Big Box Blog

The council had twice voted unanimously for the Master Plan and grant money had been won to help defray expenses. The Balloon Tract had already been the subject of great controversy during the attempt to bring a Wal-Mart there and the Master Plan seemed an excellent and innovative approach by the council. Clearly the site was important to the majority of Eureka’s residents and there was a diversity of opinion to be considered. The meeting of May 24 turned out to be legitimately about soliciting public input. People spoke their views concerning the Security National project. Cleanup of the site was the No. 1 concern. The opinions voiced seemed to be more than 10 to 1 against the Security National plan. I was grateful to read Councilwoman Mary Beth Wolford’s comments the next day regarding the issue of cleanup. Clearly she had heard the audience.

As we learned in the newspapers after the fact, the four members of the City Council who voted to cancel the Master Plan at the last minute did so apparently because each had received a call from Robin Arkley informing them of his intent to buy the Balloon Tract site from Union Pacific. Their decision was impulsive and without a doubt will cast a shadow over the City Council for years to come. It is clear that the Master Plan would have included Mr. Arkley’s ideas for the Balloon Tract. However, by canceling the Master Plan, the council in effect said “no thank you� to any other ideas. It is the sole reason that we were only considering one project at our meeting. Their decision has stirred up controversy and has polarized our community once again.

After the May 24 meeting, Councilman Jeff Leonard stated that it was a “fairy tale� that the Master Plan process would have had an impact on the controversy over the Balloon Tract. This comment, smug and self-serving, could not be further from the truth. If Mr. Leonard had been really listening, he would have noticed that every concern brought up by speakers at the meeting, regardless of their views of the Security National plan, would have been considered by the Master Plan: Viable options, financing of a project, job and growth concerns, cleanup needs, traffic patterns and parking needs, protecting the bay, etc. The primary motivation for the Master Plan was to get a real sense of what sort of project would best serve our community and the future of Eureka and the North Coast. 

I feel betrayed by the City Council because a process that had begun in Eureka and was inclusive was suddenly taken away by four members of the City Council elected to serve everyone. I don’t blame Mr. Arkley for calling the members of the City Council. I wasn’t surprised by that. We all have that right. However, Mr. Arkley in his candor had previously publicly stated that he would rather the democratic process not apply to him under certain circumstances. His implication being that his great wealth entitled him to certain special privileges.

That my City Council gratified this sort of grandiosity is beyond belief. That mentality may be pervasive in the country these days, but clearly not in Humboldt County. It represents the antithesis of what our city and county, much less our country, really stand for. The defeats of Calpine and Wal-Mart, and the defeat of the recall election by Pacific Lumber, should have given the council members a clue as to the values of their own constituents.

The council’s actions do invite questions of their integrity, like it or not. It also may drag out the process of anything happening on the Balloon Tract for years. At the meeting on May 24, I implored the council to bring back the Master Plan if there was any possible way to do so. I stand by that request.

Harry Blumenthal is an artist who also has a private practice in psychotherapy. He lives in Eureka.

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