To discuss the emails between Rob Arkley and certain BOS members. 7:00 p.m. this evening on KMUD (91.1 in the southland, 88.3 up north).
Hank has posted a new batch of emails between Rob and Mark Lovelace. As Hank describes, it reads very much like a blog flame war, and in fact he sounds very much like a few of the anonymous posters here – complete with demands for Mark to waste his time to “prove” items of minutiae. Mark did make an overture at one point, which Rob received well.
Hopefully, by tonight, Hank will have posted the remainder of the County’s production in response to Hank’s public records request.
74 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 19, 2011 at 9:20 am
Mitch
I’m mystified that you’re joining in with the spin that these emails constitute a flame war, Eric.
The ones posted at the Lost Coast Outpost look to me like an elected official politely deflecting attacks by pointing out where the attacks are false, and finally giving up.
This meme of both-sides-are-guilty strikes me as extremely unfair to the elected official. If you feel his responses were inappropriate, I’d appreciate examples, side by side with how a more enlightened human being would have responded.
May 19, 2011 at 9:26 am
Eric Kirk
A good point Mitch. The latest posted round clearly involves one aggressor with the recipient Mark actually trying to defuse Rob. In fact, in reviewing the first round, I see only one borderline “inappropriate” response (and I mean that only in the sense that Mark should have kept his cool, not that there is equivalency in any sense of the word). And even the strong retort contained an olive branch.
Given the long list of documented lies that you have told about me, it is incongruous that you should profess any interest in the truth. As usual, the facts and evidence are solidly on my side and thus my faith in the truth does not require your concurrence. I will simply add this to the ever-growing list.
As always, though we obviously have disagreements I do truly look forward to someday finding an issue where we can work side by side. Of course to do so would require that you put the betterment of our community and our economy above your personal agenda. I remain ever hopeful that you may someday demonstrate such willingness.
That was of course in response to Rob’s email.
Funny, many people contradict what you assert occurred in that meeting.
Your problem is that you continue to be caught in lie after lie. Your credibility is very low. Look at what you told Mayor Frank about your trip to to State Lands. We supplied him with the proof that directly contradicted what you told him. Why would he listen to you again? That is hardly an isolated instance. Examples of your lackof veracity are numerous.
Truth matters. You just don’t seem to think that it does.For that reason, unless you are talking to a fellow traveler, your credibility will continue to wane. People are much smarter than you think.
And as a matter of fact, Mark did stand down. Rob did not.
May 19, 2011 at 9:33 am
Mitch
Thank you, Eric.
Anyone interested enough in deciding for themselves can go to the Lost Coast Outpost and spend a couple of minutes scanning the emails.
Hank Sims is doing the county an enormous service there by letting the public see what the public is entitled to see. And, as I’ve commented at his blog, I’d feel the same way even if the behaviors and their owners happened to be aligned opposite to the way they are.
May 19, 2011 at 9:37 am
Anonymous
Irony is that Arkley started this with his public records request.
May 19, 2011 at 10:02 am
ChumBolly
I’m also unsure just what Hank can add to the discussion. It seems clear that Arkley is behaving as Arkley always behaves — he’ll hammer you if you find yourself out of step with his views.
I think the emails speak loudly enough.
May 19, 2011 at 10:02 am
edsvoice
It is amazing Eric,
how you can be stirred emotionally on so many levels about this PRA request and yet you chastise local neighboring property owners for doing like-kind-same with their Supervisor.
Do as I say, not as I do, right Eric?
May 19, 2011 at 10:09 am
tra
It seems to me that in this round of e-mails, Lovelace comes off much better than in the first round. Pretty much kept his cool, didn’t descend to Arkley’s level.
But in the first round, I really don’t think that this paragraph constitutes an “olive branch.” I think it was intended, and received, as a condescending, sarcastic put-down.
As always, though we obviously have disagreements I do truly look forward to someday finding an issue where we can work side by side. Of course to do so would require that you put the betterment of our community and our economy above your personal agenda. I remain ever hopeful that you may someday demonstrate such willingness.
I mean really…if someone says that they hope that “someday” you might “demonstrate willingness” to “put the betterment of the community above your personal agenda,” would you take that as a sincere “olive branch,” or as just another passive-agressive attack?
Given all the abuse Arkley was heaping on him, I think it’s understandable that Lovelace got fed up and lashed out. But I think there is a real difference between how well he responded in the first set of e-mail exchanges that was posted on Lost Coast Outpost last week, and how he responded in the set of e-mail exchanges that was posted on Lost Coast Outpost yesterday.
Arkley, on the other hand, displayed the same kind of obnoxious blowhardism in both sets of e-mail exchanges. What’s amazing is that these e-mail exchanged came to light as a result of Akley making a Public Records request. In other words, he apparently wanted us to see these e-mail exchanges. I can understand how he might be blind to how bad he coms off in these exchanges, but I’m a bit surprised that his legal and public relations people would have gone along with the plan. Surely somebody on Team Arkley should have seen the potential for this to backfire?
So it seems like either his Public Relations people are incompetent, or they are yes-men (and yes-women) who saw the problem but failed to warn the emporer that he was strolling around buck-naked, or else his advisors warned him, but Arkley ignored them. Either way, Team Arkley comes off looking like a real Keystone Cop operation.
May 19, 2011 at 10:14 am
Eric Kirk
TRA – well, we wouldn’t be reading these emails if Hank hadn’t made his own request. Remember, Rob A. just wanted to be able to show that Mark had “leaked” his letter to Heraldo or someone else.
May 19, 2011 at 10:17 am
Mitch
tra,
Certainly the paragraph you cite showed sarcasm. The emails need to be read as a group.
If an elected official is not allowed to lose patience and issue a mildly sarcastic response after receiving a repeated chain of false accusations, even after he has responded to several prior emails, then no human being I know is qualified to be an elected official.
I think Mr. Lovelace comes off extremely well when he reaches out to Mr. Arkley after Mr. Arkley is forced into laying people off. It’s exactly what I’d hope for from an elected official — putting the human tragedy and the need for reconciliation first despite his or her personal feelings of having been repeatedly attacked.
May 19, 2011 at 10:22 am
tra
True, but Arkley started the ball rolling, and it seems like his advisors should have known that others might get curious about what was in those e-mails.
But perhaps Arkley never showed his advisors the content of his own e-mail exchanges with Lovelace. Or maybe he had already deleted those and didn’t remember exactly what was in them before he made his Public Records request (but I doubt that).
May 19, 2011 at 10:23 am
tra
Sorry, my 10:22 comment was a response to Eric’s 10:14.
May 19, 2011 at 10:33 am
Eric Kirk
I think Mr. Lovelace comes off extremely well when he reaches out to Mr. Arkley after Mr. Arkley is forced into laying people off. It’s exactly what I’d hope for from an elected official — putting the human tragedy and the need for reconciliation first despite his or her personal feelings of having been repeatedly attacked.
Definitely.
May 19, 2011 at 10:37 am
tra
Mitch,
I basically agree that, on the whole, Lovelace comes out of this looking pretty good, especially in the more recently-released set of e-mail exchanges. Overall, Arkley comes off looking like a buffoon, a bully, a hothead, and (with aplogies to actual donkeys) a braying jackass.
So I’m certainly not trying to draw some kind of equivalency between Lovelace and Arkley as far as their overall level of civility in their e-mails. But I would say that the first set of e-mail exchanges looked like more of a “flame-war” than the second set of e-mail exchanges, where Lovelace declined to “flame back” and at times actually did seem to try his best to douse the flames.
And I agree that the very last exchange listed on yesterday’s Lost Coast Outpost post, where they are talking about the impact of Security National’s layoffs, is an example of Lovelace sincerely trying to communicate with Arkley in a thoughful way. And, lo and behold, Arkley actually did recognize the olive branch for what it was, and responded appropriately.
But apparently that Kumbaya moment didn’t last very long….
May 19, 2011 at 10:40 am
Anonymous
Eric, will this segment be available on the KMUD audio archive?
May 19, 2011 at 10:41 am
Percy
If Arkley didn’t think up this brilliant public records request strategy himself then someone in his organization might be looking at a somewhat smaller Christmas bonus. What’s next, sending in the stealth video team with the hookers to Mark and Jimmy’s offices? This whole episode is hilarious except for the fact that his wealth enables him to wield so much political power in this area. Of course now that Hank has outed himself as a part of the “liberal media” all his creds are gone too.
May 19, 2011 at 11:13 am
edsvoice
The California Public Records Act (CA PRA)
“The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
– CA Public Records Act
http://www.thefirstamendment.org/capra.html
May 19, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Eric Kirk
Two points Ed. I have no objection to your using public records request to get information. I do object to your use of the law to quote things out of context in your perpetual gotcha games.
Secondly, I think the community would have been better off had Arkley not started this game. While we have to deal with it now, these emails were intended to be private communications and now will further polarize the community.
What is remarkable is the similarity in style between Rob’s emails and posts around here. I love the part where he accuses Mark of lying about his college degree. Mark in turn denies it. And therefore Mark now has the burden to prove Rob’s statement false. Seems like I’ve run into that kind of logic often.
But I’m not certain there is much of a community benefit to this. As usual it’s all about the rich guy.
May 19, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Dave
Daffy Duck is also on tonight (TV) but just think what a great radio interview he’d be!
May 19, 2011 at 12:33 pm
edsvoice
That is my point Eric,
As a lawyer you should be ashamed, calling this vital public information act “perpetual gotcha games”.
May 19, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Not A Native
Eric, I’ve noticed that the usual Arkley cheerleaders and apologists have been very quiet lately(especially Ginny Bass and Richard Marks). I assume they’re awaiting direction from central control.
But I’m a little dismayed that you are trying to do some Arkley damage control by suggesting apologies and dredging up memory of his past potentially meritorious actions. I attribute it to your defense attorney gene kicking in and wanting to paint as pretty a picture as possible as you would in defense of a client.
I wish you’d just come out and opine that Arkley is despiciable(and immoral), because that’s really the revealed truth here. There’s really no other honest way of characterizing his behavior. And theres no legal issue here, Mark isn’t suing for slander or defamation. So why contribute to a denial that ultimately harms the community’s ability to be united? Since you’ve written this blog is a passtime escape from law for you, why not actually make it so?
May 19, 2011 at 1:20 pm
Eric Kirk
Ed – I was actually referring to your particular use of it, which is very similar to Mr. Arkley’s.
NAN – In the experience of my profession and 47 years of life, I have a different view of human nature. I don’t see people as good or evil, or even moral or immoral. I believe those adjectives apply to acts, not people. We are, each of us, very complex organisms, capable of good deeds and bad.
Trying to intimidate public officials and acting like a bully is despicable. Donating to the benefit of the community is good. One does not negate the other. Together they generate complexity. And each of us strives to be a better person as we get older. Some of us succeed better than others.
It’s kind of a view I had even before I entered law, and what I’ve seen since has pretty much reinforced it. I don’t see black and white, but various shades of gray. Mr. Arkley is no exception.
May 19, 2011 at 1:21 pm
edsvoice
“I have no objection to your using public records request to get information. I do object to your use of the law to quote things out of context in your perpetual gotcha games”
Name one time, just one, that I, “use of the law to quote things out of context”. You started this, you finish it!
Funny how it was the Public Benefit Park Board that denied our requests. That we ended up finding the truth in the long run or end around. It would have been better for the Park Board if they complied to our request to begin with, but now it doesn’t look so public in public, does it…
May 19, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Culpepper
E, were you raised by a family of carnies?
May 19, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Mitch
Eric,
I’m surprised you don’t see much community benefit to this. In my opinion, any time the community is allowed to see the way a public person behaves when not under the glare of publicity, that is of enormous value. The value needs to be measured against the impact on the privacy rights of the persons involved. In this case, the communications were to and from a government official at their government email address, and should have no presumption of privacy.
Although this particular instance does not involve “family values,” I think information about the actual behavior of “family values” advocates is critical to informed debate. For example, I’d hate to live in a society in which a Newt Gingrich or a George Alan Rekers could keep their private lives from entering the public debate. We’re already too close to that sort of society now, at least for people in current power.
May 19, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Eric Kirk
Ed – Nice try, but I’m not going there. But you’re providing a classic example of what I’m talking about right now.
Mitch – Yesh, it shows that Arkley acts like a jerk, and it validates a lot of what people have said about him. But it also distracts from the material issues, makes them personal, and locks each camp into adversarial positions. The Arkley supporters will say, “well, Rob went a little too far this time, but when your property rights are being lost that kind of anger is understandable…’ sort of what the anti-abortionists say about clinic bombings (“I condemn all violent acts, but….”). And in any case, I’m never sanguine when someone is publicly pilloried, no matter how apparently deserving.
On the other hand, where I had reserved some judgment in the Larry Glass episode simply because I hadn’t been there and there are two (or more) sides to each story, I admit that these revelations do resolve the ambiguity for me. And to the extent that the disclosure presents strong circumstantial evidence of the origins of the anonymous hit mailer against Jimmy, and to the extent that Arkley’s handlers may take a more active role in restraining him from bullying of officials, there may be some public benefit. But I can’t help but think that this is just an opening salvo in what is going to be a very nasty campaign over the next year.
I do also hope that some folks in the Sohum parts rethink some of the alliances they’ve made over the GPU issue.
May 19, 2011 at 2:47 pm
edsvoice
“Ed – I was actually referring to your particular use of it, which is very similar to Mr. Arkley’s”
“When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.” ~John Muir
May 19, 2011 at 3:00 pm
edsvoice
“Ed – Nice try, but I’m not going there. But you’re providing a classic example of what I’m talking about right now”
Hellooooo, you can’t go there, because you can’t support your own claim what so ever, you live in a one way world or what ever direction deems it popular in that moment and time.
May 19, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Anonymous
Ask Hank how he feels being called a fake journalist when he casts that aspersion around all the damned time…
May 19, 2011 at 3:57 pm
ChumBolly
I do also hope that some folks in the Sohum parts rethink some of the alliances they’ve made over the GPU issue.
If only Estelle read your blog.
May 19, 2011 at 4:37 pm
Anonymous
Did you invite Rob Arkley as well?
May 19, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Mitch
“But it also distracts from the material issues, makes them personal, and locks each camp into adversarial positions.”
Judging by the email it’s a little late to be locking camps into adversarial positions.
If both sides were currently struggling to be polite, publicizing a stink-bomb somebody launched a year ago and now regrets might be unfortunate. But this is hardly an example of reigniting a fire that’s been mostly put out. Especially after “the shove,” people are entitled to this information.
May 19, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Dave Kirby
Ed V…..You’re not really going to move back to So Hum and listen to those backup alarms at Randall’s all day long are you?
May 19, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Not A Native
Yeah Mitch. Ever since Gallegos defeated Farmer and Kerrigan was elected, credible liberal candidates have emerged as never before. Political campaigns here have been very nasty ever since and that will continue as long as the conservative old guard has opposition.
If Eric wants only friendly political campaigns, he wants an autocratic republic like Tito’s Yugoslavia.
May 19, 2011 at 5:58 pm
edsvoice
Dave K…..
No, not if I can help it. But that was my plan. Thank you for asking. Maybe by then we will have another 100 year flood and nature will deal with it. You know, like a deep cleansing tea.
May 19, 2011 at 6:21 pm
ED Denson
Every now and then I like to remind people that edsvoice is not my voice, despite the similarity of names. I appreciate Kirby’s responding to him as “Ed V” & wish others would do the same. Thanks.
May 19, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Dave Kirby
Caught the show tonight Kirk and Sims. It really brought home to me just how much communication has changed in the last decade. Email is a whole different thing than sending a note. There is no time for reflection it becomes a stream of conscience exchange. The talk about what is a violation of the Brown Act in a cyber world was good. If a majority of the board receives a “chain” E mail and nobody responds is it a violation?
May 19, 2011 at 7:50 pm
edsvoice
Sorry Ed Denson, I don’t know what to say.
My blog name is edsvoice, not Ed or Ed V. Eric is the worst at using Ed.
I do like your name, even your initial’s spell ED, that is nice. Are you a Edward or Edmond or Eduard.
May 19, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Eric Kirk
Humboldt Mirror reports on Mark Lovelace emails to himself.
http://humboldtmirror.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/public-records-requests-turn-up-love-notes-lovelace-sends-to-himself/#comment-22157
Pretty funny actually. Sort of.
May 19, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Eric Kirk
Anybody looking for an exchange between Rob and Clif can find one through the link.
http://lostcoastoutpost.com/documents/doc/96193-re_-invitation/
Basically, Rob invited Clif to a party. Clif declines. Rob called Clif clueless.
And here Hank has posted the entire County production in alphabetical order.
http://lostcoastoutpost.com/documents/pra-emails-may-2011/subjects/
May 19, 2011 at 8:48 pm
Anonymous
FYI edsvoice, ED is Eugene Denson I do believe.
e, to compare this to WikiLeaks? Give me a break.
Talk about fanning the flames.
May 19, 2011 at 8:59 pm
Eric Kirk
I was joking btw. I had intended to ask Hank if he considered himself the local Julian Assange, but I got sidetracked.
May 19, 2011 at 9:04 pm
Eric Kirk
This is Rob’s letter to the Supervisors after the State rejected the Housing Element.
http://lostcoastoutpost.com/documents/doc/96197-housing-element/
And anotther Rob taunt attempt at Mark.
http://lostcoastoutpost.com/documents/doc/96022-i-will-talk-about-you-tomorrow-at-my-speech-at/
But this letter from Lee Ulansey to Jimmy Smith is pretty cool, and expresses some much needed humility and desire to reboot the tone of the discussion.
http://lostcoastoutpost.com/documents/doc/96120-re_-salt-river-project/
May 19, 2011 at 11:12 pm
Eric Kirk
Oh, and I also learned tonight that it was indeed not Mark Lovelace who flipped Randy Gans off. It was Josh Drayton.
http://lostcoastoutpost.com/2011/may/19/mystery-solved-gans-flipper-offer-steps-forward/
May 20, 2011 at 8:06 am
Anonymous
Eric Kirk
I was joking btw.
(again, not a joking matter)
what is it with you and the jokes on such matters of consequence.
Trying to compare Hank to Julian Assange. What a putz e.
Maybe Hank would put himself under house arrest then. Are you going to take the role of Bradley Manning?
May 20, 2011 at 8:55 am
Eric Kirk
I’ve just removed the first post which was ostensibly by Richard Salzman. He has informed me that it was a faux Salzman.
FYI to the poster playing games with that, impersonation on blogs has actually led to a criminal conviction in the state of New York.
http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2010/10/dead-sea-scrolls-scholars-son-convicted-of-identity-theft-forgery-and-harassment-789.html
May 20, 2011 at 10:22 am
ED Denson
Hi edsvoice, actually I am “Eugene” but in my high school years took my inititals to form “ED” which is the name I have gone by for many years. When I became a lawyer and had to make court appearance and sign legal documents I had to revert to my “legal” name of Eugene for some purposes.
I agree that refering to you and your posts as “edsvoice” would be best. No chance of error, and, as you point out, it is the name you post under. The worse useage is to refer to you as “Ed” since not everyone spells “ED” with both caps when refering to me, and confusing us with each other does not benefit either of us. Now we have agreed, I wonder what the odds are that the other posters will take note?
May 20, 2011 at 10:52 am
edsvoice
Well ED,
we will have to see what happens and go from there. Thats one reason I use “edsvoice”. Since my first name is “Ed” (Eduard) and my last name is “Voice”. There are too many “Ed Voice” web links out there that have to do with education etc. I guess if push comes to shove, I can start using my middle name “Melvin”……..
May 20, 2011 at 11:10 am
Anonymous
Better ask that question of e, he is the worst offender.
May 20, 2011 at 11:12 am
edsvoice
“FYI to the poster playing games with that, impersonation on blogs has actually led to a criminal conviction in the state of New York”
Eric, could you please cite that case and conviction for us?
May 20, 2011 at 11:23 am
edsvoice
Eric,
Have you seen or read:
http://humboldtherald.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/arkley-unlimited/
Did you know about Redway, Inc. ?
snip
(Sorry Ed with a small “d,” that was off topic and misleading anyway)
May 20, 2011 at 11:59 am
Eric Kirk
Eric, could you please cite that case and conviction for us?
Ed with a small “d,” when you see the blue letters, it means there’s a link. I don’t put them up there for decoration.
May 20, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Anonymous
Great show last night Eric. But I don’t think local listeners really care one way or another about Rob Arkley. He does not affect their lives.
May 20, 2011 at 2:52 pm
edsvoice
See what I mean ED,
Eric has found a way to make it clear, in his own Lollapalooza way.
Cork one up and have a grape day………
May 20, 2011 at 6:15 pm
misc,
Ed with a small “d,” that’s great eric LOL , great way to end the work week!!!
May 21, 2011 at 6:33 am
anon
BTW, the term for the local breed is:
“HIPNECK”
May 21, 2011 at 10:07 am
Cristina Bauss
“Great show last night Eric. But I don’t think local listeners really care one way or another about Rob Arkley. He does not affect their lives.”
Sorry for picking on you, Anon, but this strikes me as classic SoHum thinking. SoHum is not a self-contained world; it’s part of a greater region that, in turn, is part of a bigger world. To say that Rob Arkley “does not affect the lives” of local listeners is simply myopic. What happens in Eureka DOES affect lives down here.
May 21, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Eric Kirk
I agree Cristina, though I wonder if the statement wasn’t made in sarcasm. Hard to tell.
May 21, 2011 at 6:36 pm
edsvoice
I don’t mean to pick on you Cristina,
But what does this PRA email have to do with any community in Humboldt?
I mean what public significance do these PRA’s have? It just seems to me its all political and personal to a select group of people.
The public love’s Dirty Laundry.
Just like people watch NASCAR for racing, Playboy for the articles, reality TV for the acting and the ENQUIRER for facts.
May 21, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Eric Kirk
Ed, I think you just made Cristina’s point. What Rob Arkley does to intimidate public officials does in fact have a significant impact on all of us who live in Humboldt County. There are certain people who try to get their way through intimidation, multiple emails, etc., and when it involves someone of Arkley’s gravitas and power, it’s a big deal.
May 21, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Anonymous
Gravitas,
1. Substance; weightiness:
2. A serious or dignified demeanor:
Eric, where in this definition does Arkley fit?
May 21, 2011 at 8:17 pm
edsvoice
Thank you Cristinith,
You need to re-read my post Eric. My God, you read intimidation into everything!
This was a rich guy throwing a temper tantrum, that has now been seen in public. You think he cares? Nobody cares and it doesn’t effect anyone unless you want it to. Why do you support his power? He must love all of this power you are giving him. And you need to look up gravitas again.
Let Cristina answer my question, please……..
May 21, 2011 at 9:06 pm
Anonymous
Eric, where in this definition does Arkley fit?Substance; weightiness:
May 21, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Anonymous
Isn’t fat a substance that is weighty?
May 22, 2011 at 10:50 am
Cristina Bauss
Sorry, Ed, I just saw your comment and question. I actually don’t check in that often anymore!
When responding to Anon’s comment, I wasn’t referring to the PRA in particular, but rather, to the general idea that local listeners don’t care about Arkley because he doesn’t affect their lives. I would argue that he does, for the simple reason that he appears to hold a lot of weight in northern Humboldt politics, and northern Humboldt politics do, indeed, affect the lives of people in southern Humboldt (much as some of them would like to think of themselves as self-contained and independent).
For example, the fight over the GPU has arguably been the biggest story in Humboldt County for some time now, splitting the community in ways both predictable (i.e., Arcata environmentalists vs. big timber interests) and not so predictable (i.e., Arcata environmentalists, who apparently favor clustering people in urban areas, vs. SoHum environmentalists, who have very different conceptions of responsible land use). The policies and candidates Arkley supports may be disproportionately powerful in county politics, given his wealth and influence, and influence SoHum for the simple reason that what happens in Eureka affects everyone in the county.
Hope that answer isn’t too muddled. I’m not exactly on top of my game this morning.
May 22, 2011 at 8:01 pm
edsvoice
Thank’s Cristina,
Yes, depending opon what does happen up north can effect SoHum, like Richardson Grove, just to name one. And yes the GPU is a very big deal and what happens effects SoHum. But this PRA email thing was more like a tit for tat, that it didn’t even deserve 15 minutes of fame, let alone an hour show on public radio. The KMUD show/interview was undeserved. Who did it benefit? Everyone is looking for something that doesn’t exist.
Now I will post this again and if you can point out where it applys in this situation, please feel free:
“The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
– CA Public Records Act
May 22, 2011 at 8:33 pm
Anonymous
It figures that Ed would defend Arkley.
May 23, 2011 at 6:58 am
mresquan
edsvoice,I gather from your recent comments here that you don’t live here.If you did,you’d know that Rob is aligned with HumCPR and Sunshine Humboldt,with Sunshine in particular taking actions due to a perception that the housing element of the GPU and the way that land use is currently determined by the County is out of compliance with state law,and in order to come into compliance,some landowners and developers should be able to work together to build some subdivisions if they wish,an argument used that more housing creates more affordable housing,which in their view is now a need not being met.They see development in SoHum as being a way to solve their perceived problems,and use the property rights mantra as a philosophical backing.It’s early,and I am not being nearly concise enough,so I won’t even get into Arkley’s financial influence on state and national politics.
May 23, 2011 at 7:29 am
edsvoice
mresquan,
since I don’t live in the area, please keep going, I want to know more about these developers in SoHum and what their plans are? Can you give me more examples of Arkley in the SoHum area?
If I am wrong, please educate me. Thanks
May 23, 2011 at 8:15 am
Anonymous
“The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.”
That statement should have some consequence and apply to the sohum corporate park and it’s corporate park board.
mresquan, sohum doesn’t need any help in developing or development. We have Mckee and his ilk, and the corporate park board trying to develop park land.
May 23, 2011 at 8:23 am
Anonymous
Ed Voice is a developer’s dream. Unless you are a nonprofit. Only for profit developers need apply.
May 23, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Eric Kirk
You know, I really think there’s a serious literacy problem in this country. I’ve just read through this discussion, and it’s amazing what people read into what other people say.
Let’s just be clear.
1. Ed is not saying that he supports Rob Arkley’s activities. He just doesn’t see verbal or written abuse of public officials as intimidation, and he doesn’t believe that Arkley is relevant to anything happening in Sohum.
2. Mark did not say that there are “examples of Arkley” in Sohum. He said that northern developers are using Sohum rural development restriction issues to their political advantage countywide to frame the issue in their favor re the GPU.
Obviously literacy is compromised when you can only see the world through a lens framed by your own particular issues.
May 23, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Eric Kirk
mresquan is Mark Ed, and no, you aren’t hijacking this thread for your anti-park agenda. Nice try though.
May 24, 2011 at 7:22 am
mresquan
“Can you give me more examples of Arkley in the SoHum area?”
Ed,you should know that Jimmy’s district(my district) runs from just south of Shelter Cove up to south Eureka.Mr.Arkley,has no problem distorting that residents in the first district are tired of Jimmy,and will do whatever it takes to see him ousted.
May 24, 2011 at 11:17 am
edsvoice
mresquan;
remember, as you pointed out, I don’t live here! So I should just shut up and keep out of it, right? Eric censors out most my posts anyway. So who cares. and its North of the Cove, not South.
http://co.humboldt.ca.us/board/supdist.pdf