Big Box Blog

My Word by Tim Flemming

I would like to reply to a few of the talking points that Mr. Cobb felt were so important, in his Feb. 12 My Word. First, I would like to start, well, at the beginning. Mr. Arkley does not need a “friendly” media source. Projects like the Sequoia Park Zoo and helping local nonprofit organizations do not need “friendly” press.

Next, in 1999 there was a vote over the Balloon Track and its rezoning, but that does not in any way have anything to do with what happens to the Balloon Track and its rezoning in 2006. Seven years is a long time. Not only were a lot of people voting against Wal-Mart and not the rezoning issue, but after seven years some voters might have changed their minds, since Wal-Mart is no longer part of the equation.

Seven years ago there were a lot of local citizens who were not old enough to vote in 1999 and now they are of age. Are you saying that those of the younger generation don’t have a right to have their say in this matter, Mr. Cobb? Next, if you have a problem with the beachfront issue, you should probably take that up with the people who sold the property, not the people who bought it. It was the decision of the sellers, not the Friends of the Dunes or the Arkleys. Next, you keep talking about a democratic process, so why, then, do you take issue with Mr. Arkley donating money to the political groups that he believes in? You being against his rights to do this is an insult to the democratic process. Making financial donations is part of the democratic process. Yes, he sent $500,000 to defeat Tom Daschle, but the bottom line is that the people did not vote for Daschle. This is democratic process.

Your comment about our elected council members not having any courage is just painfully insulting and disrespectful. Just because they did not agree with your views in 2004 doesn’t mean they lack courage. Disagreeing is part of the democratic process. When voting, the issue either wins or loses the vote.

I respect your views on the Balloon Track, but I would like to see your research on waterfront properties in Third World countries. I had no idea Third World countries were turning down chances for economic growth because they have issues with the Home Depot. I understand your fear about this development and our local businesses, but I saw numerous local businesses stand up for the development. I have also seen local businesses growing faster and staying longer since we began opening our doors to the likes of Costco, Longs Drugs, Blockbuster Video and Target. Competition is good, and most business people understand this.

On Feb. 9, the City Council meeting made me so proud to be a native of Eureka. I was able to see my town working the democratic process as well as standing up and speaking out in support of this development. As you will see, people who love this city, including local business owners, would like to see it grow and want to grow with it. I agree with you that our community can do better. Because of Security National, our community is doing better and striving to move forward.

I hope in the future, sir, you will refrain from attacking your community members. Calling Mr. Arkley arrogant and accusing the City Council of having no courage is not necessary. I respect your opinion, just please act like an adult and stop the name calling. I am also begging you not to use such a serious community issue as this for personal political gain and grandstanding to build your constituency for your next election. Thank you.     

Tim Flemming, business manager for the North Coast Substance Abuse Council, lives in Eureka. The views presented above are his own.

The opinions expressed in My Word pieces do not necessarily reflect the editorial viewpoint of the Times-Standard.

Posted by at 09:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

My Word by David Cobb

So Union Pacific Corp. and local billionaire developers Rob and Cherie Arkley want to change the zoning rules on the last large piece of undeveloped waterfront property in Eureka.  

The Arkleys — who created the Eureka Reporter to ensure an appropriately “friendly” media source for their projects — want to change the zoning rules on this 30-acre parcel from public use to commercial use in order to allow a mega “big box” development to be built on our Humboldt Bay.  

But hold on! The citizens of Eureka already rejected an effort to amend the zoning rules on the exact same parcel of land in exactly the same way by a whopping 61 percent to 39 percent at the ballot box in 1999. 

That should have settled the matter in a democracy like ours, right?

The plain and simple truth is that the Arkleys are asking five City Council members to overturn the unambiguous and express will of the entire electorate of Eureka. 

It is hard to imagine a more arrogant display of wealth and power!

But we should probably expect as much from a man who bought over 200 acres of pristine beachfront property out from under the Friends of the Dunes and then gloated that he would fence it off and ensure that it would never be open to the public.

The Arkleys are also the third largest political donors to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Rob Arkley spent over $500,000 to defeat former Democratic Party Senate majority leader Tom Daschle in 2004.

And in 2004 four of the five City Council members rejected a Headwaters grant which would have explored all options for this unique parcel in a way that actually empowered and included the community. Only Councilmember Chris Kerrigan had the courage to stand up for the idea.

At the time Rob Arkley made it clear that he didn’t care what the city wanted, and he did not want any public process that would create a master plan for our waterfront. As he stated at the time, “It might not be what I want.”

These folks are obviously used to having their way with politicians.
But beyond all that, the proposed big box development is simply a bad idea, and especially on waterfront property that is already specifically zoned for public use.  

This parcel should be developed for the public use of all of us, not for the private gain of a few. Even Third World countries don’t allow their waterfront property to be squandered in such unimaginative ways!

Mega big box development is particularly bad for our local community. Countless economic studies and real-world experience demonstrate that such a behemoth would drive our beloved local merchants out of business. Money that is currently circulated in our own community would be sent out of the county to corporate headquarters.

At Democracy Unlimited we support local business, and we want our neighbors to thrive. We don’t want Humboldt County to lose its character as a great place to live. We certainly don’t want Eureka to turn into Santa Rosa. 

Lastly, the proposed zoning change does not require a true environmental cleanup. In fact, Union Pacific Corp. is attempting to avoid liability for environmental contamination. We say — hold the owners of Union Pacific Corp. responsible for their actions and demand a full cleanup.

The Balloon parcel is an unpolished gem. A creative public-private partnership could make it shine. We could use this opportunity to imagine a sustainable, healthy future for ourselves and for our children. But it can’t happen if we allow a big box proposal to be shoved down our throats now.  

Our City Council should accept the Headwaters grant and begin a true open public process to explore possibilities. And any decision to rezone this parcel must be made by the voters in a popular referendum. Anything else is an insult to the democratic process.

If you agree that our community can do better, we invite you to join Democracy Unlimited, Local Solutions and Healthy Humboldt at a community organizing event to stop the big box on our waterfront.

On Wednesday, Feb. 15, we will be hosting Supervisor Bonnie Neely, Humboldt Baykeepers and others as we strategize how to stop this project so we can keep our options open. The event will take place at 6:30 p.m. at the Wharfinger building.

This community has won before. We can do it again.

David Cobb, former Green Party presidential candidate, serves on the Steering Committee of Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County, a Eureka-based community organization. He can be reached at www.duhc.org. He lives in Eureka.

The opinions expressed in My Word pieces do not necessarily reflect the editorial viewpoint of the Times-Standard.

Posted by at 09:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBacks (0)

The Times-Standard

It’s a pleasure to see grass-roots democracy in action. A good example was on display Tuesday at the Eureka City Council chambers. A standing-room-only crowd turned out to hear — and comment on — the first public presentation of Rob and Cherie Arkley’s proposed Balloon Tract development, which would include 400,000-square-feet of retail shops, a parking structure, restaurants and office space along with five anchor stores and a 115,000-square-foot Home Depot.

Comments were about evenly split on the pros and cons of the proposal. Proponents say the project would transform Eureka’s downtown, enhance the city’s standing as a regional retail hub and bring in jobs and tax money. Critics raise concerns about the level of brownfield cleanup, possible impacts on already established home improvement stores and whether a “big box” is the best fit for the property.

The council is being asked to consider a requested zoning change from public to commercial, residential, office and light industrial use for the contaminated 30-acre waterfront site.

To the City Council’s credit, officials decided to hold another meeting tonight, beginning at 7 p.m. at City Hall, to give more people a chance to comment on the request before a decision on whether to consider a zoning change application is made.

Kudos as well to the Arkleys, who are planning an open house on the project from 4 to 7 p.m. Feb. 16 at the Wharfinger building.

Those events, and extensive reporting on the proposal, should give community residents all the basic information they need to form a decision on the massive planned development.

That’s a good thing, because — since the proponents are asking the city for a key zone change on Eureka’s largest vacant piece of land — this should be a community decision.

It’s a question of what’s best for the community and all its residents, not just any one particular buyer or seller. In fact, the current owner, Union Pacific, has left the rail site abandoned and contaminated for many years.

We urge city officials to move cautiously before committing themselves to the first tantalizing project that comes along. For that reason, all uses for the site should be identified and considered, ideally with an independent study that’s not tied to any one developer.

There’s no hurry here. Even if this project were to get under way tomorrow, completion would be years away.
Much has been said about the current blight and glittering possibilities of the untapped treasure that is Eureka’s waterfront.

Given the area’s key importance, it’s vital that we, as a community, get this exactly right — for us, and for future generations.

Posted by at 09:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBacks (0)

Your endorsement of competing studies neatly sidesteps one central issue: Union Pacific (as a private landowner) and Security National (as the proposed buyer) do not want it done. Consider if this was your home or business; would you want a study done on it? Even if you ignore that issue, your position that the Headwaters money would allow an independent study of the site and “offer a complete range of ideas and opportunities” is misleading and factually wrong. The cost to understand this complex site would easily exceed $250,000 — the Headwaters money was $45,000. How would the city pay for those studies? City money will have to be used to make up the difference by tax increases or further cuts in the general budget.

Any highest and best use analysis begins with the question “what is physically possible?” Understanding the environmental and physical (including geotechnical) constraints of the Balloon Tract would cost over $100,000. Once we understand the physical and environmental condition, we would still need to understand any impact on the community. What effect would the proposed uses have on local businesses, schools, the city’s general fund, etc. Chalk up another $75,000 for economic impact studies. Traffic studies? Another $75,000.

The proposed redundant plans cost the city money it does not have and provides no more information than the work being done by the city at Security National’s expense. Redundant plans would cost the city at least another $200,000 at taxpayers’ expense.

Furthermore, your insinuation that the city will somehow be tainted or that it can not lead a thorough and independent study is insulting to the hard-working staff and council of Eureka. The Environmental Impact Report is scoped, written, controlled and directed by the city.

When the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan were adopted by the city in 1984, the site was already vacant and underutilized. During that time, the city elected to zone the property “Public” to provide itself the opportunity to consider any future uses for the site. The city has always contemplated, at some point, a zone change for the Balloon Tract.

“What about Union Pacific?” you asked. While I agree that Union Pacific could have done more to maintain the Balloon Tract, they have fully complied with the state’s environmental law and regulations. Union Pacific has recognized the need to move the site from the railroad’s ownership and have actively marketed it for the last five years or more. Security National is not the first buyer they have negotiated with, rather the only one to have signed a deal.

“What future effect might that have on the waterfront?” Site contamination investigations have been conducted at the Balloon Track site for more than 15 years. The information collected over this time has repeatedly shown that petroleum hydrocarbon and metals contamination exists in the shallow soils. The placement of a barrier cap over the site, coupled with the removal of the most contaminated soil, would minimize rain and storm water from infiltrating to the subsurface and would effectively eliminate the primary mechanism for leaching subsurface contaminants into neighboring properties and the bay.

You also asked, “Why not ask the public what it thinks?” Great idea! Security National Properties would like to invite you and the public to an open house on Thursday, Feb. 16, from 4 to 7 p.m. at the Wharfinger building. Subject-matter experts will be available on a wide range of issues that affect the Balloon Tract site. The public should have the facts before being asked to make a decision on this project. Thank you for ensuring that these points are clearly presented.

Brian Morrissey is senior vice president for Security National Properties. His home is in Omaha, Neb.

The opinions expressed in My Word pieces do not necessarily reflect the editorial viewpoint of the Times-Standard.

Posted by Blog Admin at 02:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)