Billionaire loses bid to shut off access to public beach and surprise! It’s not Bullyboy Arkley

This guy sounds just like our own local bully Robin P. Arkley  

Silicon Valley billionaire loses bid to prevent access to public beach

Court decision is blow to Vinod Khosla and other wealthy landowners seeking to buy renowned beaches, making public land private

 Martins Beach must be opened to the public, according to a California court order.

A California court has ordered a Silicon Valley billionaire to restore access to a beloved beach that he closed off for his private use, a major victory for public lands advocates who have been fighting the venture capitalist for years.

An appeals court ruled on Thursday that Vinod Khosla, who runs the venture capital firm Khosla Ventures and co-founded the tech company Sun Microsystems, must unlock the gates to Martins Beach in northern California by his property.

The decision is a major blow to Khosla and other wealthy landowners who have increasingly tried to buy up the internationally celebrated beaches along the California coast and turn public lands into private property.

The beach was a popular destination for fishing, surfing and other recreational activities for nearly a century, and the previous owners provided a general store and public restroom. But Khosla eventually bought the property and in 2010 closed public access, putting up signs warning against trespassing.

Khosla, who has a net worth of $1.55bn and does not live on the property, has faced multiple lawsuits and legislative efforts to get him to open up the gate to the beach near Half Moon Bay, about 30 miles south of San Francisco. The law in California states that all beaches should be open to the public up to the “mean high tide line”.

The decision this week, affirming a lower court ruling, stems from a lawsuit filed by the Surfrider Foundation, a not-for-profit group that says the case could have broader implications for beach access across the US.

“Vinod Khosla, with his billions of dollars, bought this piece of property and said, ‘No, no, the public isn’t going to use this anymore. End of story,’” the Surfrider attorney Joe Cotchett said by phone on Thursday. “He got away with it for many years … This is probably one of the most important public right-of-access cases in the country.”

Khosla’s refusal to restore access has made him something of a symbol of the immense wealth in the tech industry and rising income inequality in the region.

Last year, his attorneys claimed that he would open the gate to the beach only if the government paid him $30m, an amount that state officials said was unreasonably high. In October, Khosla also sued two state agencies, accusing the government of using “coercion and harassment” to infringe on his private property rights.

The California coastal commission, established by voters in 1972 to protect public use of the coast, has reported that beachgoers have increasingly complained about private security guards telling them they are trespassing on private property and forcing them to leave the public beaches.

“The issue here is, can wealthy private individuals buy up our beautiful beaches for their own use?” said Cotchett, adding that he expects Khosla to appeal the decision and attempt to bring the case to the US supreme court.

Khosla’s attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Khosla recently made headlines when he downplayed the problem of sexual harassment in the venture capital industry, which has recently been exposed as a major concern among female founders. “I did not know that there was any discrimination,” Khosla said at a recent event, adding that it was “rarer than in most other businesses”.


F–k Rob Arkley!

“Our own local racist bully boy version of Trump doesn’t want the Wiyot’s stolen home returned to them.”TE

Tuluwat Village

Allen McCloskey sets the record straight:

Indian Island is and always has been of great cultural and historical value to the Wiyot People. I support the City of Eureka City Council (Austin Allison and Kim Walford-Bergel) and City Leadership in their efforts to restore Indian Island to its original inhabitants/stewards. The Wiyot People as the original inhabitants and stewards of Indian Island have what I equate to a genetic-historical-connection to Indian Island. The cultural connection of the Tribe to Indian Island goes back countless generations and their people are intrinsically tied to the Island. In fact I would argue that their individual and collective well-being and prosperity and the healing of the Tribe’s genetic memory with regards to the historical trauma and deliberate attack by Eureka’s great businessmen of the time, to commit genocide of the Wiyot people, is truly contingent upon the environmental health and return of this land to its original inhabitants/stewards.

The Tribe and the City of Eureka in recent years have worked together collectively to mitigate years of pollution and contamination and have engaged in meaningful dialogue with regards to transitioning Indian Island back to the Tribe. The collective work of the Tribe and the City should not be tarnished and/or in any way delayed or derailed by the intentional and ignorant intervention by the likes of Robin Arkely, merely on the premise that he feels that the Island belongs to him and his family, because, in his words they “like it.” Indian Island was stolen from the Wiyot people at the hands of “prominent Eureka businessmen” of that time who murdered and viciously killed the Wiyot people.

The current City leadership is now in the process of contributing to the healing of the Wiyot people by returning the Island to its original inhabitants. The City’s efforts to return the Island to the Wiyot people is clearly an act of restoring to the indigenous peoples what very obviously they’re entitled to and they have a legitimate claim to, and a claim I might add that on the Tribe’s part is in no way divisive but rather restorative. That’s the idea behind reconciliation. I commend the City of Eureka Council for their recent actions and their commitment to the Wiyot People and the return of Indian Island.

In Solidarity,

Allen McCloskey


Too pricey for our own Trump wanna be?


Talk about pay for play


According to Politico:
“Deep-pocketed donors face a decision on Wednesday night: whether to dine with the Vice President-elect at the National Portrait Gallery, or enjoy an “intimate policy discussion” with incoming Cabinet appointees at an exclusive dinner at the Library of Congress….
The cost of admission for the Cabinet dinner is included in a package for either $100,000 or $250,000 to the presidential inaugural committee, while dinner with Vice President-elect Mike Pence is open to donors and corporate underwriters at the $500,000 and $1 million-level as part of multi-day itineraries, with the level of access determined by the amount of cash given, according to inauguration brochures obtained by POLITICO.”
Any bets on whether local “Silver Spoon Oligarch” and Trump suck up Robin Percival Arkley II will be attending???

91 million dollar boondoggle, what an expensive bad joke

humboldt bay

It’s a breached lagoon that has to be dredged constantly

REDDING, Calif. – Highway 299 between Trinity and Redding is hoping to be finished ahead of schedule.

According to the Assistant Resident Engineer on the Buckhorn Grade Improvement Project, Vance Hackney, they are hoping to have it finished next month.

“We’re hoping to have everything buttoned up by the end of November,” said Hackney.

That means, after November, no more long construction delays.

This weekend series of storms didn’t affect construction all that much.

“We’ve had a few minor slipouts, some of the sand running off of the upper cuts, nothing that’s impacted our storm water quality,” said Hackney.

Sawpit Gulch Creek was running pretty clear, despite the work being done to put in a culvert and widen the road. The construction crew is anticipating minor slides through the fall and winter, though.

“We’re going to have minor slipouts throughout the winter, contractor’s on board to take care of those as they occur,” assured Hackney.

More than three million cubic yards of dirt and rock have been moved or will be before the end of the project. More than 50 curves have been removed and the 6.8-mile section of road has been shortened by almost 1.4 miles.

The $91 million project started in June of 2008. Now, some eight years later, almost all that’s left is getting the paving finished, repairing some pavement, and putting up the road signs.

The purpose of this work is to allow larger and longer trucks to come inland from an expanded deepwater port in Eureka.

“expanded deepwater port” (WTF?)

We aren’t writing a report to justify a railroad, but….

Guest post from Patrick Meagher of Weaverville

I was pleasantly surprised to read in a recent Trinity Journal the Railconnect Committee spokesperson’s dramatic change in tone from the article published in the June 29 Trinity Journal. That statement declared it to be “a generational social and economic game changer.” Instead, I was happy to read that he intends for it to be, “truthful, complete, and as transparent as possible” and, “We aren’t writing a report to justify a railroad, but to determine if a railroad is justified.”

Bravo! In order to assist the committee to be as truthful and transparent as possible I want to provide Journal readers with an overview of the Humboldt Bay Alternative Rail Corridor Concept Level Construction Cost and Revenue Analysis Final Report that was released in August 2013. All 43 pages of it can be found on the internet. The study is professionally done by two well-respected consulting organizations. The study focused on dry bulk cargo and does not address containerized cargo and cites the 2003 study that recommended against a container port in Humboldt Bay.

The report identifies three potential routes from Humboldt Bay to Redding, Red Bluff and Gerber. Route distances vary from 194 to 258 miles. All will require bridges and tunnels. Of most concern to me is route 1 that is proposed to run through Hyampom valley, Hayfork and Wildwood (you can read about this proposed rail route on Page 8 & 9 of the report). Rail line construction in 2013 dollars is estimated at over a billion dollars plus for each option.

The report addresses the type of bulk cargos that are deemed as feasible for transport to a Humboldt Bay seaport. These include coal, soda ash, iron ore, wheat and corn in a laundry list of bulk cargos. The report identifies port terminal construction requirements for loading dry-bulk ships at a cost of more than $200 million in 2013 dollars. In addition, further dredging of the Humboldt Bay channel to accommodate these ships will be necessary.

The report conclusion states, “Rail service to Humboldt County will require major investment. In order for this investment to be financially feasible, the rail line will need to generate large volumes of cargo. A rail line to Humboldt County would face strong competition from existing ports, primarily those on the U.S. West Coast. Humboldt County would face several competitive disadvantages relative to these other ports, including the need to cover the cost of constructing a new line, and the lack of rail distance advantage. In addition to the lack of rail infrastructure, waterborne exports of large volumes of bulk commodities would likely require substantial investment in new cargo terminals. Also the Humboldt Bay navigation channel is not as deep as those at most competing ports, which would also require substantial investment. In conclusion, development of rail service to Humboldt County is likely to be both high cost and high risk.”

Now it appears to me that a lot of the work of the Railconnect Committee and it’s yet to be hired consultant has been accomplished given the thoroughness of this report. In the interest of transparency and to help the project move along it would behoove the committee to ensure that several copies of the Humboldt Bay Alternative Rail Corridor Concept Level Construction Cost and Revenue Analysis Final Report are available in the library for public review.

Greater Eureka Chamber of Commerce vs democracy in Eureka

chamber of com

On Saturday Linda Atkins wrote “The Greater Eureka Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors recently announced that it is going to get involved in local elections” then asked “why now?”  Well, it seems pretty clear to us. The good ol’ boys had lost their majority to the all woman progressive (actually centrist) leaning City Council and now they all going all in to get it back. Matthew Owen and John Fullerton are the Chamber candidates and then there’s the very scary (to the good ol boys) “true ward true voice” ballot measure that would actually facilitate someone from your neighborhood or maybe even you, to be elected. Now that scares the crap out of the Eureka Chamber, Robin Arkley and Rob Mcbeth types.

c of c building

Linda also says “, the city of Eureka supports the Chamber with about $120,000 a year from city coffers for them to do visitor services. In addition, the chamber’s headquarters located on land owned by the city of Eureka and leased to the chamber for $1. (prime real estate worth over a million dollars) The headquarters is the location where chamber board meetings occur and where chamber offices are located. Does this mean that the city of Eureka is subsidizing an organization that will be campaigning against candidates and issues that will affect the future of our city?”  Ya think?

The ol’ boys are so scared that Tom Hannah (the God father of our current screwed up city charter and corrupt ward system) in a near hysterical diatribe in today’s Time Standard went so far has to invoke the name of the dreaded former city councilor Larry Glass…twice. The mere mention of his name is a dog whistle for the powers that be in this town striking terror in their hearts.  Hannah goes on to say “This would be detrimental to the quality of life in Eureka. Implementing a ward election could only lay the groundwork to undermine the current council-manager format municipal government chosen by voters in 1950, and mandated by your city charter.”  He forgot to mention that he and Eureka’s power brokers wrote the charter to keep themselves in power for perpetuity.

This year brings a chance for Eureka voters to choose a system of election which would bring an inclusive neighborhood based City Council…..and maybe take a step in breaking the stranglehold on local politics which the good ol’ boys are desperately holding on to.

The Crazy train saga continues along with the war on the Harbor District

Humboldt bay harbor working group

Karen Brooks from the Humboldt Bay Harbor Working Group in today’s Times Standard continues their crazy train propaganda and their war on the popularly “elected” Harbor District. We follow her diatribe that with a great opinion piece from the Trinity Journal

For most people, the decision to broaden the permitted uses of lands designated as Coastal Dependent Industrial (CDI) seems harmless, but to understand the context and implications makes the decision moot. Our Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District is leading the discussion for Humboldt County to expand the uses on lands protected for maritime activities, such as shipping and other related uses. The lands targeted for this change are primarily the Samoa Peninsula and Fields Landing.

People are opposed to this change. There are many reasons why this isn’t consistent with our current planning and five are listed here for your consideration. First, there is an overabundance of industrial lands available, like old mill sites. To change the harbor-related lands from marine activities to regular industrial allows the harbor district to compete with existing businesses like warehousing, office space or retail. The district has decided to become a real estate developer and shuffle non-coastal businesses for coastal lands, ignoring their state-mandated primary authority — the areas covered by the bay and the promotion of bayrelated commerce. How fair is it for private industrial park owners to compete against their own government?

The second reason is the lack of prior planning. For years a citizen group, the Humboldt Bay Harbor Working Group, has been advocating to bring the harbor district together with the other local agencies in the harbor area of the bay to jointly plan for harbor infrastructure and development. This common sense approach to planning for our harbor’s future has been met with huge resistance from the district, effectively squelching multi-agency planning for the harbor portion of the bay.

This proposed watering-down of maritime (CDI) zoning is another example of one agency practicing self-interest rather than a regional, collaborative planning approach.

Thirdly, Humboldt Harbor is the last under-development, deep-water natural port on California’s coast and is prime for investment.* During this economic downturn ports have been investing to be more competitive and there is demand for lands specifically protected for maritime. You may ask what has the harbor district done to market our harbor? Back in 2011 they eliminated their maritime marketing position and currently have a local leasing agent with no experience in maritimerelated business. Doesn’t sound like the harbor district is serious about maritime business, does it?

Fourth, two significant events have occurred in the past month that make the case for leaving the CDI zoning alone. 1) In June, the Trinity County Transportation Commission was awarded a $276,000 grant to complete the Upstate California Railconnect Feasibility study to look at a new rail connecting Humboldt Bay’s deep-water seaport with a national rail connection in the Sacramento Valley. This means that Caltrans, as the state’s leading transportation agency, considers the potential of Humboldt Harbor to be a valuable part of their maritime transportation system.

2) Also in June, the U.S. Maritime Administration’s Northern California Gateway Director visited our area and spoke about renewed federal transportation agency support for Humboldt Bay’s deep-water seaport.

When state and federal transportation agencies seem to have more interest in the success of Humboldt Bay’s deep-water seaport, than our local political will, and understand what a unique transportation asset we have in Humboldt Bay we must take advantage of this opportunity to its fullest. If the county devalues these lands or destroys the ability to attract seaport-reliant businesses to our port, then they will have effectively killed Humboldt Harbor as a seaport.

This leads me to my final point — it’s important to protect the lands for maritime uses because these types of businesses pay higher wages, provide a multitude of benefits and help fund our tax base. What is ironic is that these maritime businesses provide much more revenue for our Harbor District without competing with existing businesses. If the change is made, retail-type businesses and general agriculture will be included, ushering the marijuana industry onto lands with a higher and more sustainable coastal-dependent use. For the sake of our children’s future, join me in urging our supervisors to commit to harbor development by not approving multi-use coastal zoning.

*(keep repeating a lie over and over and people start accepting it as true)

Patrick Meagher of Weaverville has the perfect response to this BS in the Trinity Journal

Rail connect to Humboldt seaport not a game changer

Is it feasible to build a rail line from the “national rail system” in the Sacramento Valley to the proposed Humboldt Bay Seaport? Of course it is — given enough money to build it. If you build it, will the merchant ships loaded with shipping containers come to Humboldt? A resounding no is the answer, and here are the reasons why.

To start with you need to understand the problems identified in the Port of Humboldt Bay Harbor Revitalization Plan of February 2003, page 11, paragraph 2. It states as follows, “The scenarios that include a public general cargo terminal are not recommended because they are not supported by market analysis and they involve an unreasonably high level of risk. Almost all of the markets that would be involved in public general cargo terminal operations were identified as unattractive in the prioritization analysis, and Humboldt Bay was found to be uncompetitive in most of them as well. The ‘build it and they will come’ nature of public general cargo terminals, combined with short contract terms common in the trade, high customer leverage, and intense port competition, would result in excess capacity and level of risk that is not commensurate with the limited market opportunity available.”

Next, has anything changed since 2003 to improve the outlook for a shipping terminal in Humboldt Bay? No, not really. Stephen Carmel, senior vice president of Maersk Line Limited, tells us that today over half of all container cargo is component level goods and materials destined for manufacturing and assembly plants or just-in-time inventory-management systems.  This means consistency, reliability and shipping schedule integrity are of paramount importance.  The key goal of container shipping today is 99 percent on-time delivery.

On-time container cargo discharge and loading with intermodal terminal container transfer providing immediate access to main line rail networks are an absolute necessity for profitability.  Container ships operate in networks or routes of many ports serviced by multiple ships on steady schedules. These maritime operations are a considerable part of the overall cost-efficiency picture of intermodal container shipping service.

Finally, there is the biggest issue, economies-of-scale. Cost of shipping is determined by cost-per-container. In other words, the larger the ship the more containers it can carry and total cost of transportation goes down. As an example, container ship Benjamin Franklin, operated by CMA, CGM and loaded with 18,000 containers called at the ports of Oakland and Los Angeles in late 2015. 11,229 containers were handled in Los Angeles using nine cranes during her 90-hour stay, generating an average berth productivity of 200 moves per hour.

So, how does the proposed Humboldt Bay Seaport stack-up against this kind of operation? It doesn’t and won’t. The Humboldt Bay Seaport is too small and isolated, even with a proposed 100-plus mile rail feeder line, to compete economically with container ports such as Oakland, with intermodal loading adjacent to the port, and the Los Angeles complex with portside intermodal loading. The point of this discussion regarding potential for Humboldt Bay Seaport is that it is still economically non-competitive with other West Coast cargo ports. Given this, there is no reason for rail-connect from Humboldt Bay to Sacramento Valley.

Well, the Transportation Commission has $276,000 to do the study, so how about the commission updating the 2003 Humboldt Bay Revitalization Plan (don’t tell me it doesn’t have anything to do with the proposed rail line as I have just demonstrated it has everything to do with it) as a starting point and use its recommendations to determine economic payoff for the rail line. Couple this with interviews of maritime shipping line executives to determine viability of a proposed Humboldt Bay Seaport as a marine cargo destination and departure point and, oh by the way, in case you didn’t know there is still no cargo handling infrastructure of any kind at the proposed Humboldt Bay Seaport.