I’d say about 30 people showed up at the meeting tonight to generate input for recreational development of the park in conjunction with an application for Prop 84 grant money due on Monday. We didn’t have much time to plan this out – maybe three weeks, and we weren’t effective at getting the word out. But we had a decent and diverse turnout anyway, with some advocating that we do very little to develop the property and maintain it as a preserve, to a very detailed proposal for ball parks/soccer fields/swimming pool/recreational field house proposal from Jim Truitt. We heard support for more extensive trails, non-motorized boat access, cooking facilities, running water with pit toilets, tennis courts, visitor center, and yes, outdoor music venues. There were calls for poison oak eradication, a crosswalk, fire safety (water storage), and tulips.
More as it develops.
Addendum: Here are a couple of shots (click on them to enlarge) of Jim Truitt’s proposal, courtesy of John Rogers. Whatever you think of the idea (and there was some opposition tonight), Jim poured some money and some thought into it and deserves considerable credit. The survey alone cost a pretty penny.
The area is the pasture to the left as you come in the dirt driveway towards the ranch house/barn area – used for parking when we were holding events at the barn. The green squares are baseball fields/soccer fields. The blue rectangle is the proposed location for a swimming pool. The beige rectangle is the proposed location for a recreational house for basketball, indoor soccer, etc., perhaps with showers. Parking would be provided towards the bottom of the screen below the fields.
Obviously, this would be part of a long term vision. It would probably cost a couple of million dollars in its more ambitious form. Right now we are trying for a grant of about $500,000.00, and everyone agreed that the potential water development would pretty much define what we could do – never mind what we want to do. The green could be grass, or perhaps artificial surface.
Frenchy surprised me by suggesting that such a proposal would be better off down by the Kimtu entrance. I don’t agree with that suggestion for several reasons, but he offered more than a simple “no,” and I appreciated the flexibility which I had not attributed to him. Sorry about my doubts Frenchy, and thanks for adding constructive substance to the conversation. The stakes are high in these discussions, and we often misjudge each other. I hope we can move beyond that.
386 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 23, 2010 at 8:29 pm
anonymous
I think that preservation and conservation of the parkland as open space, with low impact recreational uses is the sane and smart approach.
Jim Truitt’s proposal, with its acres of artificial turf and million dollar field house seems to be grotesquely out of scale for a small rural community, and a project better suited to a city or a University environment.
I must admit that with all respect to the park board, dumping development as usual on this jewel of a park would be incredibly short sighted and I hope that it does not happen that way.
February 23, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Matt
I’m not convinced the park needs tulips
February 23, 2010 at 9:16 pm
edsvoice
Eric,
Is this the grant funding you are talking about and applying for? If it is, it would seem the Park Board is once again pulling the cart before the house or another way to put it, before the Park Board can finish or even start their GPA EIR for rezoning and land use designation changes:
http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/1008/files/spp_application_guide_2009.pdf
February 23, 2010 at 9:58 pm
hillmuffin
Those development ideas sound ambitious. Will be interesting to see how it all plays out. (What about the golf course?)
February 24, 2010 at 7:45 am
Anonymous
if the pbod gets any grant money, how much would be spent on dazeysland? shwt is always talking about localization, let’s keep the park local. taking water out of the river, any water, should be an absolute no-no. no water for any reason, especially to water grass. that’s plain stupid. how many of our local np’s are constantly telling us CONSERVE WATER, STOP USING WATER during the summer, low flow months? please leave the park as a low impact “find your soul” park.
February 24, 2010 at 8:55 am
Anonymous
Good for Jim Truit! I’m all for it. Redway’s fields are pretty sad.
February 24, 2010 at 9:12 am
Fred Mangels
taking water out of the river, any water, should be an absolute no-no.
I do find it a rather odd idea, after dealing with drought conditions this last summer, that some are suggest putting in large areas of turf grass.
February 24, 2010 at 9:21 am
rohn
No one was talking about taking water from the river. Ponds or rain catching water tanks , the use of Garberville’s water district treated sewage (from the planned new facility that would be just above the fields)and other sources were suggested as well as artificial turf. Everyone at the meeting seemed to realize that water use and water conservation were prime factors in what could be done. Pit privys or composting toilets for bathrooms (used in State parks) and other water saving suggestions were made.
Now is the time to put forth our dreams and vision for a unique opportunity in our area. Despite the noisy vocal nay sayers who deride any progress at the Park as somehow benefiting private individuals or being self serving, it is obvious that there are many people who want to participate in a productive and polite manner.
I thank the Park Board and Kathyrn for the time and energy they have dedicated to this task. Rohn Jennings
February 24, 2010 at 9:21 am
edsvoice
Same could be said for any field in SoHum, even at SFHS. That is the point, anyone in the state can apply for this Prop 84 grant. Did anyone ask or did anyone talk about the GPA? You would still need the zoning and land use changes before anything could be planned. As good as you make this all sound, about how someone has stepped up to the plate and spent his own time & money to submit this project, let me remind you, about the people who for years already spent a lot of their own time and money building their dream before this community park came into being. And now you want to bypass us for the greater good? I guess when we can see an equil playing field for ALL involved, you need to keep us all informed.
February 24, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Anonymous
In other words Ed thinks it would be a bad thing if the community got 750 thousand dollars to improve the park.
February 24, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Anonymous
I guess that depends on what your definition of “improve” is.
February 24, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Anonymous
On a second note, how can the pbod apply for this grant when they do not have the proper zoning for what they want to do? Does the agency looking at this application take that into consideration?
February 24, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Anonymous
Is the new water treatment system the one on McKees’ land that was park land? What a gift that is.
February 24, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Anonymous
This is cool!
February 24, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Another Idea
anon 3:44, you missed the actual point.
The improvement seen by anon 3:17 is 750 thousand dollars. When it gets spread around here, thats an improvement.
February 24, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Anonymous
Well I guess some people can find bad news in anything.
February 24, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Eric Kirk
The initial funds would probably go towards infrastructure development, particularly water (no, we won’t be taking it out of the river), trail development, and very low impact improvements. Jim’s vision and other larger visions would be on the table for future funding, and we’ll be soliciting input from all over the community throughout the process. We’re going to get the rezoning. Everybody knows it by now. It’s just a question of details and scope.
February 24, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Anonymous
What do you mean you won’t be taking water out of the river? Even using GSD water is taking it out of the river. What about that huge well across the river from the shale quarry? The one big enough for a small municipality, is that not going to be taking water out of the river?
Or do you mean you won’t be taking any MORE water out of the river than the infrastructure already in place (two wells that we know of and GSD)?
February 24, 2010 at 7:59 pm
edsvoice
“In other words Ed thinks it would be a bad thing if the community got 750 thousand dollars to improve the park”
You think the Community is going to get their hands on this grant funding, or even tell the Park Board how to spend it, hell no! The Park got your blessings on it last night and they will do with it as “they” please, not this community. Please remember one thing, the Community Park is private property, not public or community property, like Tooby Memorial Park use to be, before the Park Board privatized it.
Where do you boys and girls come up with this crap. Eric said it was $500K, I heard that Dennis said it was $700K. Here is one of the big problems, (if you want to know) nothing is ever written down, it’s all talk. Why can’t we read the actual proposal? Dennis is also saying this grant money will be used to pay for their “EIR”. Well the only “EIR” I know about is for the Park Boards GPA, too rezone and change the land use designations on the Park Property, and that was for a Concert & Festival Venue, Housing Development, Camping & RV facilities and Parking Concert and Festival goers on the River Bed.
Why were there no hand outs to keep at the meeting? Why can’t we take it home and read it?
I think sport fields of any kind are a fantastic idea, but there needs to be thought and planning, not just a reason to spend grant funding on something that’s not even zoned for ball field(s). Sure $500K would go along way to improve the Park. But do most people want to improve it with haphazard development, or save it in its natural state, like it is today and enjoyed by many.
Frenchy’s Idea is a great one, but you think Dazey will put up with ball fields, lights, parking, noise and a PA system next to his “Estate Development”?
It just seems there are hundreds of more importaint improvments that need to be cared for in the Community as a whole, like the schools and the hospital to name a few. I thought the schools were getting bad when I went through them. After looking at SFHS, and what the teachers and students have to put up with, you can’t put them into words. Then there are the basics; books, lights, heat, heath, comfort, safety etc etc…
Bottom line; show us what you want to do, in writing and stick to the plan.
February 24, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Anonymous
Uh oh. I looked at some Prop 84 stuff on the internet. The League of Womens Voters of California say that proposition 84 “contains detailed provisions for oversight of the programs that it would fund, including yearly audits by independent agencies plus a citizen oversight committee”.
And on the application itself on page 40, see criteria #6, “To help the residents prioritize the selection of their preferred recreation features, make budget limitations and projections clear to the residents.” Residents are people who live within a half mile of the park.
Please see page 49 criteria #4-B about notifying residents in the area.
It is shocking to me that with our state park system on the chopping block due to
lack of funding, hundreds of thousands of dollars (or maybe more) would be offered to a private park that will not provide any accounting of how much money was actually donated by the community to buy the park, will not have their board meetings in public and will not write bylaws to protect the environment. In other words refuses to behave like a recreation district or a public park. The state parks belong to us, the citizens of california. The community park DOES NOT.
February 24, 2010 at 9:17 pm
anonymous
Hey,@ 7:59 pm
Stop being so negative. The meeting last night was very informative and there were lot’s of great working exchanges between the people there. Why do you insist on focusing on your own very negative agenda? Many of us appreciate that we got to have so much input on the contents a park grant. I would think that you would’ve appreciated that. Your endless complaining is counter-productive and honestly….it’s boring. Obviously, based on the meeting last night, your negativity is in the minority and other people want to work towards consensus.
February 24, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Anonymous
A rezone might happen and it might not. What kind is very much a question. It most likely won’t be one that includes mass amplified events or housing. That was made clear at the planning meetings we had in 2001.
Amplified events are fine at established venues which are not so close to the town of Garberville and the neighborhoods. The Park is in a very noise sensitive bowl-shaped valley that easily carries sound out, and around and up the river corridor and disturbs the peace. Over 300 community members have stated they want non-amplified acoustic music in the Park. They want low-impact recreation. They want conservation of the Park’s aesthetic, wildlife and agricultural richness, not houses.
February 24, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Anonymous
Anon 9:17 you are talking to people who are addicted to whining. Reason is not an option.
February 24, 2010 at 10:36 pm
misc,
Please remember one thing, the Community Park is private property, not public or community property, like Tooby Memorial Park use to be, before the Park Board privatized it. this is bs, tooby park was private land owned by the tooby’s and leased to the county for a dollar a year. never was public or communtiy property! ed, you of all people should know this. it’s all about the spin!
February 24, 2010 at 10:46 pm
edsvoice
Hey, anonymous 9:17pm;
Very informative? In what way?
Ditto, Anonymous 9:19pm. Because reason is not an option! I like that.
We will play by Old School Rules, SFHS Class of 75′
February 24, 2010 at 11:08 pm
edsvoice
Well misc,
Since we lived down there before Tooby Park and up till the Park Board privatized it in 2004, I had never heard of anyone being charged a fee to use Tooby Park, had you?
I don’t know that, Thank you; it had been listed as a Humboldt County Park for all them years. I stand corrected.
But as far as “spin” goes, no one can hold a candle to; Dazey, Lobato, Ryce or Metz. They are the very best at spin. So I take that as a complement, Thank you very much, Darlin.
February 24, 2010 at 11:29 pm
Anonymous
Nobody cares Ed. Go away.
February 25, 2010 at 6:08 am
edsvoice
NOPE, I know you are, but what am I $!%@?!@#$%^&*()
February 25, 2010 at 8:23 am
Anonymous
Yes, the park board can “solicit input” but then go behind closed doors and decide on what they want. They can make deals in private with special interests and then the park board can justify it to the county and to state fund grantors by saying they have “solicited input”.
Why did Jim Truitt describe his proposed “field house” as twice as big as the Mateel?
The Mateel used to have basketball courts and ping pong tables, but they got rid of all that when they got their fancy soundboard. It is really hard to trust the Park Board.
People do care, many people, some of them even brave enough to speak at the meeting the other night. There is a desire to protect the biological diversity of the parkland, to preserve wildlife habitat and protect (what is left of) the riparian corridors. Development, especially development by a private, appointed and self-selecting board and special interests is suspect.
February 25, 2010 at 11:16 am
Anonymous
Too bad the guy who made a proposal to the park board to replace the horseshoe pits at Tooby Memorial Park didn’t get a heads up about the meeting. He had offered to pay for and install the horseshoe pits. If he could have shared his proposal with the people at the meeting, there could have been an opportunity for input about it. But the park board doesn’t like that guy, so the community doesn’t get to hear about his offer.
If the playing fields in Redway are in “sad shape” as Dennis said, why not fix them up instead? Then little kids could benefit, too. And future generations of people, animals, fish, birds and everything could benefit from the preservation of the parkland.
But that’s not boondoggley enough.
February 25, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Anonymous
Nobody cares Ed. Go away.
February 25, 2010 at 3:57 pm
edsvoice
“Nobody cares Ed. Go away”
Hey, Ed don’t do Anonymous !@#$%^&*(.)*&^%$#@!?/,
February 25, 2010 at 5:39 pm
money95542
anonymous said at 8:40pm on 2/24
Uh oh. I looked at some Prop 84 stuff on the internet. The League of Womens Voters of California say that proposition 84 “contains detailed provisions for oversight of the programs that it would fund, including yearly audits by independent agencies plus a citizen oversight committee”.
And on the application itself on page 40, see criteria #6, “To help the residents prioritize the selection of their preferred recreation features, make budget limitations and projections clear to the residents.” Residents are people who live within a half mile of the park.
Please see page 49 criteria #4-B about notifying residents in the area.
I’m not sure what you mean by uh-oh, but please try to be careful of what you cite from the internet. The League of Women Voters said at the time of voting (11/06 election) that supporters of prop 84 say that prop 84 contains detailed provisions …
I believe the citizen oversight committee is something at the state level that ensures the state spends this money as the voters approved. I don’t quickly find the audit provisions in the text of Prop 84 itself–do you?
And what application are you talking about? There are many different programs that get Prop 84 Funds–some are for state and local parks, some for water quality, some for watershed protection, and they all have a variety of application forms, usually tailored to where the program is established. A water or parks agency in San Diego might ask you to work with residents within 1/2 mile, and it would include thousands of people they’d define as local users/stakeholders. But an agency giving funds to a rural project might have different standards.
Can anyone tell us what type of Prop 84 funding is being sought, or from what agency?
February 25, 2010 at 5:53 pm
edsvoice
money95542,
Please look at the 3rd post of this tread. It has the same title the Park Board is talking about, its from State Parks and the dead line is the same. Eric has not confirmed or denied my question about this Prop 84 Grant from State Parks. Maybe you could shed some light on this?
http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/1008/files/spp_application_guide_2009.pdf
PS, were you able to attend that meeting?
February 25, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Anonymous
Nobody cares Ed.
February 25, 2010 at 6:22 pm
edsvoice
Eric,
Here is the Definition of “Park” from the State Parks Prop 84 application.
“PARK – land for the general public’s physical and social health that provides RECREATION FEATURES for outdoor or indoor athletic activities, cultural enrichment, nature appreciation, or other active or passive recreational activities, and which includes a portion of OPEN SPACE. Under this definition, a greenway or linear park is also a park. A school is not a park and a community center on land that does not include an ADJACENT portion of OPEN SPACE is not a park”
Other definitions in the application also state:
“BROAD REPRESENTATION – the number and diversity of RESIDENTS involved in the DESIGN of the PROJECT represented the CRITICALLY UNDERSERVED COMMUNITY, including youth, seniors, and families that may have different recreational needs. Involving only an advocacy group or league likely to promote a specific type of PROJECT does not meet the intent of involving a broad representation of RESIDENTS”
“NON PROFIT – any nonprofit entity qualified to do business in California under Section 501(c)(3) of Title 26 of the United States Code, and that has among its primary purposes the recreational, vocational, educational, and other services to improve social and cultural conditions of a community; the preservation, protection, or enhancement of land or water resources in their natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, forested, or open-space condition or use, or the provision of conservation and environmental education and other services to improve environmental conditions of a community”
“RESIDENTS – the population living within a half mile of the PROJECT SITE including youth, families, and seniors”
February 25, 2010 at 6:36 pm
edsvoice
Eric,
Would you say, that one of the Park Boards goals as Non=Profit is for;
-The preservation, protection, or enhancement of land or water resources in their natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, forested, or open-space condition or use, or the provision of conservation and environmental education and other services to improve environmental conditions of a Community-
I don’t know about you, but that sounds dam good. That is what I want for the Park. If this is the direction the Park Board is headed, I like it!
I would call this a YES or NO answer. If you could find it in your heart to answer this question for the Community, that would be great. Same with any of the other Park Board members, please allow your voice to be heard as well.
February 25, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Anonymous
Nobody cares Ed.
February 25, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Lisa
-The preservation, protection, or enhancement of land or water resources in their natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, forested, or open-space condition or use, or the provision of conservation and environmental education and other services to improve environmental conditions of a Community-
Ed that’s a great vision and I care and so do many others. The problem here (especially on the blog) is the antagonistic climate that’s come about through pointing fingers and accusations. I wish there’d be a moratorium on personal comments in favor of building alliances, and demonstrating exactly why this vision should be a winning one and how to make it work.
February 25, 2010 at 8:46 pm
edsvoice
Are you Nobody?
February 25, 2010 at 9:55 pm
edsvoice
Lisa,
It’s not my vision, that is what State Parks Prop 84 grant application said it wants! So I am in total agreement with it. But so far, this is not the vision of the Park Board, nor what they have shown us by their own actions, mission and track record.
If the Park Board would have public community meeting, even on a monthly basis like we had at the so called “neighbors” meeting last month, we would not need this blog. But for some unknown reason, this Park Board doesn’t like to answer questions in public, that might show a lack of accountability on their part.
In 2007 I called and talked with Lobato, asked her why they are having concerts at the Park, she told me it was the Mateel that was having the events and concerts and to talk with them. So I talked with the Mateel (Justin) and he told me they did not need permits, with attendance under 3000 people. Well, as we have all leaned since 2007 and 2008 and today, I was flat out lied too. So I ask you, who were the first at pointing fingers and accusations?
February 25, 2010 at 11:11 pm
Eric Kirk
-The preservation, protection, or enhancement of land or water resources in their natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, forested, or open-space condition or use, or the provision of conservation and environmental education and other services to improve environmental conditions of a Community-
Absolutely that’s part of our mission. And even the most ambitious of the proposals will do just that, because the vast majority of the park will always be open, scenic, forested, open-space, etc. That’s what we’ve said from the beginning. The county will allows us to do no less.
February 26, 2010 at 12:08 am
Lisa
You know, all of this whining and complaining keeps you squarely in the role of being a victim, which is a very powerless place indeed.
I wish the best for you but I need to move on from your personal grievances.
Respectfully,
Nobody
February 26, 2010 at 6:09 am
edsvoice
Well Lisa,
I sure hope you don’t think, my “Are you Nobody” comment was directed at you, it was directed to the post just before you at 8:04 pm. Anyway I thought I would clear that up.
Could you talk more about your idea; “You know, all of this whining and complaining keeps you squarely in the role of being a victim, which is a very powerless place indeed”
I would also like to know, how a private group of people can move into an neighborhood and without asking or saying a word to anyone, come in and change that way of life for everything, how does that make this a “personal grievance” in your eyes?
February 26, 2010 at 7:18 am
edsvoice
Eric had said;
“Absolutely that’s part of our mission. And even the most ambitious of the proposals will do just that, because the vast majority of the park will always be open, scenic, forested, open-space, etc. That’s what we’ve said from the beginning. The county will allows us to do no less”
Thank you Eric, that was nice to know and great to hear, until you got to the part about the County. As we have seen in past debate, the County is more than willing to back this Park Board in their quest for funding and financial security no matter what the cost to the preservation, protection, or enhancement of land or water resources in their natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, forested, or open-space condition.
Please don’t some how try and convince this community that the County will make dam sure this Park Board follows the ethics and letter of environmental law, by any means!
February 26, 2010 at 7:39 am
Lefty
Yeah Eric, please, like Ed said, Don’t go around trying to convince anyone you park board people are trying to do anything good for the community. Everyone knows your just waiting for the “realignment” to happen so you can turn SHCP into a one stop Big Box Shopping Center!!
February 26, 2010 at 8:03 am
edsvoice
Thanks Lefty,
I don’t know about a “Shopping Center”, but Big Box Concert Venue for sure!
February 26, 2010 at 9:03 am
Anonymous
how does a commercial concert tourism venue fit in to the prop 84 funding? is this part of the pbods plan in their funding application? and will the pbod call the one meeting this week a broad representation of the community?
February 26, 2010 at 9:17 am
Eric Kirk
Quite frankly, by all indications we don’t have to convince “the community” of anything. The feedback we get is overwhelmingly positive. The county is willing to back us because they have been to the meetings and they have heard from the community.
February 26, 2010 at 11:04 am
edsvoice
Eric,
You have over 300 people from this community that don’t want any amplified music concerts at the Park, why do you skirt the issue and facts? These petitions were gathered in 2009.
“The county is willing to back us because they have been to the meetings and they have heard from the community”
So for what you have stated, I can write the “County” and they will agree with your comment 100%, right?
February 26, 2010 at 11:13 am
Lisa
I sure hope you don’t think, my “Are you Nobody” comment was directed at you-
Actually I though it was and that it was a clever joke.
“You know, all of this whining and complaining keeps you squarely in the role of being a victim, which is a very powerless place indeed”
Think about it. Perhaps it will yield an insight.
There are so many reasons that it benefits the locals to keep this small ecosystem as intact as possible. For instance, these meadows hold a lot of water in winter and spring, and in mild weather mosquitoes rise up in clouds every evening. At the same time the thousands of bats that live in the old barns fill the sky and feast. I am never mosquito bitten here as I often am when visiting friends in Redway.
Sunset is a really nice time to visit the park for a walk or a run. I highly recommend it.
There’s a subtle balance here that reveals itself through careful observation over the years, which is apart from official studies, soil survey maps, political wrangling, etc.
February 26, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Anonymous
a concert tourism venue would totally trash this subtle balance. there are many more subtleties, in the park, like this one. the pbod is willing to trash the eco-systems of the park and river for their own personal aggrandizement.
eric, you totally blew by the question of whether the pbod has put in it’s prop 84 funding grant, that it is applying for funds to do things in/on the park that it is not zoned for? how does wanting to turn the park into a concert tourism venue play into this grant application? did the pbod put on the grant application that some of the grant funds will be used to pay for an eir to get a re-zone?
if a person wanted to intervene in this process, and talk to the funding agency, how could that be done?
February 26, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Anonymous
“Absolutely that’s part of our mission. And even the most ambitious of the proposals will do just that, because the vast majority of the park will always be open, scenic, forested, open-space, etc. That’s what we’ve said from the beginning. The county will allows us to do no less.”
Where in the Park Board’s mission statement does it say this?
Open space does not mean environmental protection. Open space can mean “clustering” all kinds of development that is environmentally devastating.
When the Park Board has their meetings open to the public and writes bylaws that protect the environment, the biological diversity and the public trust, then we can talk about all these special interest “big dreams”.
February 26, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Anonymous
Instead of some mega-sports-facility on the historical orchard site, why not have an orchard with picnic tables? The the soil and underlying water is considered by the Farm Bureau as most appropriate for orchards and this is what this area was historically used for.
Orchards with picnic tables would be appropriate, affordable and lovely. It could be utilized for small weddings and birthday parties, as well.
February 26, 2010 at 3:34 pm
anon
Anonymous 1:19:
I’m not yet convinced that park detractors have much appreciation for subtlety or nuance. Mere complexity seems to be enough to throw them into a paranoid tizzy.
February 26, 2010 at 4:21 pm
money95542
if a person wanted to intervene in this process, and talk to the funding agency, how could that be done?
Gee, anonymous 1:19. I bet it works just like turning in your neighbors to the cops. There’s probably a tip line. Maybe even a reward. Try 1-800-RATFINK.
February 26, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Anonymous
There is a difference between complaining and protest. The Park is a truly beautiful place worth saving and treasuring as it is. It makes sense to protest when it is threatened by noise, traffic, parking, lights, soil degradation, excess water usage, and fire risk.
A quiet, ecologically intact Park is an awesome thing. We have no other place like it. I think of the people who love it as it is, as Park supporters. Many thanks to the crews that have worked on restoring its watershed courses.
The Ryce planning philosophy “we’ll make it up as we go” is not adequate for the SHCP board or the community. Any community needs to know what is really going to happen on a large acreage in their midst. That’s why the Park has a responsibility to create a Management Plan for the Park. Many resources are free and available to help with the task. Without a Plan, we waste a lot of energy going over unsuitable proposals.
It may be unsettling to think about, but the way the community donations were handled is connected to everything happening in the Park today. We still don’t know how much was donated and how it was spent. Tim Metz said that all the community donations were eaten up by interest payments on private loans. Why does that matter? It matters because nonprofits are to use public donations for the purpose stated during fundraising.
Nonprofits use public money to operate and should elect to keep their records available to all. They depend on the trust of their communities for financial support. Clean, properly detailed accounting is essential for a good relationship and inspires more donations. The decision-making process for using a large piece of nonprofit land is of concern to most people in a community and should be public and open. Public meetings can avoid the usual traps of name-calling and polarization once the board has gotten leadership training. Training teaches people how to focus on issues.
The Park board shook the trust of the community when it allowed illegal, unpermitted, amplified events in the Park. The board knew they needed conditional use permits. They knew they had neighbors who did not want to suffer the impacts of amplified concerts.
If the board had thought about it more and cared about the whole community, they could have consulted with a community advisory committee or held open meetings in which they shared their plans for amplified events. Blaming the neighbors is wrong. They live here and were here long before the Park board arrived. Destroying your neighbors’ peace and quiet does great harm.
The questions that are being asked of the Park board about their planning and their finances are justified. They need to be answered with documentation. Then, if a rezone is needed, a compatible one can be agreed upon. The Park “land use controversy” cannot be addressed without a proper Management Plan. Also necessary is a completely accountable Park board with open meetings and open books. What happens at the Park affects the lives of too many residents, both human and wild, to neglect these responsibilities.
February 26, 2010 at 7:49 pm
Anonymous
“Eric Kirk said:
Quite frankly, by all indications we don’t have to convince “the community” of anything. The feedback we get is overwhelmingly positive. The county is willing to back us because they have been to the meetings and they have heard from the community.”
Eric: Are you talking about Supervisor Clendenen? What guarantee has he given you that you “do not have to convince the community of anything”? What are all the indications that you will get your rezone despite the all controversy the Park Board has caused? Please be more specific about the “indications” that lead you to say this.
February 26, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Anonymous
money95542, it would be nothing like turning in ones’ neighbors. i did not donate money to my neighbors for a community park that was supposed to keep the land away from developers, watch out for the habitat, etc. etc.. i want to do whatever is possible to keep this park a park, as it is, for us residents, human and wild. the bat story lisa told was incredible. thank you lisa. (bats don’t like reggae, or the grateful dead.)
February 27, 2010 at 8:02 am
milt
Interesting what little nuggets can be found on Eric’s blog. This is a quote from the bloggster himself on the Richardson Grove/STAA thread:
“We’ve made a bit of money off of Richardson Grove, but I have to admit that we’ve made much more off of Briceland Road.”
This raises a serious question about Sprowel Creek Road, one which I brought up before but Eric ignored. I’ll bring it up again.
How can the Supes even think about approving concert site usage of the SHCP, which is designed to bring in outside tourists unfamiliar with our peculiar road systems, without comprehensively fixing Sprowel Creek Road first?
Not to do so would be total negligence on the part of the County, since it is a county road. What about that Eric? Wouldn’t this be an important prerequisite that the county would have to consider before even thinking about giving the Pboard what it wants?
You don’t have to be a resident along that thouroughfare to be concerned. Any of us common Humboldt citizens should be equally concerned given the costs for defending litigation and rising insurance rates in a cash strapped county.
February 27, 2010 at 8:49 am
Anonymous
a new sprowel creek road is probably exactly what dazey has in the back of his mind so that he and his developer friends can do the dazeyland/mckee developement. more houses to suck more water out of our river. more people, more traffic, more pollution, more, more, more. are we too big to fail yet?
February 27, 2010 at 3:25 pm
edsvoice
milt,
very good point. It is amazing the things Eric talks about on the other threads, which contradicts the actions of the Park Board, including Eric. But I do keep reminding myself of that joke;
“What’s wrong with 3000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?”
And then it makes what Eric said less important and it’s how he talks to everyone on the blog.
Sprowel Creek Road is one of the biggest hurdles’ the Park Board has, even bigger than the neighborhood and community. The road issue is not only about safety, but Cultural & Environmental issues as well, the old triple whammy/rope-a-dope. If they continue to want a commercial concert and festival venue, Sprowel Creek Road will have to be tuned into an Expressway or Turnpike and at what cost!
Here is that study, Redwood Community Action Agency/Natural Resources Services did with a grant from USDA Forest Service back in 2003. So it’s not like the Park Board has known about the safety issue on Sprowel Creek Road! Even after having their unpermitted, illegal commercial concerts at the Park in 2006 thru 2008. They are so lucky that nothing ever happened?
Thanks again milt
http://wwww.naturalresourcesservices.org/redwood-paths.html
http://www.naturalresourcesservices.org/assets/files/Documents/Redwood%20Pathways/RedPathCh%207%20Gerbvll%20to%20Benbow2.pdf
February 27, 2010 at 3:36 pm
Eric Kirk
As it happens, I’ve only had one car accident case on Sprowel Creek Road, and that one took place right outside my office.
As for what the Supervisors will consider, it’s all about the EIR. Maybe we shouldn’t have concerts there if the road is so dangerous. Maybe we shouldn’t have an airport down there either. It’s not the tourists who scare me most on the road. There are some people, including one guy in a large truck, who speed by my office window frequently.
Tourists aren’t familiar with the Honeydew road. Should they shut down Rockefeller Forest? In fact, by the argument, all of the businesses in Shelter Cove should shut down because tourists really very often don’t know what they’re getting into, particularly when the ride their brakes down that last hill. And maybe they should block off the Mendocino Coast entirely, because there’s no very safe way to get in there and many people get injured or die on those roads every year.
February 27, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Anonymous
the big difference is the people going to rockefeller and shelter cove are just plain tourists. they are not here to drink and drug and partaay for 2-3 days of reggae boogy. but as you say, many people get injured and die every year, so what the hell, let’s have all those drugged up, drunk boogy heads driving up and down sprowel creek. and since people are going to die everyday anyway, maybe they all should go enlist, and die for the “cause”.
February 27, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Anonymous
Some of us would rather have the road the way it was before that big increase in commercial truck traffic from Randalls, courtesy of the park board.
Is prop 84 money (that should go to our state parks) going to subsidize the park board’s commercial ventures at the park?
Leave the road the way it is. Leave the park the way it is: a local park in a neighborhood.
February 27, 2010 at 9:46 pm
edsvoice
Eric said,
“As it happens, I’ve only had one car accident case on Sprowel Creek Road, and that one took place right outside my office”
Why is it, that it sounds like you long for car accidents? That this is what you live for?
“There are some people, including one guy in a large truck, who speed by my office window frequently”
So, who owned the truck, what was the name on the door or the drum?
“Maybe we shouldn’t have an airport down there either”
Eric, what are you thinking, the County Airport elevation is 546 ft (surveyed) and open for use in Sept 1950. So what was your point, how offen do you think the Airport is used? The Airport has been their before you were born, before I was born, long before Rivercrest, before Kimtu Meadows, long before a lot of things in and around Garberville.
How many times a year, do thousands of people a day drive to Shelter Cove, Honeydew or Rockefeller Forest/Bull Creek? And how many of them drive back ripped that night?
For someone who dams people for making something out of nothing, you sure do it well. You do smoke and mirrors very well too.
February 27, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Anonymous
“Maybe we shouldn’t have an airport down there either”
Eric, what are you thinking, the County Airport elevation is 546 ft (surveyed) and open for use in Sept 1950. So what was your point, how offen do you think the Airport is used? The Airport has been their before you were born, before I was born, long before Rivercrest, before Kimtu Meadows, long before a lot of things in and around Garberville.
Ed were you born this clueless or did you work hard to achieve such levels?
February 28, 2010 at 5:34 am
edsvoice
Yes,
Like most people I was born clueless as hell, you have your level and I have mine. What is your point Ms. Anonymous? Or do you just like to watch?
February 28, 2010 at 7:18 am
milt
As for what the Supervisors will consider, it’s all about the EIR.
Quite so, Eric. The traffic section of the EIR will be a key part of any park proposal for having a concert venue. Didn’t Dazey do a “traffic survey” a few years back on the Kimtu Road? There was something in the papers about that. I’m wondering if the Pboard will try to introduce that into the EIR. We’ll see. [Kimtu Road isn't the same thing as Sprowel Creek Road is it?, especially at the intersection of Redwood Drive and the on and off ramps to 101. If he didn't do his "survey" at those locations, he was, as they say, doin it rawng]
Here’s another thought, or two, about traffic related stuff while on the subject. Although 4 members of the pboard recently claimed that RoR will not be down at the park, it will be somewhere. Most likely where it is now -Benbow Lake State Park. With that and Reggae Rising, plus 6 more goodly sized events planned at the park all summer, and that Earth something or other, in Laytonville in early Sept., Garberville is going to become one heck of a happenin’ town. But perhaps not exactly what the CofC may have in mind. This heavy summer schedule of events could produce a large and lively, quasi-permanent, trash and tambourine segment – for lack of a better way to put it – that will be camping out wherever they can pitch a tent ‘tween events. The G’ville business community and Eel River cleanup crews might have some concerns about that. Personally, I don’t care because if it does turn out to be too much of a hassle finding a parking space and whatnot, we’ll just head up to Fortuna and Eureka to do all our shopping and leave Gypsyville to its own rewards.
There may also be a lot of new trails blazed off of 101 down into the backside of the Park for all those special non-paying guests.
How’s security at the park looking? What section of the EIR is that in?
And one last item. Eric said in one of the other threads on the park that he didn’t think Caltrans would be putting in any exits on the freeway for the CP, and yet, if you go to the CP website and look at their map:
http://www.sohumpark.org/pdfs/Public%20Uses%20MAP%202009.pdf
you will see a yellow road, designated as “emergency access” that ends right next to the freeway. Not only that, there’s an opening in the state right of way fence that links that road that goes down to the park to the freeway. Caltrans has put a concrete blocker there. Someone might want to check with the permits dept of Caltrans to find out the status of that situation. Today’s emergency access road is tomorrow’s special event exit. Yo, Benbowtiens! You awake yet?
February 28, 2010 at 9:03 am
Anonymous
and who gives a shit if people come here to die on a drug overdose, or get into an accident. people die everyday, right eric.
February 28, 2010 at 9:05 am
Anonymous
and yo benbow, toph’s is back! new name, benbow brew house. kinda like blackwater is now xii. new name, same people, same tricks. mardi gras in march.
February 28, 2010 at 10:00 am
annnonymoose
Reggae Rising is not happening and is unlikely to happen in the future due to mismanagement (not paying their bills). Earth Dance is a Laytonville event which hardly impacts Garberville. None of the events that happen at Benbow State Park are that large (3000 max with 5000 over two days). Why didn’t you mention the Rodeo that draws as many people or the Biker’s Run ? Not many complaints about those events.
A properly designed concert venue at the park would cause less noise pollution than the freeway. Traffic for appropiate size events could be planned for and perhaps shuttles could be used. A former cattle ranch is not a pristine wilderness.
The airport takes up more space and serves less people (wealthy enough to own a plane)and is subsidized by our taxes. Also planes are very noisy but that is OK with EdVoice and his ilk.
February 28, 2010 at 1:28 pm
milt
Reggae Rising isn’t happening? Really.
Earth Dance, thank you, does impact G’ville. It was employees in two stores in G’ville who told us that it did. But, WTF would they know. Apparently, G’ville is a favorite bide-a-wee prior to that event and they hang around getting rides and money together to make the last leg of the journey. You do remember the Deadheads don’t you?
I hardly think the Rodeo and the Biker’s run attract the same clientel Reggae whatevers and variations of that same theme attract. The former tend to be working people who have to go back to work Monday mornings as opposed to a sizable contingent of non- working people who’s plans are free of encumbrances in the latter groups.
A properly designed concert venue at the park would cause less noise pollution than the freeway. Traffic for appropriate size events could be planned for and perhaps shuttles could be used.
Ah, yes. Here come the pie in the sky homilies that cannot be questioned. In a reasonable world everyone would have health insurance. Except that they’re pure delusion. Less noise pollution than the freeway? Who complains about noise pollution from the freeway up on the CP grade? Who even lives there? You must be one of those, tweak the amplifiers in a different direction, advocates. Yeah, that’ll work. You do know, don’t you, that ancient peoples in North America and Africa used drums for communication for eons because the sound traveled for miles, especially at night. And they didn’t even have amplifiers to tweak.
Traffic could be planned for…shuttles could be used. Yes, yes, heard that all before down at the old RoR site and when Ed introduced photos of what happened there; the thousands of cars all over the river bar – in spite of shuttles running all day long – he was roundly jeered with, oh, that’ll never happen at the CP. Uh, huh.
The major problem with your theory, annonymoose, is that it presupposes that everything will go according to some well designed plan. As Ed and a few others have pointed out, if there is a plan, well designed or otherwise, we haven’t seen it. SHOW ME THE PLAN!
It also sounds great that 6 undefined sized events plus some smaller ones will bring in the revenue that the CP needs – that is the reason given for all this, isn’t it? Anyone with an understanding of probability and statistics and a bit of understanding of the concert game would know that while some events may make money, others will not. Remember, an event has to make money for the park, the promoters, and the vendors, or else there are problems – like you suggest with Reggae Rising!
What happens then is that the CP becomes a Bayshore Mall type of operation. A couple of revenue producing anchor events, perhaps, with several one shot wonders in between. Chew em up, spit em out. Upward financial pressure is then put on those anchor events that are popular and do well to make even more money to make up for those that go bust. That gives those promoters more and more leverage over the CP board – any of this sound familiar yet? If anyone thinks that CB was an anomaly personality, think again. That’s THE mainstream successful music promoter personality. As the saying goes; Get used to it.
February 28, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Anonymous
Maybe it’s getting too crowded for some people around here. Maybe you should live as hermits in some remote corner of Alaska. You’re sounding like those grumpy old men who live alone at the end of the block constantly chasing the kids off their lawns.
February 28, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Anonymous
Milt, think you’re onto something.
As to your point about plans, you overlooked the Ryce plan :“we’ll make it up as we go”.
No consultant would ever include that in an EIR, but it should be remembered at every public rezoning hearing. Not that it was intended that way specifically, but lies are also “made up”.
February 28, 2010 at 4:16 pm
edsvoice
milt,
Believe you me, the last thing the Park Board would want to include into their GPA EIR (if they even get that far) would be that one page Dazey & Son Traffic Study. I’ll try to put it up on the neighbors’ web site later this week when I get home. I’ll put up a link, you’ll love it, it’s a hoot.
February 28, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Anonymous
Anonymous 1:43, yes it is getting crowded around here. more and more developed land, more people. it sucks for those of us who cherish open land, wildlife and nature.
as far as rodeo goes, it is one week-end per year, drawing maybe what, 1000 people? the redwood run is in mendocino, even though it affects humboldt, there is nothing we can do to shut that one down. this is another event that used to be a non profit event, now owned by the private persons of doug and barbara-ann mccauley.
February 28, 2010 at 11:46 pm
edsvoice
Here is something from the Park web site:
“We also want to express our appreciation to Supervisor Clif Clendenen. Clif attended several of our public meetings and Clif’s efforts continue to help open a renewed community planning process for the park – a process that promises to be effective in aligning county requirements with community goals for the Park’s properties”
This is from the Park Board to the Community; http://sohumpark.org/updates/2009-04-04.thankyou.htm
It makes one wonder what they mean by “Community goals”. Does this mean the Community wants; Camping and RV facilities, Parking on the River Bar for events, Commercial Concert & Festival Venues, Housing Development and now a 54,000 sq ft Field House, 27,000 sq ft Swimming Pool, two full size Baseball/Softball/Soccer Fields, field lights, bleachers, dug-outs, PA system and Parking for all this on prime AG land at the Park?
So does Clendenen know he can be Thanked for all of this? Or is this what they mean by “Out on a limb”. Take you pick, only one can be telling the truth!
It’s like what Eric said: “Quite frankly, by all indications we don’t have to convince “the community” of anything. The feedback we get is overwhelmingly positive. The county is willing to back us because they have been to the meetings and they have heard from the community”
What indications is he talking about, he will not answer the question, why is that Eric? So Clendenen must be the Park Boards eyes and ears to the Copmmunity, their hearts must beat as one?
It reminds me of the 1919 World Series! So many people could not believe it then, just like a lot of people don’t want to believe it now.
March 1, 2010 at 8:56 am
Anonymous
Why is it, if there is a beautiful piece of pristine land, the environmental hippies will want to develop it?
March 1, 2010 at 10:36 am
Anonymous
The group that attended the new grant application workshop at the Masonic Hall last Tuesday 2/23/10 didn’t hear specifics about what the Park board asked for in the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program grant. The word “infrastructure” was used. The hope that the Park’s expensive General Plan Amendment EIR would be covered in the grant was expressed. The figure of $700,000 was mentioned by Dennis Huber as the total they want.
The whole meeting was typical of a formula used in the past, the kind set up for the purpose of soliciting “input”. This one was a minor variation of the World Cafe model where you have three persons at a table, you each write down your three best ideas for the Park, choose one that is top priority, then a second, and third. One person stands up to report the result. (Dennis Huber advises everyone not to worry about whether your ideas have anything to do with the grant.) Put markings on a Park map. Then go off on a long tangent to consider poorly-sited ballfields. Hand in your paperwork. Walk out with no clear image of what the Park is applying for on March 1st.
Why so vague? Is it that the Park board doesn’t want input, but does need to check a box on their application that says they held a community meeting?…to make it appear to State grant reviewers that there was related community input?…even though there wasn’t?
When will the Park board inform the community openly about what they requested on this grant?
March 1, 2010 at 10:53 am
annnonymoose
Milt your prejudices are showing. You seem to hate anyone who doesn’t fit your idea of a hard working middle class person and that all the people who pay $100-200 to attend a concert and fill up the motels and shop in the stores are somehow deadbeats who shouldn’t be allowed.
The noise from the freeway can be clearly heard over by the airport and up the valley.It is measurable with a sound meter. If the sound is aimed at the hills where no on even livesand gets swallowed by the trees and the earth. There are examples of well planned concert venues in other parks. Events at the park can be limited in the attendance and will never be the size of Reggae Rising or Earthdance. The permit will define the size limits of events and if exceeded then the permit is pulled.
The suggestion for ball fields, fieldhouse and swimming pool and the parking for them take up less then 30 acres out of over 400. Once again we are not talking about pristine wilderness but a former cattle ranch and a part that has been identified as having the least desirable ag land.
March 1, 2010 at 4:55 pm
edsvoice
money95542 had said on Feb 26 4:21pm;
“Gee, anonymous 1:19. I bet it works just like turning in your neighbors to the cops. There’s probably a tip line. Maybe even a reward. Try 1-800-RATFINK”
I guess the next time we hear and see people in their trucks and cars, doing donuts and side shows at Tooby Park or the Community Park, we should just do nothing, right. That would be better that “turning in your neighbors to the cops”? Or maybe I’ll try that 1-800-RATFINK hotline and see who I get on the phone!
The last time I saw a truck doing donuts at Tooby Park, they took off to town in a cloud of dust. Before they got to the top of Sprowel Creek Road, they rolled it by Speed DeVee’s old place. At least I didn’t have to be put on hold calling 1-800-RATFINK!
I sure hope nobody ever breaks into your house, and if they do, will your neighbors call or turn them into the Cops? That’s why you just do the right thing, without thinking who is the Rat Fink! By the way, none of my neighbors are 501c3 public benefit charitable corporations, unless you count the Park Board!
You reap what you sow money95542, you reap what you sow!
March 1, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Anonymous
The idea of bouncing the noise off the hillside was already tried. It did not work, either. There is no way to mitigate unwanted noise, other than NOT MAKING IT in the first place.
You just say sound studies were done (on one of the unpermitted illegal events), that’s how it is “mitigated”. Why has the public never seen the results of that sound study? I think Tim Metz did it.
Eric, when you said you “don’t have to convince the community of anything” because the county is all for it, did you mean Supervisor Clendenen? What indications has he given you that it’s all sown up and in the bag, despite the controversy? Please be specific.
March 1, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Anonymous
“Events at the park can be limited in the attendance and will never be the size of Reggae Rising or Earthdance. The permit will define the size limits of events and if exceeded then the permit is pulled.”
When has that ever happened? In fact, exceeding the size limits of events is a tactic traditionally used to justify increasing size limits the next year.
Also used (in county documents) to justify playing later and later at night at reggae: it is a security issue, you have to have the music go on later into the night to “tire out the crowd” because otherwise they are too restless and that’s dangerous.
March 1, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Anonymous
BATS DON”T LIKE AMPLIFIED MUSIC. NO MATTER WHAT DIRECTION IT IS POINTED IN. Selfish asshole human beings.
March 1, 2010 at 9:27 pm
milt
annnonymoose
Milt your prejudices are showing. You seem to hate anyone who doesn’t fit your idea of a hard working middle class person and that all the people who pay $100-200 to attend a concert and fill up the motels and shop in the stores are somehow deadbeats who shouldn’t be allowed.
Yes, that’s it, I must be a hater. I never realized that the main reason people choose to
live here and move here from the cities and suburbs is because they want to live in the middle of boogietown USA with continuous entertainment every summer weekend because they don’t know what else to do with themselves. And it isn’t the ones filling the motels that will be the problem. just the ones filling the streets and back alleys. In case you haven’t lived around here very long, moose, G’ville businesses have made noises about this before. They will again.
I gather then that you’re a lover of these events. Why, exactly? Will you be making money off them?
There are examples of well planned concert venues in other parks. Events at the park can be limited in the attendance and will never be the size of Reggae Rising or Earthdance. The permit will define the size limits of events and if exceeded then the permit is pulled.
#1. there may be examples elsewhere, but there have been none around here that have resulted in anything but problems.[ Except for Benbow Lake SP and apparently that isn't good enough anymore.] I roll with the local history on this point, moose.
#2 The pboard is going for a zoning change. No permits will be necessary, outside of ABC and festival permits if they get what they, and you, want. And who, exactly, will be monitoring the size of all these events?
#3. Even if they were caught over the limit, assuming somebody’s watching,, no permits will be pulled, moose. That’s not how it works. Everything will be “mitigated”. SoHum is going to get to know that word quite well over the years.
#4 Never say never, annonymoose. It’s an old expression but it still has merit.
#5 Like I said at the beginning. I don’t have to put up with any of it. I don’t live near the CP, didn’t stupidly hand over money to Dazey to build a concert site, and we can always do our shopping elsewhere. Just follow the big box store signs to Fortuna and Eureka, now that we’ll have an STAA approved road, and leave the SoHum community, which seems to have found it’s official spokesperson in Eric V. Kirk, who claims to represent them, to it’s own devices.
Just two last questions: In the event that things don’t turn out the way you say they will, who will be held responsible for that? If problems, unexpected to you as they may be, do result from the various events with different promoters, who should those with complaints call at 2 AM to take care of it? Clif Clendennen? Eric V. Kirk? Steve Dazey? You?
Just askin’
March 1, 2010 at 9:55 pm
edsvoice
Dear annnonymoose;
Are your quotes facts? Or just the standard Eric Kirk guesses? You have stated:
“The noise from the freeway can be clearly heard over by the airport and up the valley. It is measurable with a sound meter”
Have you or the Park Board conducted a sound study of the Community Park? What were your readings using a sound meter you have from the Airport and valley? What were your readings just from Hwy 101?
See my problem is, I can’t use a sound meter from my back yard, there seems to be too much other noise coming from the Community Park property below our house during the Day. And at night, the only times you hear traffic from 101, is during the summer before, during and after biker runs and music festivals, other than that, we can’t hear too much at night, unless its from a unpermitted concert at the Park.
As I recall, Tim Metz did his own sound study, using the noise from an unpermitted PipeJam Concert at the Park. This is when they tried to move the stage and speakers toward 101 and that did not work. This sound study has never been published nor has the public had a chance to read it, or look at it, like the Dazey & Son Traffic Study.
Let me ask you, can you hear Hwy 101 above the Park as far away as they could during any of the Concerts at the Park in 2007 or 2008? Because they could hear the Concerts up to 3 miles away past the Airport on Old Briceland Road (Metz House). The problem with your theory, you want concerts so bad, you will say anything to get them. Concerts are continues for hours and hours at a time. Go to:
http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/disorders/noise.htm
You also said:
“The suggestion for ball fields, fieldhouse and swimming pool and the parking for them take up less then 30 acres out of over 400. Once again we are not talking about pristine wilderness but a former cattle ranch and a part that has been identified as having the least desirable ag land”
I know what you mean, the Park property is not even close to that 70 acres Dazey obtained, now that was a pristine part of the Community Park!
Who said the Truitt idea was under 30 acres? Are you just making that one up?
And if you talk to any kind of farmer, that makes his or her living off the land, they will tell you, there is no such thing as “least desirable ag land” you need to do your homework on that one.
Besides you, who have ever used the word “wilderness” to discribe the Community Park, I don’t know of any.
More than the noise, more than anything else, figure out how to fix Sprowel Creek Road, to make it safe and at a cost of zero to this community, the County and the State. Because that’s what you will need to even think this GPA will fly, plus over 300 people that don’t want amplified concerts at the Park, plus those dam four family households that shut down the Park in the first place , right?
I know, Nobody cares Ed, go away. But you know what, it’s not just me and a hand full of neighbors any more, its more and more and more every day. So keep that in mine that next time someone says “Nobody cares Ed”
Cork one up and Have a grape day!
March 1, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Anonymous
Yawn.
March 1, 2010 at 10:01 pm
anon
what controversy 8:04? i just see three or four unhinged individuals protesting about nothing…
March 2, 2010 at 9:03 am
Anonymous
protesting about nothing? why did we all move here? wasn’t it for the peace and quiet, the beauty of the land, the nature and wildlife, to build a small homestead and grow our own food? as cyndi lauper sings so well-
MONEY, MONEY CHANGES EVERYTHING.
hippies are more capitalistic than wall street.
March 2, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Anonymous
Wonder if we will ever find out how many times the park has been paid for with public donations.
Sure would be something to know how much park money was spent on the lot line adjustments for a board member (board appointer) and the sellers private development pieces of the parkland.
Eric said on a previous park thread that “we still owe sixty to sixty-five thousand” for attorneys fees and land consultants, mostly relating to the lot line adjustments. That does not include how much has already been paid.
March 2, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Anonymous
on February 26, 2010 at 9:17 am
Eric Kirk said:
Quite frankly, by all indications we don’t have to convince “the community” of anything. The feedback we get is overwhelmingly positive. The county is willing to back us because they have been to the meetings and they have heard from the community.
Are you referring to Supervisor Clendenen?
He seems to only hear what he wants to hear from “the community”.
For example, he wrote an open letter that was on the Park Board’s website (since removed) in which he said that he had gotten “about 300″ letters in support of the Park Board. Turned out to be 133, most of them erroneoulsy asking or demanding that the county reopen the park.
But at the Park Board’s petition meeting of the Board of Supes, when presented with 307 petitions asking the Park Board to be a good neighbor and not have amplified events at the park, Supervisor Clendenen inferred that the petitions were meaningless.
March 2, 2010 at 5:16 pm
anon
people moved here for a variety of reasons. yeah money changes everything–if i had some coming in i would be happier. maybe we need to keep our options open with music venues or whatever; it could become more difficult to make a living here in the coming years, already is…
March 2, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Anonymous
Yeah, we might need to save someplace to grow a lot of food.
March 2, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Anonymous
any excuse for loud,intrusive, amplified music. does no one think outside the box anymore? or has becoming capitalists dulled all your brains?
March 3, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Anonymous
Sorry sorry sorry! Some fact checking allies have pointed out that I was wrong about Supervisor Clendenen cititng 300 letters to the Board of Supervisors on the Park Board’s website. It is the Park Board’s statement, not Supervisor Clendenen’s.
March 3, 2010 at 9:57 pm
edsvoice
Hey,
On that other thread Eric is running about the School Board Bond measure, they were taking about how sad it was, that there are more post’s about Richardson Grove than the School Board one.
To me, and again, it’s just me, but now that we know that the Park Board has paid out more than $500,000,00 just in interest alone too private investor loans to purchase this Community Park (private) property (now with 80 acres going to McKee & 70 acres going to Dazey, leaving 405 acres for a Private Community Park and 36 + or – leased to Randall, for-profit) and all that $500,000.00 being paid from the public donations (public coffers). How better spent would that money have been, than used by the SoHum School Board. I mean that is the sad part of all of this, that for some people in this community, to think about using public donations for a private enterprise, instead of a broken down and busted public school system in your own back yard, it’s not sad, it’s a crime.
I want to ask Eric and the rest of the Park Board, if their new (2008) loans from Ryce and Metz will be paid in full for next month before the interest goes up on those loans as well?
A loan is not a donation, but the interest could be! Remember, a 501c3 is non-profit, along with it’s Board of Directors and invertors (the public).
March 5, 2010 at 5:28 am
edsvoice
Eric,
Here is the 2009 vender list from the Summer Arts & MUSIC Festival. Look at the number of just venders.
http://media.merchantcircle.com/28082452/MATEEL%20samf-vendor-map-web_full.jpeg
Here is the poster from 2009. What part of SAMF is the MCC promoting?
http://media.merchantcircle.com/28082452/MATEEL%20samf-vendor-map-web_full.jpeg
Here is the MCC web site add for SAMF, check out where is talks about 10,000 for the weekend.
http://www.mateel.org/sumartspackage.php
And so Eric, you think the MCC is going to scale this down? Down to what you are talking about, 1000 per day? Come on Eric, sounds like you still have Humboldt Bay water between your ears!
March 5, 2010 at 8:16 am
edsvoice
Eric,
Why can’t you do a “poll” like this one, just to see what people want;
Test the water. Can it be done?
March 5, 2010 at 8:56 am
annnonymoose
How many times would EdVoice vote in a totally uncontrolled and unscientific poll. There is nothing to stop multiple votes from the same person on this type of poll. Then it would be used as if it were a fact just like Faux News and their straw polls.
March 5, 2010 at 9:39 am
money95542
Anonymous said at 4:54pm on March 2
Quite frankly, by all indications we don’t have to convince “the community” of anything. The feedback we get is overwhelmingly positive. The county is willing to back us because they have been to the meetings and they have heard from the community.
Are you referring to Supervisor Clendenen?
He seems to only hear what he wants to hear from “the community”.
For example, he wrote an open letter that was on the Park Board’s website (since removed) in which he said that he had gotten “about 300″ letters in support of the Park Board. Turned out to be 133, most of them erroneoulsy asking or demanding that the county reopen the park.
But at the Park Board’s petition meeting of the Board of Supes, when presented with 307 petitions asking the Park Board to be a good neighbor and not have amplified events at the park, Supervisor Clendenen inferred that the petitions were meaningless.
Then he or she said at 3:56pm on March 12
Sorry sorry sorry! Some fact checking allies have pointed out that I was wrong about Supervisor Clendenen cititng 300 letters to the Board of Supervisors on the Park Board’s website. It is the Park Board’s statement, not Supervisor Clendenen’s.
Maybe your fact checking allies could have raised questions about the 307 petitions presented to the Supes (suggesting thousands of individual signers at 20-30 per petition). To most people’s way of thinking, what was actually presented was petitions (10-20 pages) containing 307 individual signers’ names. Technically, I suppose, each individual signer was a petitioner, and you could, technically, call it 307 petitions, but that’s hardly the common way of talking about it. Seems deceptive to me. What do your fact checking allies have to say?
March 5, 2010 at 2:43 pm
edsvoice
money95542,
Have you seen the petitions (NO Amplified Music at the Park) that were given to the BOS on Nov.10th? If you had, you would have seen over 300 sheets of paper signed by over 300 individual people (one per sheet or petition) in this community not waiting amplified music being played at the Community Park. No one I know or have read, has ever suggested “thousands of individual signers at 20-30 per petition”. You are the first to say that! Next time do your home work, you would be a better person for it.
As for the sorry, sorry, sorry post, I guess its nice that someone can fess up to making a mistake, even if he or she is “Anonymous”. He or she is a better person for it.
I filed a PRA request with Supervisor Clendenen, asking to see all 300 petitions the Park Board said were sent to the County (see Park web site letter), asking for the Park to be re-opened and the Park Boards zoning and Land Use request be kept in the GPU etc. Come to find out there was only 130 something of them on file with Supervisor Clendenen and the Planning Department.
As for you “annnonymoose”, I guess I don’t have to much faith in someone called “annnonymoose” either. What would be your answer to what the Community feels it wants for the Community Park, how can we find common ground, we are all ears!
March 5, 2010 at 2:54 pm
edsvoice
“annnonymoose” said:
“Then it would be used as if it were a fact just like Faux News and their straw polls”.
I forgot to ask, if you attend the Park Redway School meeting last March. The Board used straw polls to say they had overwhelming Community support for Commercial Concerts, Festivals and events at the Park. I glad we can agree on one thing.
March 5, 2010 at 4:07 pm
edsvoice
PS “annnonymoose”,
I tried voting twice on that Humboldt County “DA” Polldaddy link I posted from Eric’s thread, it would not let me, said I already voted. I’m sure if someone wanted to cheat they could. The point is, there should be a way to find out how everyone feels and what they want.
March 5, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Eric Kirk
I post the polls for fun. The stakes are very high on this issues, and the polls are too easy to hack.
For instance, check out this poll for the Second District Supervisor race. Looks like Roger Rodoni was doing very well. Well, over a hundred of those votes appeared in two 20 minute spurts.
http://redwoodreality.blogspot.com/search?q=let%27s+see+where+the+bloggers+are+at
It would be nice to commission some sort of survey, but our money is tied up in work which will actually benefit the park. If anyone wants to donate the money, go ahead and hire someone yourself. I’ll be happy to post the results.
March 5, 2010 at 9:29 pm
edsvoice
Eric had said;
“It would be nice to commission some sort of survey, but our money is tied up in work which will actually benefit the park”
1. What Park money is tied up in work which will benefit the Park?
2. Are you talking about money the Park Board needs to raise?
3. Are you talking about the $20,000.00 the Park Board owes Metz & Ryce, that is due next month, plus interest?
4. Or do you mean benefit the Community?
5. Because there is NO money, no money what so ever! You again are talking out your ass!
March 5, 2010 at 9:41 pm
edsvoice
To the Community,
What would this Community say, to a meeting formed by the neighbors and Community members, to have their own meeting and talk about this Community Park issue, or would that be too bias?
March 7, 2010 at 8:43 pm
edsvoice
Eric & Park Board;
On some of the Park Board meeting minutes we read items like this from 12/03/08:
“Finance Report: Kathryn passed out the quarterly profit and loss statement, the cumulative profit and loss statement, and the balance sheet. A cash flow analysis needs to be done – we need to prioritize what’s most important. We could use a separate budget committee. Kathryn and Peter will work together on this. We have payroll taxes,
land taxes, and survey costs, ect”
Why is it, that the community can’t see this financial paper work? It would seem allowing the public to see your quarterly profit and loss statements and balance sheets would cost nothing compared to an audit!
March 8, 2010 at 8:09 am
edsvoice
Eric,
So if the Community Park property, land, zoning and land use is only to allow AG use and the only reason the public can use the Community Park for low impact activities now is if the Park Board is requesting a zoning and land use change for the Community Park property?
Then how can the Park Board file for a grant, that can’t be used on property that is not zoned as a Community Park? I mean if the grant is all about recreation and restoration, what does that have to do with AG?
Plain and simple; the Community Park is not recognized by anyone in the County as a Park, only as a Farm or Ranch, right?
This is why we would love to read the Park Boards current Grant application. If it’s anything like the 2007 Humboldt County Headwaters Grant request application, I can see why the Park Board doesn’t want the public to read it.
March 8, 2010 at 8:38 am
Anonymous
Anonymous
Eric Kirk said:
“We also owe about 60 to 65 thousand in legal fees, surveyor fees, and consulting services, mostly pertaining to the completed lot line adjustment I believe.”
What the hell….? Why would some lot line adjustment that you say is so on the up and up cost so much in legal fees and consulting services? If this is how much is still owed, how much has already been paid out by the Park for the lot line adjustment? Why is the Park paying for all this? How much of the sixty or sixty-five thousand is owed for legal fees and who are the attorneys?
Oops, I had put this on a previous thread. I meant it for this one.
March 8, 2010 at 9:41 am
Anonymous
How much did McKee pay for his land that used to be park land? Where are the financial statements you promised us Eric?
On MMM today, Woods talked about the “spirituality” necessary when doing forest restoration. Someone else talked about the “VALUE OF SOIL”, someone else talked about the “fragmentation” of large parcels,and the negativity that has on the land and watersheds. WAS THE PARK BOARD LISTENING? Bob McKee is one of the biggest land fragmentors in the county. He is also one of the worst for putting in shit roads. Another topic today, roads that were supposed to be temporary for logging, becoming permanent for homesteading. Turning the park into a concert tourism venue will destroy the valuable soil, the micro-organisms living beneath the soil, the flora and fauna. Fixing Sprowel Creek Road will open up the whole park area, Kimtu and beyond to developement. Dazeyland.
Kathryn Lobato, and the rest of the pbod should listen to the young ambassadors’ on MMM , and think of the next 7 generations, and the LAND they are leaving to them. Why is the pbod so intent on destroying this resource?
March 8, 2010 at 10:55 am
edsvoice
Eric,
No wonder you never memorized the two Park AP numbers, now that they have been split up even more into new AP numbers. And all this because you had not paid $782 in property tax for APN 222-091-006? These new AP numbers are so new, they do not have a value.
Now that the Park Board has paid the property tax, to allow the LLA to move forward (Feb 2010), here are the new AP numbers for the Park and who owns what parcel:
SHCP APN map link: http://sohumpark.org/pdfs/SHCP-ExistingZoning.pdf
SHCP APN 222-241-008 (East side) before LLA was completed (March 2009);
Current APN’s that split up 222-241-008 after LLA:
222-241-009 owned by SHCP
222-241-010 owned by Stephen Dazey (Parcel “A”- 70.38 acres)
222-241-011 owned by SHCP
SHCP APN 222-091-006 (West side) before LLA was completed (March 2009)
Current APN’s that split up 222-091-006 after LLA:
222-091-011 owned by Sanford Goldeen (Parcel “D”- 81.36 acres)
222-091-012 owned by SHCP
And last, by not least, APN 222-091-003 that was owned by Dazey:
Current APN that split up 222-091-003 after LLA:
222-091-013 then moved to 222-091-014 owned by SHCP
So Eric or Park Board, who is Sanford Goldeen and when did he buy 81.36 acres (222-091-011) from the Community Park? The County Assessor has Sanford Goldeen as the new owner of 222-091-011, that was a section of land purchased by SHWT in 2000 with public donations to become SHCP property before this last LLA (March 2009), and it is now owned by Sanford Goldeen, why is that?
And did Sanford Goldeen pay any of the; legal fees, surveyor fees, and consulting services and costs paid by SHCP, mostly pertaining to the completed SHCP lot line adjustment that benefited this Community?
And what is up with more APN’s on the SHCP property? The SHCP now has 4 APN’s; you started with one, and then had two, now you have four. Are you planning on selling or trading more Park property in the coming years?
Maybe now that Dazey & Goldeen have their piece of heaven down at the Community Park (total of 151 acres of Park property), we can move forward with a recreation district for the SHCP and take this burden off the shoulders of the current Park Board? Call it a gift!
March 8, 2010 at 11:40 am
Anonymous
Yes, the young ambassadors on MMM were very moving. What a daunting world they are facing. I think they would like the community park the way it is, beautiful and quiet and spiritually nourishing for plants, wildlife, farmers, walkers, hikers, cyclists.
March 8, 2010 at 11:57 am
Anonymous
For me a concert venue in the community Park is totally unacceptable. Amplified sound is noise pollution. There’s a ton of research showing how harmful it is to everyone’s health. It is now the most common complaint filed by people living in the USA. Is the Park board really going to push this agenda onto the neighborhoods knowing that the community has filed a significant petition against it?
March 8, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Eric Kirk
So Eric or Park Board, who is Sanford Goldeen and when did he buy 81.36 acres (222-091-011) from the Community Park? The County Assessor has Sanford Goldeen as the new owner of 222-091-011, that was a section of land purchased by SHWT in 2000 with public donations to become SHCP property before this last LLA (March 2009), and it is now owned by Sanford Goldeen, why is that?
Hey, a good question. Of course, you know who Sanford Goldeen is Ed, and you know what the deal was, but for those who don’t know, this is property which was retained by Buck Mountain so that the price for the park land would remain at something the park could afford. Mr. Sandeen is of course a partner in Buck Mountain. It’s been discussed on numerous occasions right here on this blog, and elsewhere, as you well know. As to why it’s in Mr. Sandeen’s name rather than Buck Mountain’s is between them, and has nothing to do with us.
As to why the Assessor’s office gave us so many APN’s, we don’t know. We asked the woman handling the assignment of APN’s and she said something about a decision to give “everything on the other side of the river” its own APN, but we didn’t get a clear reason as to why. I suggest you direct your questions to the Assessor’s office. They assured us that it doesn’t mean we’ll be paying more in taxes, so it’s all the same to us. In any case, we did not request that many numbers. We were expecting only one, or maybe two.
March 8, 2010 at 1:48 pm
edsvoice
Peter Ryce,
When was the financial paper work going to be posted on the Park web site? You made this promise at the Jan 25th “neighors meeting”. Was this just BS to keep everyone happy at the meeting? Did you have any plans to keep this promise? Can we take you at you word?
March 8, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Anonymous
Though Sanford Goldeen might have been a limited partner in Buck Mountain Ranch LP, the name on the property is now that of a private individual. At the Feb 24 meeting, Bob McKee talked about this as if HE was getting this piece of Parkland. He also said that he had not paid for any of the lot line adjustment, and he didn’t think Steve should either. Has the Park paid for all this legal maneuvering to benefit a private individual?
Is Sanford Goldeen a private corporate condeminium developer from the bay area?
Is Garberville water going to his development site as a result of maneuvers by Bob McKee with GSD? Bob McKee has said that he got some”hookups” for Parcel D (now owned by Sanford Goldeen) from GSD in exchange for some deal putting the GSD water treatment plant on Park property(?) or his property? Or Goldeen’s property?
March 8, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Anonymous
The community is still taking it the butt. Thank you pbod and Dazey & McKee.
March 8, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Eric Kirk
With regard to Mr. Goldeen’s property, you should direct all inquiries to him and/or Buck Mountain. We on the Board do not regard matters pertaining to that property as any of our business.
As for the APN’s I have sent the following letter to the Assessor’s office.
Susan Bradbury
Humboldt County Tax Assessor’s Office
825 5th Street, Room #300
Eureka, CA 95501
Re: Community Park APNs
Dear Ms. Bradbury:
I am a member of the Board of Directors of the Southern Humboldt Community Park. Our lot line adjustment having been completed nearly a year ago, we just received the APN’s for the new parcels with your gracious help in clearing the final hurdles. We were a little perplexed to discover that the park owned property was assigned four APN’s, and we are unclear as to the reason why. However, a community member who for some reason is extremely concerned about our APNs has publicly stated that he contacted your office and was told by a member of your staff that we had requested four APNs.
Please inform your fellow staff of the truth of the matter so that we can prevent the erroneous spreading of disinformation about our APNs which apparently impute to us a desire for the park to possess multiple APNs. This is apparently distressing this community member and maybe a few others. We wish for you and the community to know that we want only our fair share of APNs and no more.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
Eric V. Kirk
EVK/
March 8, 2010 at 6:09 pm
money95542
Eric,
I expect to hear it all the way down here in sohum when the good folks at the assessor’s office chuckle or swear, or both, as they pass your letter around. I hope you noted your APN on your letter, so they can connect you to the right property. Oh, you have several APN’s? You don’t know which one to use? You’re confused? Huh?
March 8, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Anonymous
Hopefully, the assessor’s office takes your last sentence in the spirit of the complete asshole that you are.
March 8, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Anonymous
The detractors are a humorless lot aren’t they?
March 8, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Anonymous
But Eric, please explain why sixty or sixty-five thousand is still owed in legal fees and to land consultants, mostly pertaining to the lot line adjustment. That is a hell of a lot of money. This apparently does not include fees paid to the county, which are not usually something that you can get on credit and the county fees are paltry compared to what has been spent by the Park Board on legal fees and land consultants. Why would you need attorneys for a lot line adjustment that is just some easy little deal between parties that all agree? It’s a hell of a lot of Park money. Why did all this cost so much? It’s kinda fishy.
March 8, 2010 at 11:32 pm
edsvoice
Eric said;
“With regard to Mr. Goldeen’s property, you should direct all inquiries to him and/or Buck Mountain. We on the Board do not regard matters pertaining to that property as any of our business”
So Eric, do you have any contact information for Sanford Goldeen, my new neighbor at the Community Park? I would like to send him a gift basket, welcoming him to the neighborhood.
Here is the way I look at it. This property now owned by Goldeen had always been included as the property purchased by SHWT in 2000. We have never seen anything different. It was not until 2004 and the SHCP Board started the third (3rd) lot line adjustment on the Park property and then in 2008 (because of un-permitted concerts) the public found out about this lot line adjustment. Because up until that point (2008), the public was kept in the dark about everything the Park Board was doing or not doing.
If you look on the Park web site, your will see a survey map of the Park. On the East side, you will see Parcel “D” Buck Mountain Ranch, not Sanford Goldeen.
http://sohumpark.org/pdfs/SHCP-LotlineMap.pdf
You will also note on the Park web site, under; http://sohumpark.org/updates.html#lotline it also only talks about Buck Mountain Ranch, not Sanford Goldeen.
Is this why Bob McKee and Goldeen Group (aka Buck Mountain Ranch LP) gave SHWT a donation of $80,000.00 in the beginning? It was in the newspaper, a photo’op of McKee giving Dazey & Ingold a check for $80,000.00. It even shows up on the SHWT 990 as a donation? And it was all done in front of everybody in the Community! At first I thought it was just a good sales and marketing ploy, you know get more people to donate, because look what McKee donated! Then this Parcel “D” came up on the lot line adjustment for the Park property and there you go, Dazey gets his property and now Goldeen gets his and everyone else is sold down the river. Thank god it was a Community 501c3 Corporation that did it, because we all trust the SHCP Board, they are our neighbors.
The Park is involved with all this, because the Park Board allowed Buck Mountain Ranch too dodge the property tax since 2000, that’s why.
So what you are telling us is the Park Board never knew about Sanford Goldeen taking title to Parcel “D” what so ever? And now that we know this about Sanford Goldeen, the Park Board doesn’t want to be accountable for its own actions? The Park Board was OK with using the words Buck Mountain Ranch or Bob McKee, but now that the community knows this was all for a condo developer from the Bay Area, you and the rest of the Park Board want to wash your hands of even knowing the people you sold the farm too, its water under the bridge, right Eric?
That letter you said you wrote to the Assessors office was a good one, you’re not very good at playing poker, are you Eric!
March 8, 2010 at 11:35 pm
Eric Kirk
Ed, you’ve got a huge imagination and way too much time on your hands.
The letter went out this afternoon.
March 9, 2010 at 8:55 am
Anonymous
So essentially, the community paid for Dazeyland, and the land that Goldeen now owns. What a hoot. A local class action law suit? We were duped.
March 9, 2010 at 9:28 am
Anonymous
We paid $4000 an acre for park land, the same land that McKee paid $450 an acre. How is that a good deal for the community, e?
March 9, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Eric Kirk
More misinformation. We paid under $3000 per acre. Steve Dazey paid $4000.00 per acre. I have no idea what Buck Mountain paid Tooby for their land, but I seriously doubt it was anywhere near as low as $450 per acre.
March 9, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Anonymous
Eric, will you please explain why a lot line adjustment between parties that agree cost the Community Park at least sixty to sixty five thousand (still owed) in legal fees and land consultants? This is outrageous and it really pisses me off that you will not address this question. I am beginning to wonder if that’s at least how much it costs to try to cover everybody’s ass, not an easy thing, hm?
March 9, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Eric Kirk
Because surveyors, attorneys, consultants, and government aren’t cheap. In a very recent boundary line dispute it cost $25,000 to survey the boundary line between two 60 acre properties. It doesn’t always cost that much. The cost depends on a number of factors.
What costs in particular do you believe to be exorbitant? I don’t know the particulars of the LLA, but the price tag actually seems a little bit low to me.
March 9, 2010 at 5:20 pm
anon
We paid $4000 an acre for park land, the same land that McKee paid $450 an acre. How is that a good deal for the community, e?
This has been explained so many times – and so reasonably – that it is completely pathetic that anyone – at this point – can ask such a stupidly simplistic question without even beginning to address all the explanations and commentary that have gone before.
Eric: Stop taking the bait.
March 9, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Eric Kirk
It’s true of most of the questions. I think there’s a strategy here to ask the same questions over and over again, and I’ll answer them every 5th time or so just in case anybody new to the issue happens to wander into the thread.
March 9, 2010 at 5:27 pm
anon
Since the community owns the park and the park board is less than human, how is it that I am not allowed to eat them? hm?
March 9, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Anonymous
How much was paid all together for these LLA? Is the $60-$65,000 for surveys and everything, or just the legal and land consultants? Who were these land consultants, and what were they needed for? What did they actually do? Who were the surveyors? What was the actual survey cost? Why were attorneys needed, and who were they? What did they get paid? Which one of the park board members is related to the people who did the LLAs and/or consulting and surveying. I had an LLA done and the survey company worked with the county and handled all issues. It was 40 acres, and cost $12,000.
Somewhere, on one of these thread, I too remember seeing that Buck Mountain/Bob Mckee paid $450 per acre for the whole Tooby Ranch. Maybe in the letter by George Rolff. Even if the park paid $3000 an acre, Buck Mountain/Bob Mckee porked us. Bob McKee used our money to make/close his deal, and then charged us an outrageous price, under the guise of telling us we were saving the land from developers. Now we have 2 separate pieces owned by developers. Like the taxpayers bailing out Wall Street, and they use our money to pay bonuses to the CEO’s.
March 9, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Eric Kirk
You’re talking about the whole ranch?
Yeah, anon’s right. That’s a stupidly simplistic question.
I really wish some of you would maybe read up a little on this stuff before you start shooting your mouths off. It really does make you look dumb. Sorry, but it does.
March 9, 2010 at 6:00 pm
edsvoice
anon said,
“Since the community owns the park and the park board is less than human, how is it that I am not allowed to eat them?”
First off, you by all means are allowed to eat whom ever you want. But why do you say the: “community owns the park”. The community owns nothing at or on the Park, not one square inch of dirt, not one weed, not one tick, not one stone or even a blade of grass, nothing, nada, zip, zilch. Dazey owned more of the Park property than any one person ever did. The Park is owned, operated and controlled by the SHCP Corporation. It is a private piece of property and the Park Board allows the public to use it as a Park. The land is not zoned for a Park. The Park Board doesn’t even need to pay property tax on the property.
I think that question has been answered 300 to 500 times already. If you don’t believe me, ask the Park Board Director behind the curtain, which would be Eric V. Kirk.
March 9, 2010 at 6:49 pm
edsvoice
Eric,
What does it matter, you and your Park Board buddies don’t even have enough paperwork showing this Park deal to wipe your own assets.
Please Eric, you might want to Call Bob, ask him how much he paid for the 13,000 acres. He did state the amount at the Park Boards “neighbor tar & feather meeting” at the MCC on Feb 2009, or were you on board then? Let me give it to you as easy as I can, the $450 price, is very dam close. I don’t know how you will get out of this one. Here’s a thought, lie, you have been batting 1000 so far!
Have you posted the latest Park Board meeting for March, open to the public?
And since you were in charge of the neighbors meeting back in January, why haven’t the Park operation finance records been posted on the Park web site as you had said they would? Do you guys just lie about something’s and more about others or what?
All I can say about you Eric, you had better get up to speed on everything the Park Board has done and been doing. Because we have! Maybe we can do some light reading at the next open Park Board meeting and share with the Community what facts we have and what story line you are on that day.
March 9, 2010 at 6:49 pm
anon
See what I mean Eric? Ed Voice just told me it’s okay for me to eat the park board. Forget nuanced negotiation.
There’s no point in trying to have a rational discussion. The conversation won’t lead to any kind of measured, reasonable or balanced resolution of concerns. They’ve been listened to, they can give their input to the process like everybody else. Maybe they will get their ducks in row, maybe not. But, you are a good man. There are more productive things to do with your time than fighting with a tar baby.
IMHO.
March 9, 2010 at 7:17 pm
edsvoice
anon,
you got it, you finally got it. That is our story, fact after fact and we are sticking to it. No pun intended!
March 9, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Anonymous
So you say that you don’t know the particulars of the Lot Line Adjustment, but apparently have decided that it’s fine because the Park Board did it.
I am asking you to look into it. According to you, it was all some gentlemans agreement and all the big boys were happy, so why were attorneys involved? Who were the attorneys and who were the land consultants? Why didn’t Dazey and Goldeen pay some of the costs? You said that sixty to sixty-five Thousand is still owed. How much has already been paid?
This lot line adjustment has been an Extremely Pricey Deal that a broke and indebt non-profit for public charity so-called community park is carrying the freight for, resulting in two private individuals getting prime development property (and the water). There has never been an accounting of how much money was raised in the beginning and where it all went. Now you say that you “don’t have to convince the community of anything”, the whole deal is in the bag.
You read up on the stuff, Eric. We can’t because we are denied access. Provide some documentation.
March 10, 2010 at 9:47 am
Anonymous
ANSWER the questions with the truth, and simplistically stupid, then maybe we wouldn’t have to keep asking them. We got ripped off. We were supposed to be donating to a COMMUNITY park so no developers could get hold of that awesome Tooby Flat. Yet somehow, Dazeyville and San Francisco developer Sanford Goldeen own separate private pieces. And I will repeat the stupid statement that Bob McKee paid $450 per acre for the park land that he sold to the community for $3000 an acre(happy with that number e?) Land he did nothing to improve, he used our money that we donated for the park to close HIS DEAL. How is such a price increase explained? He did us a favor? HOW? What a rip off from a supposed philanthropist.
March 10, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Another Idea
Have you heard the story about a guy who figured that people would believe anything he said, as long as it was what they wanted to hear?
So he made up some pills out of horse manure and packaged them as intelligence pills. He sold a lot of them to peole who wanted to hear how smart they were. But whenever someone complained they didn’t work and besides they smelled and tasted like horse shit, he’d say “See, you should thank me, because now you’ve smartened up. Its funny, until it happens in real life.
The emperor has no clothes. But rather than being judgemental, folks honestly believe he’s fully dressed.
March 10, 2010 at 3:52 pm
edsvoice
Eric,
I’m not sure if you care about the facts, but Buck Mountain Ranch LP purchased 13,700 acres of the Tooby Ranch for $6,600,000.00, now you do the math.
The other problem with your story; we the public have nothing on paper that states how much money SHWT put down too buy the Tooby Flat; because that money was used to buy the 13,700 acres of the Tooby Ranch!
The other problem with your story; we don’t know how many acres SHWT purchased. The only number on the SHWT & SHCP 990′s from 2000 to 2008 is 380 acres. Now you can say SHWT paid under $3000 acre all day long, but there is nothing on paper that states that, right?
As for you chose of words “retained” you had better check that out again the powers to be, I’m sure Buck Mountain Ranch LP did not “retain” the 81 acres Sanford Goldeen now owns. But let’s say what you have said is true, then why is it that the 81 acres (Parcel “D”, now owned by Sanford Goldeen) was always in the title of the SHCP?
You know its bad enough that the Park Board has blown over $500,000.00 in public donations for interest on private investor loans, but for the SHCP Board of Directors to use public donations to paid for the Buck Mountain Ranch LP, Sanford Goldeen and Bob McKee’s Tooby Ranch purchase, lot line adjustment, survey’s, legal fees, escrow fees and property taxes is beyond the scope of a Community Benefit Charitable Non-profit, don’t you think? I think its called breaking the law!
Same goes for Stephen Dazey and how he to ended up with his own 70 acres, the Park Board used Public Donations to pay for his lot line adjustment, surveys’, legal fees, escrow fees, and property tax on Parcel “A”, also not to forget all the clean up work and restoration work the Park Board allowed on DazeyLand, and all while on the public’s own dime.
This Tooby Ranch/Tooby Park/Community Park purchase and deal, has to go down in the books as the 9th wonder of the world! Those names will be remembered for generations to come; Ingold, Dazey, Lobato, Metz, Ryce and now just added, Kirk. 100 years from today, children in SoHum will ask their parents, why did they call it weed and how much did the Park cost our Community?
March 10, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Anonymous
Yeah, and kids will say, What were birds? Where was the river? What are frogs? What the Park Board is calling a community benefit is really the danse macabre.
Why keep on destroying nature for money and “economic growth”, when we the community have already bought this area of parkland five times the size of Garberville. We could begin to protect wildlife habitat and preserve riparian corridors right here. It must start somewhere.
The argument that we have the freeway and the airport “down there” is not true. The freeway and the airport are much higher elevations, the damaging noise does not reverberate throughout the riparian corridor like the noise of boogie blowouts.
Nor do the freeway or the airport bring thousands of partiers, campers, and parkers upon the riverbed: the endless invasion emiserating all the beings who live here.
March 10, 2010 at 9:11 pm
The Queen of Hearts
Off with their heads!
March 11, 2010 at 7:09 am
edsvoice
So Eric,
Did you ever hear back from the Assessors office?
Was that letter you sent to the Assessors office approved by the Park Board?
Because I’ve got a huge imagination and way too much time on your hands and what you have said:
“As to why the Assessor’s office gave us so many APN’s, we don’t know. We asked the woman handling the assignment of APN’s and she said something about a decision to give “everything on the other side of the river” its own APN, but we didn’t get a clear reason as to why. I suggest you direct your questions to the Assessor’s office. They assured us that it doesn’t mean we’ll be paying more in taxes, so it’s all the same to us. In any case, we did not request that many numbers. We were expecting only one, or maybe two”
Well after thinking about what you said, that does make sense. If you look at the Park survey map on the Park web site. Across the river from the Park is Parcel “B”, above and below the bridge. That property is owned by the SHCP and leased to Randall Sand & Gravel. It is zoned MHQ and has been since Randall Sand & Gravel had first requested and was permitted for instream gravel extraction and commercial cement production in 1986.
It would make sense that the property across the river from the Park have its own APN, I’m sure it had to do with the County property tax, since SHCP is exempt from paying property tax, except if that activity on SHCP property is for commercial instream gravel and cement operations. And since Randall Sand & Gravel doesn’t fall into the SHCP mission for public benefit & charity as a 501c3 and for years SHCP has already been using public funds to pay the property tax on their property they lease to Randall, then yes it would make sense that the Park property across the river from the Park have its own APN’s for commercial gravel & cement production.
That way too, the SHCP could keep Randall Sand & Gravel separate from the Park property APN’s. This way when SHCP applies for different river restoration and river trail grants, Randall Sand & Gravel will no longer be on that Park property or APN. Its a win win for everyone, as long as you don’t look across the river from the Park or live in that habitat on that side of the watershed, everything on paper will be great and once again the community will benefit from the thousands and thousands of hours this Park Board donates to the Community Park.
FYI Eric, in your quoted post above, you did say:”I suggest you direct your questions to the Assessor’s office” and so I did, but that is not what you told the Assessors office later in your letter, is it Eric? You had said: “ a community member who for some reason is extremely concerned about our APNs has publicly stated that he contacted your office and was told by a member of your staff that we had requested four APNs”
And people pay you good money to represent them in Court?
March 11, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Anonymous
ALL Park Board meetings open to the public!
Bylaws that protect the environment, river, wildlife, neighborhoods and the public trust.
Strict financial accountability to the public, including yearly independent audits.
It is time to have a real park.
March 11, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Anonymous
How about a park that is owned by the community that paid for it. And a board that is elected by the community that paid for the land, not a self appointed, self selecting board.
March 11, 2010 at 5:15 pm
edsvoice
So Eric the kirk,
Will it do any good, to ask the Park Board too bring all their financial documents from 2002 to present like you and Ryce said would be posted on the Park web site over a month ago, too this Park Board meeting on March 17th?
It would be great if we could see all the monthly and yearly P&L statements from 2002 to present, you know, like the one that was included with the Park Boards 2007 Headwater Grant application. That one showed the SHCP making a little over $9000 for 2007?
March 11, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Anonymous
There is no agenda on the Park Board’s website for the March 17 meeting. What is the agenda? Will there be unannounced advocates as there were at the last meeting? Some people who get a heads up about what the agenda is while the rest of us do not?
This is why it is helpful to post an agenda before a meeting, plus notes from the last meeting so community members can participate.
Here is something else, Eric. Some people I know who are NOT regular bloggers would like to look at the Park discussion on this blog, but find it very difficult to find the most current thread on the blog if they don’t know the name of the thread, and it is not currently flagged on the left. Since this has clearly been an issue with lots of threads, lots and lots of comments (maybe the most?) why can it not be made more accessible to the less blog minded? Is there a way to reference current park threads on the home page or something? Or a way to categorize them all together in order of the most current first under some easy heading?
March 11, 2010 at 7:17 pm
anon
its a real park anon 1:19
i just got back and its real
you and your Fox spinners
can spew all you want
what a country!
lets see YOUR financial docs
ed the voice
March 11, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Anonymous
what is a fox spinner?
March 11, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Anonymous
You’ve never heard of fox news?
March 11, 2010 at 10:58 pm
edsvoice
anon 7:17 pm,
So what do you want to see and how do I get them to you?
March 12, 2010 at 7:51 am
milt
anon 6:22:
Here is something else, Eric. Some people I know who are NOT regular bloggers would like to look at the Park discussion on this blog, but find it very difficult to find the most current thread on the blog if they don’t know the name of the thread, and it is not currently flagged on the left.
Eric ‘tags’ all his posts on the CP – Community Park.
Just type in – Community Park – in the search window at the top left of the blog. All related posts, except this one for some strange reason, will come up on a list. The list will also contain a few posts that have nothing to do with the CP, but that’s probably a peculiarity of word press. Just click the individual posts on the list you want to review. Your non-blog minded friends should allocate a few hours of reading to catch up.
March 12, 2010 at 8:19 am
edsvoice
Here is a good link;
http://en.wordpress.com/tag/community-park/
You can find all threads related to the Park. Or just click my name on this post and it will take you to the neighbors web site and you can read some of what we have on our blog.
Thanks
March 12, 2010 at 11:10 am
Anonymous
little anon—the park is supposedly a COMMUNITY PARK. anyone can walk into the mcc, a community center, and ask to see the books. the mcc has to show them. not so with this CORPORATE PARK. edvoice is a private person, no one donated to him to buy his land, why should he show us his finances? we have no right to question how he used his EARNED MONEY. the park, on the other hand, was purchased with other peoples’ money, mine included. what we were told the money was going to be used for, and what it has been used for, were and are, different. WE HAVE EVERY RIGHT to ask for an accounting of HOW OUR MONEY was, and is, being used. should we ask to see your finances? even though we have no right? let us see your finances, little anon.
March 12, 2010 at 1:45 pm
edsvoice
Hey Eric,
Can we talk about this Park Boards application for the Humboldt County Rural Transportation & Access Partnership (RTAP) that was submitted on January 20, 2010?
I wanted to ask you about this statement from the RTAP application:
“Southern Humboldt Working Together (SHWT) is a local coalition of more than twenty-five regional non-profit organizations, local agencies, health service providers, faith-based organizations, businesses, and private citizens whose mission is to promote positive growth and sustain a healthy community for future generations. SHWT is a powerful collaboration of the key entities in the Southern Humboldt area. The SHWT board supports this project and is in the process of soliciting support from each member of the coalition. SHWT currently functions as an informal, unofficial town council, where every voice is equal as part of a collective. Having the pulse of the wider community, the SHWT Board has heard the community call for improvements to Sprowel Creek Road for many years”
I had no idea that: “SHWT currently functions as an informal, unofficial town council”. I had thought they were just another non-profit in the Community.
If you have some time, I would like to talk about some other statements made or omitted in the RTAP application by the Park Board.
Thanks
March 12, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Anonymous
Nobody cares Ed. Go away and play somewhere else.
March 12, 2010 at 3:18 pm
edsvoice
What happened to get a life.
If no one cares, why would you have to say it?
March 12, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Anonymous
Go away Ed.
March 12, 2010 at 6:30 pm
anon
“the park, on the other hand, was purchased with other peoples’ money, mine included. what we were told the money was going to be used for, and what it has been used for, were and are, different.”
no, not really…
when i gave my $$ all i was told was that this donation was to make/buy a park–hence i have no complaints, it is a park and very usable…
(but there are sure some complainers out there and certainly therapists available to help people deal with their emotional conditions, i hope)
March 12, 2010 at 6:38 pm
edsvoice
Nope, hell no, this is better than X~Box. What, you got a problem that?
March 12, 2010 at 7:40 pm
Anonymous
Thank you, milt. I wonder why this one isn’t tagged CP. That was the problem people were having.
Eric, will you please add this thread to the Community Park “tags”, (and all future ones relating to the Park), so others can find it (them) and read up? There is a lot of interest. I do no think it is true that no one cares, as someone keeps trying to repeat over and over and over.
Thank you.
March 12, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Eric Kirk
It’s been tagged as have all of them anonymous, but actually, there really isn’t that much interest in the threads once they drop off the main page even with the “recent comments” icons in the left column. Most of the hits are coming from about half a dozen individuals. To maintain general interest, the story has to be fresh. It’s not all that different from newspapers. And these threads are extremely repetitive.
March 13, 2010 at 2:57 am
Anonymous
Eric Kirk had said;
On March 9, 2010 at 12:40 pm;
“We paid under $3000 per acre. Steve Dazey paid $4000.00 per acre. I have no idea what Buck Mountain paid Tooby for their land, but I seriously doubt it was anywhere near as low as $450 per acre”
March 13, 2010 at 10:35 am
edsvoice
anon said,
“when i gave my $$ all i was told was that this donation was to make/buy a park–hence i have no complaints, it is a park and very usable”
Yes and like many other people they too donated for a Community Park, not a Concert and Festival Venue, not a Campground and RV Park, not to allow housing development by the Park Board or Goldeen and Dazey with their Condo’s and Park Estate Ranchett planning and development credits and sure as hell not wanting to Park cars on the River bar!
More than 300 people from this community have said, they DO NOT want any kind of amplified music events at the Park, commercial or other wise, do we need to get more to make our point?
Maybe you moved here to live next to a Golden Gate Park type area, with thousands of people running around all summer long, but like many many many other people in this community, our family did not, long before this Park Board even knew where Sprowel Creek Road was even located and who lived out here.
By the way anon, you never answered my question from March 11, 2010 at 10:58 pm.
March 13, 2010 at 2:38 pm
edsvoice
Eric,
Did you ever figure out how much McKee/Goldeen paid for the Tooby Ranch?
If you divide 13,700 acres into $6,600,000.00=$481.75 per acre. Not that bad of a mark-up, given the fact the dot-com bubble had just popped in March/April 2000 and all of this was in October 2000.
It seems, the Park Board can never pick a good time to get donations.
Now all we need to know, is how much money from donations SHWT gave McKee/Goldeen as a down payment for the Tooby Ranch deal and how many acres SHWT got out of the deal or had purchased in October 2000 from the sale, you know a paper trail from a real estate transaction and escrow like most people have!
So your comment above is more of a Palin-Backassward way of not talking about the facts, right Eric!
March 13, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Anonymous
(Yawn)
March 13, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Anonymous
Can you please give us even a brief agenda planned for the meeting of March 17?
March 13, 2010 at 11:46 pm
Eric Kirk
I don’t have anything handy, but I’ll see what I can get.
Also, I’ve held back a few posts lately. As certain individuals insist upon personal attacks on individuals which have now extended to private individuals not even on the Board, I am instituting the no-tolerance policy I began with the Reggae War threads. That includes statements which I deem libelous. It’s beyond bizarre, and I want to say that there are criticisms which I can respect and concerns from neighbors which are genuine, but the silence of those neighbors with legitimate concerns to the really immature and nasty personal attacks with very serious accusations is deafening. Those attacks will no longer be tolerated. You can start your own blog if you feel these posts are appropriate.
March 14, 2010 at 8:38 am
Anonymous
You see that as a personal attack Ed? It looks like the simple truth to me.
March 14, 2010 at 9:09 am
Confused
Did Dennis publish that letter somewhere or was it a private letter which Frenchy choose to make public? Did Frenchy give it to you in confidence Ed? Did you have his permission to publish this letter? Because if it was a private letter as suggested in its last sentence then it couldn’t possibly harm Frenchy in any way unless you or he decided to share it with everyone else.
March 14, 2010 at 9:30 am
Eric Kirk
I have blocked two additional posts. Although they aren’t libelous the tone is one I expect from an angry teenager with inappropriate epithets, and I’m not tolerating that either. The tone changes now. I actually think I waited too long.
As one post points out Dennis sent his letter to Frenchy privately. But this forum now ceases to be a vehicle for personal attacks on Board members or private persons. Posts which merely take issue with park policies will be welcome, but the attacks end now.
March 14, 2010 at 11:05 am
edsvoice
Eric,
Sounds good to me and Thank you. Lets see if you stick by your guns.
If anyone who wants to ask me questions about what I posted, use your name and I will answer your question, or just email anyone of us at the “neighbors web site” and we can go from there, just click my name on this post.
Thank you Eric, better late than never!
March 14, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Anonymous
Dennis sent a letter as a board member of the park., seems like anything he does in that hat is public info.And it was a very threatening letter, and you wonder eric why some of the neighbors who oppose the future of the concert venue, keep quiet.What other kinds of threats have been said to the neighbors, that we, the public, know nothing about? I guess the pbod must feel that if they write a private letter to someone, they can be as nasty and threatening as they like.
March 14, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Eric Kirk
Do you mind explaining to me precisely what the “threat” is in the letter?
This was a private letter from Dennis to Frenchy. Frenchy chose to make it a public issue.
As far as I’m concerned the letter was an attempt by Dennis to express his frustration with Frenchy’s behavior. Frenchy I’m sure has a different opinion about his behavior, but he made the choice to publish the letter. If the letter causes any detriment to Frenchy’s reputation, it’s not Dennis’ doing.
The accusations made by some of the neighbors against individuals on the board and other private individuals have been irresponsible and harmful. It is one thing to be upset over noise and traffic. It’s completely another thing to use those concerts as an excuse to tear into people who have volunteered many, many hours with the community interest in mind. People who are guilty of nothing more than an error of judgment are being pilloried and quite possibly careers and future business opportunities will be denied them because of accusations made without factual basis or any rational justification.
Unfortunately, there’s a streak in this community which encourages this kind of personalization of differences in public policy. It happens everywhere, but I think it’s particularly bad around here since the Reggae War, and maybe it’s particularly worse because it’s small and everybody has known each other; I don’t know. But it’s irresponsible and it needs to stop.
March 14, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Not A Native
I don’t know either of the people involved in the letter or their relationship, but it was a clearly an act to discredit, humiliate and silence this guy Frenchy. The first step to justify violence against someone is to dehumanize then and delegitimize their moral worth. This letter is easily that first step.
And I’d say the verbiage of “consider you to be an ACTIVE opponent who MUST be dealt with on ALL levels”(my caps for emphasis) could reasonably be interpreted as a threat, in at least a social sense. In a small community where social shunning easily spills over to physical harassment, I’d advise Frenchy to “watch his back”.
March 14, 2010 at 5:38 pm
anonymous
The actual phase used was:
“I am willing to take on your stone-throwing head on if necessary.”
That’s “head on” as in I will face your stone throwing. Not exactly a threat.
Interesting how someone above dropped the word “on” to make it sound like a possible threat to Frenchy’s head.
Poor reading skills or deliberate disinformation?
March 14, 2010 at 6:48 pm
Eric Kirk
It wasn’t a constructive letter, and I wish he hadn’t written it the way he did. But it’s not a threat, nor “fighting words.” And it’s certainly not worth the carrying on and sending it to just about every public official within a thousand mile radius.
And it’s certainly nothing in comparison with the sliming of public and private people who are simply trying to put something beautiful together for the community.
March 14, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Anonymous
Eric Kirk said:
“People who are guilty of nothing more than an error of judgment are being pilloried and quite possibly careers and future business opportunities will be denied them because of accusations made without factual basis or any rational justification.”
Guess you are defending the Park Board’s right to make accusations without factual basis or rational justification.
“To have only venomous diatribes is a sign of mental illness.”
“than I will consider you to be an active opponent of the Park who must be dealt with on all levels”.
March 14, 2010 at 8:11 pm
edsvoice
Please Eric,
could you give us all an example of what you meant;
“And it’s certainly nothing in comparison with the sliming of public and private people who are simply trying to put something beautiful together for the community”
Let me also ask, after what you said today; “But this forum now ceases to be a vehicle for personal attacks on Board members or private persons. Posts which merely take issue with park policies will be welcome, but the attacks end now”, would you have posted Dennis Hubers comment to Frenchy on this thread after today?
March 14, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Eric Kirk
Please Eric,
could you give us all an example of what you meant;
No. I’m not going to repeat what has been said, then it gets dragged out in discussion, and I’m done with that.
And no, I wouldn’t post that letter. Nor will I allow the goading posts made towards you earlier in the week. I want a change of tone.
March 14, 2010 at 10:35 pm
Eric Kirk
No Ed, it really doesn’t. Quite frankly, I don’t understand what you and several other people are doing. I find it incredibly confusing. I will eventually post a narrative to the park website, but you know the history because it’s been laid out for you in great detail.
Keep asking the questions Ed. But as the Board are mostly people with full time jobs, we’ll answer them as we can. The financial summary will be ready when it’s ready. It’s not our priority however. We’ve got some funding opportunities, a rezoning process which is necessary if we are going to maintain the park in any form, and a lot of work to do which will actually bring benefit to the community.
We’re sorry about the loud concert. We’ve apologized over and over again. But the accusations of malfeasance against Board members and people who have gone out of their way to benefit the park and community are way out of line. And they are false. Patently. And they are irresponsible. And those in your group who know better, but who sit silently while these accusations are made, are just as irresponsible. I find it very disappointing, and I understand why local nonprofits are having a hard time filling their Boards. It’s a lot of work, and we don’t appreciate the verbal and written abuse.
If you have ideas about how to mitigate the impact of our activities on concerned neighbors, we are always open to hearing them. But we aren’t even going to pretend that we can make everyone happy all of the time. We get that some, perhaps most, of the neighbors don’t want amplified music at the park. We also know that there are a lot of people in the community who do want amplified music events held at the park. The concerns of the neighbors weigh heavy, but they aren’t the only consideration. I understand that 300 community members signed a petition (although I know of one person who may ask to be removed). That leaves about 9700 people in the area not spoken for. We understand that some of you don’t want development which might lead to more traffic. But there are other interests to be considered.
So feel free to ask the questions. If I find time to answer them I will. But I won’t be allowing people, particularly not collateral damage/innocent bystanders like Mr. Goldeen, to be vilified here. That part of the discussion is over.
March 14, 2010 at 11:50 pm
edsvoice
Eric,
Thanks, but I don’t seem to recall Mr. Goldeen being vilified here on this thread, was there a post I missed or did you keep it out of the mix?
As for Mr. Sanford Goldeen, I did what you said and called the man last week, we had a nice long phone conversation. Seems like a very nice spoken person. Told me his ideas for his 81 acres and how he got title to it and most of the back history about SHWT, Buck Mountain Ranch LP, Bob McKee, Stephen Dazey and the parts they all played. I leaned a lot from our phone conversation and hope to have more as he had requested to keep in touch. And as it turned out, we even agreed on a couple of things that would negatively effect the environment and our well being.
I don’t know why Eric, but when you say things like;
“I understand that 300 community members signed a petition (although I know of one person who may ask to be removed). That leaves about 9700 people in the area not spoken for”
You have this way of making the more than 300 people in this community seem so unimportant, why is that?
And as to you said earlier today;
“It’s completely another thing to use those concerts as an excuse to tear into people who have volunteered many, many hours with the community interest in mind. People who are guilty of nothing more than an error of judgment are being pilloried and quite possibly careers and future business opportunities will be denied them because of accusations made without factual basis or any rational justification”
And so now, you are blaming the neighbors for something you can’t substantiate, but only rant about. Sounds like you already have a law suit in the works. When as nice as I can put it, the Park Board never gave a shit about our property, about our home, about our habitat, and they only care about themselves, making a buck and putting butts in seats, nobody else. Actions speak louder than words or amplified music.
You are so wrong in so many ways and so many levels. Yes, it was about those illegal un-permitted concerts and then it turned into more, because of what we found out asking questions about the lot line adjustments at the same time we had been asking about concerts at the Park with the County (2007 & 2008). And then, the next thing we hear about is the Park Board requesting more concerts at the Park, with never once coming and asking any of us if we wanted it.
So I ask you Eric, what would Jesus do!
March 15, 2010 at 12:10 am
anonymous
As long as we’re going to take stuff out of context and spinning out paranoid conspiracy theories, then NAN’s phrase, “I’d advise Frenchy to ‘watch his back,’” could reasonably be interpreted as a threat, in at least a social sense. I’d advise NAN to watch his paranoia level.
March 15, 2010 at 8:03 am
Eric Kirk
Ed, I don’t know what he’d do, but I doubt he’d be making those kind of accusations.
In any case, as to Mr. Goldeen, I’m not going to discuss it precisely because he is a private individual who does not avail himself of this forum, because he has done the park some enormous favors for which we should all be grateful, and because the whole discussion is way out of hand. I’ve stated the policy, and I’m going to leave it at that. The slash and burn posts are over.
March 15, 2010 at 8:17 am
Anonymous
Eric, what’s confusing about the unpopularity of a board that took away the community’s peace and quiet? You come across as someone who can’t understand how valuable quiet is. It’s something money can’t buy. It’s loss is a health issue. The SHCP will gain public support again once you stop trying to force amplified events into the Park. The way for you to mitigate the impacts of amplified events in the Park is not to have them there. Have non-amplified acoustic music in the Park, have permaculture workshops, have walking, hiking, bike riding, disk golf, cooperative garden patches, have schoolchildren visit farming projects, have people visit the Park who are interested in its historical and indigenous past, show the projects that few have seen at the Park like the bamboo, the gully restoration work, etc.
There were two things the community said NO to from the beginning, NO amplified concerts, NO housing. Try to hear that. Thousands of music lovers around here agree. They know that the existing boogie venues are enough. They realize the Park, the town of Garberville, and the miles of surrounding neigborhoods should be spared the pounding. We donated to protect, preserve, and cherish the Tooby Flat in its unique natural beauty, peace and quiet. We cherish it as it is.
March 15, 2010 at 8:23 am
Eric Kirk
“The community” hasn’t said no. A group of neighbors has said no. Other neighbors have said, “turn it up!”
(adding) – that’s an actual quote from one of the neighbors btw.
March 15, 2010 at 9:15 am
Anonymous
By “other” neighbors, you imply many, than you say it is a quote from one. You maximize one voice that fits your agenda of amplified music, and marginalize 300(or maybe now 299)people who say no to amplified music. The park board has already made up their mind, because of the ties to the MCC. THAT is the reason for the LOUD MUSIC, which will destroy birds, bats, deer, the rest of the flora and fauna, the ground that the thousands of people will walk and drive on. You will not be doing the land or the wildlife any favors with your loud music. And the wildlife does not get a vote in this. You keep trotting numbers of people around, what about asking the animals in the neighborhood how they feel?
March 15, 2010 at 9:22 am
Anonymous
You have one neighbor who says turn it up and you have one petition signer who might have changed her mind? That’s impressive. You have whole groups at the 2001 scoping meetings that said no. The petition and the scoping meetings were inclusive of all of Southern Humboldt.
You yourself Eric, plus Dennis Huber and Peter Ryce all stated at the Jan. 25th meeting that you would prefer not to have amplified events in the Park if you had your druthers. Who and/or what at your board is forcing you to adopt this controversial agenda? It’s never going to end, that you can bet on. Let go of it, make peace, save a ton of money, enjoy a quiet Park, flourish.
March 15, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Anonymous
The noise issue is a very important one. In addition, I am deeply concerned about changing the entire nature of this beautiful park since donations were given to protect wildlife habitat and preserve riparian corridors. The first thing the Park Board must do is to include the public who paid for this park in writing bylaws that protect the environment.
Many of us who are opposing the Park Board’s closed, private organizational structure are trying to protect the wildlife habitat, the ecological biodiversity, and preserve the life of the river, the water, the peace and quiet.
I question the excuse that the Park is still in debt and so the environment must be exploited in order to “$ave” the park. (e.g. Parking on parkland or the riverbeds, housing, events). Public oversight can help the park stave off special interests who, even with good intentions, may not realize that there are other important considerations.
The park land needs environmental protection first and foremost, so the temptation to “make the park pay” does not destroy it.
March 15, 2010 at 4:26 pm
edsvoice
Eric Kirk had said;
“The community” hasn’t said no. A group of neighbors has said no. Other neighbors have said, “turn it up!” (adding) – that’s an actual quote from one of the neighbors btw”
1. The more than 300 people opposed to amplified music at the Park are not just neighbors! They are Community members, who the SHCP is, too benefit!
2. Normally when you quote someone, it’s usually with acknowledgment of the source, that’s why it’s called a quote. Without a name to go with the quote, it could be just another fabrication, again that’s why it’s called a quote!
March 15, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Eric Kirk
In other words you want me to give you the name so you can call him up and harass him about it Ed. Sorry, not happening.
March 15, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Anonymous
So, Eric…what is the agenda for the Park Board meeting on Wednesday the 17 (which is also st. patricks day) at 6:00 at the former masonic hall on Locust in Garberville?
Surely there must have been some discussion about it at the last (closed) Park Board meeting? If a formal agenda is not available, a brief synopsis of intended topics would be greatly appreciated. Nothing about this on the Park website last time I checked, not even an announcement about the time or place or the meeting. Maybe you could check the notes from the last meeting and let us know what’s planned for this one.
Thanks!
March 15, 2010 at 8:38 pm
edsvoice
Eric the Kirk,
HELL NO, I don’t need to know who they are, if they want concerts down at the Park and live as close as anyone else down their, they have that right and I respect that right, but if you “quote” someone, quote someone or don’t bring it up to begin with! It’s too easy to say an un-named person who does not exist said something you want people too believe. When have I ever called someone and harassed them, NEVER! That was your sick idea, your words, not mine!
How come the Park Board can’t have an agenda for their meeting, like on their web site? You just posted the agenda for the life after weed meeting at the MCC and you can’t put an agenda together for this Park Board meeting on Wednesday?
And by the way, where did you come up with this one:
“And it’s certainly not worth the carrying on and sending it to just about every public official within a thousand mile radius”
PS; did you ever hear back from the Assesors office, about that letter you posted and said you had sent them?
Have a great Ruby Tuesday, Ed the Voice….
March 15, 2010 at 9:37 pm
edsvoice
Eric,
I have another question for you, from the RTPA application the Park Board filed in January 2010?
Where did the Park Board get some of this information about Sprowel Creek Road?
1. “Sprowel Creek Road has always been considered one of the more challenging busy rural roads. As the road leaves the town of Garberville, it has several sharp curves on a relatively steep grade. The roadway is narrow with no shoulder. The community deems this narrow corridor an unsafe road for vehicles, yet it is the community’s only link from Garberville to the Eel River, the Southern Humboldt Community Park (SHCP) and playground, the Garberville airport and the local gravel quarry operation. There are many serious traffic accidents on this road every year. Riding a bicycle or walking along this stretch of road is treacherous, yet it is a well traveled route for many area residents”
2. “The dangerous nature of Sprowel Creek Road has been noted by the CHP accident reports, Garberville Volunteer Fire Dept. and Search & Rescue teams”
How do you guys figure, that Sprowel Creek Road is the “only” link to the “Eel River”. The last time I looked, our house is on the South Fork of the Eel River, not the main stem. And I do believe, there are other “roads” that lead down to the river from town?
The other wierd part to all of this, is the fact none of this was an issue when the Park Board allowed all the un-permitted and illegal events, fundraisers, Boogie Parties and Commercial Concerts down at the Park in 2006, 2007 and 2008. But yet, now and only now, this is the single most importaint issue facing this community to date?
March 16, 2010 at 9:34 am
Anonymous
Eric? I tried typing in community park in the little box and this thread did not come up. How would someone know to type in “a bit of diversity” if they had been away from the blog for awhile and wanted to find out about what has been going on recently? Please somehow get the most current threads on the park in the community park category. Thank you.
March 16, 2010 at 9:48 am
Anonymous
There are some other stretchers in that application, “many serious traffic accidents on Sprowel Creek Road each year”. The few accidents that have happened over the last several years were young guys who had to go into rehab as a result. What does that tell you? And how about this one:” There is a volunteer trail that is well traveled between Benbow and Kimtu Road. Many Benbow residents use this route to Garberville as an alternative to walking or bicycling on Highway 101.”
I wonder if Dazey and son’s traffic study showing HOW LITTLE TRAFFIC there is on Sprowel Creek road was included in the grant application?
March 16, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Anonymous
Great letter by Frenchy in today’s paper. Seeing the $$$ figures in print, makes one wonder about the amount of interest paid out. How is it that, when we donated to buy the park in the beginning, that all the money went to pay interest on loans? What loans, and from who? I honestly thought that we were donating directly to purchase the park land. How did this part work eric?
March 16, 2010 at 4:19 pm
money95542
yawn
March 16, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Anonymous
Too bad this bores you, some of us are really trying to understand what went on. And to make some sense of it. Wouldn’t it be nice to move forward with a past that is understood.
March 16, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Anonymous
As long as we have a great park, most of us don’t care. We’re happy with what is happening there.
March 16, 2010 at 9:01 pm
edsvoice
money95542,
I don’t know where you live and I don’t care, but you are lucky not too have had somebody move into your neighborhood and dictate to you what you will have too put up with and listen too. Never once asking you if you mind or if there could be a problem. And then when you ask them what they are doing, you are branded a trouble maker, a prick, mentally ill and unstable, a Park detractor, rat fink, fun police etc etc…and labeled the lowest form of ilk known to mankind and that’s just me and our family.
So the next time you and your friends “yawn” about our plight, this could happen to anyone, anywhere, even YOU!
March 17, 2010 at 7:59 am
Anonymous
No Ed. Money is lucky that he didn’t spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a property only to have the neighbors try to dictate to him what he can and can’t do with his own property. As the saying goes if you wanted something different done with the property you should have bought it yourself.
March 17, 2010 at 8:50 am
Anonymous
What a bullshit comment. This property was not purchased by a private individual. THis is a COMMUNITY PARK. Guess all you people out there trying to tell your diesel growing neighbors to stop, are way out of line trying to dictate what someone can do. And boy, Sanctuary Forest had better stop trying to dictate to people about when they can and can not use the water. This property was not offered for a private person to buy. You did not spend hundreds of thousands of $$$ either. DO you live there? You have no right to come in and destroy a neighborhood. If it was a Wal-Mart, or a Haliburton, or KBR, moving in on that land, would that still be ok with you?
Anon- at 7:59 a.m.-May the worst plight you could imagine, move in, next to you and yours.
March 17, 2010 at 8:51 am
Anonymous
dude 7:59
Your argument is so flawed that it is hard to know where to begin!
How about with the fact that those hundreds of thousands of $$$ were made of hundreds of personal donations from neighbors near and far, for a “community park.”
March 17, 2010 at 8:55 am
Anonymous
Those donations didn’t come from neighbors. They came from the whole community. The neighbors don’t speak for the whole community.
March 17, 2010 at 9:11 am
edsvoice
Anonymous 7:59 am,
So let me get this straight; you feel, a private person (like myself) could have had a chance to have purchased the Tooby Flat from the Tooby Family or Buck Mountain Ranch LP after Dazey was out soliciting and collecting donations from under every rock for SHWT 24/7 to make that property the Community Park? Too keep the Flat out of the Jaws of Haphazard Development?
We had been told back in 2000, that many developers had their eye on that property and were chomping at the bit too develop it into Condo’s, Ranchett Estates etc, even the Tooby Family. And now after the smoke has cleared, whom are the only people that own land down around the Park, that was purchased using public donations by SHWT? Well that would be a sitting Park Board Director and a partner in Buck Mountain Ranch LP, who have both already submitted development plans and ideas to the County.
Please tell me again what private person could have purchased that property other than whom owns its now! What you forget to remember, this was all done under a 501c3 Public Benefit Charity, not a private person or developers!
The other big missing link to this, is the fact that SHWT used all their public donations and private loans to help buy the whole Tooby Ranch (13,700 acres) not just the 580 SHWT was seeking for this Community in the form of a Park.
March 17, 2010 at 9:16 am
anony
“The other big missing link to this, is the fact that SHWT used all their public donations and private loans to help buy the whole Tooby Ranch (13,700 acres) not just the 580 SHWT was seeking for this Community in the form of a Park.”
happens all the time–its called creative financing.
i’m starting to think the music haters are probably at least in their late 50′s to 60′s. i know its a drag getting old, but let the music play, OK?
March 17, 2010 at 9:19 am
Anonymous
Ed I think your last paragraph reflects a basic misunderstanding that has come up many times. And been answered a time or two to my memory.
But the fact remains that by donating toward the purchase many people WERE in fact buying the land for themselves. Many donors=many and sometimes competing agendas. I think we have to work together if this is going to work at all!
March 17, 2010 at 10:35 am
edsvoice
Anonymous 9:19 am,
Nothing in what I have stated above is a “reflects a basic misunderstanding” it is just a very true fact, nothing else. The public that did donate to the purchase of the Community Park never knew the Park itself would be private property, owned by a private corporation, operated by a private corporate board for public benefit? Who would have thought, did you. The Park Board is allowing the public to use the Park, as they do now. The public has no rights or say about what happens there, as we have seen first hand.
The only fix for this Community, is too take the Community Park back from the Park Board and turn the property into a Public Recreation Distirct, like they talked about in 2000. There is no public protection for the Park as we know it now.
March 17, 2010 at 11:44 am
Anonymous
“The only fix for this Community, is too take the Community Park back from the Park Board and turn the property into a Public Recreation Distirct, like they talked about in 2000. There is no public protection for the Park as we know it now.”
Hear Hear!
March 17, 2010 at 12:12 pm
edsvoice
anony 9:16 am,
What the hell does age have to do with this. So I guess you think the Park Board are a bunch of spring chickens?
“happens all the time–its called creative financing”
No, it doesn’t happen all the time and the public was never told by SHWT or Dazey their donations were going to be funding an investment for McKee and Goldeen to buy the entire Tooby Ranch. In fact if you look on the 2000 990 taxes for SHWT, there is nothing about where or who they gave the donations and money too. We just want to see a paper and money trail, that’s all. Is there something wrong with asking that question?
And by the way, this question about money has nothing to do with music or concerts, that is another 55 gallon drum of worms.
Do you think people who don’t want a concert or festival venue in their neighborhood and that want to protect the environment from development, noise and the wear and tear of thousands and thousands and thousand of people every year, who will adversely degrade and effect the wildlife habitat and river ecosystem of the Park, because we are all in our 50′s and 60′s and hate music? Wow, how young are you?
March 17, 2010 at 12:54 pm
edsvoice
Let me remind all of you, at this last Park Board “neighbors” meeting, Eric, Peter and Dennis said, amplified music concerts down at the Park were something they Did not want or care for. The same with Dazey, he has spoke out not wanting concerts at the Park.
So if that is the case, why do they want to rezone and have a large portion of the Park principally permitted for large commercial concerts, festivals and public gatherings?. We have seen after their un-permitted and illegal concerts from 2007 and 2008 they did not make buckets of money off them. So why now do they want to spend $50k to $75k of community donations to allow commercial concerts at the Park?
March 17, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Eric Kirk
Because a large segment of the community wants them held there. I have my personal preferences. Other community members have theirs. It’s not all about me, and it’s not all about you.
March 17, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Anonymous
What about the large segment of the community that wants a peaceful,and quiet park?
March 17, 2010 at 8:23 pm
anonymous
Kudos to you, Eric, for your patience in continuing to try to have a dialogue with these folks, despite their personal attacks and repetitive disinformantion. Not that they’ll appreciate it, but you sure are a lot more patient and civil than most people would be at this point!
March 17, 2010 at 8:25 pm
anonymous
“What about the large segment of the community that wants a peaceful,and quiet park?”
Well, they’ll get things their way the vast majority of the time — it’s not like there’s going to be an amplified concert every day.
So what we’re really talking about is people who not only want to have things go their way, they actually want things to go their way 365 days a year.
March 17, 2010 at 9:22 pm
edsvoice
Ya Eric,
It’s about more than 300 people in this community that don’t want a amplified concert venue at the Park. So I guess they do not have any say, right?
If as you say “Because a large segment of the community wants them held there” and if that is true, where are they all? Are they the ones coming up with all the money to make this happen?
Hey Eric, what did the Assesors office tell you in their reply letter? Or did you ever send them one in the first place?
Did you learn anything at tonights meeting? It sounded like it went OK, I need to get better wireless audio gear. The new stuff is twice as good as last years.
PS, tell Kathryn to look on page 3 of the Park Boards GPA petition staff report from the Nov 10th 2009 GPA petition hearing, she will find parking on the river bar for special events under “Subject Parcel Boundaries”. It even talks about how the current gravel mining has a different parcel than the remainder of the Park property. And you said the Park Board had no clue why you have more APN’s now, then before the last LLA? Hell even the planning department knew what was going on!
Thats why you write things down on paper, its called a project plan, that way all the Directors on the Park Board would be on the same page and know what the hell is going on!
Here is the Park Boards GPA petition staff report:
http://co.humboldt.ca.us/board/agenda/questys/MG152784/AS152841/AS152842/AI190156/DO190696/BOSAgendaItem.pdf
March 17, 2010 at 9:51 pm
anonymous
“It’s about more than 300 people in this community that don’t want a amplified concert venue at the Park. So I guess they do not have any say, right?”
They should have their opinions listened to and respected, and the thousands of others in the community also should have their opinions listened to and respected. By the way, I’m sure that many of the other thousands in the community do agree with the 300. But I’m just as sure that many others do not.
So everyone should have their opinions listened to and respected and considered, and then everyone, as adults, should realize that they are not going to get everything exactly how they want it, all the time.
Like I said above, no one is insisting that there be concerts every day, or even a significant number of days out of the year, much less amplified concerts every day.
Like Eric, I’d personally prefer if they skipped the amplified concerts entirely, but I do realize it’s not all about me, nor is it all about me and 300 other people.
As far as how the park is developed and managed, I think in the end we’ll all get some of what we want, hopefully many of us will get most of what we want, but you can rest assured that nobody will get everything they want every day of the year. That’s just not the way the world works, friends.
If anyone promised you different, they were fibbing.
March 17, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Eric Kirk
Hey Eric, what did the Assesors office tell you in their reply letter? Or did you ever send them one in the first place?
I actually got a telephone call a couple of days ago. I haven’t had the chance to call her back.
It’s about more than 300 people in this community that don’t want a amplified concert venue at the Park. So I guess they do not have any say, right?
They have some say, to be balanced against many other people as well. I guarantee that a petition for the concerts would be signed by more people. I don’t really give much stock to petitions because they don’t account for the people who didn’t sign. The public process for the EIR will be much more representative. I personally would like to conduct some sort of survey, but we can’t dedicate money to professionals right now and I don’t know how to conduct one.
Did you learn anything at tonights meeting? It sounded like it went OK, I need to get better wireless audio gear. The new stuff is twice as good as last years.
I learned that public meetings which aren’t very tightly structured can become chaotic. We wasted some time. In the future we’re going to have to limit the back-and-forth and strictly limit questions to the session dedicated to it. We were taken off track on several occasions. I learned that we definitely can’t hold all meetings publicly or we won’t get much done. But I do want to hold public meetings more often, because I think some people got something out of it.
PS, tell Kathryn to look on page 3 of the Park Boards GPA petition staff report from the Nov 10th 2009 GPA petition hearing, she will find parking on the river bar for special events under “Subject Parcel Boundaries”. It even talks about how the current gravel mining has a different parcel than the remainder of the Park property. And you said the Park Board had no clue why you have more APN’s now, then before the last LLA? Hell even the planning department knew what was going on!
If you knew this then why did you imply that we requested all the APNs?
Well, they’ll get things their way the vast majority of the time — it’s not like there’s going to be an amplified concert every day.
So what we’re really talking about is people who not only want to have things go their way, they actually want things to go their way 365 days a year.
Very good point.
March 17, 2010 at 10:17 pm
edsvoice
anonymous said at 8:23 pm,
“it’s not like there’s going to be an amplified concert every day”.
Thank god you cleared that up, I guess it will only be every weekend from May thru October. Now we can sleep better tonight.
And yes Eric, Thank you too, for always getting to the bottom of things and giving of your time. Your answers to our questions always have that ring of hope and conviction. So Thank you very much.
March 17, 2010 at 10:33 pm
edsvoice
Eric had said,
“If you knew this then why did you imply that we requested all the APNs?”
Because the first I noticed it was tonight, plus the fact the park Board would have gone over that staff report in their sleep, until they got what they wanted the BOS to hear from Planning staff. So the Park Board knew about the Park property they are leasing to Randall would have seprate APN’s from their last LLA. That’s all.
Make sure to tell Kathryn that parking on the river bar for events at the Park is in this staff report, we are not just making it up!
Good to hear you learned something from this meeting tonight, have a good night.
March 17, 2010 at 10:39 pm
anonymous
Ed,
Sarcasm is fun, but it’s no substitute for real debate.
March 17, 2010 at 10:59 pm
edsvoice
anonymous 9:51 pm,
I like what you had to say, until the end and I am sorry, but I am not a sheep nor do I just go with the flow because of pier pressure. As a Marine, you never leave another Marine behind, you keep going back until he or she is going back with you, dead or alive, it doesn’t matter.
So you want us to believe that we as neighbors or hundreds of other people in this Community should sacrifice the few for the many? First show me the few and I’ll show you the many!
I did like everything else you had to say, please if you could, get the Park Board to bring us all together, so we can talk as one community and take this issue head on as a community.
March 17, 2010 at 11:14 pm
edsvoice
anonymous 10:59 said;
” Ed, Sarcasm is fun, but it’s no substitute for real debate”
There is no debate as far as I am concerned, its a matter of what is right and fair to most people. And in this case, I feel we are right! The environment always comes first, then safety and then property. There is no compromise or concession.
But thanks for asking.
March 18, 2010 at 7:59 am
Eric Kirk
No compromise Ed? I mean, seriously, none?
Across the globe, which do you think have the largest environmental impact, outdoor concerts or outboard motors? That’s not meant to be a cheap shot Ed. I’m looking for a serious response. I want to explore the “no compromise” position, because usually by our age we’ve learned that there are trade-offs in just about everything we do.
Adding: I did like everything else you had to say, please if you could, get the Park Board to bring us all together, so we can talk as one community and take this issue head on as a community.
It’s been done Ed. The meeting at Redway School in particular was set up precisely for that purpose, and there’ve been others.
The input from the Redway School meeting is summarized here.
http://www.sohumpark.org/pdfs/3-18-09%20Meeting_Rezoning_Events.pdf
March 18, 2010 at 8:30 am
anonymous
“No compromise” sounds a lot like “I want everything exactly the way I want it, all of the time.”
Compromising is not always right, but it’s not always wrong either.
March 18, 2010 at 10:35 am
edsvoice
To what Eric said @ 7:59 am,
I don’t know about “Across the Globe”, but in the USA, I don’t know of any state or county that requires any kind of use permit or any state and local agency to identify the significant environmental impacts of Outboards or their actions to avoid or mitigate those impacts, to own or operate an Outboard motor on any body of water, other than a DMV registration for the vessel, not the Outboard motor itself.
But in the case of outdoor commercial concert and music festivals; California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to certain activities of state and local public agencies. A public agency must comply with CEQA when it undertakes an activity defined by CEQA as a “project.” A project is an activity undertaken by a public agency or a private activity which must receive some discretionary approval (meaning that the agency has the authority to deny the requested permit or approval) from a government agency which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment.
So the short and sweet to your question? Outboards don’t require an EIR like the Park Boards Concert Venue or Housing Development.
The US EPA and California Air Resource Board regulates Outboards in California, just like Humboldt County is the lead agency for CEQA for the Park Boards General Plan Amendment and EIR.
As to your question; “I want to explore the “no compromise” position, because usually by our age we’ve learned that there are trade-offs in just about everything we do”
This is no different than “Not Guilty”. No matter how guilty you are, you always plead “Not Guilty”, right? This way you have some kind of bargaining chip, to debate and talk about down the road, when the Park Board has a project plan and we can talk as a community, about the facts and everyone can have input!
As to the Redway School meeting, that meeting was to determine what the community wanted to be included on the GPA Petition, nothing else. The Park Board and Truitt got carried away in the moment, and Kirk Girard had to tell you, that was too much information for the petition, right? Even that next Monday on Hubers KMUD show, Clendenen said, the Redway School did not count, it was too “self selective” for a Community Planning meeting, and more would have to be included into the mix.
Did you attend that meeting Eric?
Who wrote up that input from the Redway School meeting and “summarized” it. I can tell you, who ever did, did not attend that meeting.
March 18, 2010 at 11:16 am
Eric Kirk
So Ed, you’re saying that outboards have less of an impact because they don’t require an EIR? Automobiles don’t require an EIR. Are they environmentally benign as well?
As to the Redway meeting, what are the accurate numbers in your view?
March 18, 2010 at 11:58 am
Eric Kirk
1. So then your issue isn’t really about the environment, but about legal technicalities. I could have sworn you said no compromise when it comes to the environment. But I guess “no compromise when it comes to legal technicalities” doesn’t make as good a slogan.
2. I see that Barb apologized for some problems with the process, but I don’t agree with her that Board members should not have participated. We have our opinions as well and we are also members of the community.
And as she points out, the majority still came out in favor of holding musical events and the arts faire at the park with some conditions, including you.
So I’m not sure exactly what her letter is supposed to prove.
March 18, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Anonymous
eric, How many people and cars will be at these amplified music events? and How many outboard motors will be at these amplified music events?
March 18, 2010 at 1:08 pm
money95542
So, Mr.Ed,
So the short and sweet to your question? Outboards don’t require an EIR like the Park Boards Concert Venue or Housing Development.
is really the answer to
Across the globe, which do you think have the largest environmental impact, outdoor concerts or outboard motors?
Is that your final answer?
March 18, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Anonymous
A very expensive EIR would not be required if the Southern Humboldt Community Park board of directors would stop planning amplified events in the Park. It seems that this high cost EIR is okay with them. But with a failed round of donor solicitations a few months ago, they are now trying to get State bond money to pay for it.
It also seems not to bother them that sound “mitigation” did not work on amplified events. It’s an amphitheater-shaped Tooby Flat and valley corridor that carry bass-decibel pounding noise for miles out in all directions from the Park. It’s strange to me that board members think Park neighbors, (plus Park wildlife, and farm animals) ought to, indeed are obligated, to compromise and allow it again. And they persist with this attitude in spite of the fact that over 300 park supporters signed a petition for quiet.
Think about how this controversial agenda will affect our town and neighborhoods and our still beautiful (for now) Park. Please call or write them at their website to encourage them to be a good neighbor and join the community for a peaceful Park, a healing, charming place for moms, dads, kids and youth to walk in, to enjoy birds, trees and vistas and a lovely farm.
March 18, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Anonymous
I heard that during the sound tests once you were a quarter mile away the crickets registered more decibels than the music.
March 18, 2010 at 4:00 pm
edsvoice
money95542,
What kind of Outboard are we talking; carb two stroke, EFI two stroke, Direct Injected two stroke, carb four stroke or EFI four stroke? And what year, 2000 and older or 2001 and newer?
The problem with the question you and Eric have asked, is it has nothing to do with CEQA or the Parks GPA EIR or outdoor concerts. He only came up with his question because of what I do for a living, which is work on Outboards. Thats OK, I understand his cheap shot, lord knows I have given him more that a couple.
But as for you asking the same question as Eric, please come up with your own! Do you have to copy everyone?
As for you Eric, think what you want, put words in my mouth. In the End we will see who is right and who is not so right. Thats why you are a lawyer and I’m just an Outboard mechanic.
I do think it is funny, for you to say “legal technicalities”, when most of you guys live and die for “legal technicalities”. If is was not for “legal technicalities” you would be out of a job!
March 18, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Eric Kirk
But Ed, my question wasn’t about CEQA or EIR’s. It was about the comparative environmental impact of outboard motors and outdoor concerts. You’re the one who said that you never compromise when it comes to the environment. My point is that we all compromise when it comes to the environment, unless we’re living in a tan bark shack in the desert and eating locusts for sustenance.
There are plenty of environmentally destructive activities which don’t require an EIR.
March 18, 2010 at 4:12 pm
anonymous
Man you guys are tenacious!
March 18, 2010 at 5:07 pm
edsvoice
Eric,
Outboards use less than one percent of all the gas & fuel sold in the world. Do you know of any major environmental affect caused by Outboards across the globe, compared to outdoor concerts?
Just given the fact of how many people use gas driven vehicles to outdoor concerts and festivals is greater than any amount of fuel Outboards would ever use in a life time.
Eric said: “There are plenty of environmentally destructive activities which don’t require an EIR”
And I can name one, in fact the Park Board leases Park property too them and allows them to operate, in fact the Park Board allowed them to expand on the Park property and river bar. Can you name them?
So now you can name who you are talking about!
March 18, 2010 at 5:15 pm
milt
I see that Barb apologized for some problems with the process, but I don’t agree with her that Board members should not have participated. We have our opinions as well and we are also members of the community.
Quite true, Eric. But didn’t you, as well as Huber, Ryce and, even Dazey, already tender your opinion that all of you were personally not in favor of concerts in the park? Have you changed your mind, yet again, and now personally do want concerts ?
I thought that it was in your other existance, as an Officer of the Southern Humboldt Community Park, Inc, along with those other Officers, that your personal opinion(s) must be subordinated to the will of that “overwhelming community support” for, and that “large segment” of [some] community who want to, boogie. You’re all personally powerless in the face of the mandate of 31 SAF supporters at one meeting at the Redway School. Is this accurate?
That can also be interpreted as a convenient disclaimer of responsibility for whatever happens afterwards, assuming the “overwhelming/large segment” community gets what it wills. Blame them, not you.
Just trying to figure out where you’re coming from, Eric. You’re all over the place and sound more and more like those Republican conservatives you criticize often on this blog, to wit: the false equivalencies, telling the same inflated lie over and over again in the hopes that it will become an accepted truth, and, always the very next pronouncement from any corporate entity after putting forth his/her agenda, the disclaimer of personal responsibility for what may ensue. That’s been a problem with corporate organization boards around here before and you, of all people, should be aware of it. Shouldn’t you be a voice to remedy that and not simply continue the tradition? Some Progressive.
The other side is easier to understand and empathize with. If a concert venue were to go in at the park within the scope of what has been put forth already – multiple events all summer long – an awful lot of property values stand to nose dive down in and around the Sprowel Creek/Eel River Valley. Think they will be able to slide by not mentioning the nuisance factor when selling their homes?
Yet, they should drop their fears and anger and come down to the park and help Huber cut brush or paint a barn or something, as caring neighbors. Still plan on bringing de noise and de funk into your neighborhood anyway, folks, it’s in our charter, but, hey, we’re really nice corporate guys once you get to know us. What’s wrong with those NIMBYs when they don’t jump at such a sincere invitation?
Incidently, I figured out the flip side of NIMBY – FAMBY; Fortunately, Ain’t My Back Yard.
March 18, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Anonymous
Maybe the reason that, according to Eric, no one hits on this Park thread is that this thread cannot be accessed by typing in “community park”. No one is interested? Or just stymied?
Regarding Kathryn’s assertion last night that the Park Board only noticed the county about their plan to park cars on the riverbed during events in some “experimental” Conditional Use Permit that they never even paid for:
See page 3 of the November 10, 09 petition to the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors for the Park to apply for a General Plan Amendment. Under the heading Subject Parcel Boundaries is this quote, “The portion of the property currently used for gravel mining is on a separate parcel than the remainder of the Park property. While that property is proposed for continued use as a gravel mining operation, a portion of the property may be used for parking for special events such that continued gravel mining operations would not be significantly affected.”
March 18, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Anonymous
I would say that outdoor concerts are WAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY more harmful to the environment than outboard motors. Let’s see, we’ll have thousands of cars spewing their pollution into the air, for all the hundreds(or more) miles folks will drive to get here, how many of these vehicles will leak oil onto/into the ground here? How many displaced animals during these events because of the traffic, noise pollution, people, dogs, kids yelling and screaming, drunks yelling and screaming, musicians yelling and screaming, how many diesel generators will it take to power these amplified events? Shuttles going back and forth all day, spewing bus pollution. The huge buses’ of the entertainers driving in and out of Sprowel Creek. eric, if you really can’t see how harmful to the environment these concerts are,well, I won’t even finish the thought.
March 18, 2010 at 6:14 pm
edsvoice
Bravo milt, Bravo…
March 18, 2010 at 9:17 pm
anony
hey milt don’t tell eric he “sounds like” whatever! without him you wouldn’t even be the imaginary nothing you are here…without him we wouldn’t be glancing at your bullshit…i know blogs are all about opinion but why don’t you unleash a “fact” or two from your vast anonymous maw?…
eric is way cooler than your adversarial politics, IMHAO…
March 18, 2010 at 9:35 pm
anonymous
“telling the same inflated lie over and over again in the hopes that it will become an accepted truth”
Could you be a little more specific, Milt? As someone who does not have a strong opinion on this issue, but has been watching it with interest, I just do not see what the Big Lie is that Eric is supposedly repeating ad nauseum.
Overgeneralizing, labeling people, and making personal attacks and attacks on peoples’ motives, tends to be the opposite of persuasive in the absence of some pretty compelling and well-documented facts.
So far, Milt, you have only done your side a disservice by getting nasty and personal. Try again, this time with a bit of compassion, respect, and some specific facts to back up your generalizations.
March 18, 2010 at 9:36 pm
edsvoice
Eric, you had said:
“The slash and burn posts are over”
“I want a change of tone”
“Posts which merely take issue with park policies will be welcome, but the attacks end now”
Do you mean what you say?
March 18, 2010 at 9:44 pm
anonymous
Personally, while I don’t appreciate the tone of some posts, I don’t see any recent ones that are so over-the-line as to justify removal. But it’s up to Eric, of course. In general the discussion seems to be reasonably civil, if rather repetitive and talking-past-each-other rather than truly addressing the substance of one another’s points.
Just my observation.
March 18, 2010 at 11:58 pm
Eric Kirk
Quite true, Eric. But didn’t you, as well as Huber, Ryce and, even Dazey, already tender your opinion that all of you were personally not in favor of concerts in the park? Have you changed your mind, yet again, and now personally do want concerts ?
Well, I wasn’t at the meeting. And it’s not that I’m “not in favor.” My personal preferences are for acoustic music. But that’s a personal choice. I don’t think I should deprive other community members of their preferences.
Eric, you had said:
“The slash and burn posts are over”
“I want a change of tone”
“Posts which merely take issue with park policies will be welcome, but the attacks end now”
Do you mean what you say?
What, the outboard motor comment was slash and burn? Okay, forget I said outboard motors. How about lawn mowers?
Maybe the reason that, according to Eric, no one hits on this Park thread is that this thread cannot be accessed by typing in “community park”. No one is interested? Or just stymied?
I don’t know what to say. Complain to WordPress. If you look under the title of the thread you’ll see that I “tagged” it.
Outboards use less than one percent of all the gas & fuel sold in the world. Do you know of any major environmental affect caused by Outboards across the globe, compared to outdoor concerts?
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/fhp/papers/lakes.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T4F-4914TB4-23&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1976&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1257027891&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0ce1a6010c1c098657bcea0f2fadc2f6
http://www.ny4whales.org/jetskiflyer.html
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a902624451
Just trying to figure out where you’re coming from, Eric. You’re all over the place and sound more and more like those Republican conservatives you criticize often on this blog, to wit: the false equivalencies, telling the same inflated lie over and over again in the hopes that it will become an accepted truth, and, always the very next pronouncement from any corporate entity after putting forth his/her agenda, the disclaimer of personal responsibility for what may ensue.
That’s funny Milt, because sometimes I feel like I’m dealing with Tea Partiers like those who disrupted all the public meetings last summer claiming to speak for “the people” or “the community.”
The other side is easier to understand and empathize with. If a concert venue were to go in at the park within the scope of what has been put forth already – multiple events all summer long – an awful lot of property values stand to nose dive down in and around the Sprowel Creek/Eel River Valley. Think they will be able to slide by not mentioning the nuisance factor when selling their homes?
Actually, I’m quite convinced that the park development will increase the neighboring property values.
I would say that outdoor concerts are WAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY more harmful to the environment than outboard motors.
Tell that to generations of dead fish in Lake Tahoe and a number of other lakes.
Let’s see, we’ll have thousands of cars spewing their pollution into the air, for all the hundreds(or more) miles folks will drive to get here, how many of these vehicles will leak oil onto/into the ground here? How many displaced animals during these events because of the traffic, noise pollution, people, dogs, kids yelling and screaming, drunks yelling and screaming, musicians yelling and screaming, how many diesel generators will it take to power these amplified events? Shuttles going back and forth all day, spewing bus pollution. The huge buses’ of the entertainers driving in and out of Sprowel Creek. eric, if you really can’t see how harmful to the environment these concerts are,well, I won’t even finish the thought.
I’m sorry you don’t like kids or dogs. If you wanted to be a hermit, you should have moved farther away from civilization. You live within a short distance of a major freeway and a township. It’s not the Sinkyone. The environment will accommodate a few well organized music events now and then.
And will all these problems be mitigated if the music isn’t amplified?
Spewing bus pollution?
March 19, 2010 at 7:51 am
edsvoice
You da’man “E”,
You are living proof that you never read what you post. Do you know the difference between a 2-stroke, 4-stroke, JetSki, PWC, Outboard, Inboard, SternDrive, V-Drive, Jet or Fan Boats? What am I thinking, you have no clue, do you?
So if we can get back to the issue at hand? When will the Park Board be preparing a project plan and description for the their GPA to rezone and change the land use designations? When will the Park Board start conducting studies?
I remember at the BOS petition hearing (Nov 10, 2009), how important it was the Park Board to get this GPA (ASAP) because of events the MCC has been waiting 10 years to have at the Park. That if everything (EIR) was submitted to Planning in January 2010, they would have the EIR back in front of the BOS by December that same year.
So as Dennis Huber found out at Wednesdays Park Board meeting, the County is still waiting for a project plan and nothing has been started by the Park Board as of yet. Why is that Eric?
When Dazey was asked about the amount of individual donations to the Park under $4000 at Wednesdays Park Board meeting, do you know why he described and minimized those donations as minuscule?
One more new question; would you say the Park Board is trying to become “Concert Promoters”?
You had said to milt; “Well, I wasn’t at the meeting. And it’s not that I’m “not in favor.” My personal preferences are for acoustic music. But that’s a personal choice. I don’t think I should deprive other community members of their preferences”
But you were at the “neighbors” Park Board meeting back on January 25th 2010 when I asked you, Peter and Dennis the question about your view about commercial concerts at the Park. And depriving other community members of their preferences has nothing to do with how 4 out of the 7 Park Board Directors feel about amplified concerts at the Park. You also make it seem or sound like the Park Board represents the Community in some kind of roll, like you have all been appointed by the Community to represent us? Let me spell it out again:
Is the Community Park property public. NO!
Is the Community Park property owned by the public. NO!
Is the public allowed a vote in the operation, projects, events or sale of Community Park property. NO!
Is the Community Park funded by public donations, gifts, grants and contributions. YES!
What is wrong with this picture?
March 19, 2010 at 8:12 am
Eric Kirk
You are living proof that you never read what you post. Do you know the difference between a 2-stroke, 4-stroke, JetSki, PWC, Outboard, Inboard, SternDrive, V-Drive, Jet or Fan Boats? What am I thinking, you have no clue, do you?
No, I have no clue. So which ones have absolutely no impact on the environment?
March 19, 2010 at 8:34 am
money95542
Is the Community Park property public. NO!
Is the Community Park property owned by the public. NO!
Is the public allowed a vote in the operation, projects, events or sale of Community Park property. NO!
Is the Community Park funded by public donations, gifts, grants and contributions. YES!
What is wrong with this picture?
Mr Ed! Rah, rah, rah. Sounds great. But this is true of almost all non-profit organizations in these United States. Are they ALL a bunch of evil-doers out to rip off the communities in which they function? Even among the tiny fraction of “membership” non-profits that exist, the public’s power remains legally small, unless those people are also members, and then most of the power they wield is indirect–except when the board wants to dissolve the organization or sell off virtually all of its assets.
March 19, 2010 at 9:02 am
Anonymous
Why that would be any one of them, regulated by the EPA or California Air Resource Board (CARB), take your pick. I don’t work on any engine or motor that is not allowed to be sold in the state of California (2001 to present) or does not meet the EPA “Star” rated sticker or CARB engine group placard for Marine Spark-Ignition Engine Emissions!
Kind of like instream gravel extraction, processing, stockpiling, cement and asphalt batch plants have absolutely no impact on the environment below the ordinary high water mark of a river. Just like 10 to 14 thousand people would have absolutely no impact on the environment within a 1/2 mile section of the river, all in the river on the same weekend. Because as the Park Board has stated, along with the MCC, the above projects and activities both benefit the environment and aquatic habitat, right Eric?
March 19, 2010 at 9:26 am
edsvoice
money95542,
OK, game on. Find a 501c3, non=profit public benefit charity in the USA, that owns property and is using it as a Community Park, that is zoned for activities as a Park, that is private property, that is controlled by a 501c3 non-membership self selected board of directors, that is not controlled by the public, conservation easement, recreation district, deeded or gifted to the public. Find me one of them!
I have looked high and low and the only one that meets that criteria, you got it, the Southern Humboldt Community Park!
March 19, 2010 at 9:28 am
anony
Viva el Parque Communidad!
March 19, 2010 at 9:36 am
Anonymous
eric, It’s interesting that out of an entire comment on the “pollutions” of outdoor amplified concerts, you cherry picked, and used your words of “I’m sorry you don’t like kids or dogs.” I did not say that. Those are words you are trying to put in, from my mouth. I adore both, and have both. But I know what devastation both can do in settings like these loud concerts. Why didn’t you comment on the loud, yelling drunks and muscians? Or the thousands of cars making their trek here, and that foot print? Or the diesel generators that run all day long? Or the shuttle buses’ that run all day long? Basically, your attitude is fuck the wildlife at the park, fuck the neighbors, and whatever else gets in the way of what WE, THE PBOD want to do with our corporately owned park. You are as good a spinner and cherry picker as a repug.
This entire park board is so intent on THEIR OWN agenda, you are not listening the people who do not want large amplified concerts at the park. Your attitude of it is not the Sinkyone, says a lot of the kind of man your truly are.
This entire park board should stand in front a a mirror,look yourselves in the eyes, and say “”"” I WAS NOT ELECTED TO THIS POSITION BY THE COMMUNITY, I WAS APPOINTED BY A SELF SELECTING, CORPORATE BOARD, WHO WAS ALSO NOT ELECTED BY THIS COMMUNITY.”"
March 19, 2010 at 9:42 am
Anonymous
Adding to what money95542 has said, here is an article from the San Francisco Bay Guardian, July 2006.
ENDING NONPROFIT SECRECY
THE WAY THE conservatives – and increasingly, a lot of otherwise liberal Democrats – see it, the role of government is changing profoundly. In a Feb. 21 New York Times opinion piece, Harvard University professor Stephen Goldsmith and Manhattan Institute fellow William D. Eggers outlined the new world: Instead of directly providing services to the public, government agencies are (and, Goldsmith and Eggers argue, ought to be) contracting with private outfits to do that work. Instead of running, say, health departments or public works crews, city, state, and federal administrators should be contract officers, hiring others to do the work and simply monitoring those contractors’ performance.
It’s not a pleasant picture, for a lot of reasons. Privatizing public services eliminates direct accountability. In many cases, the private contractors take a cut of the money, turning a profit from what should be public services. In other cases, private nonprofits offer cheaper services by hiring low-paid, nonunion employees who don’t have the needed skills or training.
But perhaps most important, private contractors operate outside of the public records and open-meeting laws that are an essential part of any attempt to make sure the public’s money is being spent in the public interest.
The amount of money involved is massive: As Matthew Hirsch reports on page 16, San Francisco spent more than $1.5 billion over the past three years on contracts with nonprofit service providers. The list of nonprofits getting city money runs 177 pages, with more than 835 groups getting grants of as little as a few thousand dollars to as much as many millions. And by all accounts, the trend is only increasing.
That’s why it’s absolutely essential that San Francisco adopt extensive legislation requiring nonprofits that provide city services with city money to operate in the sunshine.
� � �
Most of the nonprofits that operate with public money in San Francisco are doing good work. Most of them are run by well-meaning people who are motivated by a desire for public service and who operate on tight budgets without excessive overhead or waste. Some of these organizations play crucial, life-saving roles, and, in some cases, funding community-based nonprofits is by far the most effective way to deliver public services.
But when you have that much money flowing, there are bound to be problems – and the city doesn’t exercise anywhere near the level of oversight necessary to avoid pointless waste and outright fraud. There are endless cases in point.
As A.C. Thompson and Tali Woodward report on page 20, the headlines over the past few years have been full of stories of nonprofits abusing city funds. A nonprofit run by political fixer Julie Lee diverted $125,000 in public funds to Secretary of State Kevin Shelley’s campaign. The director of the San Francisco League of Urban Gardeners may have used city-paid staffers to try to influence the outcome of an election. The head of Catholic Charities of San Francisco, which gets millions in city money, ran up a $73,000 tab for laser hair removal, Botox treatments, and meals at posh restaurants at a time when the organization was cutting back services to homeless kids.
There may be dozens more examples like that – but because nonprofits are private entities, it’s difficult, and in some cases almost impossible, for the public to keep an eye on where the money’s going.
That’s something AIDS activists have been saying for years. The extensive network of nonprofits set up in the 1980s, in the early days of the epidemic, have been praised as a national model – but grassroots critics argue that they’ve become secretive, unaccountable operations that spend money, often public money, with little effective community input. By law, the top executives of these organizations have to make their salaries public – but below that level, line-item expenses are often hidden. Meetings at which crucial policy decisions are made (including decisions about how public money will be spent) take place behind closed doors. And since many of these contracts are issued without competitive bidding, and include “preference” clauses that almost guarantee they’ll be renewed year after year, there’s little the public can do about it.
AIDS activists managed several years ago, with the help of Sup. Tom Ammiano, to get some modest measures in place requiring limited sunshine and accountability. But that was only after a bitter fight: nonprofit executives and board members pulled out all the stops to prevent real oversight, arguing that sunshine provisions are expensive and onerous and would damage everything from client confidentiality to the level of services.
� � �
We recognize that, like schools, some nonprofits have special needs and that it’s crucial to protect the privacy of clients and some employees. Many nonprofits that get city money also raise money from other sources, and the city has no right to demand information about the sources or use of private funding (beyond what’s already required by state and federal law).
But these are not insurmountable problems. And it’s not hard to craft language that would address the real, legitimate issues. The San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance already protects sensitive information – for example, patient records at San Francisco General Hospital and city employee health records.
But the public has the right to know where public money is going. And that means any nonprofit (or for-profit) organization that gets a city contract to provide public services should have to abide by the basic elements of the Sunshine Ordinance, including:
� Complete records of how all public money was spent, including itemized reports, receipts, and payroll records, should be considered public records, and the organization should be required to release them upon request.
� Board and committee meetings at which decisions about spending public money are made should be open to the public and provide an opportunity for public comment.
� Records of requests for proposals, subcontracts, and any other documents or correspondence relating to a publicly funded project should be considered public record.
� The Sunshine Ordinance Task Force should have the authority to review and adjudicate complaints about the disclosure of information by city contractors. Ammiano has vowed to push this issue. The Board of Supervisors and the task force should both hold extensive hearings.
Ideally, the city ought to be providing its own services whenever possible, using city employees. But at a time of record budget deficits, when every dollar matters, if San Francisco is going to keep giving billions to private contractors to do public work, the era of nonprofit secrecy has to come to an end.
March 19, 2010 at 10:12 am
milt
just another anonymous at 9:35 pm said:
Could you be a little more specific, Milt? As someone who does not have a strong opinion on this issue, but has been watching it with interest, I just do not see what the Big Lie is that Eric is supposedly repeating ad nauseum.
I’ll repeat them one more time: “overwhelming community support” has been a phrase that Eric has repeatedly used to describe why he wants a concert venue at the park. I have no idea what or who he was even referring to, do you? That phrase appeared to be a nifty little hi-jacking of the intent of the infamous meeting at the MCC back in Feb.’09, which was not a meeting about concert site acceptance or rejection, but about keeping the park open. Incidentally, at that meeting it was four neighboring families and the county that were being blamed for the park’s closure by pboard members. The people in charge, which would be that same pboard I would imagine, had absolutely nothing to do with the responsibility for that. Was that meeting one of those many public apologies that Eric now claims the pboard made about those non-permitted concerts?
Now the phrase “large segment of the community” is Eric’s latest bid for credibility on the concert site at the park issue. This one appears to be rooted in one meeting at the Redway School gym where 31 participants wanted the SAF to be in the park. Somewhere in all these threads, Eric placed the population of SoHum at around 9400. Maybe it was 9600. OK, let’s accept that mid 9000 as being the case. How in your arithmetic does 31 people become a “large segment” of a 9000+ community?
If that isn’t a deliberate exaggeration or inflation of a far lesser fact then I don’t know what is. But if he keeps repeating it often enough, without being challenged, it will become accepted as a given. It appears, in your case, it’s already having the desired effect.
And just up above he tries to twist my contention that loud amplified events on a continual basis will detract from real estate values in the SP watershed by stating that a concert site will actually increase values! Really? Tell that one to the Myers Flat and Salmon Creek residents, and Dave, who didn’t want a concert site in their back yard in the mid ’90′s. Now the SP residents have Eric’s personal assurance that their RE values will go up. They can take that one to the bank. What a relief.
Perhaps it is a cultural thing with some of you. I was brought up to respect the rights of my neighbors, the golden rule, and that includes not inflicting loud late night noises upon them, which would even include diesel generators humming away 24/7. Were you raised differently?
In this particular case it is the SHCP that is the new neighbor in the hood and its attitude projection has been, and still is, a make way ’cause we’re taking over mentality. All done in the name of “community,” of course. I’m beginning to rank that word right up there next to Jesus Christ which some use to justify inflicting abuse upon others.
March 19, 2010 at 10:36 am
money95542
Game on? Is that what this is to you?
How many parks do you know of anywhere in the US that are privately owned and open to the public, regardless of what people or organization own or operate them? The only private parks I know of are either closed to the public or charge a fee for use. It seems to me that the folks who put together the SHCP idea and formed the organization to acquire and develop it, are forward-looking people who were thinking outside the box in creating a private park that could be open to all. There are lots of parks that are supported by what’s known as public-private partnerships, which structure is becoming more common as cities and towns run short of funds to maintain them. But virtually all of them are owned by municipalities, not by non-profits.
So, your demand to find a park that is comparable to SHCP fails at the outset–the SHCP board is blazing a new trail. You’re arguing that we should be upset if a bunch of forward-thinking folks, recognizing that local government was never going to put money into anything like a park in Sohum, went forward to create something that no-one else has done, and adopted a structure which upsets you because it’s unique–unlike parks that have been created in the past. Just because it’s historically been the case that wealthy landowners who want to preserve their open space for public use have chosen to deed their property to governments to own and operate doesn’t make it the only possible model. Maybe you just don’t like the idea of not being the loudest Voice in the crowd.
March 19, 2010 at 11:52 am
Anonymous
Well, why not have public oversight? Why should the public who paid for this park not have a voice, or an ability to know what special interests this private board is making deals with?
Yeah, privatize everything! The state parks are all that prime real estate that belongs to the people of california. This “community”(brand) private park is the agenda of the future for our parks and our schools. No access, no oversight, private development…if we let this continue, we’re screwed.
March 19, 2010 at 11:58 am
Dave Kirby
Frankly all sides in this issue are making claims that can’t be verified as to community support for one issue or another. While floundering around in the fog of blogland there is a tendency to think that a large number of folks give a damn about this silly cat fight. It is gong to be a long slow process before there is anything concrete to debate around this issue. Until someone convinces the county to make major improvements to Sprowel Creek road any event at the park will be severely limited as to scale. A the rate at which some here are hyperventilating you’re never going to make to the end of the marathon.
March 19, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Anonymous
There is no privatization. The land was not a park before. It was private land. It remains private land, but now there is public access. There was not before.
March 19, 2010 at 2:00 pm
anonymous
I still don’t see any Big Lie being told by Eric.
What I DO see is a difference of opinion on a number of matters, with both sides repeating their points ad nauseum.
March 19, 2010 at 3:18 pm
milt
I never used the words “Big Lie”. I said, “telling the same inflated lie over and over”. So claiming to have a “large segment” of $9000 in your checkbook is just a different way of expressing an actual balance of $31?
I don’t make claims of any numbers behind me, I just question those who do.
March 19, 2010 at 3:37 pm
edsvoice
money95542 said,
“So, your demand to find a park that is comparable to SHCP fails at the outset–the SHCP board is blazing a new trail”
Yes and that trail was paid for with public funds and Humboldt Area Foundation Grant money, which is now located on Dazey’s and Goldeen’s property!
You do forget and again omit the fact, that this was all conducted under a 501c3 public benefit charity. And the Park Board does charge the public to use Tooby Park and Community Park for their events and projects, private or public (see pricing on sohumpark,org). Your reason falls short of protecting and preserving that piece of property from development, to protect open space, to protect historical and cultural resources, wildlife habitat and the best Ag soils!
You also said; “It seems to me that the folks who put together the SHCP idea and formed the organization to acquire and develop it, are forward-looking people who were thinking outside the box in creating a private park that could be open to all”
The only forward-looking, as you word it, was to obtain land using the public’s money, warehouse and shelter it from property tax for 10 years, keep making improvements on it anyway, get title to it and then develop it. And if it just so happens you are on the Board of Directors, well that’s when most of us have a problem with your story line!
March 19, 2010 at 4:06 pm
anonymous
Ed, your attempt portray the motives of those who helped create this park just don’t ring true. Being skeptical is healthy, but you seem to have crossed over the line into cynical territory.
March 19, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Anonymous
When we were asked to donate money for this COMMUNITY PARK, we were not told that a private corporation was going to be formed to own our supposedly public park. AFTER there was a ton of money donated, and the land changed hands, then we were told by Dazey he was going to form this corp. with our public donations. That was crazy of us to allow him to do this.
March 19, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Eric Kirk
So, again, which outboard motor has zero environmental impact?
March 19, 2010 at 8:15 pm
edsvoice
anonymous said;
“Ed, your attempt portray the motives of those who helped create this park just don’t ring true. Being skeptical is healthy, but you seem to have crossed over the line into cynical territory”
Then help me to understand why I am so wrong. The Park Board will not show us any records of what they say happened back in 2000, so we gathered our own records from the County, the State and IRS and guess what, they contradict what the Park Board said took place. So does all the SHWT & SHCP 990 taxes. What is wrong with the Park Board allowing the public to see their paper trail of the donations and property transaction.
There is no way I can explain all of this on a blog post and get you up to speed. Until the Park Board can show us their set of books and the documents showing the tranactions that have taken place on the Park property, I and many others will keep asking them questions and sharing what information we know to be a fact, not a narrative as the Park Board likes to use.
March 19, 2010 at 8:21 pm
edsvoice
Eric Kirk asked;
“So, again, which outboard motor has zero environmental impact?”
But this was a different question then I answered earlier today. Sorry, I had forgot to sign in, so it went in as Anonymous.
March 19, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Eric Kirk
I’m going to keep asking the tough questions Ed. You can’t stop me.
March 19, 2010 at 10:26 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Ed,
Asking questions and “sharing information you know to be facts” is one thing. Pretending you can read minds and know the motives of the Park Board and park supporters is quite another thing. When you spin out this grand land development / tax avoidance conspiracy, you’re connecting the dots in a certain way that just doesn’t ring true to many of us in this small community, where we already have some knowledge of each other and have had an opportunity to see the hard work these folks have done on this and other issues.
It seems to me that at the most basic level, the outcome was this: a fine property has been obtained as a Community Park. The fact that there was some “creative financing,” in which a larger property was bought and the Park eventually retained only one portion of the land, does not strike me as suspicious or underhanded. It seems like a lot of real estate deals, in which a large property may be bought and divided. The end result being that the Park got some fine land, at a price it can afford.
It seems to me that some of the folks you’re so upset with have done a lot of hard work to support the community and to help make this park happen. Granted they may not have done every last thing perfectly, but your thesis that they are all just in it for money and that Board members set up sweetheart deals for themselves strikes me as a leap of logic that puts you way out into the territory of highly cynical, embittered speculation.
So, has the Board done everything perfectly? No, of course not.
But are these folks a bunch of greedy, self-serving swindlers who ripped off the public for personal financial gain? Doesn’t look like that to me, and you haven’t presented a shred of evidence that would back up your view. You’ve presented circumstances which, when viewed through your cynical point of view, appear suspicious and underhanded.
I would advise you to take a step back and try a little thought experiment: Try imagining that those you are criticizing, the folks who have busted their butts to get this park going, are not greedy, nor self-serving swindlers, nor in it for personal financial gain. Look at the same facts assuming for a moment that their motivations have been sincere, and see if you can imagine how things look from that point of view.
If you are successful in this little thought experiment, you will see that the same set of facts can be viewed from a very different perspective, and they do not automatically lead to the conspiracy theory you have outlined numerous times (the idea that the Community Park’s formation was just a cover for a tax dodge and real estate deal to benefit Park Board members). It’s your cynicism and the way you are extrapolating from the facts into your own speculation that is leading you astray.
March 19, 2010 at 10:30 pm
money95542
dear anonymous 5:19pm,
you wrote
When we were asked to donate money for this COMMUNITY PARK, we were not told that a private corporation was going to be formed to own our supposedly public park. AFTER there was a ton of money donated, and the land changed hands, then we were told by Dazey he was going to form this corp. with our public donations. That was crazy of us to allow him to do this.
I was just wondering, assuming you were a donor, to whom did you think you were giving your donations? Did you ask? Did you think it was a non-profit group? Steve Dazey? A bunch of private individuals? The County? SHWT? (I don’t believe their structure is any different than the SHCP.) Even membership-based non-profits are “private corporations.”
March 19, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Eric Kirk
I was just wondering, assuming you were a donor, to whom did you think you were giving your donations? Did you ask? Did you think it was a non-profit group? Steve Dazey? A bunch of private individuals? The County? SHWT? (I don’t believe their structure is any different than the SHCP.) Even membership-based non-profits are “private corporations.”
Yeah, I was kind of wondering about that myself.
March 20, 2010 at 5:17 am
edsvoice
Morning; the reasonable anonymous,
Thank you very much, but here again, you are slanting another narrative. What I have stated doesn’t ring true to you, because you don’t want to believe its true, for what ever reason it is, it’s like some of you are living in denial about the actions of the Park Board. You may think highly and care about these people, but that’s why people say:“The road to hell is paved with good intentions”!
Who are you? Would you be willing to bet your life about these people you know so well?
I’ll ask one more time, why can’t we see the paper trail from SHWT and SHCP from 2000 to 2002? Why?
“Doesn’t look like that to me, and you haven’t presented a shred of evidence that would back up your view”
Tell you what, you know these Park Board Directors so well, you want to believe they “have” done nothing wrong and are “doing” nothing wrong. You bring them all to the table and we will all talk about it. Now that to me is fair! You bring your evidence, we will bring ours!
Deal or no Deal? Put up or keep it to yourself!
PS, I liked what Dave Kirby had to say, it was very sobering. Thanks Dave.
March 20, 2010 at 7:26 am
edsvoice
Eric Kirk had said:
“I’m going to keep asking the tough questions Ed. You can’t stop me.”
Eric, what did you mean by that, and where is it coming from? Have I asked you to stop asking questions, NO. Have you asked me to stop asking questions, YES.
Please defind: “tough” questions? Was this a 2nd grade school play ground question (“You can’t stop me
March 20, 2010 at 8:35 am
Anonymous
Turtles in a hot tub people, turtles in a hot tub.
March 20, 2010 at 8:39 am
Anonymous
Private donor here thought that I was donating to a community park that would have a board that would be elected by the community, since we donated the money. I did not realize that we would have Nazi tactics used on us. I thought the community would decide, through the community elected board, the direction of the park. Not that we would have a private corporation ramming their personal agenda’s down our throat. I also did not believe that Dazey would end up with a cherry piece of land, that he can now develop, and make a WHOLE LOT of money on. This goes directly against one of the pbod by-laws. But this pbod has shown they have no time to listen to anybody’s rules, regs, laws, or by-laws, not even their own.
March 20, 2010 at 8:50 am
milt
As long as you’re going to continue asking the tough questions, Eric, I’ll continue to ask you the question you still haven’t answered. You pick and choose what you want to answer, I’ve noticed.
It’s the responsibility question; specifically what are you and the Park board responsible for, and, to who?
In the event that something else goes amiss in the future from any of your schemes and less than formulated plans, who will be accountable? I’ve noticed that even the anon supporters of the pboard on this thread don’t have an answer for, or interest in, that issue either.
The SHCP board have made, and will be making, decisions that affect more than just their own property; like what style roof you want on your barn or crops you want to grow. Your development decisions have, and will have, profound effects on your neighbors as well.
So far all you have contributed to these SHCP threads on that responsibility issue is that you are all unpaid, volunteer members of the board with lives to lead and businesses to run. I don’t want to be guilty of misinterpreting you but that sounds like an ergo summation is left unsaid; ergo, none of you can be held accountable for your decisions while on the board because you aren’t being paid. Is that the long and the short of it?
If you want to know why I’m asking this, it’s because you were also on the board of the MCC and about all you ever mention about that experience is how consumed you were with dealing with the PP contract to the point that you now claim the MCC board didn’t even know that Kathryn L and Dazey had applied for a CUP to move the SAF to the CP back in January of 2001. [ Actually, I can believe that when someone decides secrecy is a paramount concern.] I do, however, have a hard time believing that you, personally, have a problem with multi-tasking, but, while on the MCC board that appears to be your excuse.
Now I fully realize that the PP contract and those thorny negotiations were something you inherited from a prior BoD action, and they inherited it from a BoD before them, and so on, but did you ever take the time to analyse the root cause of the systemic problem there? Was it simply that the PP owners were evil, ruthless people, as some maintain? You should examine that if you haven’t done so already.
Or, you can just channel Ronald Reagan and say “Mistakes were made”, old news, let’s move on, etc, etc., and never effectively look at why this stuff happens, which only ensures repetition of the same mistakes being made – again and again.
I did not know, at first, that the MCC was a producer of one of those unpermitted boogies down at the CP. It was only after Ed V mentioned his buck passing experience with your CP’s Ex Dir and then his experience with Justin Crellin(sp?) at the MCC that I became aware of the connection. After all the crap that was going on during the Great Reggae War, the war to end all wars, I thought the MCC had learned some valuable life lessons and were going to run things differently – responsibly! Well, if that was the intention, it didn’t last long, did it ? Once again, another MCC board involved with permit busting activities – and this time they certainly can’t claim CB had a gun to their heads, can they? Now you have told us that the pboard have apologized many times for their errors of judgement, but the MCC owes the residents of Sprowel Creek an apology too, don’t you think? Did they ever make one? That’s not your concern, of course, you’re not on that board any more, you’re on the other board. And that’s the crux of the problem, Eric, with all these unpaid volunteer NP boards; they can quit any time they want to spend more time with the family, whatever, and leave the whole steaming pile for someone else to shovel. Some even hop from board to board leaving a trail of steaming piles behind that few notice. Until they step into one.
Having stepped into one of those steaming piles left behind when you were on the MCC board, I’m curious as to your take on your and the CP board’s responsibility issues and about potential steaming pile legacies that your board could leave behind. Are you guys shovel ready? What’s your policy?
Take you time on this one. A fast answer would probably be a glib one.
March 20, 2010 at 8:55 am
edsvoice
money95542,
Here are the 990 taxes filed by SHWT for the tax year 2000. Why there are three is anyones guess. If you could, please point out where it shows anything about the property SHWT purchased? How much SHWT put down? And to whom? How many acres? Price per acre? And How much SHWT took in from public donations? That would be a good start.
http://207.153.189.83/EINS/942431578/942431578_2000_00051683.pdf
http://207.153.189.83/EINS/942431578/942431578_2000_0011837c.pdf
http://207.153.189.83/EINS/942431578/942431578_2000_0011838b.pdf
March 20, 2010 at 9:11 am
milt
EV said,
I liked what Dave Kirby had to say, it was very sobering. Thanks Dave
Yes, BUT. Imagine if someone predicted back in 1985 that Reggae on the River would explode into a 20,000+ world-renowned event, given the past and present condition of 101 through Richardson Grove, and all the calamities and problems it would cause internally and externally, and then, to suffer the final indignity, as reflected in the opinion of several pboard members recently; that it is a boogie non grata in the CP, who would have believed her or him?
On the other hand, RoR is the Benbow Lake State Park’s gain, I suppose.
March 20, 2010 at 9:45 am
edsvoice
money95542,
Here are the 2001 & 2002 990 taxes from SHWT. Please find and total the amount of interest SHWT paid on loans & mortgage and total amount of donations. Also please tell me who the interest was paid to?
Can you find anywhere on the SHWT 990′s, that states the terms and conditions of the mortgage to Buck Mountain Ranch, like is stated for the other private loans?
http://207.153.189.83/EINS/942431578/942431578_2001_00378bff.pdf
http://207.153.189.83/EINS/942431578/942431578_2002_0097d42f.PDF
March 20, 2010 at 12:55 pm
money95542
Okay, okay, I can’t take it any more, Ed. I admit it. All the interest went to my Swiss account. The original 990′s have been doctored to pin it all on the Park Board. I made millions on the sale of the Tooby property to the SHCP, and I stand to make millions more when the County approves the subdivision plan for my adjacent parcels.
Wanna buy a condo-ranchette? We want to put in a lake for residents, and the neighbors, of course. We just need one little dam–it could be seasonal–should be a new market for outboards, maybe? It’ll be really nice to have the Community Park right there next to the new school.
I just feel so guilty that I pinned it all on those nice folks on the SHCP board. I’m starting my own blog so all you guys can heap it on the right target. When you’ve completed the new pillory in the Town Square, I shall surrender for appropriate punishment.
March 20, 2010 at 1:34 pm
edsvoice
I guess you’re right, this is a joke to some people out there. And thank you again Eric, for changing the tone of this thread and keeping it real.
March 20, 2010 at 3:07 pm
anony
i think a good amount of humor is necessary here–thanks to all contributors!
March 20, 2010 at 4:02 pm
edsvoice
Eric,
Why the “Your comment is awaiting moderation” from 8:55 am this morning? Should I repost it? What’s Up?
March 20, 2010 at 9:08 pm
Eric Kirk
Eric, what did you mean by that, and where is it coming from? Have I asked you to stop asking questions, NO. Have you asked me to stop asking questions, YES.
Please defind: “tough” questions? Was this a 2nd grade school play ground question (“You can’t stop me
(Sigh). I guess I’m lame at tongue-in-cheek humor. At least in writing.
As for your question Ed, the spam buster automatically requires me to moderate any post with more than one link.
March 20, 2010 at 9:57 pm
edsvoice
no problem Eric,
Thanks for getting back to me….
March 20, 2010 at 10:35 pm
edsvoice
Eric,
I have a new topic for a thread on your blog; best quote from a Community Park Board Members or Executive Director. We could start with this one:
As stated by the Redwood Times, about the Oct 31, 2008 Park Board public meeting: “As a privately held non-profit, Executive Director Kathryn Lobato explained that the park board is not required to have open meetings, make its minutes available or disclose its finances. However, she objected to the idea that they were a “secretive” organization and stated that private nonprofits are “fairly common. She said the lack of membership makes for a more “streamlined” decision-making process”.
March 20, 2010 at 11:14 pm
edsvoice
Here are three more,
From the same meeting on January 25, 2010, from the Redwood Times:
“When asked, Kirk said that the park board doesn’t have a business plan, but that they want to be able to do concert events and a housing complex because they need money”
“Huber said they couldn’t come up with a business plan or even determine what use the park will be put to until the County approves their EIR and zone change”
”You make your plans as you go along,” Ryce said.
March 21, 2010 at 9:16 am
Anonymous
Hapless hippies at the helm.
Lobato was right about the streamlining of ramming their agenda down the communities throat. God forbid the public process should get in their way.
March 21, 2010 at 11:40 am
edsvoice
Eric said, March 14, 2010 at 10:35 pm;
“We’re sorry about the loud concert. We’ve apologized over and over again. But the accusations of malfeasance against Board members and people who have gone out of their way to benefit the park and community are way out of line. And they are false. Patently. And they are irresponsible. And those in your group who know better, but who sit silently while these accusations are made, are just as irresponsible. I find it very disappointing, and I understand why local nonprofits are having a hard time filling their Boards. It’s a lot of work, and we don’t appreciate the verbal and written abuse”
Here is the only attempt I have read, that Kathryn Lobato had said, the Park Board apologized publicly in the paper to the “neighbors” after one of many un-permitted concerts in 2008. This agenda still continued, having four more loud and un-permitted Concerts and Boogie Parties through October of that same year. You wonder why we had complained to the County since 2007? Keep asking the Park Board “tough” questions about their actions? How dare us? Whom are you calling “irresponsible”?
The Park Board cared more about how much money they made and how much more money they and the MCC could make. And at Park meetings aftter this letter came out, we are told: “buy ear plugs”, “plan to go away for that weekend”, “go to dinner and see a move that night”, “get use to it” and “if you don’t like it, move!”:
Redwood Times, Tuesday, Aug. 26th, 2008
A Letter to the Neighbors of the Community Park
To the Editor:
The Board of Directors of Southern Humboldt Community Park would like to comment about the recent event held at the Park on Friday, August 15. By a number of measures and reports from the people who were in attendance, the event was a success and brought the park considerable funds. However, a number of things emerged at this event pointing to a need for clearer guidelines to assist park users and also to ensure that the park continues to be a good and considerate neighbor.
The event went on longer than planned and the sound level for the final performance was deemed too loud by several of our neighbors, including our Board President. The Park would like our neighbors to know that we are actively working to address these concerns for the future and that there has not been a change in park policy or desires.
Events have been, for the most part, well received. We acknowledge that there is a wide range of interests within our community that will be reflected in the types of events that occur at the Park. We may not all care to attend all the various types events. It is our job to provide a location for that range of interests to be expressed while ensuring that our neighbors are not unreasonably impacted by these events.
There are a number of steps that we are taking immediately to help remedy these concerns. A reorientation of the stage area to face away from our neighbors should help considerably with sound travel. There are a few upcoming events at the Community Park over the next months and we will be conducting sound studies during these events. We will be using decibel meters to measure and monitor sound volume levels. These studies will give us some baseline readings that will help us to set guidelines for appropriate sound levels for future events at the park.
In addition, we will ensure that the Park’s guidelines are clear and manageable to those who use the Park so that our staff can ensure that our guidelines are followed. As other types of events take place at the park, our policies, processes and knowledge evolves.
Any neighbors that would like to give input to the Board of Directors can contact Rebecca at 923-227.
Tim Metz, Peter Ryce, Stephen Dazey, Doug Wallace, Liz Lewin-Arnoul, and Kathryn Lobato Southern Humboldt Community Board of Directors-
I don’t know Eric, living behind the Market in Redway, with that refrigeration unit going on and off all night, you had talked about, I wish that was all we had to hear, think about or deal with!
March 21, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Eric Kirk
Sorry Ed. One of those two or three times a century moments of history are being made today. I’m not getting drawn into this crap right now.
March 21, 2010 at 6:36 pm
edsvoice
No problem Eric,
I didn’t post it just for you or expect an answer or had not thought about trying to draw you into anything! Hey Eric, you left alittle ego on that last post, that’s ok, I got it…..
March 21, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Anonymous
So did the world change/stop with that vote e?
March 21, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Eric Kirk
Yes. Dramatically as a matter of fact.
March 21, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Anonymous
Do we really have to wait until 2014? If you are sick, really sick, you’ll be dead by the time this thing takes effect.
March 21, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Eric Kirk
It’s not that simple. The pool that will be created will have immediate effects. And here’s a list of benefits which will come into effect this year.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/3/19/847729/-Dont-ever,-ever-call-Barack-Obama-a-wimp.-%28Just-look-at-this!!%29
But the biggest point is that it completely changes the structural framework for health care in this country. It is now a public issue beyond just old age and extreme poverty. The public option is inevitable. Single payer may not be far behind that. The Republicans are right to be freaking out over this.
March 22, 2010 at 6:30 am
Redwayan
Has any of you regular posters tallied the time you’ve wasted here?
More fun than X-Box?
How about using your time working to pass the school bond measure, or some other needed effort you favor?
March 22, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Anonymous
Eric, there are a couple of words that get used in reference to the community Park that I wonder if you can give a definition of. One is “stakeholder”. The other is “investor”. What would define a person or organization as a stakeholder? What would define someone as an “investor”?
Are there persons or entities that are waiting for the Park board to perform actions that were requested or agreed upon when money was being raised and accepted by persons doing fundraising ?
March 22, 2010 at 5:07 pm
edsvoice
Redwayan;
1) As I have posted many times on this thread and other Community Park threads that Eric has kindly posted, we need an accounting of how much money the Community has given to SHWT and SHCP from this Community Park in the form of donations.
2) Were those donations used in the best interest and benefit of this community, for which SHWT and the Community Park Board have represented themselves as a 501c3 Public Benefit Charitable Org.
3) My point, the Community Park has sucked dry the normal Disposable & Discretionary donations a Community would have, taking away anymore donations for the So Hum School District etc…
4) Given the fact that SHWT and SHCP have paid out over $550,000.00 just in interest from public donations for the Community Park should make anyone in this community ask why?
5) I do not feel this has been a waste of anyone’s time, sure not mine. I want to see an accounting of all the donations that SHWT & SHCP have taken in from this Community and the paper trail for all the property sale transaction between Buck Mountain Ranch LP, SHWT, McKee, Goldeen, Dazey and SHCP Inc.
6) Do you think the Community Park was dreamed up for people to: ride horses, walk, run, bike, disc golf, family picnics, weddings, memorials, birthday parties, trails etc etc….NO, this Community Park was purchased using public donations to become a: Boogie Party, Concert and Festival Venue, Housing Development and new property for Stephen Dazey and Sanford Goldeen and their own development dreams. Everything else takes a back seat.
So if this doesn’t bother you, in the near future when the Park Board comes Knocking on your door asking for a lot more of your money, give as much as you can. Or tell them, I am donating to my School District this time!
Because you know what, we still have a say in our public School District, but not in our Private Corporate Community Park!
March 22, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Anonymous
If this park board’s organizational structure is so unique and out of the box and so private, how come they can apply for millions of dollars in california state prop 84 money? Oh, I know they said they are only applying for $700,000. That is in the First Round. Thus, the money from the people of the state of California goes to a private park instead of to support our state park system that actually belongs to the people of the state of California.
So, money from the people of the state of california is going to go to some private park with no public oversight. What mechanism of accountability for the spending of this money will be applied? Who oversees this, the Park Board?
What about the donations under $4,ooo in 2000? How much was it and where did it go? At the last Park Board meeting, Dazey acted like that was all too insignificant to even talk about (or account for, apparently), but not so significant that he didn’t accept those paltry donations of a thousand, or five hundred or one hundred or twenty. And not so insignificant to the people who donated.
March 23, 2010 at 6:40 pm
edsvoice
Eric (the sandman) Kirk,
Before I even think about going on and on and on again about the Park Board and being exempt from paying County property taxes, did you read the Redwood Times today, i.e. Park Board Meeting last week?
I wonder how you would comment about the Assessors Parcel Numbers again. How you would comment about SHCP using public funds to pay the property taxes for Randall Sand & Gravels operation on SHCP property for years?
You and money95542 have been so wrong about this. I wonder if the Park Board has ever thought about hiring a Public Relations Firm, it might be too late, given the fact you are leaving so many steaming piles to step in and I’m only talking about what you are stepping into!
I guess you had forgotten, that you never ask a question without knowing the answer or the outcome.
March 24, 2010 at 8:04 am
edsvoice
Eric Kirk had said;
Back on January 29, 2009 12:19 pm,
Actually, I think we need to discuss the past. I think I have all the raw material now for the historical account. I just have to sit down, go through the material, and crank it out. That can be a starting point for discussion.
What I meant on Monday was that I didn’t want to spend all of that meeting on the past, though I didn’t want to preclude it. We did have some discussion of it, and yes, it’s essential to discussions about present and future. Mostly I wanted to hear from the neighbors and have it on record specifically what they want and don’t want happening at the park. I got that very few of the neighbors want any amplified music. I got that they don’t want parking on the River Bar. I didn’t really get a sense of how big is too big, but I got some ideas about it. I got that there is skepticism about the housing idea and that neighbors would need a lot more information as to specifics before they could get on board. And I got that many of the neighbors prefer an elected board and open meetings, and more communication in general.
Now we need to put amplified music advocates in the room with you.
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
March 24, 2010 at 10:36 am
Anonymous
I don’t think that amplified music advocates will come forward because they know that pounding loud bass noise is something they would not want in their own neighborhoods. They also know by now that 300+ supporters of a quiet Park have signed their names to a petition that has been submitted to the County.
March 24, 2010 at 11:41 am
edsvoice
Eric Kirk,
So much for this thread I see. You like to dish it out and tell people how wrong they are, how they don’t know what they are talking about, that they don’t know the facts and then you make up your own story to cover the Park Boards ass and stick to the party line! Then to say, I did not know, when you just got thought making a statement of fact.
It’s like I told Peter Ryce back at the end of 2008, “nobody would blame you, if you baled on this Park Board right now, because it will get worse before it gets better”. Now I will tell you the same thing. Take it what ever way you want. I plan on turning up the heat on my “tough” questions, how about you?
But you of all people know better. In your world, doing what you do, you see that people lie, cheat and steal every day.
March 24, 2010 at 11:43 am
Eric Kirk
Ed, you know, your questions reveal that you have a little bit of knowledge, but that you don’t understand much of the information you get, and so you default to sinister interpretations for whatever reason. I don’t have the time to try to educate you, especially since we have to repeat the same points over and over again. For my part, I’m just about done. Your posts, and those of some others have been hurtful and you and others brought people to tears with wild accusations which have, without justification, hurt the reputations of good people. The threads on the park a huge, much bigger than any other topic – even now dwarfing the Reggae threads – but with only a fraction of the number of participants. And reading the threads over the past year, I see the questions, asked, answered, asked again, answered again – over and over again.
This will probably be my last post in this thread. When there is something new to talk about, I’ll post anew. In the meantime, I’m done.
March 24, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Anonymous
This will be my last post also, until you, e, post again. I’ll leave it with one question/statement. Bob McKee paid $480.00 per acre for the park land, that he sold it to us, the community, for $3000.00 per acre, with no improvements, exactly as he had purchased them. He used the community donations to close his deal. How is that price mark up explained, and why is that such a good deal for the community? Sometimes the truth cuts to the quick.
March 24, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Another Idea
Eric is really reaching now with the waterworks and “good” people who are so bruised. You’re way ahead of yourself counselor, save the theatrics for the juy. We’re still in discovery. Being on a board in the middle of a controversy isn’t a cushion reward for having been a good buddy and to get bragging rights and resume enhancement. For those who bit off more than they can chew, I recommend “spit it out before you choke on it”.
There’s gonna have to be a lot more transparency before the “healing” can begin. I see everything right for forming a public entity and transferring the assets and liabilities of SHCP to it after conducting a forensic audit. The county would even help in setting it up. I’m very certain landholders in an appropriately designated area would vote overwhelmingly to form an agency and fund it with an assessment.
March 24, 2010 at 6:08 pm
Adlai
Bob McKee paid $480.00 per acre for the park land, that he sold it to us, the community, for $3000.00 per acre, with no improvements, exactly as he had purchased them. He used the community donations to close his deal. How is that price mark up explained, and why is that such a good deal for the community? Sometimes the truth cuts to the quick.
That is a gross oversimplification and it has been answered more than once.
March 24, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Anonymous
March 25, 2010 at 6:23 am
edsvoice
Eric,
in your thread http://kunsoo1024.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/its-not-just-in-humboldt-nor-just-california/ the opening page asks:
“What does the future for forestry look like in a region defined by it?”
It also asks: “The unprecedented change in land ownership raises concerns about the impact on wildlife and natural resources, as well as the increased costs of protecting residents from forest fires”
You do a great job bringing up questions and subjects to talk about, issues we face, to speak out loud, by name or Anonymous. But yet you don’t want to face the issue or even take the time and educate us about your side of the facts we as neighbors or community have about the inner workings, accountabilty and transparity of the SHCP Board of Directors.
You use words to define us and our questions as: wild accusations, tears, hurt, hurtful, without justification and sinister interpretations, just in your last post.
Time after time, even you Eric, have said one thing and done another with respect to questions the neighbors have been trying to get answers too for some time now.
As to this thread you posted above, ask the Park Board the same question, ask to see their development plans for the Community Park, their model that would fit the Community Park? Their EIR? And then ask them why? Whom does this benefit, the community or t
March 25, 2010 at 6:23 am
edsvoice
Eric,
in your thread http://kunsoo1024.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/its-not-just-in-humboldt-nor-just-california/ the opening page asks:
“What does the future for forestry look like in a region defined by it?”
It also asks: “The unprecedented change in land ownership raises concerns about the impact on wildlife and natural resources, as well as the increased costs of protecting residents from forest fires”
You do a great job bringing up questions and subjects to talk about, issues we face, to speak out loud, by name or Anonymous. But yet you don’t want to face the issue or even take the time and educate us about your side of the facts we as neighbors or community have about the inner workings, accountabilty and transparity of the SHCP Board of Directors.
You use words to define us and our questions as: wild accusations, tears, hurt, hurtful, without justification and sinister interpretations, just in your last post.
Time after time, even you Eric, have said one thing and done another with respect to questions the neighbors have been trying to get answers too for some time now.
As to this thread you posted above, ask the Park Board the same question, ask to see their development plans for the Community Park, their model that would fit the Community Park? Their EIR? And then ask them why? Whom does this benefit, the community or t
March 25, 2010 at 6:34 am
edsvoice
Sorry Eric, I was not finished and double clicked. Could you take them off?
Thanks
March 25, 2010 at 8:02 am
Anonymous
Has anyone noticed the similarities between the senate and house republicans and the “neighbors” here. The republicans are attempting to stonewall everything but claim they are “just asking questions.”
March 25, 2010 at 9:27 am
edsvoice
Anonymous 8:02 am,
No, I have not. have you? Please show us all how the “neighbors” have been able to “stonewall everything” by asking questions?
It was a nice try at spin, dodge and ploy. I guess the biggest thing we are doing wrong, is asking questions. People in So Hum are so not use to being questioned. Anyone of standing in this community can come up with any tall tail or myth from the past, be it yarn or embellishment. But if you question it, look out, you will be struck down by the right hand of whom ever! Thank god we know how to duck……
March 25, 2010 at 9:33 am
Anonymous
Interesting comment 8:02–I had a similar impression last night after just finishing an excellent novel called The Lacuna by Barbara Kingsolver. One of the themes in the book concerns the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings, following a writer who has done nothing, yet with unfounded rumors and untrue allegations he is vilified as a Communist and run out of the country. I put the book down, checked this thread on Eric’s blog, and noticed the similarities immediately.
March 25, 2010 at 9:34 am
edsvoice
Eric, here is what I wanted to say from my post(s) @ 6:23 am (edited)
Eric,
in your thread http://kunsoo1024.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/its-not-just-in-humboldt-nor-just-california/ the opening page asks:
“What does the future for forestry look like in a region defined by it?”
It also asks: “The unprecedented change in land ownership raises concerns about the impact on wildlife and natural resources, as well as the increased costs of protecting residents from forest fires”
You do a great job bringing up questions and subjects to talk about, issues we face, to speak out loud, by name or Anonymous. But yet you don’t want to face the issue or even take the time and educate us about your side of the facts we as neighbors or community have about the inner workings, accountability and transparency of the SHCP Board of Directors.
You use words to define us and our questions as: “wild accusations”, “brought people to tears”, “without justification”, “sinister interpretations” and “hurt the reputations of good people”, just in your last post.
Time after time, even you Eric have said one thing and done another with respect to questions the neighbors have been trying to get answers to for some time now.
As to this thread you posted above, ask the Park Board the same question, ask to see their development plans for the Community Park, their model? Their EIR? And then ask them why? Whom does this benefit, whom does the Park Board benefit? And for whom does the bell toll?
By the way, I could not help but notice, that your post from the other day is missing from this thread, you know the one where you used “misfeasance”; you know i.e. When a contract creates a duty that does not exist at common law, the parties can do one of three things: (1) perform the duty fully; (2) perform the duty inadequately or poorly; or (3) fail to perform the duty at all. When a party fails to perform at all, it is nonfeasance. When a party performs the duty inadequately or poorly, it is misfeasance. Malfeasance is used to denote outright sabotage which causes intentional damage.
At present the terms nonfeasance and misfeasance are most often used with reference to the conduct of municipal authorities with reference to the discharge of their statutory obligations; and it is an established rule that an action lies in favor of persons injured by misfeasance, i.e. by negligence in discharge of the duty; but that in the case of misfeasance the remedy is not by action but by indictment or mandamus or by the particular procedure prescribed by the statutes.
March 25, 2010 at 11:20 am
Anonymous
“It was a nice try at spin, dodge and ploy. I guess the biggest thing we are doing wrong, is asking questions. People in So Hum are so not use to being questioned. Anyone of standing in this community can come up with any tall tail or myth from the past, be it yarn or embellishment. But if you question it, look out, you will be struck down by the right hand of whom ever! Thank god we know how to duck……”
Almost exactly what the Republicans are saying about their opposition to the health care bill!
March 25, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Eric Kirk
Sorry, but I’ve blocked another two posts as they contained false accusations and personal attacks.
March 25, 2010 at 4:40 pm
edsvoice
Anonymous 11:20 am,
unlike your Republicans, we can show facts and the documents to back them up. If the “neighbors” have meant to “stonewall everything” the Park would just be a Park without a Concert Venue in the works. But hey, three out of five ain’t so bad, is zit!
PS, Thanks for the “Almost exactly”. I needed one more example for my Oxymoron list, Thanks. http://www.oxymoronlist.com/
March 25, 2010 at 4:55 pm
edsvoice
Eric 4:22 pm,
Thanks for protecting us from Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression Eric. It’s nice to know a big brother is looking out for all of us, saving us from the sticks and stones of false accusations and personal attacks here on your blog, Thank you!
March 25, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Eric Kirk
You’re welcome.
March 25, 2010 at 8:22 pm
blacklisted
Do you consider that objecting to the closed private organizational structure of the Park Board is attacking them personally? From the small amount of contact that I have had with the members of the Park Board, I mostly like them personally.( I don’t mind if people make me angry or even if they make me cry, which they have). However, I do not feel that they represent me.
Have you been to all the meetings from the beginning, Eric? People were shocked that the meetings would not be open to the public. People could see there would be problems from this kind of structure and so it is.
March 25, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Eric Kirk
What shocks me is the behavior of people who are slandering and libeling good people, here, in letters to local papers, and elsewhere. If and when it stops, I’ll be happy to discuss the issues of the park. But the behavior is overshadowing everything else. The behavior is childish and irresponsible, and I’m not indulging it further.
March 25, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Anonymous
I’m sure that most people would never go to a park board meeting, or any nonprofit meeting or any meeting, because most people don’t want to be bored shitless, really. Yes, maybe we should, but fear of being bored is a big one, an everyday consideration.
So, in essence, most meetings aren’t open to the public as the public by and large and en masse refuse to participate. The activists can go to the meeting and have a disproportionate say as they are such a tiny minority, as we see this tiny minority blaring away here.
That said, blare away! By all means.
(I doubt if people were shocked that the meetings weren’t public; I wasn’t)
March 26, 2010 at 4:18 am
Anonymous
I wouldn’t call three hundred community members who signed the petition to oppose amplified events in the Park a tiny minority. Community members’ fear of losing their quality of life, peace and quiet, is driving the attention the board is getting. “Blaring away” is what the Park board already allowed into the neighborhoods, starting with Hank Williams III. The neighbors want acoustic music at the Park.
March 26, 2010 at 7:11 am
blacklisted
Actually, it would be better for the Park Board to have listened to the community in the beginning and have their board meetings open to the public and the press. The way the Park organization is structured now is that they meet in private with advocates and the board alone and in private decides whether the advocates can use the park. Commercial and non-profit activities or enterprises is what they say they will entertain, according to their headwaters grant application.
But the community has no way to know what sort of activities or enterprises the park board is considering, and this is a flaw in the structure, since these decisions affect such a large area of land in the middle of the neighborhoods of Garberville.
Yes, it’s pretty rocky now but that is a result of some of the choices that the Park Board has made in activities they have allowed at the park and their own reactions following those decisions. The truth is that many of us who are being shut out do care very much about the park and would like to see it thrive in a way that protects the wildlife and the river and the public trust. If the park board would open up I believe they would find far more support than they have now.
March 26, 2010 at 8:25 am
edsvoice
Eric,
It just seems that if the Park Boards wants to “get to the heart of the issue”, all the issues need to come out with it.
Does the Park Board want to deal with this issue?
Here is why I ask; we were told back at the Jan 25th neighbors meeting (by the way Thank you) we would see the Parks accounting on the Park web site “real soon”, then from last week, the Redwood Times reported this same accounting of the Park would be on the Parks web site “real soon” as well. The paper took us throught what Lobato, Dazey, Ryce and yourself felt about the accounting.
So again, the people who want to know about the accounting must wait?
Please share with us, your examples of: “What shocks me is the behavior of people who are slandering and libeling good people, here, in letters to local papers, and elsewhere. If and when it stops, I’ll be happy to discuss the issues of the park”
I for one would rather discuss the issues of the Park in an open community meeting, face to face with the Park Board and other people from the Community, pro or con it does not matter. What matters most, is that its out to the public, not just on this blog i.e. the neighbors meeting in January.
March 26, 2010 at 8:30 am
Anonymous
No one wants to go down your bottomless black hole of questions.
Why don’t you ask yourself a question?
What would that be?
March 26, 2010 at 10:12 am
edsvoice
Anonymous 8:30 am,
To answer your question, yes, I ask myself those same questions all the time. “Why can’t the Park Board show us the accounting of the Park purchase?”
But as Eric has said many, many, many times, he has never seen this in any other non=profit. And that is because these kinds of questions don’t come up when you have a non-profit that documents all of the public donations and has open books and accounting to anyone that asks!
If the questions we are asking are so out in left field and WRONG, why is the Park Board stalling and not allowing the public to see their books? Why can’t the public see the same Financial statement that were included in the 2007 Humboldt County Headwater Grant application?
March 26, 2010 at 1:07 pm
edsvoice
Eric,
What did you think of the; “question of the week” from this weeks Indy; “What kind of music would you like at the Community Park”? Were these answers a good cross secton of the Community?
March 26, 2010 at 5:51 pm
blacklisted
“…people don’t want to be bored shitless, really. Yes, maybe we should, but fear of being bored is a big one, an everyday consideration.
So, in essence, most meetings aren’t open to the public as the public by and large and en masse refuse to participate.”
Those who are bored need not attend. But those who are affected by decisions made at meetings should have the option to do so. The press should be invited as well so that those who can’t sit through meetings can find out what decisions are being made. Just because it might be boring to some is a lame excuse to shut out the public who paid for this park and those who are interested in what happens there. The park board may find surprising allies and some very useful suggestions.
March 27, 2010 at 3:48 pm
edsvoice
Eric,
Here is a passage from the Redwood Times article “Community Park clarifies some concerns” submitted by the SHCP Board of Directors, dated 10/15/08. As you might remember, I had posted “A Letter to the Neighbors of the Community Park” (March 21, 11:40 AM) this is what followed it:
“Events at the Park”
“We’d like to clarify a point found in a couple of other letters in last week’s letters columns. Both could be taken to imply that the reason for holding concerts at the Park is specifically to raise money for the Park, and that therefore it was pretty much a matter of: “accept the noise or lose the Park” so that any complainer about the noise has to be an enemy of the Park. No way! First, though we certainly welcome and need every bit of income we can generate, the main reason for the events is that people ask for them, enjoy then, and thank us for making them possible”
“Along with the gardens, hiking, and biking trails, and so on, public entertainment events are a part of a wide range of “different strokes for different folks” services that we want to facilitate for their own sakes — so long as they are compatible with one another and don’t become a nuisance”
“It ought to be recognized that the incident that provoked the bad feeling (and the related conspiracy theories) that have been directed at the Park Board in the last few weeks was the Outlawz and Angelz concert on Aug. 15, which went to 1:45 on Saturday morning. We addressed the neighborhood disruption that event caused in our letter published in the local papers on Aug. 25. Here is a shorter way of putting what we meant to get across: “The event was much louder than the Park expected from past experience, and went on far later than it was scheduled. The headliner did not go on stage according to schedule and the sound crew ignored instructions from the Park’s representatives to lower the volume. Because of the fact that the concert attendees had not yet heard the main act they’d paid for, there was concern that an attempt to pull the plug might cause disorder. In fact, one of the distant neighbors who was impacted by the high noise level and unreasonable hour was a member of the Park’s Board, who vouches that this sort of imposition on the involuntary audience was unreasonable and must not be repeated. We’re now implementing various means of assuring control over the loudness, timing, and nature of any future musical events scheduled at the Park.” That sort of focused response to the complaints might have been more useful in alleviating concern that we’d gone astray”
“Let’s not make the Park another symbolic community issue”
“While we really appreciate the recent letters in the papers lately, some telling us how we’re getting it wrong and others supporting what we are doing, we really want to discourage the Park from becoming another symbolic issue that encourages people to take sides and start throwing rocks at each other”
-Submitted by the Southern Humboldt Community Park Board of Directors: Tim Metz, Peter Ryce, Kathryn Lobato, Stephen Dazey, Liz Lewin-Arnoul, and Doug Wallace-
Now here is the saddest part to this letter, the Park Board never admits they did anything wrong or never secured permits for any of their events and concerts at the Park in 2007 or 2008, that just happen to be “un-permitted” and illegal! But yet they seem to have blamed everybody else and their brother for everything that went wrong.
And you wonder why we question the Park Board, why we don’t trust them at all. Why is that Eric? Please Eric, name off anything talked about in this letter that has helped the issues between the Park Board and people in this Community not wanting Amplified Commercial Concerts and Festivals at the Community Park?
March 28, 2010 at 8:02 am
blacklisted2
e-you have turned into a sensorship-dictator with your comment deletes.
March 28, 2010 at 9:40 am
Eric Kirk
That’s right, I have. You can discuss park policy. But any posts making false accusations against named individuals will be deleted. You’ve gone way past any acceptable line.
March 28, 2010 at 9:49 am
edsvoice
Eric,
I would like to ask you or someone on the Park Board about the application and forms submitted to the “Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program Grant Funding” (Statewide Park Program).
My question(s) are with the following Statewide Park Program application forms:
1) Authorizing Resolution: What was the Title of Governing Body/City Council, Board of Supervisors/Directors of what; City, County, District, or Non-Profit Organization Approving the Application for STATEWIDE PARK PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS? Please give date Resolution was adopted.
2) CEQA Compliance: What documents were filed for this project’s CEQA analysis or If a Notice of Exemption or a Notice of Determination was not completed, provide a letter from the CEQA Lead Agency that explains why, certifies that the PROJECT is CEQA compliant and notes the date that the PROJECT was approved by the Lead Agency.
As in all cases, I have always asked the Park Board these questions before asking the Grant Funding Agency or Giver.
March 28, 2010 at 9:59 am
Eric Kirk
Ed, all such inquiries should be submitted to the Park Board.
March 28, 2010 at 10:22 am
edsvoice
Eric,
Thank you for the quick reply. I’ll email these questions to each Park Board member.
Thank you…..
March 28, 2010 at 12:12 pm
blacklisted
blacklisted2
e-you have turned into a sensorship-dictator with your comment deletes.
March 28, 2010 at 9:40 am
Eric Kirk
“That’s right, I have. You can discuss park policy. But any posts making false accusations against named individuals will be deleted. You’ve gone way past any acceptable line.”
Here is a quote from Bruce Bartlett referenced on a different thread.
“Rigid conformity is being enforced, no dissent is allowed and the conservative brain will slowly shrivel if it hasn’t already”
And so it is here, too.
A policy of only one acceptable version of events, despite the experiences of others or even documentation.
March 28, 2010 at 3:51 pm
edsvoice
Eric,
Corporate censorship; is the process by which editors in corporate media outlets intervene to halt the publishing of information that portrays their business or business partners in a negative light; the sanctioning of speech by spokespersons, employees, and business associates by threat of monetary loss, loss of employment, or loss of access to the marketplace.
That time has come Eric, to circle the wagons and defend from the sticks and stones that have seen the light of day on your blog. Lets add them up, shall we. See whom has been speaking the truth?
March 28, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Anonymous
You guys are so melodramatic. This is a personal blog not the New York Times. Eric is being a responsible neighbor by keeping the tone civil. I say thanks for that!
March 28, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Eric Kirk
Yeah. When some of the posters are ready to grow up, I’ll loosen up the policy again. But it’s way out of hand.
March 28, 2010 at 11:02 pm
edsvoice
Eric said, March 28, 2010 at 9:43 am
From the; “A week of threats and vandalism” tread:
“That people can be so worked up about a loud concert years after it happened – yes, it does bring our potential survival into question”
You think this whole thing is just about one concert? Its about the fact the Park Board had 9 (nine) loud un-permitted commercial concerts held at the Community Park from 2007 to 2008. My complaint to the County was made in the summer of 2007, along with many others. It’s funny how you left that out of all of your posts.
It’s the fact the Park Board has this huge monkey on their back, a public relations nightmare. And you think this was all caused by one concert?
This was caused because that “one concert” in Aug 2008 was the straw that broke the neighbors back and all hell broke loose. It’s because of that “one concert” that people could not trust the Park Board any more. In fact it’s from that “one concert” that we knew what the Park Board was made of; “get use to it and buy some ear plugs”.
You want to blame all the problems the Park Board has on the neighbors. Well the neighbors were not twisting the Park Boards arms when they wanted to go down this path all by themselves and have concerts. As I recall, they did not ask for anyone’s help!
And you are one to talk, not even knowing the MCC applied for permits to hold the Summer Arts Fest down at the Park, before it was even the Community Park. And that’s while you were a MCC Director and then President?
Here is the biggest problem Eric, you have no idea what is wrong and you don’t want to know and sure as hell don’t to fix it. How dare you speak for the neighbors and what you think our problems are? Do you own property and a home down next to the Park, hell no? You live how many miles away and then tell us we need to put up with what; Concerts, loud music, traffic, people etc etc?
Have you ever seen that cartoon, with that mouse on the ground, giving a jester with one finger to the hawk that is just about ready to eat him, do remember what the caption for that cartoon was? I’ll give you a hint; it’s what the Park neighbors have been doing since 2007 to present.
March 29, 2010 at 12:22 am
Eric Kirk
Sorry Ed, but I have removed one of your posts. Your implication is that an individual used the park to illegally or unethically obtain land at the community’s expense. That is false, potentially defamatory if anyone believes you, and will not be tolerated here.
March 29, 2010 at 3:53 am
edsvoice
Eric,
Since when is “unethically” illegal? And how can you say “That is false” how do you know? Again, do you have any paperwork or documents that back up his or now your story? How else can you say “That is false”. Just because you don’t want it to be true, doesn’t make it so!
Hell Eric, I didn’t even use a name, I said “Man”, I guess I should have said Dazey anyway.
March 29, 2010 at 7:57 am
Eric Kirk
Ed, it’s all been explained to you over and over again. That you subjectively don’t believe the explanation does not render it invalid. You have no evidence to support your insinuations, only your subjective distrust. You’ve expressed your distrust here and elsewhere, repeatedly. That’s fine. But I have decided, for the purposes of my blog, that I’m not going to allow you to make accusations which are patently false. You can discuss park policy here. What should or shouldn’t be done with the park.
Start your own blog if you think that’s too limiting.
March 29, 2010 at 9:37 am
blacklisted2
Park Policy–What is the park policy on board members profiting personally “off of” or “from” the park?
March 29, 2010 at 10:00 am
Eric Kirk
Clever. But no, we’re not going there. You’ve already made your accusations many times over. If you think there is wrongdoing, then please contact the appropriate authorities. Otherwise, no, you’re not going to continue to libel people here.
March 29, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Anonymous
Steve Dazey said at the July 15th, ’09 board meeting in the Park barn that he has long considered returning ( his newly-acquired 70 acre parcel of former park property) Parcel A, to the Park. If he did do that, I would think of him as a real philanthropist. It would be a very nice legacy. Parcel A has the perfect character for community uses such as picnics and games. It has large flat green grassy areas surrounded by beautiful old-growth bay trees elegantly spaced apart from each other, the whole aspect of it is spectacular and unique.
Steve swapped his contiguous 80 acre parcel for Parcel A, one that he stated he paid $280,000 for. The County assessor has had a hard time finding a similar piece in the community to compare with Parcel A because it is so grand. He was torn between assigning an assessment value of between $750,000 and 1 million to Parcel A, the last I heard. The Park board could possibly reimburse Steve his investment there with funds that could be solicited from a conservation easement organization.
March 29, 2010 at 7:18 pm
blacklisted2
Is that considered making a profit?
March 29, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Eric Kirk
Anonymous 4:47 – again, for the 50th time, that parcel was never intended to be Steven’s in the long run. It was not worth $280,000. It was a legal parcel in and of itself however, and served as collateral.
It’s been explained a million times, and either you don’t want to get it or you’re suffering from a cognitive disability which we cannot overcome for you.
We are happy with the park land we got. It is more than enough for our needs. We got a great deal, as every local Realtor or appraiser will tell you. We got a better deal than Steven. We got a better deal than McKee. We got a better deal than everyone else.
And that is my last word on the subject. If you want to continue to argue that Steven or McKee somehow swindled the community, take it somewhere else. If you want to talk about park uses, concerts, etc., then you’re more than welcome to do it here.
March 29, 2010 at 10:09 pm
the reasonable anonymous
” prove to us all, nobody, not one person ever benefited from the property deal(s)”
In other words, guilty until proven innocent.
Not a new concept, but still a remarkably stupid one.
March 30, 2010 at 8:03 am
blacklisted2
Thank Jah for Ed.
March 30, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Anonymous
Eric, I think a huge mistake has been made in U.S. law allowing corporations to be mostly unaccountable to the public. I think that in a small community like ours it takes very open behavior for a tax-exempt corporation like SHCP to hold on to its donors and supporters. The community Park board leadership has displayed a disinclination at times to abide by rules, be they nonprofit law, county zoning law, or sketchy information to grantors. It has made the Park board look ill-equipped to competently manage the Park that a broad cross-section of the community paid for and entrusted to them. How about adopting the sunshine principle?
March 30, 2010 at 2:39 pm
the reasonable anonymous
How about applying both the sunshine principle, AND the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty?
March 30, 2010 at 4:02 pm
the reasonable anonymous
And your point is?
March 30, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Dave Kirby
This thread has long ago run out of anything useful to say. I find it rather amazing that a handful of people can so totally exhaust a subject that it is becoming meaningless. Any real issues have been overshadowed by the mindless gibberish that fuels this circle jerk. You all need to get a life. At some time in the future the community will weigh in with their hopes and recommendations for activities in the park. Until then you can flog this thing to death. There are those of us who really don’t care about the sleazy accusations and supposed ethical lapses some of you have your shorts in a bunch over especially since some of the critics have some major problems with their own ethics and lifestyle.
March 30, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Eric Kirk
reasonable anonymous – the point was to imply that someone had violated the rule he cited, which he clearly does not understand. I’ve removed it.
March 30, 2010 at 5:00 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Thanks Eric.
My question was rhetorical, I did realize what he was trying to do.
My feeling is that if these folks think they have some evidence of a crime, they should take it to the appropriate authorities and push for an arrest. Or if it’s a civil rather than criminal issue, file a lawsuit. Something beyond repeating their unproven allegations ad nauseum. They should put up or shut up.
The problem is, that in court, they would be required to PROVE their case, not just repeat their own rhetoric. Much easier to just spew allegations on a blog, I suppose.
March 30, 2010 at 9:32 pm
edsvoice
Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always, a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).
In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. “Unlike with libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy.”
Another important aspect of defamation is the difference between fact and opinion. Statements made as “facts” are frequently actionable defamation. Statements of opinion or pure opinion are not actionable. To win damages in a libel case, the plaintiff must first show that the statements were “statements of fact or mixed statements of opinion and fact” and second that these statements were false. Conversely, a typical defense to defamation is that the statements are opinion. One of the major tests to distinguish whether a statement is fact or opinion is whether the statement can be proved true or false in a court of law. If the statement can be proved true or false, then, on that basis, the case will be heard by a jury to determine whether it is true or false. If the statement cannot be proved true or false, the court may dismiss the libel case without it ever going to a jury to find facts in the case.
So Eric, do you have a waiting list?
http://www.chillingeffects.org/defamation/faq.cgi
March 30, 2010 at 10:43 pm
money95542
Gee Mr. Ed,
You seem to be able to cut and paste from Wikipedia reeeeeeal good. How cool is that? It’s so helpful.
March 31, 2010 at 9:50 am
edsvoice
Yes money 95542,
it is helpful, that is if anyone on the Park Board had ears enough to bring on a Defamation suit. Then they would have the burden. I don’t think anyone on the Park Boards wants to stir up that pot. But it ould prove my point that I can’t talk about on this blog, right Eric?
By the way, Tank whom ever put the SHCP accounting on the Park web site. I’m glad to see Frenchy was not to far off on his accounting.
If anyone has questions about the SHCP accounting, they should click this link:
http://ag.ca.gov/charities/forms/charitable/ct9.pdf
March 31, 2010 at 11:35 am
edsvoice
Eric,
I don’t understand why you took off my post about the Park Boards March 2009 Resolution, that authorized, approved and directed the SHCP Board to trade property between what Dazey had title to (80 acres) and what was always Community Park property (Parcel “A” 70 acres) and separated from what SHWT & SHCP had always owned title to. Property (Parcel “A”) that was only made into an APN in the last and final County lot line adjustment (March 2009), that was at the request of the SHCP Board.
This document should prove to anyone whom reads it, that I am dead wrong? Then why not post it on the Parks web site? Why not wave this Resolution in the faces of those people who question the ethics of the SHCP Board and this transaction?
Have you read it?
April 1, 2010 at 2:02 pm
edsvoice
Eric,
why did the Park board keep the Cultural Resources Survey from being completed on Parcel A, the property Steve received from the Park board on March 17th 2009?
It was Park land when Jamie Roscoe was commissioned to do the whole Park lands survey and study. All the rest of the Park was surveyed. Why was the 70-acre area of Steve’s future parcel excluded?
Steve was asked about it at the July ’09 board meeting. He was noncommittal about whether it would be done.
Why no survey or study, Eric?
April 1, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Eric Kirk
Because Parcel A is Steve’s land. All questions about Steve’s land should be directed to him. It’s none of our business.
April 1, 2010 at 4:45 pm
edsvoice
Eric,
Sorry I was not clear enough with my question; Parcel “A” became Steve’s after the Park Boards final LLA in March 2009..
The Cultural Resources studies were conducted in 2001, 2007 and 2008. The Park Board had stated in Resolution 2009-01, dated March 17, 2009, they had been:
“effectively warehousing the title to key portions of the Park over these recent years, pending approved and closing of the pending lot line adjustment between the Park and Mr. Dazeys adjoining parcel”
Dazey did not get title and ownership to Parcel “A” until after March 18th, 2009, a day after Resolution 2009-01 was approved and adopted by the Park Board on March 17th, 2009, allowing Steve the trade and title to Parcel “A” from the SHCP assets.
All the Cultural Resources studies were conducted while SHWT & SHCP held title to the property known as Parcel “A”, located on APN 222-241-008, owned by the SHCP.
Your answer was: “It’s none of our business”, and that might be true after the Park Board approved trading SHCP property with Steve, but not before that, it had everything to do with the Park Boards business and public assets, remember, the Park Board had been “effectively warehousing” that key piece of property? Warehousing it from what? Maybe you could answer my question again?
Thank you Eric, I know you are a busy man
April 1, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Eric Kirk
We’ve been through this before Ed. We held color of title to that property, but Steven was the owner as a matter of right. All questions about his land should be directed to him.
April 1, 2010 at 5:19 pm
edsvoice
Eric, Holy smoke;
These are new terms you are using:
“Color of title” is a phrase used in real estate to refer to title that may have the appearance of good and valid title to property, but in actuality, there is either no title or a vital defect in the title that makes it ineffective. Thus by law, color of title fails to establish ownership in land. Color of title may also be referred to as ¿apparent title¿ because on its face it appears to support a valid claim of title.
Some examples of color of title situations:
Buyer purchasing real estate thinks he is obtaining a valid title to the property. Later, it turns out that the previous owners title had been defective. Thus, the buyer’s title is defective as well.
Execution of a deed that was defective or in question (eg. forged deed).
Two or more persons received separate deeds to the same parcel of real estate.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/real-property-color-of-title.html
And by “but Steven was the owner as a matter of right” you don’t mean Manifest destiny do you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny
April 1, 2010 at 6:48 pm
Eric Kirk
Yeah, dump wikipedia Ed. It’s basically where title is held by one person but the actual ownership by right is held by another.
It’s not rocket science.
April 1, 2010 at 8:23 pm
edsvoice
Eric,
Wikipedia has nothing to do with what I quoted about your “Color of Title” comment earlier, that came from a legal law web site (read my post again) In fact here the short and sweet definition of “Color of Title”:
“A person has “color of title” to a piece of property when, for one reason or another, the document evidencing title (a deed, for example) is invalid”
Every definition(s) on the web make the same claim for “Color of Title” except Eric V, Kirk, why is that?
So lets say what your saying is the right definition, OK? Whom would benefit from this property? And whom did this benefit when this same 501c3 Public Benefit Charity was willing to “warehouse” Public assets for a SHCP Director for 9 years, that the public did not have access or use of?
I want to know where it is written; “Steven was the owner as a matter of right”
This is what I’m talking about Eric, you cannot back up what you say!
April 1, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Eric Kirk
The person who benefits is the person who bought it for $280,000.
Where it is written is private business, not yours.
April 1, 2010 at 8:34 pm
edsvoice
Eric,
FYI,
You never answered any of my questions today, ths way when you say “we’ve been over this a million times or I’ve already answered that question 500 times” I can remind you, nope you did not.
April 1, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, yes I did. And as I’ve learned, they’ve all been answered even before I was on the board. Many times over. And it’s really not that complicated.
April 1, 2010 at 8:47 pm
edsvoice
No Eric,
SHCP has never been anything but “private business”, it all started with SHWT and now its a big steaming pile of SHCP business to deal with, get use to it!
April 1, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Eric Kirk
Uh huh.
April 2, 2010 at 4:02 am
edsvoice
Yes Eric,
you have the gift of whit, I’ll give you that! And I liked the one about “before I was on the board” you have to keep saying that one out loud, many times, even in your sleep.
Who ever said it was complicated?
April 2, 2010 at 8:07 am
Anonymous
A dog came in the kitchen
And stole a crust of bread.
Then cook up with a ladle
And beat him till he was dead.
Then all the dogs came running
And dug the dog a tomb
And wrote upon the tombstone
For the eyes of dogs to come:
A dog came in the kitchen
And stole a crust of bread.
Then cook up with a ladle
And beat him till he was dead.
Then all the dogs came running
And dug the dog a tomb
And wrote upon the tombstone
For the eyes of dogs to come:
A dog came in the kitchen
And stole a crust of bread.
Then cook up with a ladle
And beat him till he was dead.
Then all the dogs came running
And dug the dog a tomb
And wrote upon the tombstone
For the eyes of dogs to come:
A dog came in the kitchen
And stole a crust of bread.
Then cook up with a ladle
And beat him till he was dead.
Then all the dogs came running
And dug the dog a tomb
And wrote upon the tombstone
For the eyes of dogs to come:
and on and on ad absurdum……
April 2, 2010 at 8:19 am
Eric Kirk
Sorry Ed, but you keep going there with the accusations. I’ve removed the post for the reasons stated and because once again you’re spreading misinformation. Steven bought his property from Buck Mountain, not the Park.
April 2, 2010 at 12:35 pm
edsvoice
Sorry,
just having one of those odd days. Have a great what ever you want to call Sunday, Day…..
July 30, 2010 at 3:42 pm
edsvoice
SHCP Director Kirk,
Since the SHCP Board has now released their July 23, 2010 “Plan of Operation” for events and GPA CEQA Initial Study Checklist for rezoning the Community Park and changing the Parks land use designations. At what point is the Park Board going to share these development plans with the public?
The reason I ask this question, is there are many items and issues in the information the Park Board has now given the Planning Department (Michael Richardson) that completely contradict with what the communty had requested and made clear they did not want to have happen at SHCP meetings in 2009 and 2010!
Will this be talked about at the next SHCP meeting on Aug 18th?
Have you read these documents submitted to Planning on July 23, 2010? Maybe you could post them on the Parks web site?
Thanks
Ed Voice & Voice Family
July 30, 2010 at 7:10 pm
blacklist
According to the Park Board’s recent General Plan Amendment filed with the county, they intend to have principally permitted (in other words: unlimited) “commercial or non-profit” events like the Summer Arts and Music Festivals claiming that attendance at SAMF this year rose to 4000 per day. The Park Board says they are looking for a “stepped approach” to this event, beginning at “current attendance levels”…and “get the event firmly established and then evaluate for future growth potential. ”
So just for starters…principally permitted events with 4,000 attendees per day, plus one thousand vendors and workers, camping for one thousand, parking on the riverbed, on the orchard land, along Kimtu Road and at Tooby Memorial Park.
July 31, 2010 at 8:27 am
Eric Kirk
The Park Board will make the document available on its website soon. The rezoning will be on the next meeting’s agenda.
And while we disagree with your assessment of the plan in relationship to the community input, you will have opportunity to express your own opinion at the meeting.
As always, thank you for your input.
July 31, 2010 at 12:37 pm
edsvoice
Thanks Eric,
And its not my “assessment”, you had said on this very blog, that having SAMF with its current numbers was out of the question for the SHCP, what has changed? Had you approved the “Plan of Operation”?
Here is what one part of the plan states:
“Large Events”
The following types of events are included in the large event general operation plan:
Large Fundraisers and Events – Attendance of 500 to 1200, five seasonal events per year. This type of event often features multiple performers and performances by well-known groups or individuals that will likely attract more attendees. These events could cover a wide-range of musical genres, theater, dance performances, concerts and performances like the Mateel Community Center’s Humboldt Hills Hoedown or Jazz on the Lake. These event will take place in the event area in the new Public Facility zone
close to the tree line.
“The Summer Arts and Music Festival – Fairs and Festivals”
The Mateel Community Center’s Summer Arts and Music Festival is a good example of the kind of fairs and festivals we hope to have at the park. We will use this event as an example of a large event. The Summer Arts and Music Festival is a two-day family-friendly event that is now in its thirty-forth year. Summer Arts features a unique blending of local and regional musicians on three outdoor stages, roving entertainers, quality artisans displaying and selling wares, exhibits of fine arts displays, international cuisine, and on site educational workshops. Summer Arts and Music Festival has been experiencing and outpouring of community support and growth over the past few years. The year 2010 was the most financially successful year to date with attendance rising to 4000 per day. In addition, there are approximately 1000 workers and vendors at the event. The festival is open 14 hours on Saturday and 12 hours on Sunday. The attendance fluctuates over the course of the day and the total number of attendees on the site at any one time would be less than the one day total. We are looking for a stepped approach to this event, beginning at current attendance levels, working with the Mateel Community Center to relocate the event to the Community Park and get the event firmly established and then evaluate for future growth potential.
The festival currently takes place at the Benbow State Recreation Area in early June. Benbow State Recreation Area is close to the residential neighborhood of Benbow in a setting similar to the Southern Humboldt Community Park.
“Small Fundraisers and Events – attendance under 500 people, unlimited in number”
Many local nonprofit organizations and park user groups have used the park for fundraising activities. A few examples include the Hospice Barnyard Brew, the Humboldt Hills Hoedown, the Walk in the Park
(fundraiser for the local schools and the park) and Reggae Riding (mountain bike races). These are well attended events that bring a wide range of community members and interests groups together at the
Community Park. Most of these events include a variety of types of amplified music including prerecorded to live performances and from classical to popular music. These events can take place at the barn yard, in
the new Public Facility area, or at Tooby Memorial Park.
“General Hours of Event Operation”
Amplified music will end at 9:00pm when scheduled on weekdays (Sunday-Thursday) and at 12:00pm when scheduled on Friday and Saturday nights.
July 31, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Eric Kirk
As I said, we believe the proposed plan to be consistent with input from a broad cross-section of the community. However, you will be free to express your own opinions on the subject at the next public meeting.
August 1, 2010 at 9:02 am
edsvoice
That sounds nice Eric,
But what you and the Park Board “believe” is consistent with your own cross-section of the community and what over 300 people in this community DO NOT want at the Community Park are two completely different things. Just read the Park Boards own “Summary” from the March 18, 2009 Redway School meeting, its on the Park web site to read if you did not attend that meeting.
I sure hope you and the rest of the Park Board have set aside more than half an hour at the meeting for public comment on this issue. And maybe you could put something in the paper about the meeting this time!!!!
One more thing, maybe you should have someone from the Mateel Board at the meeting to answer questions, since it seems most of this is to allow the Mateel to have their Concerts & Festivals at the Park.