Passed 4 to 1. Despite the opposition from a local business owner concerned that he wouldn’t make enough money with the plan as is.
According to the Times Standard article, Supervisor Rex Bohn dissented, but the article doesn’t explain. In fact, later in the article Rex is quoted as dismissing the appeal from the business owner as “economic issues” that can’t be addressed. Does anybody know why Rex voted against?
Interesting to see that the CHP estimated 25,000 in attendance at previous events. The cap this year is 8000.
Sohum Parlance II 
108 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 12, 2013 at 11:28 am
Anonymous
Let’s do it right this time!
February 12, 2013 at 12:13 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Maybe, Supervisor Bohn voted against because of the filth (pee and poop in the river), criminals and drugs that are rampant. Marijuana is no problem, but there exists much harder core drugs onsite. Anyone who attends or has attended in years past should already know this from historical experiences.
Personally, HOJ would have “created mitgations” that favor the business losses from the impacts to the circulation element snafu that has yet to make it in the GPU process for big events with limited infrastructer access/exit points.
An example would be make the ROTR construct an “infrastructure modal plan” for pedestrian consumers and vehicular consumers; or, pay a sum of money as a royalty (based upon a percentage of ticket sales to the business to “make-up” for the loss in business. The business might not have received EXACTLY the amount of $$$$$ that it claims, but a reasonable “fair share” it should. Liken it to royalty rates between musical artists and online sites that distribute the artists’ music.
HOJ believes ROTR is an asset to the south county’s tourist and economic bases, but better mitigations could have assured the businesses could “support” and not “oppose” such a civic event. – HOJ
February 12, 2013 at 12:45 pm
Anonymous
Here’s how it looks to me: The business owner will benefit handsomely from the presence of so many customers, even with the approved traffic control measures. In other words, he will get significantly more business that weekend than he would have if the festival was not there. And everyone knows it.
But “more” is apparently not enough — the business owner believes he has a right to every last dollar that he could possibly make, if the traffic plan was different. Apparently he sees the difference between his gain (with the approved traffic plan) and his maximum potential gain (if the traffic plan was more to his benefit) as a shortfall that someone owes him, and which someone should compensate him for. This is because, in his view, he has “a right to those customers on a daily basis.” Never mind that thousands of those potential customers are being brought right to his doorstep through no effort of his own.
February 12, 2013 at 1:24 pm
amimissingsomething
Lovelace said on record this was a Civil matter between 2 parties and should head to the court room as such. I have never heard a more Arrogant answer when something requires a County permit and thus Supervisor input for and to the County permit. Wake up Humboldt this is one more Supervisor who should be voted Out Of the Piggy wallow as well as Cheeseboro!
February 12, 2013 at 1:40 pm
Eric Kirk
Lovelace said on record this was a Civil matter between 2 parties and should head to the court room as such. I have never heard a more Arrogant answer when something requires a County permit and thus Supervisor input for and to the County permit. Wake up Humboldt this is one more Supervisor who should be voted Out Of the Piggy wallow as well as Cheeseboro!
Yeah, good luck with that!
Here’s how it looks to me: The business owner will benefit handsomely from the presence of so many customers, even with the approved traffic control measures. In other words, he will get significantly more business that weekend than he would have if the festival was not there. And everyone knows it.
I’ve been reading and hearing the discussions, and I’m straining for an alternative interpretation. Does he have any advocates here who can explain?
Maybe, Supervisor Bohn voted against because of the filth (pee and poop in the river), criminals and drugs that are rampant. Marijuana is no problem, but there exists much harder core drugs onsite. Anyone who attends or has attended in years past should already know this from historical experiences.
He opposes it because he wants to protect the environment and discourage drug use?
Okay.
February 12, 2013 at 2:37 pm
Cookie
From the Independent-
“…..with Bohn casting a dissent vote. As a former management employee with Renner Petroleum, he’d had a professional relationship with the Bowmans.”
Maybe Bohn should have recused himself from this vote because of the professional relationship.
February 12, 2013 at 2:54 pm
Anonymous
In the Times-Standard article, they quote the owner as saying:
”Obviously, there’s a few more people coming into the store. It does increase our business a smidgen.”
Maybe he really believes that he’ll lose more money by missing out on northbound traffic that won’t be able to turn left into his gas station, than he’ll gain back due to the “smidgen” of increased business he’s expecting from festival-related customers.
But I doubt it. I think it really comes down to a difference between him making a nice windfall profit thanks to ROTR, or him making an even bigger windfall profit thanks to ROTR.
Naturally he’d rather make the even bigger windfall profit. But it’s not the job of the Supervisors, the Planning Commission, CalTrans, or CHP to guarantee him the biggest possible profit.
February 12, 2013 at 2:59 pm
Anonymous
If I had the resources, I would be tempted to offer this guy the following bet:
If your gas station / convenience store makes less money on the ROTR weekend than the average of the two weekends before and after it, I’ll pay you the difference. If you make more money on the ROTR weekend than the average of the two weekends before and after it, you split the difference with me, 50-50.
From his point of view, that’s win-win, right? Either I make up his losses and he at least stays even, or he ends up ahead, even after paying me 50% of his gains.
But I have a feeling he wouldn’t accept the bet. If I were him, I wouldn’t either.
February 12, 2013 at 3:21 pm
Mark Lovelace
amimissingsomething, I never suggested anyone should go to court. To the contrary, I noted that we all had an interest in helping them resolve what was essentially a private dispute, but that the appeal process was an inappropriate forum for trying to do so.
February 12, 2013 at 3:37 pm
HUUFC
Dirt bag alert, hitchhikers in dirty clothing headed North. Watch out for shoplifters and don’t drink the water from the Eel.
February 12, 2013 at 8:33 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
To no one in particular, but based on some comments above:
1) If ROTR brings in extra people into the community, why can’t the businesses benefit from that, but be forced into a “maximum quota”…just a thought.
2) What modal plan is a plan that disallows northbound traffic to be consumers of those businesses? What is telling is that “officials in high places” have deemed a safety concern for n/b traffic crossing s/b lane to get to businesses (food, bathrooms and fuel fill-up). It seems ROTR’s mass influx of people renders the infrastructure as under-accessible and underperforming. This should be the responsibility of the ROTR organizers to mitigate, not the other way around. The businesses have been there long before ROTR.
3) Is Supervisor Bohn anti environment when it comes to P&P in the river, or hard core drugs that, somehow, gets into the urinary tract of humans and gets deposited into the bellies of fish and other aquaitc life. It may be true that Supe Bohn supports the businesses for the same reason many others support the businesses and their right to “entertain consumer bases”. Do we, as Humboldtians, accept that businesses don’t deserve increased consumer bases from time to time when that increase is NOT DUE TO THE BUSINESSES, but that of special event organizers and its patrons? Wow, such double standards.
Sincerely,
HOJ
February 12, 2013 at 9:46 pm
Anon
“Maybe Bohn should have recused himself from this vote because of the professional relationship.”
maybe loveless should have recused himself from this vote because of his long standing agenda against anyone who is not a far left wing nut.
February 12, 2013 at 9:55 pm
ICU812
I thought the inference and object of ROTR was a direct not-for-profit fundraiser for both the Mateel and the other Mateel tribe not-for-profits in the local community. And if by happenstance or sheer location, if for-profit businesses profited indirectly it was a win win for everyone, because as the Mateel has said there is more than enough money to spread around in the whole community.
But then in the mid 2000’s it got real big, as some people said, too big to fail. But it ended up being to big to control and then failed.
So everything has gone full circle, ROTR is being re-born again at its birth place and some people feel its a birth right. If this was not about money, what would you call it?
I often wonder if this could happen on any other river in Humboldt County. Maybe the Mateel could bottle the river water down stream during the festival and sell it, call it “A Reggae memory in a bottle”. No, that wouldn’t work, the warning label would cost to much to print.
February 13, 2013 at 7:35 am
anon says
Wow, Mark Lovelace must be a very insecure person if he feels the need to peruse anonymous blogs and then actually respond to anonymous comments about himself.
February 13, 2013 at 7:50 am
moviedad
Erik, what was the deal with the “Bowman (Sr.?)” on the Mud, talking about the “Mateel” not “Negotiating” with them concerning the sale of the “Dimmick” ranch? I didn’t get that at all. Is the Mateel, after getting completely screwed over by that group, supposed to jump in and solve their problems? You know a lot more about this, so what’s the deal? Why does this guy think the Mateel owes them anything?
February 13, 2013 at 8:11 am
Anonymous
Mark Lovlace is wrong and out of touch when he said that this was nothing more than a personal dispute between neighbors and didn’t belong in front of the Supervisors.
I looked at the plan map and the event had cones blocking north bound traffic from turning left into the Patriot station. Thats bad enough, but then they had fencing and cones that also severely blocked south bound traffic from easily entering into the station. Luckily the other Supes negotiated with the CHP and some of the south bound fencing and cones will be removed and also the CHP will allow left turns in and out. This would not have happened if there was not an appeal.
I am a local business owner as well, and ROTR definitely has impacts ( good and bad) on not just our business’ but our community and ecosystem as well; but I am glad that they found a compromise because I would say that most people want ROTH to happen.
February 13, 2013 at 8:51 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Good history, thoughts and questions both ICU812 and Moviedad.
One thing about “non-profits” is that the name/phrase is very misleading in that “non-profit” really means “all expenses paid”, including earned labor/wages. This is the “joke” about “names and tax status of organizations” to make it appear as if there is some “great need” for subsidy partly to attain less government regulations for mitigations. Simply raising costs (including labor/wages) to cover for higher ticket sales is a means to not be called (for profit).
Of course, the volunteers are what makes any event realise subsidized costs as they don’t really get paid much or at all; and, there still exists past volunteers and 3rd party services who got stiffed! Everything in life has its impacts and civic events should not be allowed to “skirt mitigations” so that the event is less responsible for its fair share impacts. Unfortunately, ROTR is a “brand name” that elected officials wilt under pressure to not “force mitigations” that would otherwise be subjected “objectively” upon other civic events and organizers, and for that matter, regualr ole folks. ROTR could still be successful and pay its fair share for impacts to the rest of the comunity, especially since many of the patrons of ROTR are “outsider imports from various other counties and states”. If these patrons can afford to buy a ticket and travel from afar, they sure as can hell afford to pay a higher ticket price, imo. – HOJ
February 13, 2013 at 9:27 am
ICU812
I believe ROTR tickets already went up by $30 per ticket just before February and after Bowman filed his appeal.
So if I purchased 2 tickets at $190 each, how much can I write off on my taxes, buying a ticket to ROTR should be a donation since the Mateel is a 501c3 and they are calling it a “fundraiser”?.
Wow, I think that would be great.
February 13, 2013 at 9:44 am
Eric Kirk
Talk to you CPA.
February 13, 2013 at 9:54 am
bolithio
The best part of all of this is all the privileged white females who will willingly submit themselves to the highly suppressive rasta. For every wanna-be-african head-wrapped dready turban, there is a life of denial and oppression while they ironically sing about love, equality, and peace… or money, status and murder if its dance hall (which is 50%+ of ROTR’s line-up)
February 13, 2013 at 9:55 am
Cookie
February 13, 2013 at 8:11 am
Anonymous
“Luckily the other Supes negotiated with the CHP and some of the south bound fencing and cones will be removed and also the CHP will allow left turns in and out. This would not have happened if there was not an appeal.”
I think this statement is a lie. The CHP said even before the appeal if traffic and safety conditions allowed, in the on the ground moment, traffic would be allowed to make left hand turns. You must be a Bowman still trying to stir up shit. Your family really needs to stop being so greedy, and stop bullying people.
February 13, 2013 at 10:58 am
ICU812
That isn’t exactly true Eric, a CPA has nothing to do with my question. The IRS requires all 501c3 tax exempt organizations to provide donors with a disclosure statement regarding quid pro quo value for any payments of $75 or more to attend a fundraiser. The disclosure must provide an estimated value received by the donor and specify that only the excess value of the gift may be deducted from the individual’s federal taxes.
So the question for the Mateel would be, how much of the $190 ticket is deductable, what is the “fair market value”?
February 13, 2013 at 12:10 pm
anonymous
Poor insecure Mark Loveless seems to be wrapping himself in anonymous “Cookie” wrappers :)~
February 13, 2013 at 12:33 pm
Eric Kirk
ICU – It’s your “donation” and thus your deduction. It’s between you, your CPA, and the IRS. If you require some documentation from the Mateel upon purchase, I’m sure they’ll be happy to provide it to you.
anonymous – Cookie is not Mark Lovelace. I can vouch for that.
February 13, 2013 at 2:53 pm
Jane
Mark is right on spot. Think of it as a slippery slope. Everytime a business goes in somewhere, changes something, or adds something the neighbors could dial up the Planning Commission to complain about potential, not actual, harm to their business and have the Planning Commission pour over business receipts, hear testimony, call witnesses, and all of the above to fairly portion out some perceived or prospective damage to the income of the business owner.
It isn’t, whatever the outcome, going to put the station out of business. Mark’s point is it is not the job of the Planning Commission to be elected jurors, litigators, or anything else related to these type of complaints. The Planning Commission has a defined job to do and it has done it.
Thank you Mark for understanding what the scope of job entails.
And, no, before you ask. I am not Mark’s brother, sister, father, mother, pastor, ex-school teacher, lover, girlfriend, wife, child, dog or cat. But I appreciate the comment in advance of the actual impugning of my reputation as a poster.
February 13, 2013 at 4:40 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Jane,
but only two very plain points:
1) The businesses are there year round and were there prior to ROTR ever being a conceptual event turned real.
2) It is the duty of the Planning Commission (and supes if applicable) to ensure that mitigations are created and enforced for public civic events such as this so that “existing businesses” are not disallowed their normal daily practices, responses and activities to engage in business (like losing patrons due to the n/b lane being off-limits for left hand turns across the s/b lane, even though it is ok for the other 362 days out of the year).
Maybe, just maybe, the Planning Commissioners “wimped-out” on stricter mitigations because of previous events that “stiffed volunteers, fire personnel, 3rd party servicers, etc…” , and wanted to see those still owed from past events get paid finally with proceeds that should have also been used for stricter mitigations. Yet again, another ROTR event still does near nothing to mitigate for any business along the s/b lane which is being told they won’t get n/b travelers for customers for three days and three nights. So, in effect, where is the equal protection of laws when what is normally normal is taken away for 3 days.
Lastly, if a 3 day weekend costs $65 to $95 for 8,000 plus patrons, do you have any cognizant suggestions as to why “proper mitigations” could not have been put in place to allow n/b traffic to get across s/b traffic in order to shop at the businesses (Many Richardsen Grove activists wanted a one way signal – this could have occured for a 3 day event, but alas, nope). Yet again, popularity of a branded civic event is prejudiced and biased against longstanding businesses. This dillemna has had years upon years for the Planning Commission to pull its head out of their asses, and yet, even with newly seated members, most of the Planning Commission is a bunch of defunct non-thinkers. Apparantly, to mitigate is to lose election votes for the supervisors who appointed the commissioners. Just sayin’. – HOJ
February 13, 2013 at 5:41 pm
moviedad
Hello…….? Is this thing on?
February 13, 2013 at 7:32 pm
Isabelle Ringing
In the end, there won’t be any cones, or rules or mitigations. It’ll be the same lawless capitalist free for all that sells so many tickets.In fact, that’s why the mateel wants it so bad on private property, so can’t nobody tell anybody what to do.
There are no mitigations for what this blow-out does to the enviromnent. But hey, the “non-profit environmentalists” have their fundraising and “information” booths there so surely it is all good.
February 13, 2013 at 7:37 pm
ICU812
HOJ, its a four day event, as in 4 days, Aug 1st thru Aug 4th. And its $250 per person for 4 days and $190 per person for 3 days. Not counting how many days it takes to clear everyone out and go home.
February 14, 2013 at 8:04 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
ICU812,
I was making an “educated guess” on a per day pricing range. Thanks for the 4 day totals. Now, if multiplied by 8000 plus patrons, that is a lot of money! This suggests that ROTR could have ensured a “modal operations plan” which could have allowed the businesses along the s/b lanes to not be nixed by the closure of access points of n/b traffic not being allowed to cross s/b lanes to access businesses along that side of the road.
If supervisor Mark Lovelace feels it is a lawsuit issue, then why did the county choose a side? Usually, if a blatant statement is made about private vis a vis private lawsuits, then neither party would get a “defacto decision” by any public agency (if at all) until after the court decides who does what and how much. Maybe, the court process would have been too long and ROTR could not happen due to delays.
The Planning Commission’s job is to deal with the impacts to the public infrastructure and make sure all property owners and businesses (through their property owners) within 300 feet of the property lines are “publicly noticed”. Also, the job of the particular public agencies and Planning Commissioners is to mitigate for “off-site impacts subjected upon the general public and businesses and any other entities affected by a decision that would either to approve or deny. Also, in special circumstances, downstream property owners should have been notified as “impacts are being transferred by and through the flows of water.
Often, elected officals just paint with words a picture that is far from accurate in order to conspiratorially just to get something “rammed through” and swept under the rug. It happens often, more than many would even understand because they are not developers or vicitms of the development. This is a fact that elected officials, public employees and appointed members of boards, commissions and committees depend upon to “hide the facts, truth and justice” to those who really deserve much better in representation than that which they receive.
Shameful! – HOJ
February 14, 2013 at 11:26 am
Eric Kirk
The point is, these neighboring businesses will make more money with the festival than they will without, no matter how the cones are laid out. They can’t collect damages based on a comparison of plans. They can only collect damages if they would make less money than they would if the festival wasn’t happening at all. Clearly that’s not the case.
February 14, 2013 at 2:40 pm
Jane
Dear Hench,
1) The businesses are there year round and were there prior to ROTR ever being a conceptual event turned real.
If first come, first forever, worked in our society then senior citizens would be at the top of all priority lists for everything.
2) It is the duty of the Planning Commission (and supes if applicable) to ensure that mitigations are created and enforced for public civic events such as this so that “existing businesses” are not disallowed their normal daily practices, responses and activities to engage in business (like losing patrons due to the n/b lane being off-limits for left hand turns across the s/b lane, even though it is ok for the other 362 days out of the year).
I don’t know if you are posting from “code” or not. But let’s say for a moment it’s code. First, there is only speculation at loss and there isn’t any actuality. Secondly, does ensuring mean that revenue should be compared over the whole week while increased traffic flow, workers, and others participate in getting the venue ready? If so should that speculated increased sales on each day before the loss be deducted from the actual loss of sales expected on the days the station will be blocked? Anyway you look at it this isn’t an argument for the planning commission to decide the nuances of other than broad general issues (which they have taken care of already). Besides if it the above idea of “ensurity” actually existed we could shut down the Rhody parade, the Trucker’s Parade, Farmer’s Markets, and a few other large events pretty quickly.
Sorry, I don’t buy into your viewpoint.
February 14, 2013 at 2:49 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Maybe so Eric (finally remembered to use a “c” instead of a “k”), but why is there a “quota by restriction” and why can’t a business “do better” because of the civic event bringing in more people which does detract from the business by forcing some other “non-event customers” to not want to stop in. Also, the businesses will be impacted in a negative manner by more garbage, more bathroom uses, noise pollution, exhaust fumes, oil dripping, extra labor to protect against thieves, public safety vehicles taking-up parking spots, etc.. which costs the business money moreso than without the event. To disallow any business to potentially gain more against what it will lose in some patrons driving by to Benbow or Garberville because of the “civic event” seems awefully prejudiced and biased when not allowing cross flows of traffic from the n/b lane to the s/b lane. Many years of this event, and still no real ” forethoughts” until the pressure builds through a permit application process for a special event that everyone knows will most likely be applied for again and again, year after year!
Some may agree that because of ROTR, the business will lose some regulars or some travelers for any various reasons who will then have to go to Benbow or Garberville. Since you mention “points”, the point is REALLY that the “equal protections” for the ability to go from the n/b lane across the s/b/ lane to shop at the businesses is being “nixed” in order to be of no benefit, one way or the other, to ROTR, but to the detriment of the business. There is more than enough money being “slim-jimmed” by ROTR that a “modal operations plan” SHOULD HAVE been mitigated to include “non-closure” of access points from the n/b lane acrossd the s/b lane which is allowed 361 or 362 days per year. As well, if people are gonna “jaywalk” anyways, then it seems the “current mitigated plans” are just a waste of effort that was most likely meant to make it appear as if something of safety was gained because think about it, “jaywalking” slows down traffic to a near stop or stop, and this suggests that it would not be unsafe to cross from the n/b lane to the s/b lane with a vehicle, even if a controlled pedestrian walkway was introduced for walkers from the n/b side to the s/b side. Besides, onlooker looky lou lou’s will slow traffic down.
Sincerely,
HOJ
February 14, 2013 at 3:06 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Jane,
1) Senior citizens are not all “first”, true; but, they are usually second, right behind Obama’s favorite type of humanoid “children”. To compare a humanoid “like senior citizens” (who most likely are the least to patronize the businesses other than the recreational types) to a long standing businesses is “off the mark” of proper thought processes.
2) Not withstanding your arguments, HOJ is not arguing “profit differences”. HOJ is arguing profit “potentials” when compared to “equal protections” of the use of vehicles to cross from the n/b lane to the s/b lane 361 to 362 days out of the year. Again, detrimental to the business, but not for ROTR. Making decisions is to be fair and balanced for all affected, not one-sided. Jane, hopefully you do realize that costs for the business also increases due to the “civic event patrons’ impacts”. If not, then maybe you just don’t understand because you don’t know how a business operates or is impacted. If so, try becoming a business owner and see how it feels to have to spend more money for more impacts created by others, especially outsiders.
As an example, The Mill Yard in Arcata built a beautiful new building and surrounding grounds with a fence made of nice looking mortar blocks and steel pickets. Then, some punk ass kid, drunk as a moonshiner, runs into the fence and wiped-out 50+ feet; and, too boot, no insurance. Then, the businesses’ insurance decides to play hard ball and not pay for the repairs the way they ought to be for uninsured motorists (coverage is on the policy). So, there are also risks that some “drugged-out” ROTR drivers COULD cause damages that the business may have to eat out of their own pocket. Ya see Jane, it ain’t as simple as “brushing aside” as you make it out to be. Opportunities, just like the rest of the 361 or 362 days should not be “nixed” just because the “civic event organizers” are tawdry tight asses, who inevitably stiff people and still owe money to others for past events.
All the county was looking at was its “piece of the pie” (since business is already at risk in Humboldt), with prejudice. Shameful!
Sincerely,
HOJ
February 14, 2013 at 10:32 pm
ICU812
With all due respect y’all, you guys are forgetting why ROTR needed the Planning Commissions approval in the first place, it was because the County was the lead agency for whats called the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), And under CEQA, the project (ROTR) had to comply to an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and be approved with conditions by the Planning Commission. CEQA only has to do with the environment, not what Bowman was appealing for. In fact, Bowman’s appeal was a CEQA appeal to the Board of Supervisors from the Planning Commission, the next appeal process before you can take it to Court. For all the concern about making money, as Bowman seems to be concerned about, he had to pay a good chunk of coin to the County to file the appeal, and you never get that fee back, win or loose. So its not surprising that the Planning Department didn’t explain these facts to Mr. Bowman when he filed the appeal. That’s why Supervisor Lovelace is spot on. It would be interesting to see if Bowman takes it to the next level in a real court of law. with big boy pants on.
February 15, 2013 at 12:56 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Thanks ICU812 for your insights,
which is why HOJ mentioned that all the county cared about was their piece of the pie. It is true that CEQA is about the environmental impacts, either a negative declaration for minimum/less than significant impacts or a full blown EIR for significant or more than significant impacts. Having been an applicant for developments, HOJ is all too aware of the “CEQA process”, not a know-it-all, but aware and always learning more. As far as Supe Lovelace being spot on, rather, misleading imo.
CEQA, whether a flow blown EIR or categorical exemptions for a “neg. dec.” also includes standards to be looked into regarding “economic impacts”. To say that CEQA is only for the environment is misleading because economic impacts are “part of the environment (standards of review) of the project site and its ancillary effects too”. If human pee and poop hurts fisheries and its associated economics, well then, how could that be avoided by a catagorical exemption or full-out non-condition, when it is a condition of CEQA review process to include the investigatory research of “economic impacts”, not just onsite, but offsite.
Sincerely,
HOJ
February 15, 2013 at 9:37 pm
Anonymous
There will always be people around who will whine loudly if anyone else even LOOKS like he might be having any fun. Like ICU821 even really cares how much money Mr. Bowman makes. It’s all about attacking the Mateel. Obviously a sore losing People Productions fan.
February 15, 2013 at 11:34 pm
ICU812
Your absolutely correct Anonymous, except the part about; whine loudly having any fun, really cares how much money Bowman makes, attacking the Mateel or obviously a sore losing People Production fan. Other than that you are dead on balls accurate.
It does not matter who is running ROTR at French’s Camp, its wrong in my opinion to do what’s being done on the River bar and in the River. You don’t get that and I understand the long term effects of kool-aid. However, I thought I was very clear about my opinion.
Have fun in your own water supply that does not effect anyone else except you. Remember what they say:
You don’t tug on Superman’s cape
You don’t spit into the wind
You don’t pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger
And you don’t mess around with Jim
February 15, 2013 at 11:38 pm
Eric Kirk
So how will moving the cones for Bowman help with the river bar again?
I believe your conflation of the issues is referred to as a fallacy of relevance.
February 16, 2013 at 12:04 am
ICU812
Good point Eric, could not have said it better. Its a ad hominem! i wonder if the pro ROTR folks remember what the logging industry said to justify their own actions; the greater good, jobs, economic prosperity, etc. Sure sounds the same.
To answer your question, nothing, not a dam thing.
February 16, 2013 at 12:24 am
ICU812
Lincoln’s Use of Ad Hominem
“A story is told about [Abraham] Lincoln as a young lawyer. In one of his first jury cases, he showed his political shrewdness by an adroit and quite non-malicious use of ad hominem. His opponent was an experienced trial lawyer, who also had most of the fine legal points on his side. The day was warm and Lincoln slumped in his chair as the case went against him. When the orator took off his coat and vest, however, Lincoln sat up with a gleam in his eye. His opponent was wearing one of the new city-slicker shirts of the 1840’s, which buttoned up the back.
“Lincoln knew the reactions of frontiersmen, who made up the jury. When his turn came, his plea was brief: ‘Gentlemen of the jury, because I have justice on my side, I am sure you will not be influenced by this gentleman’s pretended knowledge of the law. Why. he doesn’t even know which side of his shirt ought to be in front!’
“Lincoln’s ad hominem is said to have won the case.”
(Stuart Chase, Guides to Straight Thinking. Harper & Row, 1956)
February 16, 2013 at 9:40 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Anonymous,
If you flip the argument, it could be implied that people care how much the Mateel makes while taking away from the other businesses their access to patrons who normally, 361 or 362 days out of the year, are allowed to access from the n/b lane across the s/b lane to shop at the businesses. The organizers of the ROTR event have “taken away” this opportunity for making more money, while being aided and abeted by the county. Why? Maybe because of the mega hundreds of thousands being filtered through an event that the county gets to participate in its cash flows (the pie affect).
Having fun is not the argument when in a matter of days, a “new city” is created that can compete in impacts in various ways on the level of Crescent City, Arcata, McKinleyville, Fortuna and blow away Rio Dell, Scotia, Blue Lake, etc…
Sincerely,
HOJ
February 16, 2013 at 10:18 am
ICU812
I did not watch the BOS live and only heard what was stated in sound bits from KMUD, but their was allot of back and forth between the Bowman’s, Doug Green and Candy Arthur. This SoHum drama was all out in front of the BOS, Between Doug Green and Candy Arthur, they both used a great “ad hominem” defense that seemed to have worked very well in favor of the Mateel and the Arthur’s. Time will tell.
February 16, 2013 at 4:43 pm
The Onion Peeler
And none of that back and forth included even a hint about how much the businesses were losing out in free “perks” from the old event. I’m sure all the businesses recorded these appropriately on their taxes etc. Including any possibly given to the Bowman enterprises. A few hundred wristbands worth a couple hundred dollars a pop greased the cooperative nature of many a landlord and business in the area. I’m behind the Mateel precisely because the grease is gone. I think the businesses will just have to get bye with the profit from the event and get their grease from Quaker State.
February 16, 2013 at 8:22 pm
TR
ICU812 is squirming!
February 16, 2013 at 11:54 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Maybe “The Onion Peeler” could elaborate more on the “free perks” because in the arguments before the Planning Commissioners and Supes, nothing seemed to be “diatribed” about “free perks” to the businesses (one would think the Mateel/Organizers’ reps would use “grease subsidies” as an argument to defend its position). Please specify some of these “free perks”, for educational purposes.
A few hundred wristbands at a “couple hundred a pop” is something the IRS would be interested in, which suggests that “free” is “iffy”. How does a business “write-off” on taxes something which is “free” if this is the suggestion? To say the “grease is gone” is to imply that the Mateel and ROTR as an event is “grease free”, which is very suspect. The only “grease” missing is the “grease” that will keep vehicles moving northbound to Benbow, Garberville and beyond if traversing across the s/b lane to shop at the businesses as a traveler not attending ROTR is forbidden for 3-4 days.
Sincerely,
HOJ
February 17, 2013 at 9:33 am
ICU812
HOJ, here are some “free perks” in the form of advertising. Go to ROTR web site, you can link to whats called Attractions & Resources, under Travel & Lodging:
http://www.reggaeontheriver.com/attractions.htm
You can also link to Camping:
http://www.reggaeontheriver.com/camping.htm
It would seem the businesses at Cooks Valley are getting some great face time for ROTR, more than Garberville/Redway Chamber members, but maybe that will change.
However, what’s missing from any or all this, not one word about the Cooks Valley Campground, e.g. camping, food, supplies, store and home of the “Official After Party” http://www.cooksvalleycampground.com/afterhours.html
February 17, 2013 at 9:49 am
hillmuffin
i support the mateel but i don’t necessarily think they have to go back to frenches camp…
well, its a done deal–the partying visionaries will have their big festival and
the community center will prosper…
now that i live on the river i am more sensitive to the possible degradation…
February 17, 2013 at 10:03 am
Eric Kirk
Ad hominum is a personal attack on your debate opponent. A falacy of relevance is different. An example of a falacy of relevance:
“Reggae on the River is bad because it pollutes the river. Reggae on the River is bad because the CHP will not allow foot traffic across the highway to the gas station. Failing to allow foot traffic across the highway to the gas station will pollute the river.”
Although it is ad hominum to simply rail about anything pertaining to ROTR because it will frame ROTR as bad, and thereby frame the Community Park as bad, because the Community Park once considered parking on the river bar – which strains the flow of any logic, but then Ed Voice has never been so constrained. “Community Park bad.” That’s the agenda. ROTR would just be collateral damage – if anyone was listening.
February 17, 2013 at 5:42 pm
Not A Native
I’d like to see the supervisor meeting, but don’t see it archived on the HumCo Government website. Does anyone know if it was broadcast and recorded by Access Humboldt?
This is the first time in this thread there’s been a mention of the SoHum Community Park. Why was it brought up and what does it have to do with ROTR?
I’m neither a supporter nor detractor of Ed Voice as a person. But it seems to me Eric is hypocritically making an ad hominum attack on him.
e.g. Ed Voice has criticized and successfully challenged particular decisions of the Community Park board, THEREFORE Ed Voice is bad.
February 17, 2013 at 5:46 pm
TR
Eric can see the IP addresses to know who is posting.
February 17, 2013 at 8:04 pm
Eric Kirk
TR – I do have access, but I don’t bother to keep track. However, I do recognize patterns of argument. Such as it is.
February 17, 2013 at 8:25 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Thanks ICU812 for the links, but there is still the question of whether or not “free perks” literally applies to any businesses affected by the “disallowance” of travelers to cross from the n/b lane to the businesses adjacent to the s/b lane nearest French’s Camp. It may be merely an insincere attempt to make it look like a “sincere free perk”. As was mentioned in some “free perk ads”, travel north several miles to Garberville or Redway for this or that, etc….
Maybe the Gas station gets substantially extra s/b traffic customers (it is not really known), but what about the n/b traffic customers being “nixed”. If the travelers (either attending ROTR or not) are gonna already be in the area traveling, it is purely “speculative” that the ads will amount to anything extra WHEN the “extra inflows of people” are tending to only be in the general area for one thing, ROTR. It seems that in years past, most attendees of ROTR already had their supplies for the full event, and if needing replenishment, that replenishment would have been for the traveling back home after the event was over.
Sincerely,
HOJ
February 17, 2013 at 10:05 pm
ICU812
HOJ, your welcome. I just watched the Bowman appeal, and the newspaper or KMUD reports didn’t tell the whole story from what I watched and heard. I suggest you watch it too and form your own opinion of the facts as presented to the BOS from all parties and agencies involved. The BOS may have rejected the appeal, but added more conditions to the Permit and EIR.
http://archive.org/details/AH-bos-am_2-11-13
Not sure why Eric hi-jacked his own thread above, I guess just another day in HoHum Eureka.
February 18, 2013 at 1:11 pm
Jane
Hah! It is pretty obvious Henchy isn’t an insider if the grease commentary slipped over his head. Unless he/she is being tongue-in-cheek.
Cooks Valley can pay for their own advertising. I imagine Bowman has enough spare change on hand.
Eric, thank you for putting Voice to Ed’s ranting and questionable disinformation and information campaigns. At least this poster appreciates it.
After all, If A, then B, but not necessarily C.
February 18, 2013 at 1:18 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Jane,
Was that your version of incommensurate intelligence? If so, wow.
Sincerely,
HOJ
February 19, 2013 at 2:30 pm
ICU812
Did some searching for “Ed Voice” since Eric posted, boy there are terabytes of data on this guy and the Community Park just like Eric said. However, it was not “Ed Voice” said parking on the river bar was “Bad” at the Park, it came from the Mateel. Yeah, it was the Mateel Board Treasurer, I couldn’t believe it, Eric’s own blog:
It was Bob Stern, who at the time was on the Mateel Board, said:
“when i spoke at the scoping session, i believe i simply expressed the strongly heartfelt beliefs of most, if not all, of the mcc board members who have stated their own strong beliefs that parking on the river bar is bad for the river, and critters human or otherwise that depend on it. i don’t think that most of us have even heard from our membership on this subject. and keep in mind that we are elected by our paid membership, not by all the citizens who live in the area”
It was also clear near the end of this same thread, Eric 86’d “Ed Voice” from his blog, as in ’80 miles out of town and 6 foot under’.
I can typing?
February 20, 2013 at 10:51 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Thanks again ICU812,
Actually, tried to find it on the county website, but it had not been uploaded yet; just like last weeks (02-11-13) General Plan Update process regarding the noise element discussions, which are not on the website yet. A question was submitted to explain in detail to viewers how to record any media download from any of county’s meetings.
Sincerely,
HOJ.
February 20, 2013 at 8:44 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
ICU812,
As supe Sundberg noted “what is the gap between the dotted lines mean”.Senior Planner Michael Richardsen said “umm, the
applicant can better explain that, but I imagine it is for shuttle buses to turn around”.
So, point being, the businesses along the s/b lane are not allowed to receive north bound traffic through that “gap”.
Sincerely,
HOJ
February 20, 2013 at 10:33 pm
ICU812
HOJ,
Besides my issues I have with ROTR, what I found interesting about the Bowman appeal hearing was the issue about using the old 271 entrance that was used for the last ROTR 2006 and Reggae Rising after that. It would seem that entrance was never included in the ROTR EIR and was never considered. Even though this was the preferred entrance per the CHP and Caltrans. You could see this was making Doug Green uneasy and if this entrance could be negotiated, the ROTR EIR would have to be rewritten and recirculated. When Richardson was asked how long that would take, he thought the 2013 event would not happen. And you could see Doug Green sitting behind Richardson looking even more uneasy.
Did you know a reality TV production company is looking for ideas and coming to Humboldt casting for a new pilot. With all the drama of the Mateel, it was made for reality TV and everything that comes with it.
February 25, 2013 at 11:48 am
moviedad
Nothing more boring than mutual admiration.
February 25, 2013 at 1:32 pm
ICU812
Had you felt left out, but yet felt compelled enough to comment? What am I missing here? There is nothing worse than a mutual boring Dick.
February 25, 2013 at 2:58 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Moviedad,
You are admired too….keep up the socio-political involvements and points of view.
Sincerely,
JL
February 25, 2013 at 10:00 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
ICU812,
What is interesting as well is how county officials and planning staff “wordsmith” their EIR review that does mislead folks. Some highlights of “what can or should be reviewed” include:
1) WHAT IS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT?
The term “significant impact” means substantial adverse damage to the physical environment. An initial study is prepared to assess a project’s potential for causing environmental damage. The initial study will use the CEQA implementation guidelines which contain a list of the types of projects which generally cause environmental damage. Examples of projects on the state’s list are any which: substantially pollute water supply; use prime farmland for non-agricultural purposes; or cause substantial flooding, erosion or siltation.
The CEQA analysis relies upon independent judgement to decide whether a project may have the potential to cause substantial environmental harm. The CEQA process also evaluates local circumstances not considered by the state when developing its impact list. Sometimes, significant impacts are identified which can be eliminated or significantly reduced using various strategies. In these cases, impact reduction strategies (mitigation measures) will be recommended rather than stating that expected damage is potentially significant.
If significant impacts are expected, an EIR will be required. During that process, damage will be assessed and quantified so that scientifically based findings of significant impact can be accurately reported. (Note: scientifically based findings!)
2) WHAT IS AN INITIAL STUDY?
An Initial Study is a preliminary analysis of a project intended to: (1) provide information; (2) enable an agency to identify methods for changing a project with the intent of eliminating or reducing (mitigating) substantial environmental damage; (3) assist in the preparation of EIRs by identifying the environmental damages upon which an EIR should focus; (4) identify possible appropriate mitigation measures; and (5) ensure that all potential areas of environmental damage are identified.
Initial Study preparers will generally complete an Initial Study Checklist as part of the Initial Study process. The Initial Study Checklist includes categories of physical damage, such as air quality and noise impacts, and provides a preliminary summary of potential for environmental damage in each area. (Note: Physical Damage includes noise and air pollution)
3) WHAT IS A MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN?
To make sure that mitigation plans are effective, CEQA requires that agencies verify completion of mitigation measures. Agencies prepare and adopt mitigation monitoring plans which ensure that agency staff checks to make sure that mitigation measures are done correctly. When all mitigation requirements have been completed, and it can be assured that the mitigation will be successful, the mitigation monitoring plan will also be concluded. (Note: Is there a mitigation monitoring plan?)
4) WHY AREN’T ECONOMIC ISSUES DISCUSSED IN THE CEQA REVIEW?
Discussion of project-related social or economic damage is not required by CEQA. Social and economic issues are discussed when they will cause physical damage. For example, if a roadway project will ruin access to a business area, and the resultant loss of taxes would reduce an agency’s ability to maintain environmental protection, economic impacts would be discussed in an EIR. While not required by CEQA, public costs and revenues of a project may be analyzed concurrently with environmental review. (Note: 4 day ruined access to businesses on west side of HWY 101 because then/b lane is thus far not allowed to receive cross traffic from the s/b lane because of a private property development for four days –> grey area?)
5) DOESN’T CEQA STOP PROJECTS THAT HARM THE ENVIRONMENT?
An agency is permitted to approve projects which cause significant environmental damage. However, the agency must make findings which clearly explain the circumstances surrounding the project analysis and the approval. Then, the agency must explain their decision to approve the project, despite expected environmental damage, by adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. This type of statement points out the reasons why a project’s benefits outweigh its environmental costs. (Note: wondering what the statement says?)
6) MY PROJECT ALREADY HAD ITS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. NOW, ANOTHER AGENCY WANTS TO DO ONE. WHY?
Sometimes, more than one agency has the responsibility for approving portions of a project. For example, San Luis Obispo County might approve a subdivision for a housing project. Later, the Coastal Commission may need to approve a coastal permit for the project. Both approvals are projects which may require environmental review. When the applicant or agency knows in advance that additional approvals are required, it is possible to combine the environmental reviews into a single document.
CEQA encourages all agencies with approving authority over any part of a project to work together so that environmental reviews take the least time possible to prepare. In the best cases, the County will be able to address the concerns and issues of other agencies in our environmental document.
Sometimes, more than one document may need to be prepared. Some of the reasons for this are:
(1) the applicant is not yet able to provide construction details; therefore, the various agencies can’t review all parts of the project when the first environmental review occurs;
(2) advances in science and technology, or the availability of new information, make the initial document inadequate for additional use;
(3) some agencies are unable to participate in the initial environmental review process; or
(4) the applicant has made major changes to the original proposal. (Note: Maybe why the other main entry/access that ICU812 ponders is being kept on the “down low”?)
7) WHY WAS MY PROJECT SENT TO THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
CEQA requires that copies of environmental documents for projects that need permits from state agencies, or that impact resources that are under the jurisdiction of state agencies, be sent to the State Clearinghouse. The State Clearinghouse is an environmental review distribution center for state agencies. It is located in the State Office of Planning and Research. Clearinghouse staff mail copies of environmental documents to state agencies so that they can provide comments and advice to the agency processing the environmental review.
If a project appears to need review, or is of statewide or regional significance, it is sent to the Clearinghouse. Whenever this occurs, public review deadlines are extended to allow sufficient time for agency review. State agencies return their comments to the State Clearinghouse which forwards them to the processing agency. (Note: ROTR is of regional significance.)
8) WHY DOES THE COUNTY NEED CEQA GUIDELINES?
All public agencies are required to adopt specific criteria, objectives and procedures for implementing CEQA. These are in addition to the statewide guidelines which are more general and apply to all agencies in the state. Some jurisdictions adopt the state-prepared CEQA guidelines as their CEQA procedures. San Luis Obispo County’s guidelines supplement the state guidelines. (Note: Does Humboldt County have variations in its guidelines; or, do the guidelines mirror that of the State?)
Sincerely,
HOJ
March 9, 2013 at 2:24 pm
ICU812
What if? What if there was a protest. Protesting ROTR. Protesting the effects caused by ROTR to the River. What if it was protested like Richardson’s Grove, with banners alone the highway just before the event, a small group of people with signs at the entrance of the event, handing out flyers? Educating people how the event is not helping the River, as named in the title of the event. What would be wrong with that?
Could do a documentary about ROTR 2013, post it on YouTube. Shoot the river bar before, during and after the event? Interview both sides, pro and con. That could work too…..
I think its just ludicrous coming from a community that wears it heart on its sleeve when it comes to Coho, Chinook and Steelhead. That the Mateel Community Center is just as disingenuous when it comes to protection of the environment as a for-profit resources corporation would. This is the same community that doesn’t want anyone telling them what they can and can’t do because they know better, doesn’t want to put up with permits, laws, regulation, government involvement and calls the process bureaucracy, but yet claims in the same breath this fundraiser is more important than the river and wildlife habitat.
The most hypocritical side to all of this is if you have an opinion and voice your concerns in opposition that could effect the so called economy of this community, you are ostracized in public and banned from the tribe. So let the ceremony begin.
March 9, 2013 at 4:04 pm
Cookie
Gosh, I agree with you 100%.
March 9, 2013 at 8:24 pm
hillmuffin
except less that five or ten people really care about the issue enough to protest…i don’t want the river to be damaged (as i live on it and swim everyday in the summer) but on the scale of things fucked up in the world ROTR is not that big a deal…(IMHO)
March 9, 2013 at 8:39 pm
ICU812
Does anyone out there in SoHum Blogville know how to obtain a permit to hold a public assembly to peaceably protest? It could be in either County. I will contact the CHP and Sheriff(s) and get the 411.
March 10, 2013 at 7:39 am
little birdie
20 years ago RotRiver was inexpensive enough to attract more of the counterculture and their motley assortment of beaters and buses and it was criminal not to give out some form of oil diapers, even a beer flat or two, for underneath the vehicles. 190$+ is going to attract a different crowd with less leaky cars, for the most part. Further, the cars are parked high enough on the shore that it will take a midwinter storm to flush off the oil residue at which time it will be very diluted. Still, a little cardboard could go a long way underneath the vehicles.
That said, one local said there is more oil runoff from city streets into the Eel after the first storm than after this event.
Now as for who pees more on the riverbed, RotR or the Biker Run..?
You want to sink your blogteeth into something more serious, bite into the underground gas/oil plumes from old service stations. Top secret stuff, EPA and county know though.
March 10, 2013 at 1:18 pm
ICU812
hillmuffin, I can’t do anything for the rest of the world, but I can sure do something about this and educate people.
Here is what I meant by calling the Mateel disingenuous and hypocritical yesterday. Look what’s coming to the Mateel on March 30th, just got a email flyer and they want to talk about “Preventing Pollution”. To bad the River and the fish can’t speak for themselves! How come they have never had ROTR in the Mattole Watershed, I wonder?
Click to access Water_Day_III_Final_Poster_03_03_13.pdf
Hi Eel River Aficionados,
Our big annual outreach event is coming up fast on March 30 at the
Mateel Community Center in Redway. It is being well received in
Southern Humboldt this year and we have people working on getting
underwriters and donations and session chairs and panel participants
lining up. Co-sponsors include Trees Foundation, Mateel Community
Center, Sanctuary Forest, Redwood Forest Foundation, Friends of Van
Duzen River, EPIC, Friends of Eel, Institute for Sustainable Forestry,
Salmonid Restoration Federation, and CalTrout.
It isn’t too late to chip in and help with planning, getting additional
support or participating in a session. We will have tables for
information and posters as well as some guerrilla theater and music. A
raffle is being suggested as a way to fund-raise, but that idea would
need volunteers willing to hit up merchants or to provide worth items.
Let us know if you have energy for that and we can get you a letter of
request to use.
Please feel free to print the attached poster and get up in your neck of
the woods. We can print several posters and send to you in the mail, if
your printing capacity is limited and you want to get some up.
Cheers,
Pat
PS: Conference Committee call tomorrow AM for anyone wanting get more
involved. If you are not on invite list sent out this afternoon, email
me to get number and access code, if you want to participate.
Patrick Higgins
ERRP Volunteer Coordinator
791 Eighth Street, Suite A
Arcata, CA 95521
W 707 822-9428
H 707 839-4987
C 707 223-7200
March 10, 2013 at 2:26 pm
bob
sorry to jump in late on an old post, but i wanted to give icu an answer to her/his question about taxes. no portion(zero percent) of your payment to mateel for a ticket to rotr is a deductible contribution under sec 170 of the infernal revenue code. the only part of a “purchase” to benefit a 501c3 org that’s deductible is the amount you pay that exceeds its “fair market value(fmv).” you’re just buying a ticket to a public event, and you’d be hard-pressed to establish that you paid more than fmv to buy it.
it seems to me that many non-profits don’t understand this and often give you the impression that you are making a tax-deductible contribution when you are not actually doing so.
so, when you make that purchase at a silent auction, you only get to deduct the amount that’s more than it would cost on the open market. if you don’t pay more, there’s no(tax-deductible) donation. actually there probably is a donation–it’s for the person that gave the auction item to the org in the first place. orgs also seem to make other mistakes when advising potential donors that their $$$ to the group is deductible when it is not. like when the hospital board has sent out raffle solicitations with the advice that your “donation” is deductible. in fact, payments for raffles are by definition non-deductible. just ask the infernal revenue service.
March 10, 2013 at 4:15 pm
ICU812
little birdie, oil doesn’t dissolve in water. It lasts a long time and sticks to everything it comes in contact with, from beach sand to rocks, plants, tree’s and bird feathers etc. Oil and petroleum products are toxic to people, wildlife, and plants. One quart of motor oil can pollute 250,000 gallons of water, and one gallon of gasoline can pollute 750,000 gallons of water!
How ever you are right, oil that leaks from our cars onto roads and driveways is washed into storm drains, and then usually flows directly into a lake or stream. Used motor oil is the largest single source of oil pollution in lakes, streams, and rivers. Americans spill 180 million gallons of used oil each year into the nation’s waters. This is 16 times the amount spilled by the Exxon Valdez in Alaska,
So why do you want to bring even more here?
Only when the last tree has died, and the last river been poisoned, and the last fish been caught, will we realise we can’t eat money ~ Cree
Your beliefs become your thoughts,
Your thoughts become your words,
Your words become your actions,
Your actions become your habits,
Your habits become your values,
Your values become your destiny
~Mahatma Gandhi
March 10, 2013 at 5:25 pm
ICU812
bob. so given what you just said, is ROTR considered a non-profit 501c3 fundraiser for public benefit?
Or is it just a for-profit Commercial Music Festival?
March 10, 2013 at 5:54 pm
Anonymous
ICU812,
Non-profit vs. for profit is a separate issue from tax-deductible vs. non-tax-deductible. Just because something isn’t tax deductible doesn’t make it for-profit. As pointed out above, if you buy something at a charity auction, it isn’t tax deductible except for the portion (if any) of the purchase price that is above the fair market value for the item you bought. The fact that you don’t receive a tax deduction doesn’t make it a “for-profit” charity auction.
Same with Reggae on the River — just because you don’t get a tax deduction for your purchase of a ticket to the event (because you’re getting something tangible in return for your ticket price — namely a ticket to the event — you’re not just making a donation and getting nothing tangible in return) that doesn’t magically turn the event into a “for-profit” event. It’s run by and for a non-profit, and net proceeds are going to the non-profit, not to shareholders or private investors, therefore it is a non-profit event.
March 10, 2013 at 10:15 pm
ICU812
Anonymous 5:54 pm, you did not answer the question I posed to Joe?
March 10, 2013 at 10:51 pm
Anonymous
Who is Joe, and what question did you pose to him?
March 10, 2013 at 11:19 pm
ICU812
Sorry, I mean bob.
March 11, 2013 at 2:00 am
suzy blah blah
Your beliefs become your thoughts,
Your thoughts become your words,
Your words become your actions,
Your actions become your habits,
Your habits become your values,
Your values become your destiny
~Mahatma Gandhi
“As physics is a mental reconstruction of material processes, perhaps a physical reconstruction of psychic processes is possible in nature itself.”
Marie-Louise von Franz [Psyche and Matter (1992)]
March 11, 2013 at 6:00 am
bolithio
Have you guys seen this?:
March 11, 2013 at 8:36 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
little birdie,
well, oil into the waterways should be much more caused by 365 days of oil leaking on public infrastructures compared to 4 days of ROTR. With that now elaborated, any guesses as to the “oil leakages” on the river bar over the course of 4-6 days (event set-up and disassembly too) where a “tent city” is erected like Woodstock in New York? Afterall, don’t need public roads and sidewalks to access and use the ROTR site like that within any city or town boundaries. Comparing the two is apples to oranges imo.
Other comments on tax deductions: Sarcasm~ What about scalpers and their mark-ups above and beyond Fair Market Value (FMV)?
Sincerely,
HOJ
P.S. Again, the county only wants its piece of the money pie.
March 11, 2013 at 9:27 am
Anonymous
ICU812,
Did you not see the my sentence at 5:54?
“It’s run by and for a non-profit, and net proceeds are going to the non-profit, not to shareholders or private investors, therefore it is a non-profit event.”
So as far as I can tell, it seems like the only part of your question that I didn’t answer directly is whether the Matteel is a 501c3 or not. I’m not affiliated with the Matteel, so I don’t know off hand whether they they have 501c3 status or some other nonprofit tax designation (there are quite a few different IRS nonprofit tax designations). My guess is that they probably are 501c3, but I assume you could easily confirm that with them by calling them.
If there’s some special significance to your exact wording of “is ROTR considered a non-profit 501c3 fundraiser for public benefit?” then I suppose you should direct that inquiry, in writing, to the Matteel.
March 11, 2013 at 9:59 am
Anonymous
Permit for 8,000 people to party proper for a weekend at the river? BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT! CONTROVERSIAL!
Permit for Green Diamond to clearcut several thousand acres, every frickin’ year since the company began? NO PROBLEM! GOOD BUSINESS! A COMPANY PRACTICING SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY!
March 11, 2013 at 10:06 am
bob
so given what you just said, is ROTR considered a non-profit 501c3 fundraiser for public benefit?
Or is it just a for-profit Commercial Music Festival?
hope i got this ital(pun intended) thing right …
ROTR is considered a non-profit 501c3 fundraiser. so far as i know, adding the phrase “for public benefit” has no specific meaning. i sense maybe you’re trying to get at something specific–what’s on your mind exactly?
no way it’s just a for-profit commercial festival, although i bet we could discuss just how crass and self-aggrandizing promoters like doug green operate and debate just how far mateel might be going in acting like a commercial operator.
mateel does catch a break on what might be taxable income for other non-profit groups. if epic or hospice or the women’s shelter put on rotr, they’d likely have to pay tax on any net gains from reggae on the river, because reggae concerts have nothing to do with their tax-exempt purpose. so rotr income would probably be taxable as what’s called “unrelated business income” to those groups. but mateel is in the music and entertainment biz–its mission includes bringing cultural enrichment to the community. so rotr generates “program income” related to mateel’s purpose for existence, and therefore non-taxable.
but as i mentioned earlier, and reinforced by anon 5:54, there’s not likely anything tax-deductible about the money you paid mateel for rotr tix, but it’s still a mission-driven event for mateel, and is not for profit.
March 11, 2013 at 11:55 am
ICU812
Thanks bob, sounds like you know what your talking about.
So how does it work exactly, the Mateel partners or lawyers up with someone, pays them a large % of the program income to produce the event and do the same for the bands and entertainers? Same with the production company, lights, sound, security? This has to be the for-profit side for ROTR, so the Mateel doesn’t have to pay UBIT
Here is the Mateel Mission Statement from their 2011 tax return;
“Operate a Community Center to provide services beneficial to the general public interest and to provide a place which can be utilized by all members of the Community in the public interest”
Is that the Mateel music and entertainment biz you were talking about?
Click to access 2011-942624598-08ca25f9-9.pdf
March 11, 2013 at 9:23 pm
ICU812
“ICU812 Did you not see the my sentence at 5:54?”
“It’s run by and for a non-profit, and net proceeds are going to the non-profit, not to shareholders or private investors, therefore it is a non-profit event.”
Yes Anonymous I did and I think direct proceeds from this tax exempt organization fundraiser are being paid to “shareholders or private investors”, in the form of production companies, producers and entertainers who profit from these public benefit donations first and what ever is left over the community can argue over. And who pays the price for all of this? The River, the one that can’t defend itself.
You know, if you have been around SoHum long enough, it wasn’t that long ago you could drive down to black sands beach, camp, party and drive your dune buggy or jeep or 4X4 as far up the coast as you could. Of course it started small and then grew and grew until it became harmful and needed to be protected..
Well, enough is enough and what is happening to the South Fork Eel River. Look around, who is doing this anymore. We need to be accountable for our actions and stop having this kind of event ON THE RIVER. Call it Reggae OFF the River! Show people you care and are willing to do the right thing by protecting the river. I can’t believe I need to say this out loud!
Idle NO More!
March 11, 2013 at 10:50 pm
Anonymous
“I think direct proceeds from this tax exempt organization fundraiser are being paid to ‘shareholders or private investors,’ in the form of production companies, producers and entertainers who profit from these public benefit donations”
Yes, and if you send out a fundraising letter, you have to pay for the paper and the printing, and this money goes to for-profit vendors (oh the horror!). And if you make phone calls to potential donors, you end up paying some of the proceeds to the for-profit phone company (someone fetch me my fainting couch!). Having some overhead costs is a normal part of fundraising, and it’s also completely normal that some of the proceeds go to pay for-profit vendors and service suppliers — and it’s no different with events. So your posture of outrage that some of the proceeds from this events go to entertainers and producers and so on just seems a bit ridiculous, as if you were a 17 year old who claims to be outraged to discover that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny aren’t for real. Sorry, I just don’t buy that you’re really that clueless. At least for your sake I hope you’re not.
As you know, the Matteel itself makes money on the event, which it can use for its other programs. And then, on top of that, they allow other local non-profits to use the event as a fundraising opportunity as well. So it would be pretty hard to argue that it’s a bad deal for the Matteel, other local non-profits, or the many people who benefit from the programs of all these good groups.
To me, it looks like all of this supposed concern you are expressing about the non-profit status of the festival and/or the Matteel is really just a rather lame attempt on your part to gin up some bogus controversy over the festival because you’re just not getting any traction with your other stated objection to the festival, namely the potential for damage to the river. Which is a concern I am generally sympathetic to, but which, to be frank, I think you are exaggerating wildly.
But then it’s not me you’d need to persuade anyway: There was recently a perfect opportunity for you to bring your ecological concerns before the Planning Commission, and then the Board of Supervisors, which actually had the power to approve or decline to approve their permit, or to order additional steps to mitigate the potential for harm to the river. Where were you? Did you go to their meetings and testify, and submit evidence documenting the damage that you believe has been done at previous ROTRs and pointing out the alleged inadequacy of the protective measures and mitigations that are part of this year’s plan? If not, why not? Because I hate to break it to you, but just posting comments about it on this blog is going to have about as much effect as the obsessive commenting about the Community Park had on that issue…in other words, no real effect at all.
March 12, 2013 at 9:13 am
ICU812
“Permit for 8,000 people to party proper for a weekend at the river? BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT! CONTROVERSIAL!”
“Permit for Green Diamond to clearcut several thousand acres, every frickin’ year since the company began? NO PROBLEM! GOOD BUSINESS! A COMPANY PRACTICING SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY!”
You are right Anonymous 9:59 am and both can justify their actions with a straight face, tell you they can mitigate the harmful and degrading effects they are causing to the environment and if it was so bad, how did they get a permits. Yes, they can both sleep good at night knowing they are making this place better for the greater good, a roof over your head, food on the table and clothes on your back.
The lie they both share is that Jobs and Seasonal Tourism in both cases bring more to the local economy than the effects of their carbon foot print.
“while two wrongs don’t make a right, if a set of immoral things are done and left un-prosecuted, this creates a legal precedent. Thus, people who do the same wrongs in the future should rationally expect to get away as well”
~Victor Lasky
March 12, 2013 at 11:11 am
ICU812
Anonymous 10:50 pm,
“There was recently a perfect opportunity for you to bring your ecological concerns before the Planning Commission, and then the Board of Supervisors, which actually had the power to approve or decline to approve their permit, or to order additional steps to mitigate the potential for harm to the river. Where were you? Did you go to their meetings and testify, and submit evidence documenting the damage that you believe has been done at previous ROTRs and pointing out the alleged inadequacy of the protective measures and mitigations that are part of this year’s plan?”
To answer part of your question, yes, I submitted comments to the Planning Commission three different times, once for the public meeting on Nov 19, and twice for the PC meetings on Dec 6th and Jan 3rd.
To answer the other part, NO, I did not submit any comment to the BOS appeal hearing and I regret doing so. I thought the appeal hearing was only about the Bowman appeal, but I did hear someone comment during public testimony about the effects ROTR 2013 will have on the River.
In fact I received comments back from Michael Richardson concerning all of my public comments for ROTR 2013.
Now I have one for you, during all the meetings and County hearing concerning ROTR 2013 at French’s Camp, how many local non-profits submitted letters of support for ROTR 2013? The same community non-profits that benefit from this event and fundraiser. In fact the only reason for the event to begin with. Where are the letters of support from the local businesses that support and benefit from this event?
March 12, 2013 at 12:14 pm
Anonymous
Well I give you credit for taking your concerns to the Planning Commission. Apparently the Planning Commission did not agree that your concerns were serious enough to deny the permit. And you did not appeal their decision to the Board of Supervisors, so in effect you declined to take your case to the elected officials who were ultimately responsible for making a final decision.
“how many local non-profits submitted letters of support for ROTR 2013?”
I have no idea, but I’m not sure what your point is.
March 12, 2013 at 1:26 pm
ICU812
Anonymous, my point is the whole point and excuse for ROTR. Its why people don’t care what happens to the river, because of the economic boom to local businesses and community non-profits, remember, hello.
Please do not give me any credit, give credit where credit is due, to the Mateel Board, Staff and Membership, EPIC, Friends of the Eel River, Trees Foundation, Salmonid Restoration Federation, Institute for Sustainable Forestry, Redwood Forest Foundation, Sanctuary Forest, Mattole Restoration Council for selling this idea and making money with there eyes wide open and their mouth closed shut. This is one of the biggest shake downs of all time, and its in its 29th year.
March 12, 2013 at 1:44 pm
Anonymous
Or perhaps the great majority of the people involved in the organizations you named do care about the river, but simply don’t agree with you about the level of risk posed by this festival.
March 12, 2013 at 4:38 pm
ICU812
I don’t know Anonymous, because not one of the groups I have named will ever say publicly that ROTR at French’s Camp has no impact, no effect on the environment, water quality or species (fauna or flora). Why is that?
Here is an example how the Mateel gets your approval:
“How can the Rotary get involved, and what can we do for you?” Boose asked the Garberville Rotary Club. “Can we advertise your business on our website? Can we let our patrons know when they take that shuttle to Garberville or Redway that there’s a unique little place that they ought to spend their money in?”
http://www.redwoodtimes.com/ci_22473742/reggae-river-meets-garberville-rotary-club?source=most_viewed
March 12, 2013 at 4:44 pm
Eric Kirk
Nothing we do has “no impact.” The question being asked is why there is so much focus on a once-a-year concert given that probably a day of automobiles driving on 101 probably does more damage than a hundred years of annual concerts. If you’re that concerned, demand that we shut down 101. THAT would save the river.
March 12, 2013 at 5:05 pm
Anonymous
“not one of the groups I have named will ever say publicly that ROTR at French’s Camp has no impact, no effect on the environment,”
Of course no one would claim that ROTR has “no impact, no effect” on the environment. Pretty much everything people do has some impact, some effect on the environment. So the question isn’t whether there is some impact, it’s just how much impact there is, what kind of impact, and how significant that impact is.
Clearly you have convinced yourself that the impact is severe, but you haven’t offered much in the way of an argument that would convince anyone else….at least you haven’t done so here on this blog. You’re just asserting that the impact is severe enough to warrant canceling or moving the festival, but not providing any real evidence to back that up. If that’s the same approach you took in your testimony to the Planning Commission, then no wonder they weren’t persuaded, and it’s just as well that you didn’t waste the Supervisors’ time with an appeal.
March 12, 2013 at 5:38 pm
ICU812
I can typing Eric, not out of the woods just yet.
Click to access 130312_mateelreggae_PN.pdf
March 12, 2013 at 5:55 pm
Anonymous
From the document ICU812 posted at 5:38:
“The SEIR identifies that the project will have potentially significant effects….Proposed measures are expected to mitigate these potential impacts to less‐than‐significant levels. ”
“The proposed project is not anticipated to result in any permanent impacts to the streambed or channel.
“Proposed activities do not involve removal of any riparian vegetation providing shade to the river and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for sediment and turbidity control is required. Accordingly, the proposed activities are consistent with, and implement portions of the South Fork Eel River TMDL.”
“Implementation of the project would not affect the free‐flowing
condition of the South Fork Eel River and would not affect the extraordinary values for which the segment was listed.”
March 13, 2013 at 9:40 am
ICU812
Correct Anonymous, the same language used when the Water Board approved the Caltrans Richardson Grove and Willits Bypass project. So they must be right?
You need to do a better job cheery picking, maybe post everything next time.
March 13, 2013 at 9:47 am
ICU812
Sorry, it should be “cherry” picking.
March 13, 2013 at 3:23 pm
bob
so i’ve been wondering why michael richardson prepared a Supplemental EIR instead of just a straight EIR for the mateel’s new permit for rotr. It must have something to do with the fact that the old reggae permit required an (original) EIR, and that somehow this one was a supplement to it? but that doesn’t sound quite right to my feeble brain–that for this new and separate permit, a completely new EIR wasn’t required under CEQA instead of an SEIR. but we’re talking legal here, not logic, so who knows??? any CEQA geeks/lawyers out there who can ‘splain it to me? can you piggyback an SEIR onto an existing EIR for a different CUP?
March 13, 2013 at 4:21 pm
Anonymous
ICU812,
It would only be “cherry picking” if most of the document showed that there was expected to be significant unmitigated environmental damage, but I had carefully picked out misleading quotes that made it seem otherwise. But I didn’t. I picked quotes that summarized what the document said would be the expected effects o the river, overall, and in a number of key areas — streambed/channel alterations, TDML, and Wild and Scenic River status.
You can argue that the information and analysis summarized by this document is wrong, but it wouldn’t be accurate to say that I “cherry-picked” those quotes to give a false impression of what the document says. In any event the whole document is right there in the link that you yourself provided, so any other readers of these comments are easily able to read the whole document for themselves, and if they’re interested, I would encourage them to do so and judge for themselves.
Meanwhile, instead of making cryptic allusions to Richardson Grove and Willits, why not simply state which of the statements that I quoted, or which other statements from that document, you disagree with, and what you are basing that disagreement on?
March 13, 2013 at 5:59 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Seems to me applicants in permit processes must have to file a whole new application for a process as opposed to getting a “piggy-backed supplemental” or “extension”.
Imagine in 20-30 years, the owner of the balloon tract getting to use a SEIR because an EIR was done 20 years earlier?
Or, an insurance policy that goes unpaid and expires, but that the next policy coverage somehow gets an extension as opposed to a whole new policy plus the “bad checkmark for lapse in coverage”.
Processes vary when public employees are pulling the strings.
Sincerely,
JL
March 15, 2013 at 12:12 am
ICU812
I agree we will dis-agree until hell freezes over Anonymous and you know that’s OK. If all we are able to do is make 8000 event goes think about the river first and party second, then that is all I can do, but we are not going down without a fight. We plan on taking our own water samples twice a day, above and below the event. With baseline testing at the same locations once a month starting in May and ending in October. We will also be asking the Redway & Garberville Water Districts if they can monitor and test there raw water before during and after ROTR.
March 15, 2013 at 9:14 am
Cookie
That is so cool that you are doing that ICU812.
March 15, 2013 at 9:16 am
Anonymous
While you’re at it, ICU812, can you make surface temperature, vicinity precipitation, wildlife and foliage records before and after Green Diamond clearcuts a few hundred acres? There are several such clearcuts slated for you to choose from. Can you maybe work double time and do the same at any “sustainably forested” clearing as well? If you’re really feeling like doing the public some good, work a bonus hour on top of that and do the same at one of several hundred new construction sites in and around the county. I suggest this because your intentions are obviously vindictive toward the festival.
March 16, 2013 at 12:48 am
ICU812
“I suggest this because your intentions are obviously vindictive toward the festival”
Really, vindictive? As in anguish, hurt and revenge? Did I miss something? But hey, if the festival is as great for the river and as you so eloquently stated before:
“perhaps the great majority of the people involved in the organizations you named do care about the river, but simply don’t agree with you about the level of risk posed by this festival”
Then why all the double talk and damage control?
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
— George Orwell
March 16, 2013 at 7:26 am
Anonymous
except icu you are extremely deceitful when it suits your purpose and are a hero in your mind only- having personally been on the receiving end of your trolling, lies and harassment I am one who knows.
go bamboozle yourself
March 16, 2013 at 10:44 am
ICU812
Its nothing but the truth and allot of help from:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/swamp/cwt_volunteer.shtml
How is your French, “La vengeance est un mets que l’on doit manger froid”
March 16, 2013 at 6:30 pm
Anonymous
ICU812,
Glad to hear you’re going to be doing monitoring. It would be a good idea to have some independent organization or agency involved in the monitoring, so that people can have confidence that the monitoring was done properly. And of course it will be important to commit to releasing the results to the public, whether or not those results back up your belief that the festival will have significant negative effects on the river. And, of course, no “cherry-picking” of the data. 😉