with the Balloon Track matter.
For another thing, he brings up the millions in Prop 65 monies, Baykeeper etc.
3:22 - It is back up - Thank You.
***
More:
◼ Ballon Track: It’s On
Thursday, January 21, 2010
The Paykeeper candidate for 5th District announces
◼ Cleary announces bid for 5th District supervisorial race
The sad thing in this race is he might actually make a good Supervisor. He'll certainly be a good candidate. But he is surrounded by some of the worst people for this County. The kind who want something in return for their support.
In other Paykeeper News, The Journal reports:
◼ Nichols Out, Glass In as NEC Prez
Glass said the power transition took place last night. It will be his third stint as president of the board for the Arcata environmental institution but his first since being elected to Eureka City Council. Glass said he doesn’t foresee any conflicts of interest arising from his dual roles, especially since the nec dropped out of a lawsuit challenging the environmental impact report for the proposed Balloon Track project on Eureka’s waterfront.... and Glass said pulling the agency (NEC) out of debt took some drastic measures, many of which weren’t especially popular with members and supporters....
◼ Local Political Crazyness! Samoa Softball
Friday, December 04, 2009
Paykeeper Pete sues
◼ Groups asks court to stop Marina Center project Times-Standard - Breaking link
◼ Groups ask court to scrap Marina Center analysis Times-Standard more complete report
◼ Appellants prepare for Coastal Commission hearing on Marina Center (some interesting revelations in today's report actually)
Four local environmental groups are asking a Humboldt County court to force the withdrawal of Eureka's environmental impact report on Security National's planned Marina Center development on the Balloon Track property.
Humboldt Baykeeper, the Environmental Protection and Information Center, the Ecological Rights Foundation and the Northcoast Environmental Center filed a petition today in Humboldt County Superior Court alleging that the city council abused its discretion and violated state law when it approved the final EIR on Nov. 3. The petition claims that the document failed to fully address the project's effects on the environment, including the plan to clean up toxic soils, mitigation for traffic, the rezoning of the property and the effects on wastewater facilities.
The groups are asking the court to order the city to withdraw its approval of the EIR, and to prevent Security National subsidiary CUE IV from commencing work on the Marina Center.
In other words, the predatory litigious Paykeeper Pete Nichols sued - for ERF, his predatory litigious parent organization, and drug the NEC along with him.
Suing deep pockets is what Pete Nichols is all about - nothing more.
◼ Groups ask court to scrap Marina Center analysis Times-Standard more complete report
◼ Appellants prepare for Coastal Commission hearing on Marina Center (some interesting revelations in today's report actually)
Four local environmental groups are asking a Humboldt County court to force the withdrawal of Eureka's environmental impact report on Security National's planned Marina Center development on the Balloon Track property.
Humboldt Baykeeper, the Environmental Protection and Information Center, the Ecological Rights Foundation and the Northcoast Environmental Center filed a petition today in Humboldt County Superior Court alleging that the city council abused its discretion and violated state law when it approved the final EIR on Nov. 3. The petition claims that the document failed to fully address the project's effects on the environment, including the plan to clean up toxic soils, mitigation for traffic, the rezoning of the property and the effects on wastewater facilities.
The groups are asking the court to order the city to withdraw its approval of the EIR, and to prevent Security National subsidiary CUE IV from commencing work on the Marina Center.
In other words, the predatory litigious Paykeeper Pete Nichols sued - for ERF, his predatory litigious parent organization, and drug the NEC along with him.
Suing deep pockets is what Pete Nichols is all about - nothing more.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Big money in Predatory Litigation
Hmmm. Pg. 1 In 2008... Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation, $1,775,300.00, Attorney's Fees and Costs...$1,060,000.00... if I am reading this right, they gave a shitload of money (other distribution) to ERF (Ecological Rights Foundation), that would be "Humboldt Paykeeper's" predatory litigious parent... Pg. 26-31 from 2000-2008..., you got a calculator, heraldo? Pg. 26 1/3/08...$10,000.00, 1/14/08...$20,000.00, 1/22/08...$15,000.00, 1/23/08...$15,000.00, 2/15/08...$20,000.00, 2/19/08...$20,000.00; Pg. 27 3/3/08...$20,000.00 (ERF and CATS), 3/3/08...$5,000.00, 3/3/08...$20,000.00, 3/26/08...$15,000.00.... and on and on and on it goes
Pg. 2 from 2000-2008... $14,166,687.00...280 settlements... Attorney's Fees and costs... $7,917,000.00
AND The "Ecological Rights Foundation" themselves another 38 settlements,,, $950,000, 750.00, roughly half of that in lawyers fees and costs...
That's just in one document re: Prop 65. More money to CATS, ◼ KFPA ($35,000.00 and $15,000.00 Fifty grand? Is that a radio station?What'd the radio station do for that?)
◼ California Proposition 65
Funny, As You Sow shows up here too...
ongoing, will add links
The Mirror picked it up:
◼ Proposition 65: How to exploit a good-intentioned law to divert money to shadowy, litigious environmental groups (Feb. 11, 2010)
With a legal loophole on their side, 2008 was a spectacularly profitable year for the Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation. Never heard of the Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation? That’s not surprising. Mateel is a quiet little operation based out of Eureka that targets big businesses whose corporate headquarters are mostly far away from California in places like Maryland, Illinois and Ohio. According to California’s Attorney General’s Office, which tracks Prop. 65 lawsuits, Mateel settled 39 lawsuits in 2008 for over $1.7 million. Kudos to local lawyer William Verick for representing Mateel and raking in a hefty $1.06 million in attorney fees — roughly 60 percent of the total money awarded in the settlements.
But it’s not just warning labels, product reformulations and excessive attorneys fees that Mateel is after. Through Prop. 65 lawsuit settlements, Mateel also pilfered a shit load of additional dollars through “other distributions” that was handed over to other environmental groups, left-leaning radio stations and other interesting folks. How much? Well, just a paltry $619,850 in 2008.
So, just where did all that extra cash go from the Prop. 65 bonanza payouts?
Pg. 2 from 2000-2008... $14,166,687.00...280 settlements... Attorney's Fees and costs... $7,917,000.00
AND The "Ecological Rights Foundation" themselves another 38 settlements,,, $950,000, 750.00, roughly half of that in lawyers fees and costs...
That's just in one document re: Prop 65. More money to CATS, ◼ KFPA ($35,000.00 and $15,000.00 Fifty grand? Is that a radio station?What'd the radio station do for that?)
◼ California Proposition 65
Funny, As You Sow shows up here too...
ongoing, will add links
The Mirror picked it up:
◼ Proposition 65: How to exploit a good-intentioned law to divert money to shadowy, litigious environmental groups (Feb. 11, 2010)
With a legal loophole on their side, 2008 was a spectacularly profitable year for the Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation. Never heard of the Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation? That’s not surprising. Mateel is a quiet little operation based out of Eureka that targets big businesses whose corporate headquarters are mostly far away from California in places like Maryland, Illinois and Ohio. According to California’s Attorney General’s Office, which tracks Prop. 65 lawsuits, Mateel settled 39 lawsuits in 2008 for over $1.7 million. Kudos to local lawyer William Verick for representing Mateel and raking in a hefty $1.06 million in attorney fees — roughly 60 percent of the total money awarded in the settlements.
But it’s not just warning labels, product reformulations and excessive attorneys fees that Mateel is after. Through Prop. 65 lawsuit settlements, Mateel also pilfered a shit load of additional dollars through “other distributions” that was handed over to other environmental groups, left-leaning radio stations and other interesting folks. How much? Well, just a paltry $619,850 in 2008.
So, just where did all that extra cash go from the Prop. 65 bonanza payouts?
Show us where the money comes from...
Paykeeper Pete Nichols knows how to use free media to spread his lies message. During Gallegos' election, he and his wife put out the meme that Humboldt County's CAST team was just like big city Los Angeles' team. Remember the letters and quotes of the lovely, missing in action Kay Rackauckus? His willingness to twist the truth there ought to tell you everything you need to know about the man. But he uses free My Word's, free airtime on radio stations to spread his propaganda. He uses it to paint a nice benevolent facade for his predatory litigious org. It works in other areas.
More and more, as scrutiny is applied to him and his activities, the truth is coming out. Today's response to Sneaky Pete's My Word is very interesting...
◼ Humboldt Baykeeper should come clean about the Marina Center
For many years, Humboldt Baykeeper has been saying that the Balloon Track should be cleaned up. But now that the cleanup is about to happen, Baykeeper is demanding that the Balloon Track should not be cleaned up until more unspecified work is done at some unspecified time in the future. Why has Baykeeper suddenly changed its tune?
Last week in this column, Baykeeper wrote that it wanted to “clear the air” about its opposition to the cleanup. We think that's a step in the right direction, but Baykeeper has not gone far enough.
Baykeeper may have given the impression that it opposes the cleanup because of the goodness of its heart, but Internal Revenue Service records show that some unidentified people have paid Humboldt Baykeeper nearly $2 million over the past few years, and that Baykeeper has paid lawyers and experts hundreds of thousands of dollars. This big money did not come from member dues, which in 2008 were only $16,000 -- not enough to pay even the salary of Pete Nichols.
Humboldt Baykeeper and its parent organization, known as Ecological Rights Foundation, should come clean. The public is entitled to know who is paying for Baykeeper's fight, and whether those people just happen to be wealthy businesses who don't want any competition from the Marina Center.
Baykeeper argues that “Security National is attempting to slip through a sham cleanup.” But when Baykeeper is pressed about what is wrong with the cleanup, the group has only vague responses.
The main objection, according to Baykeeper, is that the property has not been “fully characterized.” But the proposed cleanup is an interim cleanup, which is a cleanup done before all relevant data has been collected and before decisions have been made on final cleanup plans. Interim cleanups are performed when there is an obvious issue that can be resolved without waiting until the end of a long process. Here, dioxin has been found in ditch sediments. CUE VI will have those ditch sediments excavated, removed from the property, and properly disposed of. How can anyone object to that?
Someone may wonder how CUE VI knows when to stop digging. In this kind of excavation, the contractor starts by digging out a reasonable amount. In this case, the initial excavation areas were identified in the consultant's proposal to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and were approved.
When the initial excavation is complete, the consultant takes samples from the excavated area, has those analyzed by a laboratory, and submits the results to the Regional Board for discussion on whether more dirt should be excavated. The excavation is complete only when the confirmation samples are satisfactory to the Regional Board.
Baykeeper sometimes takes credit for the cleanup of the Simpson Mill site at the foot of Del Norte Street. That site was used for penta treatment, and penta contains dioxin. The levels of dioxin at that site were many, many thousands of times higher than those at the Balloon Track, which was never used for penta treatment.
Baykeeper likes to talk about how many samples were taken at the Simpson site. But it does not talk about the levels of dioxin at the two sites. At the Balloon Track, CUE VI will be excavating soils with relatively low levels of dioxin. At the Simpson site, soils containing higher levels of dioxins will be capped and left in place with Baykeeper's blessing.
In the end, what counts is the quality of the cleanup. The cleanup of the Balloon Track goes beyond what is required by regulatory agencies and what has been accomplished at other sites.
If the cleanup plan is so bad, why hasn't Baykeeper brought in one of its experts to explain what is wrong with it? Baykeeper has hired many experts for the Balloon Track litigation. Not one of these experts has appeared before the City Council, and not one of these experts submitted any report about the cleanup to the Regional Board. This lack of technical expertise may explain why Baykeeper's arguments are so vague.
Baykeeper had an opportunity to convince the Regional Board that the cleanup was inadequate, but the only technical objections Baykeeper made to the proposed cleanup were in a letter from Baykeeper's lawyer.
Not surprisingly, the Regional Board was not persuaded by any of Baykeeper's objections. In mid-October, the Regional Board concluded that the cleanup should be implemented as proposed.
Humboldt Baykeeper should therefore come clean about what is really going on. Like anyone else, it is entitled to have its opinion about whether the Marina Center is good for the community. But if it is opposing cleanup because opponents of the Marina Center will do anything to delay that project, and if Baykeeper is receiving large amounts of money from project opponents, Baykeeper should not be hiding that information. The public has a right to know.
Randy Gans is a vice president of Security National Properties.
The implication that Pierson is also helping fund "Paykeeper" is certainly there. Wonder if it is merely a donation, or if there is a contractual arrangement. 'Bout time we did find out.
◼ Gans throws down on Nichols in today’s Times-Standard The Mirror
$16,000 in member donations sure doesn't pay for the fancy boat (Boston Whaler), the nice Old Town storefront office, the line of T-shirts, the nice signage, and all the concerts and fundraisers, much less Sneaky-Pete's salary, at least one attorney on staff, the scientific tests, and all that.
While legitimate business people in Old Town struggle to afford the rent, these bloodsucking incestuous activist groups rake in the big bucks.
Sneaky Paykeeper Pete's My Word: ◼ Clearing the air
It is time to clear the air of the confusion around the environmental community's apparent lack of desire to see Eureka's Balloon Track property cleaned up. Let me be clear, Humboldt Baykeeper, and other environmental groups, want nothing more than to have the Balloon Track cleaned up to the fullest extent for the health of our bay and community. Period. In fact, Humboldt Baykeeper has worked longer and put more time into getting that property truly cleaned up than anyone else.
At the heart of the issue is the Supplemental Remedial Action Plan (SIRAP) put forth by Security National (CUE VI) -- a plan which will not accomplish the goal of clean-up of the Balloon Track. Security National is attempting to slip through a sham cleanup for the Balloon Track, skirting applicable environmental laws, such as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Coastal Act, and the city of Eureka appears to be assisting them in this attempt. It is highly unlikely that these actions will pass muster with the California Coastal Commission, which will be the next governmental body to weigh in on this matter.
The city of Eureka has had many opportunities over the past 20 years to take on Union Pacific over the contamination at the Balloon Track, but the city never had the intestinal fortitude to follow through with any action. Nearly four years ago, Humboldt Baykeeper alone stood-up and took on Union Pacific with a lawsuit, enforcing federal environmental laws, to force them to clean-up the Balloon Track so it could be redeveloped and utilized by the community as it is zoned, for “public use.”
Security National has since purchased the property, inheriting the lawsuit along with it, and now has essentially legally and financially shielded Union Pacific from any liability for clean-up. It is important to note that the decision to purchase this property was made knowing full well that the property is contaminated, and Security National is now a responsible party for the cleanup. Humboldt Baykeeper has every intention of holding Security National, as well as Union Pacific, responsible for a full characterization and clean-up of the property.
It has always been the contention of Humboldt Baykeeper that Security National can build whatever they like on the Balloon Track site as long it is fully characterized and cleaned up, and as long as they comply with all provisions of the law. What Security National cannot do is sidestep the law and public process to ram through piecemeal actions on their way to an inadequate cleanup in an effort to achieve their end goal.
The greenwashing of their project with pleas to “just let us get started” to cleanup the property is a transparent tactic. Humboldt Baykeeper has been asking Security National to do just that for years and we would step aside tomorrow if Security National would really do the right thing for the environment: fully characterize and cleanup the Balloon Track. It is truly that easy.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a cloud of influence that hangs darkly over the city of Eureka. I find it disturbing that the city has agreed to a generous “indemnification” agreement with Security National for any legal liability regarding the Marina Center project. This essentially hands the keys to the city of Eureka over to Security National regarding all things Marina Center.
This is unfortunate. The city of Eureka as lead agency for this project is charged by state law with requiring that environmental review of the project meets all of the requirements of CEQA. If Councilman Leonard, and others, truly believes that the FEIR they certified to under CEQA is one of the best he has ever seen, then why not be bold enough to defend it? Isn't that why they are elected in the first place?
Instead, Mr. Leonard and the council voted to certify what they know is an inadequate FEIR and then pleaded with environmental groups to “cease fire” on lawsuits for six months. If Mr. Leonard had as much of a grasp on CEQA as he proclaims, he would know that an individual or organization has only 30 days to legally challenge a project under CEQA.
If the City Council truly wanted a 6-month cease fire, they should have recirculated the FEIR and repaired the major flaws in the document as was repeatedly recommended by Baykeeper and others. The city had plenty of time to consider the ramifications of their action and will most certainly be informed by the courts that their environmental review of the Marina Center is woefully inadequate and incomplete.
Humboldt Baykeeper will continue to demand full characterization and cleanup of the Balloon Track. We have every intention of completing what we started four years ago for the health of the bay and the community. I am more than happy to talk with anyone about our actions and Humboldt Baykeeper's work to cleanup the property. I can be reached at 268-0664.
Pete Nichols is the executive director of Baykeeper.
More and more, as scrutiny is applied to him and his activities, the truth is coming out. Today's response to Sneaky Pete's My Word is very interesting...
◼ Humboldt Baykeeper should come clean about the Marina Center
For many years, Humboldt Baykeeper has been saying that the Balloon Track should be cleaned up. But now that the cleanup is about to happen, Baykeeper is demanding that the Balloon Track should not be cleaned up until more unspecified work is done at some unspecified time in the future. Why has Baykeeper suddenly changed its tune?
Last week in this column, Baykeeper wrote that it wanted to “clear the air” about its opposition to the cleanup. We think that's a step in the right direction, but Baykeeper has not gone far enough.
Baykeeper may have given the impression that it opposes the cleanup because of the goodness of its heart, but Internal Revenue Service records show that some unidentified people have paid Humboldt Baykeeper nearly $2 million over the past few years, and that Baykeeper has paid lawyers and experts hundreds of thousands of dollars. This big money did not come from member dues, which in 2008 were only $16,000 -- not enough to pay even the salary of Pete Nichols.
Humboldt Baykeeper and its parent organization, known as Ecological Rights Foundation, should come clean. The public is entitled to know who is paying for Baykeeper's fight, and whether those people just happen to be wealthy businesses who don't want any competition from the Marina Center.
Baykeeper argues that “Security National is attempting to slip through a sham cleanup.” But when Baykeeper is pressed about what is wrong with the cleanup, the group has only vague responses.
The main objection, according to Baykeeper, is that the property has not been “fully characterized.” But the proposed cleanup is an interim cleanup, which is a cleanup done before all relevant data has been collected and before decisions have been made on final cleanup plans. Interim cleanups are performed when there is an obvious issue that can be resolved without waiting until the end of a long process. Here, dioxin has been found in ditch sediments. CUE VI will have those ditch sediments excavated, removed from the property, and properly disposed of. How can anyone object to that?
Someone may wonder how CUE VI knows when to stop digging. In this kind of excavation, the contractor starts by digging out a reasonable amount. In this case, the initial excavation areas were identified in the consultant's proposal to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and were approved.
When the initial excavation is complete, the consultant takes samples from the excavated area, has those analyzed by a laboratory, and submits the results to the Regional Board for discussion on whether more dirt should be excavated. The excavation is complete only when the confirmation samples are satisfactory to the Regional Board.
Baykeeper sometimes takes credit for the cleanup of the Simpson Mill site at the foot of Del Norte Street. That site was used for penta treatment, and penta contains dioxin. The levels of dioxin at that site were many, many thousands of times higher than those at the Balloon Track, which was never used for penta treatment.
Baykeeper likes to talk about how many samples were taken at the Simpson site. But it does not talk about the levels of dioxin at the two sites. At the Balloon Track, CUE VI will be excavating soils with relatively low levels of dioxin. At the Simpson site, soils containing higher levels of dioxins will be capped and left in place with Baykeeper's blessing.
In the end, what counts is the quality of the cleanup. The cleanup of the Balloon Track goes beyond what is required by regulatory agencies and what has been accomplished at other sites.
If the cleanup plan is so bad, why hasn't Baykeeper brought in one of its experts to explain what is wrong with it? Baykeeper has hired many experts for the Balloon Track litigation. Not one of these experts has appeared before the City Council, and not one of these experts submitted any report about the cleanup to the Regional Board. This lack of technical expertise may explain why Baykeeper's arguments are so vague.
Baykeeper had an opportunity to convince the Regional Board that the cleanup was inadequate, but the only technical objections Baykeeper made to the proposed cleanup were in a letter from Baykeeper's lawyer.
Not surprisingly, the Regional Board was not persuaded by any of Baykeeper's objections. In mid-October, the Regional Board concluded that the cleanup should be implemented as proposed.
Humboldt Baykeeper should therefore come clean about what is really going on. Like anyone else, it is entitled to have its opinion about whether the Marina Center is good for the community. But if it is opposing cleanup because opponents of the Marina Center will do anything to delay that project, and if Baykeeper is receiving large amounts of money from project opponents, Baykeeper should not be hiding that information. The public has a right to know.
Randy Gans is a vice president of Security National Properties.
The implication that Pierson is also helping fund "Paykeeper" is certainly there. Wonder if it is merely a donation, or if there is a contractual arrangement. 'Bout time we did find out.
◼ Gans throws down on Nichols in today’s Times-Standard The Mirror
$16,000 in member donations sure doesn't pay for the fancy boat (Boston Whaler), the nice Old Town storefront office, the line of T-shirts, the nice signage, and all the concerts and fundraisers, much less Sneaky-Pete's salary, at least one attorney on staff, the scientific tests, and all that.
While legitimate business people in Old Town struggle to afford the rent, these bloodsucking incestuous activist groups rake in the big bucks.
Sneaky Paykeeper Pete's My Word: ◼ Clearing the air
It is time to clear the air of the confusion around the environmental community's apparent lack of desire to see Eureka's Balloon Track property cleaned up. Let me be clear, Humboldt Baykeeper, and other environmental groups, want nothing more than to have the Balloon Track cleaned up to the fullest extent for the health of our bay and community. Period. In fact, Humboldt Baykeeper has worked longer and put more time into getting that property truly cleaned up than anyone else.
At the heart of the issue is the Supplemental Remedial Action Plan (SIRAP) put forth by Security National (CUE VI) -- a plan which will not accomplish the goal of clean-up of the Balloon Track. Security National is attempting to slip through a sham cleanup for the Balloon Track, skirting applicable environmental laws, such as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Coastal Act, and the city of Eureka appears to be assisting them in this attempt. It is highly unlikely that these actions will pass muster with the California Coastal Commission, which will be the next governmental body to weigh in on this matter.
The city of Eureka has had many opportunities over the past 20 years to take on Union Pacific over the contamination at the Balloon Track, but the city never had the intestinal fortitude to follow through with any action. Nearly four years ago, Humboldt Baykeeper alone stood-up and took on Union Pacific with a lawsuit, enforcing federal environmental laws, to force them to clean-up the Balloon Track so it could be redeveloped and utilized by the community as it is zoned, for “public use.”
Security National has since purchased the property, inheriting the lawsuit along with it, and now has essentially legally and financially shielded Union Pacific from any liability for clean-up. It is important to note that the decision to purchase this property was made knowing full well that the property is contaminated, and Security National is now a responsible party for the cleanup. Humboldt Baykeeper has every intention of holding Security National, as well as Union Pacific, responsible for a full characterization and clean-up of the property.
It has always been the contention of Humboldt Baykeeper that Security National can build whatever they like on the Balloon Track site as long it is fully characterized and cleaned up, and as long as they comply with all provisions of the law. What Security National cannot do is sidestep the law and public process to ram through piecemeal actions on their way to an inadequate cleanup in an effort to achieve their end goal.
The greenwashing of their project with pleas to “just let us get started” to cleanup the property is a transparent tactic. Humboldt Baykeeper has been asking Security National to do just that for years and we would step aside tomorrow if Security National would really do the right thing for the environment: fully characterize and cleanup the Balloon Track. It is truly that easy.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a cloud of influence that hangs darkly over the city of Eureka. I find it disturbing that the city has agreed to a generous “indemnification” agreement with Security National for any legal liability regarding the Marina Center project. This essentially hands the keys to the city of Eureka over to Security National regarding all things Marina Center.
This is unfortunate. The city of Eureka as lead agency for this project is charged by state law with requiring that environmental review of the project meets all of the requirements of CEQA. If Councilman Leonard, and others, truly believes that the FEIR they certified to under CEQA is one of the best he has ever seen, then why not be bold enough to defend it? Isn't that why they are elected in the first place?
Instead, Mr. Leonard and the council voted to certify what they know is an inadequate FEIR and then pleaded with environmental groups to “cease fire” on lawsuits for six months. If Mr. Leonard had as much of a grasp on CEQA as he proclaims, he would know that an individual or organization has only 30 days to legally challenge a project under CEQA.
If the City Council truly wanted a 6-month cease fire, they should have recirculated the FEIR and repaired the major flaws in the document as was repeatedly recommended by Baykeeper and others. The city had plenty of time to consider the ramifications of their action and will most certainly be informed by the courts that their environmental review of the Marina Center is woefully inadequate and incomplete.
Humboldt Baykeeper will continue to demand full characterization and cleanup of the Balloon Track. We have every intention of completing what we started four years ago for the health of the bay and the community. I am more than happy to talk with anyone about our actions and Humboldt Baykeeper's work to cleanup the property. I can be reached at 268-0664.
Pete Nichols is the executive director of Baykeeper.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Truer words
◼ Eureka approves Marina Center coastal development permit
Councilman Frank Jager said he is in favor of the first phase of the project because his constituents are.
A majority of the public speakers who turned out at a series of meetings regarding the project's environmental impact report, or EIR, and the permit supported moving forward with the Marina Center development, citing the creation of jobs and saying a cleanup of the site is long overdue.
”We as a council owe them that -- to get it moving,” Jager said. “I'm not intimidated by Humboldt Baykeeper, or EPIC, or any of those environmental groups. They're extortionists.”
Councilman Frank Jager said he is in favor of the first phase of the project because his constituents are.
A majority of the public speakers who turned out at a series of meetings regarding the project's environmental impact report, or EIR, and the permit supported moving forward with the Marina Center development, citing the creation of jobs and saying a cleanup of the site is long overdue.
”We as a council owe them that -- to get it moving,” Jager said. “I'm not intimidated by Humboldt Baykeeper, or EPIC, or any of those environmental groups. They're extortionists.”
Friday, October 16, 2009
Sheep's Clothing
Why has John Ash removed the predatory litigious Baykeeper, Pete Nichols, from his endorsement list?
Is it because Nichols has revoked his support and thrown it behind Susan Penn? Or is it because Ash, like the other "Progressives" has to hide who he really is in order to get elected?
Here's how the list used to read...Gay Morris
Jim Morrison
Bonnie Neely, Humboldt County Supervisor
Pete Nichols
Troy Nicolini...
Here's how it reads today...Gay Morrison
Jim Morrison
Bonnie Neely, Humboldt County Supervisor
Troy Nicolini
Thursday, January 08, 2009
The Predatory Litigious Orgs are at it again
Trying to stop the railroad. After killing off the Timber Industry, this is job one.
Hank has the story: Another Bite at NCRA
...Earlier today, three Humboldt County environmental organizations — the Friends of the Eel, Humboldt Baykeeper, and the Environmental Protection Information Center — sent the NCRA a letter demanding that the agency reverse its decision to mortgage land in the City of Ukiah to pay off Novato....
Naughty or Nice
and the letter...
Cap has it - and all things railroad related... NCJ: HUMBOLDT ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS THREATEN TO SUE NCRA ABOUT BROWN ACT AND MORTGAGE OF UKIAH PROPERTY.
He asks So, why is it the Humboldt groups, and not Ukiah, etc doing it?
Damn good question!
Hank has the story: Another Bite at NCRA
...Earlier today, three Humboldt County environmental organizations — the Friends of the Eel, Humboldt Baykeeper, and the Environmental Protection Information Center — sent the NCRA a letter demanding that the agency reverse its decision to mortgage land in the City of Ukiah to pay off Novato....
Naughty or Nice
and the letter...
Cap has it - and all things railroad related... NCJ: HUMBOLDT ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS THREATEN TO SUE NCRA ABOUT BROWN ACT AND MORTGAGE OF UKIAH PROPERTY.
He asks So, why is it the Humboldt groups, and not Ukiah, etc doing it?
Damn good question!
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Will the job-killer lawyers stop the harbor?
It's good to see this topic FINALLY get some press. The predatory litigious orgs, the phony groups with Orwellian names, spawning new attack "projects," operating under the pretense of being a "grassroots" citizen effort when they are really extortion machines made up of teams of lawyers (Ecological Rights Foundation bragged that it has 17 lawyers on staff.) First reported here, and finally being recognized for what they are.
Will the job-killer lawyers stop the harbor? (not online)
Last week the board of harbor commissioners voted to proceed with the Humboldt Bay harbor plan developed by its consultants. This would begin with a modest break-bulk and short sea-haul terminal that also could accommodate occasional cruise ship stops. Later, if and when railroad service is available, the facility would expand to a container port. All of this would represent a boon of varying proportions to Humboldt County's economy.
We say "would" because there exists the possibility that one of a group of litigious no-growth lawyers may try to sue to stop harbor development. The Ecological Rights Foundation, its Baykeepers subsidiary, the Mateel Environmental Justice Center and the California Alternatives to Toxics make up a sort of federation. All have been plaintiffs in suits whose ostensible purpose has been to abate environmental pollution. On examining the cases, however, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that all of them have two objectives: 1.) getting settlements for large sums of money (which can fund additional legal attacks) and 2.) thwarting economic development. It adds up to killing jobs in Humboldt County's fragile economy.
The most recent example is the suit brought by Baykeepers/Ecological Rights Foundation against the past and present owners of Eureka's Balloon Track-- Union Pacific Railroad and CUE VI, respectively, and the North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA)-- on the grounds that polluted water is emanating from the property into the bay. The property is already under a clean-up and abatement order, with which the owners are complying. One wonders, therefore, whether the real purpose of the suit is to discourage the owners from completing efforts to build the Marina Center.
The Ecological Rights Foundation and its confederates have a record of going after companies with deep pockets, and have charged them with having contaminated various sites. Among these have been Simpson, Sierra Pacific and Evergreen Pulp. Baykeepers, for its part, has consistently opposed any activity on the bay that would create new jobs and stimulate economic activity. They have opposed potential rail development, dredging of shipping lanes and the hiring by the harbor district of an experienced port expert to help it find users for a new port.
A modern harbor facility, developed with care in two stages as conditions warrant, is the one sure way Humboldt county can create a source of meaningful new jobs. This, is turn, can lead to increased family formations by yong people, home purchases, a reversal of the declining school population, improved retail sales and thsu the revenues that sustain our cities. Why, then, don't the lawsuit-happy lawyers of these supposed "environmental" groups stop attempting to prevent port development? The only answer we can think of is they desire a shrinking economy.
The Eureka Reporter Opinion page of the Times-Standard - Sunday, November 23, 2008
Peter Hannaford Editorial Page Editor
Related:
"Baykeeper" - LawsuitsRus
Incestous Activist groups
The "projects"
How much do they want?
In case you missed it...
Do as I say, not as I do
ERF donated more than $5,000 to the "Center for Ethics and Toxics"
ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION (ERF)'S HUMBOLDT BAYKEEPER PROJECT...
Will the job-killer lawyers stop the harbor? (not online)
Last week the board of harbor commissioners voted to proceed with the Humboldt Bay harbor plan developed by its consultants. This would begin with a modest break-bulk and short sea-haul terminal that also could accommodate occasional cruise ship stops. Later, if and when railroad service is available, the facility would expand to a container port. All of this would represent a boon of varying proportions to Humboldt County's economy.
We say "would" because there exists the possibility that one of a group of litigious no-growth lawyers may try to sue to stop harbor development. The Ecological Rights Foundation, its Baykeepers subsidiary, the Mateel Environmental Justice Center and the California Alternatives to Toxics make up a sort of federation. All have been plaintiffs in suits whose ostensible purpose has been to abate environmental pollution. On examining the cases, however, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that all of them have two objectives: 1.) getting settlements for large sums of money (which can fund additional legal attacks) and 2.) thwarting economic development. It adds up to killing jobs in Humboldt County's fragile economy.
The most recent example is the suit brought by Baykeepers/Ecological Rights Foundation against the past and present owners of Eureka's Balloon Track-- Union Pacific Railroad and CUE VI, respectively, and the North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA)-- on the grounds that polluted water is emanating from the property into the bay. The property is already under a clean-up and abatement order, with which the owners are complying. One wonders, therefore, whether the real purpose of the suit is to discourage the owners from completing efforts to build the Marina Center.
The Ecological Rights Foundation and its confederates have a record of going after companies with deep pockets, and have charged them with having contaminated various sites. Among these have been Simpson, Sierra Pacific and Evergreen Pulp. Baykeepers, for its part, has consistently opposed any activity on the bay that would create new jobs and stimulate economic activity. They have opposed potential rail development, dredging of shipping lanes and the hiring by the harbor district of an experienced port expert to help it find users for a new port.
A modern harbor facility, developed with care in two stages as conditions warrant, is the one sure way Humboldt county can create a source of meaningful new jobs. This, is turn, can lead to increased family formations by yong people, home purchases, a reversal of the declining school population, improved retail sales and thsu the revenues that sustain our cities. Why, then, don't the lawsuit-happy lawyers of these supposed "environmental" groups stop attempting to prevent port development? The only answer we can think of is they desire a shrinking economy.
The Eureka Reporter Opinion page of the Times-Standard - Sunday, November 23, 2008
Peter Hannaford Editorial Page Editor
Related:
"Baykeeper" - LawsuitsRus
Incestous Activist groups
The "projects"
How much do they want?
In case you missed it...
Do as I say, not as I do
ERF donated more than $5,000 to the "Center for Ethics and Toxics"
ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION (ERF)'S HUMBOLDT BAYKEEPER PROJECT...
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Here's a question
the big money Foundations get their money from Corporations.
If your group is funded by those big Foundations, you are supported by (laundered) Corporate money.
Right?
If your group is funded by those big Foundations, you are supported by (laundered) Corporate money.
Right?
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Just askin'
It is ILLEGAL to commercially sell Sport-Caught Salmon, right? Non-profits have to buy the fish they serve at local fundraisers, by law. Does Pete Nichols/Baykeeper have a Commercial Fishing License? How about a sales license? How does this work exactly? And, will the DA prosecute his campaign manager's husband?***
From: pete@humboldtbaykeeper.org
Save the Date: 2008 Birthday Bash
Join us for our third annual benefit dinner and dance on Friday, September 26 at the Arcata Community Center. We're aiming for yet another incredible night of dining, dancing, and celebrating our coastal waters with the people who make Bay protection come to life - that means YOU!
This year's event will feature Alaskan Copper River salmon, personally caught (gill netted?) by Baykeeper director Pete Nichols - a fabulous silent auction and benefit drawing with incredible prizes - the third annual Waterkeeper of the Year award presentation - dancing to the sounds of the West African Highlife Band - and much more!
Menu by Hurricane Kate's will delight you with:
Salmon - fresh-caught from Alaska's Copper River;
Beef - last year's offering was sirloin steak; or
Vegetarian - last year's offering was African chickpea and sweet-potato stew
(Check back soon for full menu)
Download a ticket order form at right to purchase tickets for dinner by September 22. Music tickets are available in advance or at the door ($15-$25, sliding scale.)
***************************************************
Pete Nichols, Executive Director
Humboldt Baykeeper
***
Related info:
About Copper River Salmon - Hundreds of fishermen try their luck, flooding the local Alaskan fishing town of Cordova in a "salmon rush" frenzy. The 500 some gill-netters fish the 35-mile wide Copper River Delta (mouth) where depth and sandbars change yearly. The rushing waters of the Copper River empty steeply from the mountains above while breakers pound in from the ocean. Parralled with unpredictable weather and tides makes fishing the "Flats" of the Copper River a bit dangerous at times. But the catch is well worth it.
admin.adfg.state.ak.us/license/prices.html
***
Federal Wildlife Laws - Lacey Act
Lacey Act Amendments of 1981
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Rumor is
The predatory litigious "Humboldt Baykeeper" is going after Sun Valley Bulb Farms.
Will they get go-away money? Or will Sun Valley stand up to the extortionists?
Will they get go-away money? Or will Sun Valley stand up to the extortionists?
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Wow!
Humboldt "Baykeeper" has a STAFF ATTORNEY!
Moneykeeping must be paying off.
Michelle Smith, Staff Attorney
707.268.0665
michelle AT humboldtbaykeeper.org
Moneykeeping must be paying off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)