Full circle

◼ Cannabis Grow Damage Like ‘Worst Of Timber Industry’ - Daniel Mintz for The Arcata Eye

A five-county program assessing impacts on salmonids has named unpermitted grading as a major impact and one county supervisor said the effects of illegal grading connected to marijuana grows are as bad as those seen during the dark years of the timber industry.

Supervisor Mark Lovelace, who was one of the county’s most active environmentalists before being elected, made those comments as a result of a new regional study on habitat protection policies presented at the Jan. 10 Board of Supervisors meeting.

Dr. Richard Harris, the researcher who coordinated the study, said unregulated and illegal grading – including the grading that enables marijuana grows – is a problem. And Lovelace described its scale as massive in Humboldt County.

“It’s phenomenal,” he said, referring to photographs of grow-related grading that he’s seen. “And it’s shocking – and it compares with the worst of the worst from some of the bad years of the timber industry....” Read the rest

Actually - some have said - for years - that it has always been worse than the timber industry, and has gotten even worse in recent years since pot growing has become defacto legal in this county.

Courage? Not.

It's the end of the line for Paul Gallegos' famous Palco Lawsuit. And he doesn't even have the guts to sign his name. Makes an underling sign it.

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
IN RE SCOTIA DEVELOPMENT LLC, ET AL., Debtors

JOINTLY ADMINSTERED Case NO. 07-20027-C-11 Chapter 11

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PROOFS OF CLAIM NOS, 560, 561, AND 562
FILED BY PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The People of the State of California file this Notice of Withdrawal of Proofs of Claim Nos. 560, 561 and 562 (the "Notice"), and withdraw, with prejudice to refiling, each of the following proofs of claim filed against Salmon creek, LLC, Scotia Pacific Company, LLC and The Pacific Lumber Company filed in these jointly administered bankruptcy cases:
Proof of Claim No. 560 filed in an unliquidated amount;
Proof of Claim No. 561 filed in an unliquidated amount; and
Proof of Claim No. 562 filed in an unliquidated amount.

Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of May, 2008

Paul V. Gallegos, SBN 161408
Humboldt County District Attorney

signed (NOT BY PAUL GALLEGOS HIMSELF)
NO. Signed by poor
Christa K. McKimmy, SBV 215785
Deputy District Attorney
825 5th Street, 4th Floor
Eureka, CA 95501
Tel: (707) 445-7411
Attorneys for the People of the State of California

Case 07-20027 Document 3012 Filed in TXSB on 05/28/2008 Page 1 of 1

Nice. Make her wear it. Notice to any future readers who come here because they googled HER name... she did not lose this case. This case was brought by Tim Stoen, largely written, it is said, by a campaign supporter, it was pursued by Stoen and Gallegos with much pomp and circumstance, much bluster, a massive effort was put in place to keep this suit alive, and it never even got into court, never passed demurrer. Callegos appealed its tossing, and lost. Gallegos appealed to the California Supreme Court, and lost again. Christa McKimmy's misfortune is that she works for this man - and, while he takes credit for any wins, any losses are passed down to underlings. Paul Gallegos bears sole responsibility for bringing a POLITICALLY MOTIVATED SUIT that never had any merit. NEVER HAD ANY MERIT WHATSOEVER.

Tree farms and bankruptcy court

Alot has been made of the recent $603 million dollar bid dropped out of the blue by Texas billionaire Andy Beal, whose proposal is being taken seriously in the bankruptcy court.

You do have to laugh, though, when you realize the guy making the bid and claiming he had timberland holdings in Estonia, only has 48 acres...

"...Under questioning, (Jacob) Cherner (representing the business interest of Texas billionaire Andy Beal,) admitted Beal hadn’t performed much analysis on actually running the “tree farm” he intended to purchase, including researching timber harvest levels, timber marketing and securing a timber workforce.

Cherner told the court that Beal did have timberland holdings in the northern European country of Estonia.

According to federal financial 10-K405 forms, that property is 48 acres of timber lands Beal purchased in 1995 for $25,178."
PALCO bankruptcy on hold - Eureka Reporter 4/12/08

Google: andy beal estonia

Related:
TS Palco case rests without resolution 4/12/08
TS Attorneys, experts brawl over timber value 4/11/08
ER PALCO confirmation hearings enters third day 4/10/08
TS Mendocino Redwood on the stand in Palco case 4/10/08
TS Palco parties launch opening salvo 4/9/08
ER Attorneys for Mendocino Redwood Company start testimony to resolve PALCO bankruptcy 4/8/08
ER Schwarzenegger backs MRC plan for PALCO reorganization 4/5/08
TS Judge orders Palco, creditors to mediation 10/24/07
TS Mendocino Redwood floats Palco plan in Eureka 3/19/08
Those are just some of the articles on this subject, locally.

Just wondering if that point was noted in one of Lovelace's team member's live-blog accounts.

PALCO expanding its options

Interesting development ...PALCO and its consultants have had an opportunity to talk with the county planning staff, supervisors and residents following the release of its original organization plan... ready to work with the county and floated an idea for a higher-density development project on its lands to take advantage of proposed land-use policy changes under review in the county’s general plan update process....

Looks like things are going to get even more interesting.

And, in the TS Mendocino Redwood in bid for Palco

Ken Miller is a TPZ landowner

Surprise, surprise!

From McKinleyville Press
The eventual consequences of our current Timberland (TPZ) zoning rules became clear to me when a local developer said I could subdivide my TPZ land into 4 "forties" with a joint management plan, and presumably sell at a price that reflects four buildable properties.

While contemplating the enormous profits, I also imagined the horrific impacts if I, and my neighbors, exploit these opportunities, even at the 160-acre level: increased traffic through Kneeland onto Mountain View Road; water quality and habitat degradation from sediment, septics, household chemicals, domestic animals, multi-vehicle use and trash; wildfire risks; fragmented timberlands and nuisance complaints from the newly-urbanized interfaces with them; and spiraling economic pressure for wholesale conversions.

Eel River Sawmills recently financed the sale to a young, local developer-entrepreneur (You mean this entrerpeneur?) of roughly 15,000 acres of timberland for $5.6 million, or under $400/acre, a price that, with favorable terms, could facilitate sustainable timber management over time, consistent with state law that "Encourage[s] investment in timberlands based on reasonable expectation of harvest." (51102a(4)).

However, he has been subdividing, selling, financing and "servicing" small parcels for as much as $4-6,000/acre, making more immediately profitable agriculture necessary - and possible. Purchasers of one of these parcels were busted growing industrial quantities of marijuana. The supervisors held code enforcement proceedings for environmental damages from these activities.

Large-scale development is another much more profitable potential use of TPZ lands. A co-founder of "Humboldt-CPR" uses his TPZ lands as real estate. If these scenarios continue, our timberlands will be too expensive for anyone but land speculators and large-scale marijuana growers. (like that entrepreneur?)

The proposed County TPZ revisions to restrict TPZ development will align our codes with state regs, such as those of most neighboring counties, which restrict homebuilding on TPZ lands to "[A] residence or other structure necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production." (government code 51104(h))

Bill Barnum, real estate attorney and 4th largest timberland owner in the County, misinterprets that timber law, insisting that the residence is statutorily permitted, while the other structures need to be "necessary." If correct, he would be making the strongest possible argument for revision of our TPZ regs, which would, left unchanged with his interpretation, promote land speculation and TPZ conversion to urbanized landscapes, directly violating the government code which "[D]iscourage[s] expansion of urban services into timberland." (51102)

We must work together to come up with solutions that protect the working timberlands, mindful that we, the people, have determined to "[M]aintain the optimum amount of the limited supply of timberland to ensure its current and continued availability for the growing and harvesting of timber and compatible uses." (51102)

The Forest Practice Act aims to: "...manage and maintain its limited forest resources for the purposes of furnishing high-quality timber, recreational opportunities, aesthetic enjoyment, watershed protection, fisheries and wildlife." Calfire (CDF) has made it clear that "...changes in zoning that lead to reduced parcel sizes and encourage development detracts from the benefits that can be derived from actively managed forests." Residences and habitation inhibit timber production pursuant to the watershed and habitat elements of the Timberland Productivity Act.

In a recent Timber Harvest Plan in Yager Creek drainage, Sierra Pacific Industries candidly warns that in the event the land were not to be used for timber production, "It is likely that some of the parcels, currently zoned, may be sub-divided to take advantage of the expanding rural residential housing market driven by the growth of the Humboldt Bay area. This expansion in rural residential housing will result in the reduction of lands zoned TPZ, land use conversion (permanent removal of forest cover), increased road construction, potential soil and water contamination by increasing the number of septic fields in the given watersheds, and increased traffic within the assessment area."

Maxxam's proposal to sell off 160-acre "kingdoms" to the super-rich will establish precedents and comparable prices that will benefit speculators and Realtors, creating a "land rush." We cannot ignore the nexus between this TPZ controversy and the General Plan Update.

Population growth's demands for big box commodities would necessitate wider roads in all directions to accommodate their trucks, which could also service an expanded, industrialized port. Bingo, Humboldt transforms into Santa Rosa cum SF Bay Area, with urbanized watersheds, pollution, congestion and ever-increasing cost of living.

We had better support our sustainable, working timberlands, and jobs associated with healthy watersheds, like logging and fishing, or the developers' dream will become our nightmare.

(Ken Miller is a McKinleyville resident, a member of the Humboldt Watershed Council and a TPZ landowner.)

Something wrong with this picture! - Ken Miller advocating jobs like {gasP!!!} Logging! and working timberlands! Or is he just trying to pull the wool over your eyes while he has his eyes on an end game.

Couple of articles/Op-Eds on TPZ...

State law affects TPZ issue
During the 1970s, Jacoby Creek-area resident Jerry Partain was a forestry professor at Humboldt State University. He was also a county planning commissioner and active on the state’s taxation advisory committee, which advised the Legislature on how the state’s timber tax could be amended.

Partain said he feels the growing fear locally of government’s intervening in private-property rights is secondary to the reality of complicated and costly state regulatory requirements for timber harvesting....

Retired assessor explains 1975 TPZ law

...The Z'Berg-Warren-Keene-Collier Forest Taxation Reform Act of 1976 changed the method of taxing “timber” in California. The act encouraged the protection of immature trees and continued use of timberland for the production of trees for timber products and provided restrictions on the use of timberland to the production of timber products and compatible uses...

There has been much discussion recently regarding a residential site on TPZ, and if the site is good or bad for TPZ properties. It seems to me that if a property owner is living on the property, he or she will better manage the property for forest management, fire protection and scenic beauty. This is good not only for the owner but also the public....

County's take on state TPZ under fire
In a letter supplied to the county Planning Commission before its Nov. 15 meeting, Edgar B. Washburn of Morrison & Foerster LLP stated that in his opinion, staff’s interpretation of California Government Code 51104 (h) is incorrect.

Further, he stated, staff’s interpretation of No. 6 in that section is flawed.

The Washburn letter was delivered to the county via Eureka law firm Mitchell, Brisso, Delaney & Vrieze....

crossposted on TPZwatch

Backwoods Brawling

This week's Town Dandy

Excerpt: ...Here, in a nutshell, is a summary of the situation. Currently, and for the last 30 years, someone who wanted to build a home on land zoned for timber production (“TPZ land”) required only a building permit. The proposed change would require that people who wish to build on TPZ secure, in addition, a much more onerous permit that would require, among other things, that the proposed home is “necessary for the management of the timberland” — i.e., for timber harvesting. On the face of it, that would seem to equal something close to “never.”

Looked at from one angle, the proposal is perfectly consistent with the changes the county is making to its general plan, which should be updated sometime next year. A major goal of the general plan is to confine population growth to already populated areas, so as to prevent sprawl and to preserve working timber and agricultural lands from development. There’s plenty of arguments to be made that rural subdivision has major impacts on wildlife and watersheds. Environmentalists and smart growth advocates have lined up solidly behind the proposed changes.

On the other hand, there’s no questioning the fact that any change would have immediate and devastating effects on some 1,700 separate owners of TPZ lands, who together own about one million acres of Humboldt County land. Eureka attorney Bill Barnum, whose family’s company owns about 30,000 acres of land, estimates that the changes will wipe away $1 billion in Humboldt County property values — about $150,000 per TPZ parcel. Whether those figures are strictly accurate or not, the very agitated folks who have organized themselves to oppose the change certainly have plenty to fear.

There’s no question that it’s within the county’s power to impose the changes. Several neighboring counties — Trinity, Del Norte, Shasta — have similar rules in place, and have had for some time. (Others, like Mendocino County, have rules similar to Humboldt County’s current ones.) It’s startling, though, how reaction to the Pacific Lumber proposal seems to have precipitated this headlong rush to change things as quickly as possible, without the possibility of thorough study or debate. The result, inevitably, will be very nasty politics and very expensive lawsuits...

Hanks asks Did it ever occur to (Bill Barnum) that he, Maxxam and Schectman were, by all appearances, on the same side of the TPZ issue?

Umm, I hafta disagree with that one, Hank - I don't think Bill Barnum is putting in 40 x 100 foot greenhouses to grow pot illegally. I could be wrong. If you mean that it's the argument that you should have the right to do whatever you want on your land - I still don't think you'd find that that is what Barnum is saying. Most everyone agrees that some rules are necessary, and good people tend to abide by them. Criminals don't. That's what should be being addressed, not denying someone - anyone - the right to sell their parcel or build a home on their parcel.

Supes will not extend moratorium

People crowd the hallway of the county Courthouse on Tuesday waiting to air their views on whether the supervisors should extend the moratorium on construction on timber production zone land. Daniel Solomon/The Eureka Reporter
ER Supes will not extend moratorium

Tuesday afternoon saw several hours of public testimony for and against Humboldt County Supervisors extending an interim ordinance suspending building permits on timber production zone land.

After the approximately 80 speakers had finished, Pacific Lumber Co. President and Chief Executive Officer George O’Brien took the podium at Supervisor Jill Geist’s invitation.

Geist had, along with Supervisor Bonnie Neely, introduced the interim ordinance Oct. 9 that was passed with Roger Rodoni dissenting.

On Tuesday after 7 p.m., the supervisors voted 4-1 (Roger Rodoni dissenting again) to lift the moratorium. Rodoni said he disagreed with the additional motion elements.

Supervisor Jimmy Smith had said he’d like a task force, a consideration for “hardships,” a letter sent to the Texas bankruptcy court and to get better informed about the Habitat Conservation Plan as it pertains to timberlands, including PALCO’s.

Geist registered her concern over a task force, as did other supervisors, and with Smith’s OK she made a new motion that reflected Smith’s, but did so without the task force.

While O’Brien had been in front of the room, Geist’s first question to him was if PALCO was still intending to go forward with the “Redwood Ranch Development” project, which, she said, had brought them to where they were with this moratorium.

As part of its bankruptcy reorganization plan, PALCO has included a high-end residential development — the sale of 21,800 acres of second-growth, commercial timberland for 136 residential parcels to be known as “Redwood Ranch.”

“It’s not a project that has ever been proposed to you,” he said.
He told the supervisors PALCO is currently in mediation with its creditors. He said Redwood Ranch could not become an official development for years.

He did say the development was being viewed as a whole project, not just single homes.

“We’ll be complying with whatever the regulations are at that point in time,” he said.

O’Brien categorized the “concept” as a “working forest” and “eco-friendly.”

As previously reported in The Eureka Reporter, there has been much debate about whether houses are compatible with timber management on said TPZ parcels.

Humboldt County Community Development Services Director Kirk Girard said the “single question” going before the Forestry Review Committee when it takes up the TPZ ordinance today at its 7 p.m. meeting is “when is a house necessary to timber management?”

“We’ve heard the community,” Geist told O’Brien. “There is not one of us that disagrees on the importance of those timberlands for their resource value.”

“It is the lifeblood of our company,” O’Brien countered.

Some speakers had said they felt the supervisors were “punishing” small landowners to send a message to PALCO. Some said it felt like the county was set to “take” their land.

“The community at large does not trust PALCO,” Geist said. “The community at large does not trust the Board of Supervisors.”

She inquired how these two parties can begin to work together.

“I think one of the ways is dialogue and transparency,” O’Brien said.
***

TS Timber zone building ban will run out

Ignoring all the individual people who got up to speak about how they were being impacted by this decision, the insensitivity award goes to Diane Beck with the North Coast Chapter of the Sierra Club said opponents of the moratorium had engaged in misinformation and bullying, and were using hyperbole when claiming that they wanted to protect the rural way of life.

”Oh, please,” Beck said. “Since when have mini-kingdoms on TPZ lands been part of our rural culture?”

Uh, Diane, long before subdivisions became the norm.

A number of speakers said they'd been caught up with Palco in an ordinance that threatened their property rights.

Rancher Sally French said the environmental community had overstepped its bounds, and so had the supervisors in proposing the moratorium.

”Is this fair?” French asked. “No, of course not, but it seems that all is fair in love -- and war with PL.”

Stay tuned, boys and girls

You're going to get a chance to see just how much respect "heraldo" and the rest of the DUHC-type protest community have for real grassroots efforts. You're going to learn just how much respect they have for kids who take the intiative to speak out. And you're going to learn just how much respect they have for you who own property.

For a classic civics lesson, head on over to "heraldo's" blog where you'll see him slime the kids, evoke the Palco bugaboo (because oh my god, no one could get together en masse without funding from palco, it msut be about palco, palco, palco - oh, and arkley, arkley, arkley......)



It's all about this ad. (Text here) It's all about the property owners, who "heraldo" views as collateral damage - it's about making sure that no one gets a chance to buy property outside of a city subdivision, that no one gets to live off the grid, in the country on more than 1/10th of an acre, because that would be "s-p-r-a-w-l-l-l-l-l-l" Never mind that you chose to live here because you don't want to live in a city, "heraldo" has plans for you. How dare the people who actually own property stand up for themselves?

Oh, yes, this is going to be interesting, alright.

pdf file from County site/ Board Agenda item

The Board hearing... w/update

The usual suspects Larry Evans, Scott Griecen, Jennifer Kalt, Jeny Card aka "Remedy" - the EPIC/treesit/Anti-Palco activists -

So far the Orwellian Award goes to Larry Evans - who complained that the Board would be hearing from a "vocal minority" with "vested interests"... He went on to pontificate that "if it wasn't for petulant frivolous lawsuits..." You have got to be kidding me! Uh, Larry, have ya looked in the mirror? Vested interests, Larry? Try the PEOPLE WHO OWN THE PROPERTY! Who do they think they are?

Hypocrisy reigns in Bizarro Humboldt County.
***
C A map depicts timber production zones throughout Humboldt County. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to have the county Planning Commission draft ordinances to address the county’s framework plan and local coastal plan within the context of TPZ regulations. Map courtesy of Humboldt County Planning Division

Supes defer TPZ ordinances to Planning Commission
After several hours of public testimony, Supervisor Jill Geist made a motion to defer the issue to the Humboldt County Planning Commission to draft two ordinances — one to address the county’s framework plan, and the other factoring in the local coastal plan, also suggesting a three-year conversion process be examined.

The framework plan is a component of the Humboldt County General Plan, and works to govern development as a whole in the county.

The motion passed 3-1, with Supervisor Roger Rodoni voting no. Supervisor Jimmy Smith excused himself from the vote, as he was not present for a portion of the meeting due to a prior obligation.

The ordinances will address single-family residential development on TPZ lands, while considering either the use of a conditional permit or a special permit process. They will be used to exam and address the issues of secondary units and uses, as well as establish criteria for permit approval.

The Planning Commission will consider development in at least two categories of TPZs, including industrial and non-industrial. Incentives and entitlements for TPZs will also be examined.

Throughout the county, approximately 990,000 acres fall into the category of privately owned timber land production zones — 660,000 of which are industrial timber land, 330,000 which are in large ranch lands, with the remaining portion of land totaling less than 40 acres. When including public TPZ land, this adds up to more than 1 million acres, Geist said.

Residents, property owners, foresters and timber representatives spoke to a host of issues, with the vast majority against the board’s previously adopted moratorium and initial proposal for an ordinance aimed to make residences on TPZ lands conditionally permitted.

Updates:
ER Op-Ed Supervisors try a sneaky trick that steals from our neighbors 10/23/2007
...To listen to the county, this abrupt and rushed policy was intended to penalize only one landowner, as if that would excuse the supervisors’ behavior....
ER Op-Ed Save the redwoods by Brody Severe, Eugene, Ore., 10/20/200
ER Editorial Board of Supervisors should stand up for private-property rights
ER Editorial Board shows its myopic view of private property
TS Proposed TPZ revisions sent to Planning Commission
The prospect of property owners wanting to build a home on Timber Production Zoned land being required to acquire a conditional use permit brought out a full house of opponents at Tuesday's Board of Supervisors meeting...
TS Proposal would give county discretion on timberland building
TS Anger still boils over timber ordinance

Unintended consequences

As Logging Fades, Rich Carve Up Open Land in West
"WHITEFISH, Mont. — William P. Foley II pointed to the mountain. Owns it, mostly. A timber company began logging in view of his front yard a few years back. He thought they were cutting too much, so he bought the land.

Boys jump into Flathead Lake in northwestern Montana, a region where the timber industry, private developers and local citizens compete for the interests of the land, rich in natural beauty and resources.

Mr. Foley belongs to a new wave of investors and landowners across the West who are snapping up open spaces as private playgrounds on the borders of national parks and national forests.

In style and temperament, this new money differs greatly from the Western land barons of old — the timber magnates, copper kings and cattlemen who created the extraction-based economy that dominated the region for a century.

Mr. Foley, 62, standing by his private pond, his horses grazing in the distance, proudly calls himself a conservationist who wants Montana to stay as wild as possible. That does not mean no development and no profit. Mr. Foley, the chairman of a major title insurance company, Fidelity National Financial, based in Florida, also owns a chain of Montana restaurants, a ski resort and a huge cattle ranch on which he is building homes.

But arriving here already rich and in love with the landscape, he said, also means his profit motive is different.

“A lot of it is more for fun than for making money,” said Mr. Foley, who estimates he has invested about $125 million in Montana in the past few years, mostly in real estate...

With the timber industry in steep decline, recreation is pushing aside logging as the biggest undertaking in the national forests and grasslands, making nearby private tracts more desirable — and valuable, in a sort of ratchet effect — to people who enjoy outdoor activities and ample elbow room and who have the means to take title to what they want. Source NYTimes

But the protestors are never happy:

“I’m a former tree hugger who was opposed to everything, every timber sale,” Ms. Dahl said, “but now I see that the worst thing you can do is lose it all to development.”

It's funny, though - wasn't that Greg King, the former Earth First! leader - who stood up at the Humboldt County Board meeting to announce that he was a TPZ landholder who bought his land intending to build a house AND log it. Of course he has to say he intends to log it, doesn't he? But isn't that EXTREMELY hypocritical? Or is it just to ensure he gets the tax breaks that everyone is talking about? Either way - he has his - now he wants to make sure you can't get yours.

It'll be interesting

To see who Salzman gets to show up at the Board of Supervisors Meeting today - he's sent the call out to the Orks via the listserve. The usual suspects were already at the last one...
In a message dated 10/21/2007 11:26:03 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, aeb@inreach.com writes:
Make a difference, show up:
What: Board of Supervisors
When: Tuesday, 9 a.m.
Where: Humboldt County Courthouse
Property owners are going to have to stand united. If they don't it is going to look like the Orks are in the majority. They want to get Palco at all costs, and do not care about the "collateral damage."

Interesting comment on Eric's post though - some of the Orks may BE the collateral damage - at least those in SoHum: ...this isn't about PALCO. It is about telling you folks (especially down in Sohum) that you will NOT be building any residential homes other than downtown any longer. What a laugh. And you guys don't even realize it... But - what about the fact that this ordinance will effectively preclude all of you in Sohum from ever buying any TPZ (and soon to be Ag land) and building a home?

Conditional use permit vs regular is the difference of thousands of dollars. Just getting it thru the planning commission is a minimum of 18 months. Doing a full EIR tens of thousands. No Eric - they are blinding you guys with your own anti-Palco hate. Look harder at the big picture and your way/quality of life.

Letter from the Board

Filed with the Bankruptcy Court Oct. 16, 2007
Re: Chapter 11 Case Nos. 07-20027 through 07-20032
a 9-pg pdf document

On October 9, 2007, in the City of Eureka, California, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors held a public meeting and passed an interim urgency ordinance prohibiting residential uses on lands zoned Timberland Production (TPZ) in the County.

The ordinance was in direct response to the Plan for Reorganization submitted by the debtors to the Bankruptcy Court that outlines a proposal for residential development in Humboldt County known as the "Redwoods Ranch Development." In that plan the debtors propose to develop and sell approximately 22,000 acres of commercial redwood forest as 160 acre "kingdom" or "trophy" properties. The parcels would be marketed for high-end low-density residential and recreational development.

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors does not believe that this development is feasible. The plan is inconsistent with existing land use plans and policies and is inconsistent with all of the plans and policies that are currently being reviewed in the County's General Plan Update.

Enclosed for your review is a copy of the ordinance that suspends the entitlement to a building permit on lands zoned TPZ in Humboldt County. Please consider this ordinance when you review Scotia Development LLC's reorganization plan for feasibility on October 23, 2007.

Coverage: PALCO plan opposers speak up

Save the Redwoods. Here's your chance.

Would you pay 5 or 6 million to save 160 acres of redwood forest?

If you were willing to be arrested, go to jail, give up two years of your life or even die to save them, the answer ought to be "Yes."

I've been thinking alot about the recent discussions of "what it's worth" with respect to those forests, and I think the environmental community is missing the boat here.

It is a whole lot cheaper than the donations for the protracted media, activist and public relations efforts.

I predict "environmentally involved celebrities" will be standing in line.

Background and updates:
Anger still boils over timber ordinance 10/16/07
Landowners continue to seethe over a temporary ordinance banning building on timberland passed last week by Humboldt County supervisors.
At the Fortuna Chamber of Commerce meeting Monday, attorney Bob Barnum, whose family owns 36,000 acres of timberland in the county, urged members to speak up against what he sees as improper use of a police power. He said supervisors set off a “neutron bomb” when they adopted the 45-day ordinance aimed at an exclusive rural development pitched by the Pacific Lumber Co. as part of its bankruptcy reorganization plan
☛ TS editorial County has a Palco freakout 10/14/07 ★ ★ ★ ★
At first blush, the 4-1 action by the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors last week -- a 45-day de facto housing permits moratorium on timberlands -- seemed like a run up San Juan Hill in reaction to Pacific Lumber Co.'s proposal that it buy its way out of bankruptcy by converting 2,200 acres of trees for 136 160-acre parcels with luxury homes in an exclusive development.
In the light of day, however, it's looking like more like a “run in circles, scream and shout” reaction that stands to hurt the county's planning process and cause collateral damage to other, smaller landholders. Panic is not a way to run a county.
☛ NCJ The Town Dandy - Jolly Good Show 10/11/07
If you’ve got a head for it, the gears of democracy in action can sometimes deliver unparalleled drama, and Tuesday’s supes meeting was a fine example of the genre. It went on for four hours, and I don’t think I was bored once.
☛ Palco creditors put lower value on asset 10/11/07
A document that had been under seal in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court case of the Pacific Lumber Co. holds that its timberlands are worth only a fraction of what the company has estimated.
☛ TS Supervisors pass timber ordinance 10/10/07
A barely muted battle between most county supervisors and the Pacific Lumber Co. played out Tuesday, with dozens of timberland owners begging not to be caught in the middle by a temporary ordinance restricting building.
☛ ER Supervisors pass TPZ ordinance 10/10/07
This is “really our only shot to send a message of concern to the bankruptcy court,” Supervisor John Woolley said.
☛ TS Forest land owners nervous over ordinance 10/9/07
A temporary building moratorium for timberland parcels being considered by county supervisors today has some landowners sweating over possible damage to the value of their property and their ability to sell it.
Humboldt County supervisors will weigh the adoption of an interim ordinance that would be in place for 45 days with extensions possible out to 22 months, 15 days. It's aimed at a proposal by the Pacific Lumber Co., which has pitched an exclusive development of more than 130, 160-acre “kingdoms” linked together with amenities like a golf course and a club house.
☛ TS Landowners sweat short-term TPZ rule 10/8/07
☛ TS Supes to hear ordinance in response to Palco plan 10/7/07
Faced with a possible rural development on a scale the county hasn't seen in years, Humboldt County supervisors on Tuesday will consider a temporary halt to issuing building permits on timberlands
☛ TS 'Make no little plans' 10/05/07
The Pacific Lumber Co. has come out with an ambitious and creative (and some say outlandish) proposal for pulling its way out of bankruptcy. While a satisfactory solution to debt problems is to be desired for the sake of the many Humboldters whose livelihoods depend upon a healthy Palco, the company's plan seems to be overreaching on its face.
☛ TS Palco plan hinges on big money land sales 10/3/07
The Pacific Lumber Co. is looking to reinvent itself by selling thousands of acres as an exclusive planned development bordering pristine redwood reserves, and using the cash to pay down its massive debt.
☛ ER PALCO files reorganization plan 10/1/07
To pay off its creditors, PALCO is seeking to generate $400 million through the sale of approximately 6,600 acres of SCOPAC’s logging-restricted timberlands, which the company is calling “Ancient Redwood Groves.” Under the reorganization plan filed in the Texas bankrupcty court, the company aims to to sell off the old-growth forests within 24 months of the plan’s approval at a value of $60,000 per acre to buyers who are willing to commit to the permanent environmental protection of the land. PALCO is also seeking under the plan to raise an additional $780 million through the sale of approximately 22,000 acres of lands the plan identifies as “Redwoods Ranch Development,” which will be offered for sale as individual 160-acre parcels that will be marketed as “trophy” properties valued at approximately $5 million on average. Map provided by PALCO (caption on image shown below)
Fred reports - The Sacramento Bee takes a look at Palco/Scotia (obliquely related)n. Makes the situation sound a little rosier than the news we get locally. Or maybe it's just me? If asked for a login, you can use humboldtlib as the username and blogspot as the password.

How many lawsuits does it take?

If you are a Palco worker who went to the "Free Public Workshop" (Bankruptcy 101: Understanding the Palco Chapter 11 Case) offered by the Crocodile Tears 'coalition' - I'm just curious - did anyone tell you about all the lawsuits the activists filed against Palco? No? Because it's time to 'move beyond that.' Now it is about 'healing' the wounds. But who inflicted the wounds? You know the answer.

Anyone who's lived here has experienced the steady drip, drip, drip of lawsuits, but never seen them all in one place, and probably never thought about how inter-related they all are. I'll bet "Humboldt Watershed Council" "President" never tells you about The Committee of Concerned Maxxam Shareholders (the "Committee.") (Or, in other words, the Rose Foundation.)

In May of 2000 "The Committee" * sent a letter to Maxxam's 'fellow' shareholders, declaring that they were "seeking your support because the Committee believes that Maxxam is a company in trouble." It appears they wanted to get their guys elected to the Board of Directors. And, as justification, they complained that "Maxxam is a company in trouble," and they delineated the reasons why. All those lawsuits, driving the company down. Never mentioning the source. I suppose if they were successful in gaining control of the company, all those lawsuits, and all those protests would have gone away.

"...Maxxam's Pacific Lumber subsidiary remains a focus of controversy and litigation:

-- Three pending lawsuits claim that Company logging operations have damaged neighboring property and property values; these suits seek unspecified monetary damages, and ask the court to enjoin certain future timber operations of the Company.

-- A wrongful death suit, filed in September, 1999, seeks unspecified damages based on allegations that Pacific Lumber's conduct and policies led to an incident in which an employee killed a young man by felling a tree on top of him.

-- The Sierra Club and the Environmental Protection Information Center ("EPIC") have sued to block logging on a piece of Company property that is surrounded on three sides by the newly created Headwaters Reserve, alleging the modifications in the plan did not receive appropriate environmental review.

-- On March 31, 1999, EPIC and Sierra Club sued to stop implementation of the Pacific Lumber Sustained Yield Plan ("SYP"), the Company's comprehensive plan for logging operations over the next 120 years, claiming that the plan violates both California's Environmental Quality Act and Endangered Species Act.

-- Also on March 31, 1999, Don Kegley and the United Steelworkers of America filed a separate lawsuit challenging the SYP on the grounds that it fails to provide for sustained timber production and harvesting over time. Additional information on this action is supplied below in the "Solicitation" section of this proxy statement.

-- EPIC and Sierra Club have also filed a Notice of Intent to Sue challenging the Company's Habitat Conservation Plan, on the grounds that it does not meet the requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act.

Eight lawsuits in 1999 alone?

Plus:

Maxxam faces potential liabilities in two separate legal proceedings based on the failure and subsequent $1.6 billion bailout of United Savings Association of Texas, a savings and loan association that Maxxam is alleged to have controlled.

Maxxam and Charles Hurwitz, the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, are respondents in an action brought by the Office of Thrift Supervision ("OTS"), an agency of the United States Department of the Treasury, seeking $821,000,000 in restitution. Maxxam has agreed to indemnify Mr. Hurwitz and several other respondents in this action, which could result in significant exposure for restitution and penalties. That case is being litigated before an administrative law judge, who is expected to rule later this year. No determination as to the merits of this case has been made at this time, and a final judgment will be determined in an appropriate administrative proceeding (In the Matter of United Savings Association of Texas).

In addition, Mr. Hurwitz is currently defending a lawsuit brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), "

They claimed that: "The Committee also believes that electing these independent candidates is important, given the Company's failure over the past year to capitalize on the so-called "Headwaters Agreement."

Under this Agreement, into which the Company entered on March 3, 1999, Maxxam received an extraordinary payment of $380 million in cash and property from the United States and the State of California, as payment for the sale of 5,600 acres of forest land owned by Pacific Lumber Company in northern California. But despite Maxxam's recognition of a $239 million gain in the Headwaters transaction, shareholders have seen relatively little benefit from the Headwaters Agreement. The Company reported significant operating losses and a relatively small amount of net income, and, approximately one year after consummation of the Headwaters Agreement, Maxxam stock price is where it was five years ago."

Gee, I wonder why?

They do not cop to - The "Rose Foundation's" apparent significant and aggressive role, again not acting as a passive donor, but acting, according to reports, as activists and lobbyists set on making Hurwitz guilty, and then using that to force the turnover of his land. The FDIC suit they caused to be brought about was recently characterized by they judge as the government acting like the mafia.

Going forward, as it was happening, it would have been nearly impossible to detect, each incident would be taken on its own merits, and seen as unrelated - kinda like Salzman's paving the way for Cotchett's new lawsuit, doesn't seem important, seems crazy to wonder what the hell is up with that - but looking back, there's a lot of pieces of the puzzle that need to be put together.

Related:
Copy of "The Committee's" Proxy Solicitiation posted on watchpaulARTICLES
Two more suits
HC - File suit, fail and repeat as needed in Hurwitz case

* Members of "the Committee" are The Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment (the "Rose Foundation") and the United Steelworkers of America ("USWA").
"In 1999, the Committee conducted an independent proxy solicitation on behalf of Mr. Mikva and another candidate and in favor of resolutions similar to the Cumulative Voting and Declassified Board Proposals being offered this year. In addition the Rose Foundation (a Committee member), along with Jill Ratner, its president, and Thomas W. Little, its executive director, were sponsors of a cumulative voting resolution similar to the one submitted this year by the As You Sow Foundation and John C. Harrington, who were also sponsors of that 1999 resolution. In 1998, Ms. Ratner and Mr. Little, along with the California Public Employees Retirement System ("CalPERS"), sponsored the Declassified Board Proposal that Brent Blackwelder has submitted for consideration by the shareholders this year. In 1997, Ms. Ratner, Mr. Little, and the As You Sow Foundation conducted an independent proxy solicitation on behalf of two other independent candidates for Common Director, as well as a shareholder resolution asking the Company to sell or trade its properties within the 60,000 acre Headwaters Forest area in northern California to a government agency or conservation organization for appropriate consideration"

Who is Bob Martel? "Executive Director" of "Humboldt Watershed Council"

He's listed as the "Executive Director" of "Humboldt Watershed Council."

In April of 2000 the North Coast Journal reported that "Local activist Bob Martel received an expensive setback this week in his ongoing battle against Pacific Lumber and its parent company, MAXXAM. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Martel's appeal to an earlier decision in MAXXAM's favor and ordered him to pay the company legal fees of more than $110,000.

The case concerns the failure in 1988 of a savings and loan association in which MAXXAM and its chairman, Charles Hurwitz, were investors. Martel contends that Hurwitz exercised control over the company; Hurwitz denies the charges. Related cases are still pending, but the court ruled that Martel's case was "frivolous."

Martel disputes that claim, saying that the suit cost him $250,000 and took five years of research. That, he said, "doesn't actually fit the definition of frivolous."

As to how he might pay the legal fees awarded by the court, Martel said he hasn't earned "more than six thousand dollars in a year in recent memory"

MAXXAM spokesman Josh Reiss said that the corporation intends to pursue the claim.
###

On April 29, they reported that "A taxpayer and a local nonprofit group have been ordered to pay legal fees for two separate lawsuits involving Pacific Lumber and its chief stockholder, Charles Hurwitz.

In 1995, Humboldt County resident Robert Martel filed suit against Hurwitz, alleging he had defrauded the federal government of $1.6 billion in the collapse of the United Savings Association of Texas 11 years ago, according to a report in the Times-Standard. Now Martel has been ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Hughes to pay Hurwitz' $110,123 in legal fees and expenses.

Hughes ruled that Martel's suit was "abusive litigation" because Martel had based much of his suit on information garnered from newspaper reports. Hughes also said Martel, who had filed the suit as a taxpayer, lacked standing to sue on behalf of the federal government.

Neither Martel nor Hurwitz could be reached for comment.

In a separate case, the Garberville-based Environmental Protection Information Center was ordered to pay Pacific Lumber $17,731 in legal costs as a result of a June 1997 lawsuit. EPIC sued PL in March of 1995, maintaining that the California Department of Forestry should have prepared an environmental impact study before it granted the company a salvage-logging permit for spotted owl habitat now protected as part of the Headwaters Reserve.

EPIC spokesperson Kevin Bundy said U.S. District court judge Louis Bechtle dismissed the suit because EPIC "couldn't convince the court (salvage logging) would violate the endangered species act."

John A. Campbell, PL president, recently issued a statement saying PL is entitled to the court costs.

"The favorable court ruling highlighted that salvage and other logging would not cause a take of endangered species," he said. "The court ... made clear in this case that endangered species would benefit from the working relationship developed by Pacific Lumber, federal wildlife agencies and the California Department of Forestry."

Bundy said the amount EPIC must pay is a fraction of the $700,000 PL originally requested to cover fees.
###

In other coverage, it is reported that: "Judge Hughes characterized Martel's pleading as "Regurgitating politicized half-truths" ...Describing Martel as "a bystander" who "knows nothing, saw nothing, did nothing," U.S. District Court Judge Lynn N. Hughes determined that Martel "lacks standing, was not the original source of the information, and filed his suit too late." Martel filed suit in January 1995, saying he was bringing the action on behalf of the U.S. government; however, the U.S. government declined to participate in the suit. (Missed another statute of limitations did ya, guys?)

Is this why getting Paul Gallegos to file the lawsuit for them was so important? Martel and Miller lacked standing.

And who paid the $250,000 Martel claims to have paid out?

Houston Chronicle - Loren Steffy's Blog

"Humboldt Watershed Council" is very busy lobbying against Hurwitz in every possible forum.

Even on Loren Steffy's Blog
(Photo: Houston Chronicle Reporter Loren Steffy)

January 24, 2007
Sound Off: Pacific Lumber's bankruptcy

If you've followed the Charles Hurwitz saga for a while, you probably know that Pacific Lumber was flirting with bankruptcy for several years. I discuss the bankruptcy in my column today.

One thing I didn't mention in the column, though, is the theory among environmental groups that Hurwitz has purposely kept Palco near bankruptcy.

He did this, the theory goes, because he was siphoning money out of the company. Now first of all, no executive purposely keeps a company near bankruptcy. That's especially true if you're wanting to siphon money out of a company, because when the company goes bankrupt the first thing the creditors will do is look at where the money went.

The environmental groups, though, can't be bothered with such business basics. Here's another one they frequently flub: they want to stop logging on private land, yet they are unwilling to pay to preserve the trees.

If these guys cared so much about nature, why don't they simply buy up the bonds of Palco's Scotia Pacific division? That's the unit that owns the timber land. Then, they could control the trees. They could refuse to sell the trees to Palco or any other lumber company. They could retire the debt and set up a preserve. They could, in other words, put their money where their mouths are.

Why don't they?

He invites readers: Please discuss.

Asked why he doesn't rake Hurwitz over the coals, (Steffy is a reporter for the Houston Chronicle) Steffy responds:

"Actually, I've taken quite a bit of time to study this issue. I've read several books on the Timber Wars, I've reviewed thousands of pages of documents and interviewed quite a few people on both sides of the issue. I have written thousands of words on the topic. It's a remarkable story, but one that's steeped in myth. To portray the "old" Palco as an idyllic, paternalistic company, for example, ignores the changes that were happening before Hurwitz came on the scene. (Tax benefits for selective cut, for example, had been eliminated. Palco was going to have to start clear-cutting to remain competitive.) To imply that Hurwitz's timber harvest rates have remained double or triple those of the old Palco is inaccurate. To say that he destroyed the pension is wrong. Palco still has a defined benefit pension plan, something few companies in America still offer. But none of this matters because the rhetoric has been driving the debate for more than a decade. Hurwitz's biggest mistake was not recognizing the cost of alienating the environmentalists, and for that, he has paid dearly. They will not rest until he is gone. The irony is that their protests and legal challenges have kept him from selling.

Posted by: Loren at January 25, 2007 08:11 AM"

Another excerpt: (from Josh Reiss)
This is in response to the several postings from the Humboldt Watershed Council. In the interest of full disclosure I served as the spokesperson of Maxxam from 1999-2002. I have not worked for the corporation in any capacity since 2004.

Anyone who ever worked at worked at Maxxam in any capacity knows that the bankruptcy of ScoPac was a painful and sad decision, not taken lightly. Nor was it ever a part of a plan as the Council and others have recklessly suggested over the last week and in the post above. Indeed, one need only look at the 10Qs over the past several years at the $ that has moved downstream (no pun intended) to make bond payments as proof that bankruptcy was never planned nor desired. Moreover, if it was planned or desired why on earth would a significant capital contribution be made for Project Scotia to revitalize and modernize the mill. It simply makes no sense to suggest that the intent was to bankrupt.

I have never met Mr. Lovelace (who I assumed posted the above note from the Council). In fairness to him I do believe that he really does care about the Humboldt Community. And I think he has toned down some of the Council's rhetoric and tactics from the past. (For instance,who can ever forget Bob Martel -- Mr. Lovelace's predecessor at the Council -- suing Maxxam in the FDIC case and losing more than 110K of his own money in the process because his suit was frivilous. Or Darryl Cherney declaring on the radio in 2001 that he hoped PL would go bankrupt.)However, I also cannot help but note the irony of several groups such as the Humboldt Watershed Council and others over the last week declaring that they intend to press for the HCP to stay in place. These are the same individuals and groups that did not like the HCP to begin with. Remember the placards HCP=Huge Corporate Profits. Showing up at community meeting to reckle and give a tough time to PALCO scientists who were dedicated 100% to watershed management based on science. Perhaps now these groups can finally acknowledge what PALCO declared accurately for years -- that the HCP was the most environmenatlly senstitive HCP plan ever. Unfortunately no one ever gave the plan a chance to work because the goal of the headwaters movement was never fully met -- acquisition of 200K acres without having to pay a dime for it. That the HCP failed is a true tragedy right up there with the bankruptcy; perhaps ever sadder.

Posted by: Josh Reiss at January 28, 2007 08:26 PM

And:
"O.C.: Sorry if I overlooked a respone to your earlier question. The short answer is that companies filing for bankruptcy have a lot of latitude in choosing a venue. Basically anything that can be considered an operation of the company allows it to file in that jurisdiction. That's the reason that Enron could file in Manhattan, for example. It's also the reason many companies file in Delware -- simply because they're incorporated there. Debtor companies do this all the time, looking for a venue they believe will be more favorable to them.

Posted by: Loren at February 11, 2007 02:17 PM

Times Standard in bed with the activists w/two updates

This explains alot...

Don't pretend "Humboldt Watershed Council" is an unbiased legitimate public service organization. "Humboldt Watershed Council" is nothing more than the latest, most effective manifestation of Ken Miller's jihadist crusade against Palco/Hurwitz/Maxxam. It's one thing for John Driscoll to have a source. It is entirely another thing entirely for him to be in bed with the group, to be used as a propaganda tool in Mark Lovelace's full-court-press mission to seize full advantage in the face of the Palco Chapter 11 filing.

This allows Mark Lovelace to control the spin, put his own self-serving context around every detail of the reporting. It allows him to irrevocably influence public perception and opinion, to "control the debate." It is an unforgivable breach of journalistic ethics, and an incredible disservice to the readers who trust the Times Standard to present them with factual unbiased information.

The only equivalent would be if Driscoll was sitting in Maxxam's corporate offices with Palco's lawyers and reporting through their prism.

If the Times Standard is going to embed a reporter with the activist attack group, they should also embed a reporter with Palco, and put Lovelace's spin on the opinion pages where it belongs.

There's no excuse for this.

Times-Standard violates media ethics
3/9/2007

Part of a newspaper’s role is to be held accountable by itself, its readers and other media. When a newspaper oversteps ethical boundaries, it is essential that it be pointed out.

Case in point: Reporter John Driscoll of the Times-Standard has been writing stories about Pacific Lumber Co.’s bankruptcy proceedings based on a telephonic conference call from Texas that is reportedly being paid for by Mark Lovelace, president of the Humboldt Watershed Council. Lovelace invited Driscoll to the Humboldt Area Foundation, where the telephone conference call has been heard by Driscoll.

Neither the Times-Standard nor Driscoll have acknowledged this gift publicly. And it is a gift. At $6 every 15 minutes, the all-day proceedings easily add up to hundreds of dollars.

The Eureka Reporter is paying for its own conference call tie-in, and it was not invited to HAF by Lovelace.

And this is not sour grapes. We were offered a similar opportunity to listen in to the conference call by a local attorney who has been a litigant against PALCO. We declined on ethical grounds.

The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics states reporters should “avoid conflicts of interest — real or perceived.”

At the very least, Driscoll’s actions represent a perceived conflict of interest.

The SPJ states reporters should “remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.”

Listening to a contested bankruptcy hearing on a telephone conference call paid for by Lovelace violates the spirit if not the substance of remaining “free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.”

Journalists should “refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment … if they compromise journalistic integrity,” according to the SPJ.

As we said, at $6 every 15 minutes, the Times-Standard and Driscoll are receiving a significant financial subsidy. We are amazed that Driscoll didn’t see a problem with his actions, once the issue was brought to his attention by The Eureka Reporter.

Additionally, with this revelation, how can Driscoll claim that he is objective in covering environmental issues? It calls into question his entire history of reporting on PALCO-related issues.

When news media overstep their boundaries, it sullies all journalists, and that is why we are drawing attention to this lapse by the Times-Standard and Driscoll. The SPJ states that media should “expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media (and) abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.”

We hope the Times-Standard and Driscoll can learn from this mistake and change direction.

(Editor’s note: The full SPJ Code of Ethics is available online at the Society of Professional Journalists.)
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
###
More on that Code of Ethics:
Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Journalists should:

—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
— Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.

Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

Journalists should:

— Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
— Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
— Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
— Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.
****
Discussion on Fred's, buhne, eric, and heraldo
****
Nathan Rushton on the Bankruptcy teleconference disruption

From heraldo's blog:
Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Mark Lovelace Responds to Eureka Reporter
Humboldt Watershed Council president Mark Lovelace responds to Eureka Reporter accusations of ethics breach.
Glenn Franco Simmons
Nathan Rushton
The Eureka Reporter
215 4th Street
Eureka, CA 95501

Re: CourtCall and Journalistic Ethics

Dear Glenn and Nathan,

I was surprised to read your editorial on Saturday, regarding the apparently egregious breach of journalistic ethics posed by the presence of the Times-Standard’s John Driscoll at a ‘listening session’ for the Pacific Lumber bankruptcy hearings. I had spoken to Nathan about the arrangement on Thursday, but he expressed no ethical indignation about the issue. Rather, he merely seemed curious as to why he had not been invited too.

I explained to Nathan that the invitation to John Driscoll arose out of conversation in the course of John’s constant, in-depth coverage of the PL story. I would likely have invited Nathan, too, had he and I spoken, but such conversation was hampered by the Eureka Reporter’s relative absence on this critically important story. I was certainly pleased to hear that the Reporter was planning to step up its coverage, and I assured Nathan that he would be welcome to join us in any future listening sessions. In fairness, Nathan reflected much of this in his own column on Sunday.

The Times-Standard and the North Coast Journal have both written some excellent investigative reports on the details of this case while, so far, the Reporter has merely relayed the days events. With this editorial, the Eureka Reporter seems to have chosen to investigate the investigators, rather to investigate the story itself. Even in that the Reporter has erred, getting two critical facts wrong.

For one, the cost of the CourtCall service was paid by the Redwood Forest Foundation Inc, not HWC, though I did make the arrangements. Thus the assertion that this was in some way a ‘gift’ from the Humboldt Watershed Council is simply incorrect.

For two, neither the Humboldt Watershed Council, nor RFFI, nor anyone else in the room was a party to these proceedings. We were on a ‘listen only’ line because we were not participants, but rather observers, as would be any other member of the general public. This is fundamentally different from listening-in with Palco, or with an attorney for one of the parties.

Though HWC is not a party, we do have a deep interest in the outcome of this process, as should anyone in Humboldt County . The bankruptcy of Pacific Lumber Company is a huge story, and how this issue is resolved will have a significant impact on Humboldt County’s future. Through this process, we have the opportunity to finally put 22 years of division and culture war behind us, and to focus on developing a truly sustainable Pacific Lumber Company that our community can once again be proud of.

Organizing this CourtCall listening session was a part of HWC’s ongoing efforts to make this bankruptcy process as accessible and understandable as possible to the broader Humboldt County community. That same goal was the reason that HWC and others sponsored the Bankruptcy 101 workshop, which was attended by over 100 PL workers, retirees, their families and other members of the Fortuna and Rio Dell communities. It must be pointed out that the Eureka Reporter neither attended nor reported on that workshop.

For weeks I have been working to arrange a venue where anyone in Humboldt County could listen in to the bankruptcy proceedings. I have been in touch with the folks at CourtCall to try to arrange for the hearings to be streamed live on the web, which is something they have never done before. I have explored arrangements to provide a public listening venue in Fortuna. Significantly, I also provided Nathan with the necessary information on how to sign up for the CourtCall service.

What is particularly disappointing to me is that I had spent a significant part of my day Friday working on establishing a better, more public listening venue, and I believe that I have finally been able to make an arrangement that would allow any member of the public to join in. I spoke to both John Driscoll and Hank Sims about their respective papers’ interest in helping to fund this effort along with the Humboldt Watershed Council and others. I called Nathan on Friday and left him a message asking if the Eureka Reporter would like to join in this group effort, too. How disappointing, then, to read the Reporter’s divisive editorial the very next morning.

It is in everyone’s interest to work together, to share information, and to focus on providing a service to our community. I hope that the Eureka Reporter’s inaccurate and divisive editorial hasn’t soured the various partners who would be necessary to make this public service possible.

Sincerely,

Mark Lovelace, President
Humboldt Watershed Council
# posted by Heraldo @ 8:59 AM

Eco-Propaganda

The EcoNews is certainly under no obligation to offer 'fair and balanced' reporting, but the Northcoast Environmental Center's supporters may not realize exactly how far they are from that noble goal, as they are fed polarizing propaganda issue after issue. But this latest one is over the top.

The March 2007 issue's cover story on Palco starts out telling the reader "The story of Pacific Lumber Company - now calling itself Palco - has been told and retold in painful detail for 22 years, ever since marauding Texas investor Charles Hurwitz leveraged enough publicly traded stock in the company to force out a long era of more benign management."

The author, Erica Terence, then quotes Mark Lovelace laying the groundwork for Ken Miller's "Transition Mission." She of course, has no idea how she is being used.

The crocodile tears pour forth. "The last 22 years have not been good to Humboldt County. We've been rocked by protests, tree-sits, ceaseless litigation, layoffs, mill closures, the Judi Bari bombing, the Stafford landslide, the pepperspray incident, the death of David Chain, increased flooding, landsliding and environmental damage, and a deepening polarization of our community..." Lovelace says.

You'd think he was getting ready to apologize. But no.

And Erica goes right along, regurgitating all the talking points from Lovelace, Ken Miller, and Ken Miller's other partner Jesse Noel.

Now, she says, "Lovelace and his colleagues do not want to waste time fixing blame - they'd rather figure out how to fix the structure of the company." As if they owned it.

She probably has no idea of the ceaseless role of those three in creating all the "protests, tree-sits, ceaseless litigation, layoffs, mill closures, the Judi Bari bombing, the pepperspray incident, the death of David Chain, and the deepening polarization of our community."

But there's no attempt at balance here, and no real research. No attempt to include a different perspective. This is propaganda, pure and simple, and it ought to be identified as such.

The EcoNews is a newsLETTER, not a newsPAPER, but publications are a record of our time. When they do not offer a full and honest accounting, with facts checked and with both sides represented they do a disservice to current and future readers and researchers.

"Earth First!," "Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters," "Salmon Forever," "EPIC," "Humboldt Watershed Council," "The Alliance for oh-so-ethical-Business," "Timber Yes, Fraud No" - Ken Miller and his crew, using many different "group" names, have been involved in a decades-long effort to attack one man and destroy one company. Pure and simple. And that story ought to be told.

Is Paul Gallegos licensed to practice law in Texas?

Hank Sims describes a PL Bankruptcy conference call in which Gallegos, acting in his official capacity (albeit on his cellphone), made what amounts to a court appearance in the matter, as he insisted the Court recognize that he joined with the CA AG's motion.

Gallegos graduated from an unaccredited law school. As I understand it, while he is licensed to practice law in California, he is not licensed to practice law in other states. In Texas state courts, they will grant a waiver (pro hac vice ) allowing a lawyer from California, from an unaccredited school,* to practice, but this has to be applied for and granted. Did he apply for pro hac vice status to appear or did he appear illegally?

But if the bankruptcy hearing is in front of a Federal Court, do they offer such a waiver? - This question arose in the comments yesterday and my limited googling hasn't gotten me an answer.

When Paul made a "court appearance" via cellphone, as described in the Journal article, was he practicing law without a license?

(*note: apparently California is one of the few states that allows unaccredited law school graduates to practice law, so the Texas judicial system allows a waiver subject to approval.)

Follow up:
Pacific Lumber Co. bankruptcy trial begins Tuesday in Texas