Recent Comments
 | Ed Voice on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
 | Eric Kirk on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
 | Unk John on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
 | Ed Voice on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
 | Anonymous on Darryl Cherney to Join Me on K… |
| Anonymous on Priorities |
 | Forest Queen on Priorities |
 | suzy blah blah on Darryl Cherney to Join Me on K… |
 | MIss Criyant on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| Unk John on Darryl Cherney to Join Me on K… |
| suzy blah blah on Darryl Cherney to Join Me on K… |
| Unk John on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| suzy blah blah on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| Unk John on Darryl Cherney to Join Me on K… |
| suzy blah blah on Darryl Cherney to Join Me on K… |
17 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 7, 2011 at 9:27 am
Bruce Ross
A question from a clueless but bemused outsider: How’d the backbone highway of the California coast end up winding through old-growth redwoods in a state park in the first place?
July 7, 2011 at 5:24 pm
tra
I seem to remember a lot of complaints from the supporters of the RG re-alignment project who claimed that this was just a frivolous lawsuit with no real chance of winning — and even some predictions that EPIC’s case would be “laughed out of court.”
Given that in order to issue this injunction, the judge had to find that the plaintiffs would be “likely to succeed” at trial, and the judge did indeed make such a finding, it sure looks like those characterizations and predictions were dead wrong.
July 7, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Eric Kirk
TRA – not to downplay the granting of the injunction, which is a very important win for the plaintiffs, but I have prevailed in two trials after losing at the preliminary injunction phase when the other side had to demonstrate a “likelihood of prevailing on the merits.” Showing a likelihood in a short hearing is far from a guarantee of actually winning at trial.
However, this is very significant.
July 7, 2011 at 6:23 pm
tra
Oh I realize this does not guarantee that the plaintiffs would win at trial, or anything like that, but I do think it shows that the claims that there was no substance to the lawsuit, the claims that it was merely a PR ploy and delaying tactic, and the predictions that it would be “laughed out of court” have been shown to be inaccurate.
July 7, 2011 at 7:17 pm
doofus
Bruce, as was mentioned, one state park site stated that the highway lobby pushed for the road through the park which had been established in 1922.
(thanks Eric!)
July 7, 2011 at 7:41 pm
Anonymous
There is no place on earth like Richardson Grove. It is a beautiful, one-of-a-kind scenic drive. Why not make RG and the 101 a scenic safety corridor? The safety corridor between Eureka and Arcata has virtually eliminated accidents. Make the Park the feature that it deserves to be. They are looking at the road as a problem, instead of an asset and the most spectacular drive on earth, seeing trees that are thousands of years old.
July 8, 2011 at 11:53 am
Dave Kirby
I would like Mr. Mc Bride to explain to us all why the existing road thru the park and the Avenue of the Giants has had zero effect on the old growth with their trunks a few inches from the pavement. Im sure this will be brought up as the legal stuff goes forward. I’ve actually had a few paranoid airheads tell me the’re widening the road so the military can use it when hey crack bown on Humboldt. When you get past the environmental smoke screen this all about the anti big box elitist’s snow job.
July 8, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Bolithio
I could be wrong, but wont this entire case hinge on technicality? It is impossible to say no harm will come to anything. Or in other words, there is always a potential impact. So even though we all know how strong redwood trees are, we all know that straitening the road will not involve cutting down OG trees – they can win in court becuase of the language of environmental documentation for projects. The State ends up looking stupid, EPIC continues to justify their existence, and inefficiency marches on.
EPIC certainly has become less and less relevant for bonafide environmental causes in my view. It must be a symptom of getting older. Less idealism, more money.
July 8, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Dave Kirby
B….I agree, EPIC started to lose my support when they came out of the woods and opposed the Target store. I really am tired of these folks telling me where I can shop. Its ironic that many of these champions of the working class have never had a real job. But hey…they chased Hurwitz out of town and the timber industry is on it’s ass until they start building things again so they need to manufacture issues.
July 9, 2011 at 8:04 am
Anonymous
Widening the Grove is regressive and dumb, especially when considering our documented situation of energy decline. If we were smart, we’d be delighted with our off the beaten track county, and it’s unique local businesses, and creating strategies to support each other.
Only those who have their heads in the sand (or a head full of sand) could compare an ancient tree with the opportunity to buy more cheap Chinese trinkets……..
I’d say people are dumber than rocks but then that’s be an insult to rocks!
July 9, 2011 at 8:43 am
Anonymous
Dave – Maybe you and Bunny should move to L.A. where you can live in an environment that would be better suited to the both of you.
July 9, 2011 at 11:25 am
Bolithio
I just noticed that EPIC no longer lets you comment on their blog. That means I cant harass them anymore by pointing out all the spin and naive assumptions their authors tend to pen. But mostly it showcases the fact that they have moved to the wrong side of the issues. The EPIC people who undoubtedly possess critical thinking skills are all too aware of the holes in many of their arguments and causes. This case, one built completely on classical propaganda is a dulling example of the organizations need to censor their blog.
Pretty weak EPIC.
July 10, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Bunny
Anonymous, I don’t get it? why send us to L.A? And also, can you at least say why you are anonymous?
July 10, 2011 at 12:19 pm
suzy blah blah
If we were smart, we’d be delighted with our off the beaten track county, and it’s unique local businesses, and creating strategies to support each other
But the bigger STAA trucks are part of the “national standard”, don’t you wanta be standardized?
July 10, 2011 at 11:03 pm
troy
Q: Exactly what law is Cal-trans alleged to be braking?
A: CEQA
Q: In what way?
A: As astonishing as it may sound, a small group of activists are claiming that widening the hwy will “significantly” impact Redwoods
Q: Is the Redwood an endangered species?
A: No it’s not.
Q: So how is it that the potential impacts to a few individual trees can be significant?
A: CEQA prohibits impacts that could potentially cause significant impacts to non-listed species
Q: Does that include impacts to non-listed individuals?
A: No, significance under CEQA is defined as in terms of populations
Q: Is this project likely to significantly impact the old-growth redwood population?
A: Given that there are about 250,000 old-growth redwood trees in parks and preserves, and that cutting these trees is all but outlawed, the potential impact of a few individual trees as a result of widening the hwy can not be significant
Q: so why did the judge grant this injunction
A: Hard to know. CEQA is a very nuanced lawyers unfortunately do not have the biological skills to properly interpret environmental law. Considering that legal firms representing environmental groups get paid even if they lose, this brings an tremendous incentive to litigate. The result is that infrastructure development is costing the states tax payers way more than in other states, or countries for that matter. Pressing up the expense of upgrading and improving our infrastructural, this state has little to show for the exorbitant cost of “environmental protection”. Much like small vocal interest groups opposing abortion or sex education in schools, extremist groups have done their best to obfuscate and misrepresent the issue for their own proposes. Careful reading of their argument reveals that this has less to do with trees and more to do with a perceived lifestyle. Mostly, it’s about trucks and the Luddites that oppose them. But as socio-economic issues are not covered under CEQA, potential threats to redwoods are a much better shill with which to con the public and a well meaning judge.
Q: Are you from LA?
A: No, I’m from a social democratic country that has an healthy distrust of lawyers and would never dream of wasting this kind of treasure on frivolities.
July 11, 2011 at 3:58 am
Terri
Sorry, Troy, but your A’s are based on misinformation and you draw dubious conclusions.
“Q: Exactly what law is Cal-trans alleged to be braking?”
A: NEPA–a Federal law, which is why this was in Federal court
So, all comments that reference CEQA and your own personal anal-ysis are just plain N/A. I’m sure you have the scientific credentials that you insist are lacking for environmental lawyers.
What’s the state of the environmental health of forests in your former country of residence, and if it’s so unlikely to engage in “frivolities,” are you now living here in the USA? Why?
July 12, 2011 at 11:48 am
Bruce Ross
I was reminded during drives the past week that Highway 128 — the primary route to Mendocino/Fort Bragg from the south — passes through roughly 10 miles of Navarro River Redwoods State Park. The fit is not as tight and the scenery not as awe-inspiring as Richardson Grove, but the theme is the same.
I’ve go to think the early park promoters knew what they were doing when it came to restricting highway growth.