◼ Hislop to throw hat in the ring for sheriff
The chief investigator for the Humboldt County District Attorney's Office will announce Monday his intention to seek the position of county sheriff in the upcoming election.
Mike Hislop on Tuesday confirmed that he planned to run, but deferred discussion on the details until his official announcement Monday.
Hislop has been chief investigator with the District Attorney's Office for three years and was an officer and sergeant with the Eureka Police Department for 24 years. Prior to working for EPD, Hislop was a reserve deputy and a correctional officer in Lake County.
Incumbent Sheriff Gary Philp has served two terms, and announced his intention to retire earlier this year. At the same time, Undersheriff Mike Downey announced that he in turn would seek the position, with Philp's endorsement.
When reached by phone Tuesday, Downey said he didn't want to comment on Hislop's intention to run because the declaration wasn't yet official. But he made the case for his own candidacy, citing years of experience.
Downey pointed out that he's been with the Sheriff's Office for 24 years and is currently second in command of the entire office.
”I was promoted to the rank based on merit and character,” Downey said.
District Attorney Paul Gallegos, who would lose Hislop's services if he's successful in his bid to become sheriff, is giving his chief investigator his full support.
”I have worked to attract, hire and maintain
Advertisement
the best, the brightest and the most qualified people to work on behalf of the people of the state of California,” Gallegos wrote in an e-mail. “Mike Hislop exemplifies those qualities and characteristics. He is extremely intelligent, has excellent organizational and leadership skills and strives for excellence in all his endeavors. I have no doubt that he will be an outstanding sheriff.”
Chris Durant/The Times-Standard
Posted: 12/30/2009 09:52:16 AM PST
12.30.2009
12.17.2009
Sorry Garr
◼ Public safety is an investment, not a cost
Garr Neilsen's My Word in the Times Standard 12/16/2009
◼ http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/wo/story/1740052.html
Jerry Dyer Op-Ed in Fresno Bee Tuesday, Dec. 08, 2009
Word for word.
Desperate? Stupid? Being pushed by the "Progressive" overlords to get something out?
Unbearable, incredibly unimaginably stupid? Sorry, Garr, this is not cool.
Caught by someone in the comments, starting at #29
***
Jon-E-Law Eureka, CA
Not a chance. Your moron Chief did not write this he plagiarized it from the Fresno Chief.
***
Jon-E-Law Eureka, CA
He will fit with Gallegos in taking credit for another's work. Chief Jerry Dyer from Fresno PD wrote this piece.
***
Jon-E-Law Eureka, CA
Dyer's original piece ran in the Fresno Bee on December 8.
http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/wo/story/174...
***
Walter Sobchak Wildomar, CA
Darn straight. Of course, if all he'll do is publish others' work without attribution, that would actually make him a thief. Intellectually dishonest, AND a thief? Not exactly a ringing endorsement, is it?
Remember this:
◼ Filed under Gallegos' Plagiarism
RELATED STORIES:
THE OX-BOW INCIDENT by ROBERT LOUIS FELIX
a copy of THE OX-BOW INCIDENT in case the link goes down
TS - Paul Gallegos' My Word
ER - WHOSE WORD WAS 'MY WORD'?
ER - A second Gallegos column raises questions about attribution
Back up links, Eureka Reporter coverage"
◼ ER - WHOSE WORD WAS 'MY WORD'? 9/7/2006
◼ ER - A second Gallegos column raises questions about attribution 9/8/2006
UPDATE and clarification:
◼ Pla-Garr-ism? The Journal
***
Neilsen's Press Release
I wish to clarify any confusion that may have arisen from the opinion piece published earlier this week in the Times Standard. This was a position piece adopted by the California Police Chiefs Association. The editorial was distributed to regional directors to be modified for local media and presented as a position supported by local chiefs. This is a common practice that is intended to distribute a consistent position.
I apologize for any confusion this may have caused regarding the authorship of the piece. There was no intent to claim it as original, but rather reflect consensus of opinion of California Chiefs.
Thanks
gn
◼ Police Chief clears air over editorial
◼ A letter to our readers
*********
not formatted yet
Public safety is an investment, not a cost
Garr Nielsen/For the Times-Standard
Posted: 12/16/2009 01:30:12 AM PST
On Nov. 23, Maurice Clemmons was released on bail from Pierce County Jail. In less than a week, he would change the lives of four families forever.
Clemmons' ongoing criminal behavior and propensity for violence should have been sufficient grounds for his continued incarceration. Over a four-day period in May, Clemmons punched a sheriff's deputy, forced relatives to strip naked, and raped a child, all of this while he was on parole status from Arkansas. Yet, Clemmons remained free.
The legal systems in Arkansas and Washington failed miserably, resulting in the two states transferring blame and pointing fingers at one another. Meanwhile, the Lakewood Police Department in Washington and the families of the four slain officers are left to suffer.
Many have forgotten the importance of the criminal justice system to include our prisons. California prisons are filled with Clemmons types. Many are suffering from mental illness and drug addiction and refuse to be rehabilitated. When they do get out, we rely on our police officers to stand between them and us.
When someone like Clemmons is willing to kill four police officers in broad daylight, how much easier is it to kill four innocent citizens?
The safety of our communities must be our highest priority and the foundation for government. Police officers, prosecutors, jails and prisons cannot be seen as a burden or cost to government. They are investments. There are many who don't realize this and believe
Advertisement
the way to reduce California's deficit is to slash funding to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which includes state parole.
Although I agree that significant improvements need to be made to CDCR and how we supervise those on parole, this does not include the wholesale release of inmates from prison and the elimination of parole status. Significant money may be saved on the front end, but over time, the cost to local communities will be immeasurable.
When crime and fear go up, communities become paralyzed, causing businesses and residents to flee California. The Eureka Police Department is committed to providing a safe community and we have made great strides in our efforts to become a more effective, collaborative and responsive organization. The wholesale release of prison inmates into our community will adversely impact much of the progress we have made and further tax our scarce resources.
What further complicates this matter is a federal court ruling by a three-judge panel, which has ruled that prison overcrowding in California is a direct cause of inadequate health care to inmates. As a result, the panel has given a tentative order to reduce the prison population by 40,000 inmates over a two-year period.
A portion of those inmates would be released to the Eureka community. A plan has been submitted by CDCR to the court outlining how the releases would occur. This plan is being reviewed by the judicial panel, which means the initial releases may begin in the early part of 2010.
Along the way, there will be attempts to disguise the type of inmates being released by calling them “nonviolent” or not serious offenders.
Do not be fooled; “career criminals” will be released. It takes an average of five convictions before a person is ever sent to prison, and the year prior to their arrest, they commit between 12 and 15 felonies. And most disturbing, of those “nonviolent” inmates being released, 70 percent will reoffend within three years, and many of those will commit a violent crime before they are rearrested.
When one of these “nonviolent” criminals commits a brutal murder like Clemmons did, you can expect the transferring of blame and finger pointing to begin, just as we are seeing today in Arkansas and Washington as people try to escape the blame for allowing the senseless and tragic loss of life. But finger pointing after the fact serves no useful purpose. We need to ensure that we support a system which does not allow for the release of the Maurice Clemmonses back into our neighborhoods.
Remember, “Public safety is an investment, not a cost.”
Garr Nielsen is chief of the Eureka Police Department.
*************
*************
JERRY DYER: Invest in our public safety
Posted at 07:27 AM on Tuesday, Dec. 08, 2009
E-MAIL
PRINT
TEXT SIZE:
Comments (20) | Recommend (16)
SIMILAR STORIES:
•
Man charged with helping WA gunman elude capture
•
Vote 'no' on Proposition 9, an ill-considered crime victims bill
•
Fresno Co. forced to release juveniles early
•
Is killer in '84 Fresno slaying a danger today?
•
Officials: Gang rivalry led to Calif. prison riot
On Nov. 23, Maurice Clemmons was released on bail from Pierce County Jail. In less than a week, he would change the lives of four families forever.
Clemmons' ongoing criminal behavior and propensity for violence should have been sufficient grounds for his continued incarceration. Over a four-day period in May, Clemmons punched a sheriff's deputy, forced relatives to strip naked, and raped a child, all of this while he was on parole status from Arkansas. Yet, Clemmons remained free.
The legal systems in Arkansas and Washington failed miserably, resulting in the two states transferring blame and pointing fingers at one another. Meanwhile, the Lakewood Police Department in Washington, and the families of the four slain officers are left to suffer.
Many have forgotten the importance of the criminal justice system to include our prisons. California prisons are filled with Clemmons types. Many are suffering from mental illness and drug addiction and refuse to be rehabilitated. When they do get out, we rely on our police officers to stand between them and us.
When someone like Clemmons is willing to kill four police officers in broad daylight, how much easier is it to kill four innocent citizens?
The safety of our communities must be our highest priority and the foundation for government. Police officers, prosecutors, jails and prisons cannot be seen as a burden or cost to government. They are investments. There are many who don't realize this and believe the way to reduce the California's deficit is to slash funding to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which includes state Parole.
Although I agree that significant improvements need to be made to CDCR and how we supervise those on parole, this does not include the wholesale release of inmates from prison and the elimination of parole status. Significant money may be saved on the front end, but over time the cost to local communities will be immeasurable.
When crime and fear go up, communities become paralyzed, causing businesses and residents to flee California. Fresno experienced this in the 1990s when drive-by shootings, car-jacking and home invasion robberies occurred nightly in our city, and crime soared out of control. We cannot afford a return to the '90s.
What further complicates this matter is a federal court ruling by a three-judge panel, which has ruled that prison overcrowding in California is a direct cause of inadequate health care to inmates. As a result, the panel has given a tentative order to reduce the prison population by 40,000 inmates over a two year period.
Of the 40,000, about 1,600 inmates would be released to the Fresno community. A plan has been submitted by CDCR to the court outlining how the releases would occur. This plan is being reviewed by the judicial panel, which means the initial releases may begin in the early part of 2010.
Along the way, there will be attempts to disguise the type of inmates being released by calling them "nonviolent-nonserious" offenders. Do not be fooled, "career criminals" will be released. It takes an average of five convictions before a person is ever sent to prison and the year prior to their arrest, they commit between 12 and 15 felonies. And most disturbing, of those "nonserious-nonviolent" inmates being released, 70% will reoffend within three years, and many of those will commit a violent crime before they are rearrested.
When one of these "nonviolent-nonserious" criminals commits a brutal murder like Clemmons did, you can expect the transferring of blame and finger pointing to begin, just as we are seeing today in Arkansas and Washington as people try to escape the blame for allowing the senseless and tragic loss of life.
Remember, "Public safety is an investment, not a cost."
JERRY DYER HAS SERVED AS FRESNO’S POLICE CHIEF SINCE 2001.
Garr Neilsen's My Word in the Times Standard 12/16/2009
◼ http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/wo/story/1740052.html
Jerry Dyer Op-Ed in Fresno Bee Tuesday, Dec. 08, 2009
Word for word.
Desperate? Stupid? Being pushed by the "Progressive" overlords to get something out?
Unbearable, incredibly unimaginably stupid? Sorry, Garr, this is not cool.
Caught by someone in the comments, starting at #29
***
Jon-E-Law Eureka, CA
Liberal for Life wrote:
Wow.
I always believed that Eureka deserved a literate, public-oriented police chief.
Well done.
Not a chance. Your moron Chief did not write this he plagiarized it from the Fresno Chief.
***
Jon-E-Law Eureka, CA
Lib for life too wrote:
Actually, this is written like he is running for office. Chief, if that is true, don't you think you should finish your one job at EPD before moving on and taking on another?
He will fit with Gallegos in taking credit for another's work. Chief Jerry Dyer from Fresno PD wrote this piece.
***
Jon-E-Law Eureka, CA
Dyer's original piece ran in the Fresno Bee on December 8.
http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/wo/story/174...
***
Walter Sobchak Wildomar, CA
Liberal for Life wrote:
Wow.
I always believed that Eureka deserved a literate, public-oriented police chief.
Well done.
Darn straight. Of course, if all he'll do is publish others' work without attribution, that would actually make him a thief. Intellectually dishonest, AND a thief? Not exactly a ringing endorsement, is it?
Remember this:
◼ Filed under Gallegos' Plagiarism
RELATED STORIES:
THE OX-BOW INCIDENT by ROBERT LOUIS FELIX
a copy of THE OX-BOW INCIDENT in case the link goes down
TS - Paul Gallegos' My Word
ER - WHOSE WORD WAS 'MY WORD'?
ER - A second Gallegos column raises questions about attribution
Back up links, Eureka Reporter coverage"
◼ ER - WHOSE WORD WAS 'MY WORD'? 9/7/2006
◼ ER - A second Gallegos column raises questions about attribution 9/8/2006
UPDATE and clarification:
◼ Pla-Garr-ism? The Journal
***
Neilsen's Press Release
I wish to clarify any confusion that may have arisen from the opinion piece published earlier this week in the Times Standard. This was a position piece adopted by the California Police Chiefs Association. The editorial was distributed to regional directors to be modified for local media and presented as a position supported by local chiefs. This is a common practice that is intended to distribute a consistent position.
I apologize for any confusion this may have caused regarding the authorship of the piece. There was no intent to claim it as original, but rather reflect consensus of opinion of California Chiefs.
Thanks
gn
◼ Police Chief clears air over editorial
◼ A letter to our readers
The Times-Standard contacted the column's original writer, Fresno Chief of Police and former President of the California Police Chiefs Association Jerry Dyer, who said he was asked to write the Clemmons piece by the Fresno Bee, as he's a regular contributor for them.
At a recent Cal Chiefs meeting, Dyer said he told everyone that he was working on the piece and that he would be submitting it. As he's done before, he said he urged all the regional chiefs to localize the piece -- either using it as a jumping off point or using parts or all of it -- and to submit it to their local papers.
It is important that individuals who submit columns acknowledge when information, ideas, viewpoints or phrases are coming from another source. In this case, a simple citation or sentence of attribution would have sufficed, giving us a chance to weigh whether we were interested in running the opinion of Fresno's police chief -- even with a local angle -- and allowing readers to understand the full picture of the piece's origin.
*********
not formatted yet
Public safety is an investment, not a cost
Garr Nielsen/For the Times-Standard
Posted: 12/16/2009 01:30:12 AM PST
On Nov. 23, Maurice Clemmons was released on bail from Pierce County Jail. In less than a week, he would change the lives of four families forever.
Clemmons' ongoing criminal behavior and propensity for violence should have been sufficient grounds for his continued incarceration. Over a four-day period in May, Clemmons punched a sheriff's deputy, forced relatives to strip naked, and raped a child, all of this while he was on parole status from Arkansas. Yet, Clemmons remained free.
The legal systems in Arkansas and Washington failed miserably, resulting in the two states transferring blame and pointing fingers at one another. Meanwhile, the Lakewood Police Department in Washington and the families of the four slain officers are left to suffer.
Many have forgotten the importance of the criminal justice system to include our prisons. California prisons are filled with Clemmons types. Many are suffering from mental illness and drug addiction and refuse to be rehabilitated. When they do get out, we rely on our police officers to stand between them and us.
When someone like Clemmons is willing to kill four police officers in broad daylight, how much easier is it to kill four innocent citizens?
The safety of our communities must be our highest priority and the foundation for government. Police officers, prosecutors, jails and prisons cannot be seen as a burden or cost to government. They are investments. There are many who don't realize this and believe
Advertisement
the way to reduce California's deficit is to slash funding to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which includes state parole.
Although I agree that significant improvements need to be made to CDCR and how we supervise those on parole, this does not include the wholesale release of inmates from prison and the elimination of parole status. Significant money may be saved on the front end, but over time, the cost to local communities will be immeasurable.
When crime and fear go up, communities become paralyzed, causing businesses and residents to flee California. The Eureka Police Department is committed to providing a safe community and we have made great strides in our efforts to become a more effective, collaborative and responsive organization. The wholesale release of prison inmates into our community will adversely impact much of the progress we have made and further tax our scarce resources.
What further complicates this matter is a federal court ruling by a three-judge panel, which has ruled that prison overcrowding in California is a direct cause of inadequate health care to inmates. As a result, the panel has given a tentative order to reduce the prison population by 40,000 inmates over a two-year period.
A portion of those inmates would be released to the Eureka community. A plan has been submitted by CDCR to the court outlining how the releases would occur. This plan is being reviewed by the judicial panel, which means the initial releases may begin in the early part of 2010.
Along the way, there will be attempts to disguise the type of inmates being released by calling them “nonviolent” or not serious offenders.
Do not be fooled; “career criminals” will be released. It takes an average of five convictions before a person is ever sent to prison, and the year prior to their arrest, they commit between 12 and 15 felonies. And most disturbing, of those “nonviolent” inmates being released, 70 percent will reoffend within three years, and many of those will commit a violent crime before they are rearrested.
When one of these “nonviolent” criminals commits a brutal murder like Clemmons did, you can expect the transferring of blame and finger pointing to begin, just as we are seeing today in Arkansas and Washington as people try to escape the blame for allowing the senseless and tragic loss of life. But finger pointing after the fact serves no useful purpose. We need to ensure that we support a system which does not allow for the release of the Maurice Clemmonses back into our neighborhoods.
Remember, “Public safety is an investment, not a cost.”
Garr Nielsen is chief of the Eureka Police Department.
*************
*************
JERRY DYER: Invest in our public safety
Posted at 07:27 AM on Tuesday, Dec. 08, 2009
TEXT SIZE:
Comments (20) | Recommend (16)
SIMILAR STORIES:
•
Man charged with helping WA gunman elude capture
•
Vote 'no' on Proposition 9, an ill-considered crime victims bill
•
Fresno Co. forced to release juveniles early
•
Is killer in '84 Fresno slaying a danger today?
•
Officials: Gang rivalry led to Calif. prison riot
On Nov. 23, Maurice Clemmons was released on bail from Pierce County Jail. In less than a week, he would change the lives of four families forever.
Clemmons' ongoing criminal behavior and propensity for violence should have been sufficient grounds for his continued incarceration. Over a four-day period in May, Clemmons punched a sheriff's deputy, forced relatives to strip naked, and raped a child, all of this while he was on parole status from Arkansas. Yet, Clemmons remained free.
The legal systems in Arkansas and Washington failed miserably, resulting in the two states transferring blame and pointing fingers at one another. Meanwhile, the Lakewood Police Department in Washington, and the families of the four slain officers are left to suffer.
Many have forgotten the importance of the criminal justice system to include our prisons. California prisons are filled with Clemmons types. Many are suffering from mental illness and drug addiction and refuse to be rehabilitated. When they do get out, we rely on our police officers to stand between them and us.
When someone like Clemmons is willing to kill four police officers in broad daylight, how much easier is it to kill four innocent citizens?
The safety of our communities must be our highest priority and the foundation for government. Police officers, prosecutors, jails and prisons cannot be seen as a burden or cost to government. They are investments. There are many who don't realize this and believe the way to reduce the California's deficit is to slash funding to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which includes state Parole.
Although I agree that significant improvements need to be made to CDCR and how we supervise those on parole, this does not include the wholesale release of inmates from prison and the elimination of parole status. Significant money may be saved on the front end, but over time the cost to local communities will be immeasurable.
When crime and fear go up, communities become paralyzed, causing businesses and residents to flee California. Fresno experienced this in the 1990s when drive-by shootings, car-jacking and home invasion robberies occurred nightly in our city, and crime soared out of control. We cannot afford a return to the '90s.
What further complicates this matter is a federal court ruling by a three-judge panel, which has ruled that prison overcrowding in California is a direct cause of inadequate health care to inmates. As a result, the panel has given a tentative order to reduce the prison population by 40,000 inmates over a two year period.
Of the 40,000, about 1,600 inmates would be released to the Fresno community. A plan has been submitted by CDCR to the court outlining how the releases would occur. This plan is being reviewed by the judicial panel, which means the initial releases may begin in the early part of 2010.
Along the way, there will be attempts to disguise the type of inmates being released by calling them "nonviolent-nonserious" offenders. Do not be fooled, "career criminals" will be released. It takes an average of five convictions before a person is ever sent to prison and the year prior to their arrest, they commit between 12 and 15 felonies. And most disturbing, of those "nonserious-nonviolent" inmates being released, 70% will reoffend within three years, and many of those will commit a violent crime before they are rearrested.
When one of these "nonviolent-nonserious" criminals commits a brutal murder like Clemmons did, you can expect the transferring of blame and finger pointing to begin, just as we are seeing today in Arkansas and Washington as people try to escape the blame for allowing the senseless and tragic loss of life.
Remember, "Public safety is an investment, not a cost."
JERRY DYER HAS SERVED AS FRESNO’S POLICE CHIEF SINCE 2001.
12.14.2009
◼ Quigley family addresses court at Whitmill, Flores sentencing 'I WILL NEVER FORGET HER'
◼ Whitmill, Flores sentenced while victim's family, friends look on
A Humboldt County Superior Court judge upheld the plea deals reached in the case of Jason Whitmill and Anthony Flores on Friday, sentencing them - 14 years eight months and three years in prison respectively - for their roles in the 2008 car crash that took the life of a 9year-old girl.
Whitmill, 32, and Flores, 19, were racing at speeds of over 100 mph along State Route 299 on Oct. 6, 2008, when Whitmill's vehicle clipped a sport utility vehicle, causing it to veer from the road, down an embankment and into a utility pole.
Nicole Lynn Quigley, a fourth-grader at Dow's Prairie Elementary School, was killed in the wreck and her mother, Debra Quigley, suffered major injuries. Nicole's twin sister, Ashley, and a family friend were also in the car, but were uninjured in the crash.
Before sentencing the defendants, Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Dale Reinholtsen and a packed courtroom listened to emotional statements from Nicole's friends and family, who talked about the bright life that was lost in the tragic accident.
Addressing the court and the defendants, Nicole's father Ken Quigley read a statement from Ashley.
"My sister was my best friend - we did everything together," he read as sobs and the sound of choked-back tears emanated from throughout the courtroom. "You don't know how much I miss her. ... You took my best friend away from me. She was only 9 years old. I will miss her every second of my life. My sister was the best sister in the world, and I will never forget her."
Reading from a prepared statement of his own, Ken Quigley said that Tuesday Aug. 17, 1999, the day his twin daughters were born, was the happiest of his life. He said his joy only grew as he watched Nicole blossom into an intelligent and beautiful young girl who would come to work with him and tell him that, one day, she would take over the family business.
Flores and Whitmill, Ken Quigley said, took all that away.
"The thought of this makes me sick to my stomach," he said. " The courts cannot impose on you the punishment you deserve."
Some speakers expressed frustration at the plea deals reached by the defendants. Whitmill had faced murder charges for his role in the crash, but wound up pleading guilty to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, and to driving under the influence causing great bodily injury, as well as to a special allegation of having served three prison terms.
According to Reinholtsen, the deal leaves Whitmill with two strikes on his record, meaning if he is convicted of another strikable offense he would automatically face a prison sentence of 25 years to life.
Flores pleaded guilty to gross vehicular manslaughter and hit-and-run for leaving the scene of the accident, spawning a days-long manhunt.
Deputy District Attorney Maggie Fleming told the court that defense appeals regarding Whitmill's blood being drawn without his consent the day of the accident - while it was still unknown who the driver of the vehicle was - played into her office's decision to accept the plea deals rather than prosecute the case.
Reinholtsen ruled in November that Whitmill's blood was legally drawn. The defense appealed the decision unsuccessfully to an appellate court, then took the matter to the California Supreme Court, which declined to hear the matter.
Fleming said her office was concerned the matter would make any possible conviction in the case susceptible to appeals. As a part of their plea deals, both Whitmill and Flores have agreed to waive all rights to appeal.
After Friday's hearing, Ken Quigley expressed frustration at the way the case was handled by District Attorney Paul Gallegos. He charged that Gallegos was unprepared for court appearances, twice dropped it in the lap of unprepared deputy district attorneys and generally handled it in an unprofessional manner.
"Had this case been handled from the beginning by someone with the experience of Maggie Fleming, it would have had a much different outcome," Ken Quigley said. "I'm not here to knock people, but I'm very disappointed with the way Mr. Gallegos handled this case. Next year can't come soon enough. It is an election year, isn't it?"
Gallegos told the TimesStandard in a previous interview that the case was handled properly from start to finish.
In addressing the court, Nicole's uncle, Mike Quigley, said complaining about the sentence won't do any good. Instead, he vented anger at the defendants and a criminal justice system that released Whitmill from custody less than two weeks before the crash.
"In a just world, none of us would be here because he wouldn't have been on the streets," he said, before turning his attention to both defendants. "You killed a 9year-old girl and neither one of you are man enough to stand up and take responsibility for it. God bless my beautiful niece and her mom and dad and sister, and God damn both of you."
Mike Quigley's comments drew a round of applause from the packed courtroom, which was awash in pink as many members of the Quigley family and their friends were clad in Nicole's favorite color. So many people attended Friday's sentencing that an overflow room was set up, where those who couldn't fit in Reinholtsen's courtroom watched the proceedings via a video feed.
As Nicole's friends and family addressed the court, the defendants sat in the jury box with their lawyers. A stoic Flores sat, clad in an orange jumpsuit, staring at speakers as they addressed the court. Throughout most of the proceedings, Whitmill sat with his eyes cast toward his feet, showing little emotion. Then, Dan Johnson, Nicole's soccer coach, addressed the defendants.
"If you want to take responsibility for your actions, you might start by looking at speakers when they are talking to you," he said, sending Whitmill's eyes darting up to his.
When Sandy Henry addressed the court, she explained that she taught Nicole in her last year at Dow's Prairie before retiring, adding that Nicole was an integral part of her favorite class in 30 years of teaching. Nicole, Henry said, was going to do great things in life. Hearing this, Whitmill began to weep, wiping tears on the shoulder of his orange jumpsuit and again casting his eyes to his feet.
" Three years from now Nicole would have been getting ready to go to high school. Fourteen years from now she would have been graduating from college, getting ready to start a career," Henry said. "I'm at a loss to see equity in this judgment."
Glenn Brown, Whitmill's attorney, also addressed the court, reading a letter from his client.
"On Oct. 6, 2008, I caused the death of your daughter by driving drunk and racing another vehicle," Brown read. "I feel so terribly sorry for the pain I caused your family."
Flores provided no statement to the court.
In handing down the sentences of 14 years and eight months for Whitmill and three years for Flores, Reinholtsen echoed the sentiments of many. " There's no sentence the court can impose that can right this wrong. I recognize that," he said, adding that he hopes the publicity the case drew and the Quigley family's sharing of their pain with the community might make a difference. "Perhaps that will cause someone we don't know, and will never know, to drive in a more safe manner." Many in court Friday talked about the joy that Nicole Lynn Quigley brought to their lives. They spoke of her love for dance, her dedication to her studies and her ability to draw a smile - and the best - from people.
"I know Nicole loved every moment of her life with every ounce of her being," Henry said. "My challenge now is to honor her by finding joy in every moment of my life."
" Thadeus Greenson can be reached at 441-0509 or tgreenson@times-standard.com.
Thadeus Greenson/THE TIMES- STANDARD
Posted: 12/12/2009 09:47:53 AM PST
Updated: 12/14/2009 09:58:57 AM PST
UPDATED:
◼ Quigley family addresses court at Whitmill, Flores sentencing 'I WILL NEVER FORGET HER'
◼ Whitmill, Flores sentenced while victim's family, friends look on
People to speak at Whitmill/Flores proceedings today.
Brief recap:
◼ Quigley family, friends remember 9-year-old Nicole 10/06/09
One of the things Ken Quigley misses most about his daughter is her dancing.
”I don't even know where to begin,” he said about his favorite memories of his daughter Nicole Lynn Quigley. “We miss her so much ... . We miss watching her dance. Dancing was her thing. She danced all over the house.”
◼ Too many delays 9/10/09
On Monday, Aug. 3, the friends and family of Nicole Lynn Quigley once again attended court for what was supposed to be a pre-trial hearing for Jason Whitmill and Anthony Flores and once again Whitmill's attorney, Glen Brown, paid for by you and me, the taxpayer, succeeded in getting the trial date moved out to the end of September. One of Glen Brown's excuses was that he had more important trials scheduled at the same time as this one. Since I am not allowed to speak during court, my question to Glen Brown is, “More important to whom?” After two judges have reviewed the charges against Whitmill and concurred that second-degree murder will stand against Whitmill for his reckless regard for human life, Mr. Brown has now sent the case off to the California Appellate Court in another one of his tactics to delay the inevitable. How this man sleeps at night is beyond me. In the meantime I will be watching very closely for what trials come up around Sept. 8 that are so important that we need to delay some closure to my family and friends and Whitmill's and Flores' trip to the big house.
Kenneth Quigley
◼ Court document: Flores tried to 'subvert' investigation 10/16/08
◼ Vehicular manslaughter suspect has extensive criminal history 11/13/08
It's a hard cold fact that Ken Miller's "concern" contingent is nowhere in sight. Salzman held no candlelight vigils.
◼ Whitmill, Flores sentenced while victim's family, friends look on
A Humboldt County Superior Court judge upheld the plea deals reached in the case of Jason Whitmill and Anthony Flores on Friday, sentencing them - 14 years eight months and three years in prison respectively - for their roles in the 2008 car crash that took the life of a 9year-old girl.
Whitmill, 32, and Flores, 19, were racing at speeds of over 100 mph along State Route 299 on Oct. 6, 2008, when Whitmill's vehicle clipped a sport utility vehicle, causing it to veer from the road, down an embankment and into a utility pole.
Nicole Lynn Quigley, a fourth-grader at Dow's Prairie Elementary School, was killed in the wreck and her mother, Debra Quigley, suffered major injuries. Nicole's twin sister, Ashley, and a family friend were also in the car, but were uninjured in the crash.
Before sentencing the defendants, Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Dale Reinholtsen and a packed courtroom listened to emotional statements from Nicole's friends and family, who talked about the bright life that was lost in the tragic accident.
Addressing the court and the defendants, Nicole's father Ken Quigley read a statement from Ashley.
"My sister was my best friend - we did everything together," he read as sobs and the sound of choked-back tears emanated from throughout the courtroom. "You don't know how much I miss her. ... You took my best friend away from me. She was only 9 years old. I will miss her every second of my life. My sister was the best sister in the world, and I will never forget her."
Reading from a prepared statement of his own, Ken Quigley said that Tuesday Aug. 17, 1999, the day his twin daughters were born, was the happiest of his life. He said his joy only grew as he watched Nicole blossom into an intelligent and beautiful young girl who would come to work with him and tell him that, one day, she would take over the family business.
Flores and Whitmill, Ken Quigley said, took all that away.
"The thought of this makes me sick to my stomach," he said. " The courts cannot impose on you the punishment you deserve."
Some speakers expressed frustration at the plea deals reached by the defendants. Whitmill had faced murder charges for his role in the crash, but wound up pleading guilty to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, and to driving under the influence causing great bodily injury, as well as to a special allegation of having served three prison terms.
According to Reinholtsen, the deal leaves Whitmill with two strikes on his record, meaning if he is convicted of another strikable offense he would automatically face a prison sentence of 25 years to life.
Flores pleaded guilty to gross vehicular manslaughter and hit-and-run for leaving the scene of the accident, spawning a days-long manhunt.
Deputy District Attorney Maggie Fleming told the court that defense appeals regarding Whitmill's blood being drawn without his consent the day of the accident - while it was still unknown who the driver of the vehicle was - played into her office's decision to accept the plea deals rather than prosecute the case.
Reinholtsen ruled in November that Whitmill's blood was legally drawn. The defense appealed the decision unsuccessfully to an appellate court, then took the matter to the California Supreme Court, which declined to hear the matter.
Fleming said her office was concerned the matter would make any possible conviction in the case susceptible to appeals. As a part of their plea deals, both Whitmill and Flores have agreed to waive all rights to appeal.
After Friday's hearing, Ken Quigley expressed frustration at the way the case was handled by District Attorney Paul Gallegos. He charged that Gallegos was unprepared for court appearances, twice dropped it in the lap of unprepared deputy district attorneys and generally handled it in an unprofessional manner.
"Had this case been handled from the beginning by someone with the experience of Maggie Fleming, it would have had a much different outcome," Ken Quigley said. "I'm not here to knock people, but I'm very disappointed with the way Mr. Gallegos handled this case. Next year can't come soon enough. It is an election year, isn't it?"
Gallegos told the TimesStandard in a previous interview that the case was handled properly from start to finish.
In addressing the court, Nicole's uncle, Mike Quigley, said complaining about the sentence won't do any good. Instead, he vented anger at the defendants and a criminal justice system that released Whitmill from custody less than two weeks before the crash.
"In a just world, none of us would be here because he wouldn't have been on the streets," he said, before turning his attention to both defendants. "You killed a 9year-old girl and neither one of you are man enough to stand up and take responsibility for it. God bless my beautiful niece and her mom and dad and sister, and God damn both of you."
Mike Quigley's comments drew a round of applause from the packed courtroom, which was awash in pink as many members of the Quigley family and their friends were clad in Nicole's favorite color. So many people attended Friday's sentencing that an overflow room was set up, where those who couldn't fit in Reinholtsen's courtroom watched the proceedings via a video feed.
As Nicole's friends and family addressed the court, the defendants sat in the jury box with their lawyers. A stoic Flores sat, clad in an orange jumpsuit, staring at speakers as they addressed the court. Throughout most of the proceedings, Whitmill sat with his eyes cast toward his feet, showing little emotion. Then, Dan Johnson, Nicole's soccer coach, addressed the defendants.
"If you want to take responsibility for your actions, you might start by looking at speakers when they are talking to you," he said, sending Whitmill's eyes darting up to his.
When Sandy Henry addressed the court, she explained that she taught Nicole in her last year at Dow's Prairie before retiring, adding that Nicole was an integral part of her favorite class in 30 years of teaching. Nicole, Henry said, was going to do great things in life. Hearing this, Whitmill began to weep, wiping tears on the shoulder of his orange jumpsuit and again casting his eyes to his feet.
" Three years from now Nicole would have been getting ready to go to high school. Fourteen years from now she would have been graduating from college, getting ready to start a career," Henry said. "I'm at a loss to see equity in this judgment."
Glenn Brown, Whitmill's attorney, also addressed the court, reading a letter from his client.
"On Oct. 6, 2008, I caused the death of your daughter by driving drunk and racing another vehicle," Brown read. "I feel so terribly sorry for the pain I caused your family."
Flores provided no statement to the court.
In handing down the sentences of 14 years and eight months for Whitmill and three years for Flores, Reinholtsen echoed the sentiments of many. " There's no sentence the court can impose that can right this wrong. I recognize that," he said, adding that he hopes the publicity the case drew and the Quigley family's sharing of their pain with the community might make a difference. "Perhaps that will cause someone we don't know, and will never know, to drive in a more safe manner." Many in court Friday talked about the joy that Nicole Lynn Quigley brought to their lives. They spoke of her love for dance, her dedication to her studies and her ability to draw a smile - and the best - from people.
"I know Nicole loved every moment of her life with every ounce of her being," Henry said. "My challenge now is to honor her by finding joy in every moment of my life."
" Thadeus Greenson can be reached at 441-0509 or tgreenson@times-standard.com.
Thadeus Greenson/THE TIMES- STANDARD
Posted: 12/12/2009 09:47:53 AM PST
Updated: 12/14/2009 09:58:57 AM PST
UPDATED:
◼ Quigley family addresses court at Whitmill, Flores sentencing 'I WILL NEVER FORGET HER'
◼ Whitmill, Flores sentenced while victim's family, friends look on
People to speak at Whitmill/Flores proceedings today.
Brief recap:
◼ Quigley family, friends remember 9-year-old Nicole 10/06/09
One of the things Ken Quigley misses most about his daughter is her dancing.
”I don't even know where to begin,” he said about his favorite memories of his daughter Nicole Lynn Quigley. “We miss her so much ... . We miss watching her dance. Dancing was her thing. She danced all over the house.”
◼ Too many delays 9/10/09
On Monday, Aug. 3, the friends and family of Nicole Lynn Quigley once again attended court for what was supposed to be a pre-trial hearing for Jason Whitmill and Anthony Flores and once again Whitmill's attorney, Glen Brown, paid for by you and me, the taxpayer, succeeded in getting the trial date moved out to the end of September. One of Glen Brown's excuses was that he had more important trials scheduled at the same time as this one. Since I am not allowed to speak during court, my question to Glen Brown is, “More important to whom?” After two judges have reviewed the charges against Whitmill and concurred that second-degree murder will stand against Whitmill for his reckless regard for human life, Mr. Brown has now sent the case off to the California Appellate Court in another one of his tactics to delay the inevitable. How this man sleeps at night is beyond me. In the meantime I will be watching very closely for what trials come up around Sept. 8 that are so important that we need to delay some closure to my family and friends and Whitmill's and Flores' trip to the big house.
Kenneth Quigley
◼ Court document: Flores tried to 'subvert' investigation 10/16/08
◼ Vehicular manslaughter suspect has extensive criminal history 11/13/08
It's a hard cold fact that Ken Miller's "concern" contingent is nowhere in sight. Salzman held no candlelight vigils.
12.11.2009
Cage Match
The Development in question:
◼ JN Cage Match
By Hank Sims The Town Dandy
◼ http://www.northcoastjournal.com/issues/2009/12/10/cage-match/
As Journal reporter Ryan Burns writes elsewhere in this paper, the California Coastal Commission is set to hear an appeal connected with the proposed Marina Center development today (Thursday, Dec. 10). The hearing will kick off the true beginning of the fight over the proposed big box-anchored development on the old railyard on the Eureka waterfront, which has been kicking around for almost four years now. Opponents of the project didn't bother putting up any serious effort when the City of Eureka approved the environmental impact report and a project permit last month -- figuring, probably correctly, that the vote was already in the bag. The Coastal Commission is the body that's going to make -- or, more likely, break -- the thing.
For honesty's sake, let's admit a couple of things at the outset. For one, California law pertaining to this and many other matters is Byzantine beyond belief, to the extent that it can sometimes actively stifle the very thing it was written to accomplish. The Balloon Track could sit there as is for another 100 years, leaching its ugly self into the Bay, and the Coastal Commission would never say boo. For another, much of the opposition to the project has little to do with environmental remediation per se. For various historical, cultural and economic reasons, some people -- some powerful people -- don't like the fact that the proposed Marina Center is anchored by a Home Depot. And there are a few powerful opponents whose passions are chiefly aroused by the opportunity to give financier/developer Rob Arkley and his supporters in Eureka City Hall a poke in the eye. If Arkley were to put forth plans to turn the site into a sustainable organic cooperative farm, there are people who would sue him for not devoting enough space to the hemp crop.
But it's almost as if Arkley and City Hall wished these antagonists into existence, and then provided them with cudgels. Believe it or not, there are developers in other parts of the state, and even locally, who invite the opposition into the tent before a project ever gets underway. Arkley, instead, has delivered the middle finger to his opposition, consistent with the strange, ideology-driven approach he takes to nearly all his Humboldt County projects. (Leaving aside some of the charitable ones.) What does he want more: To get the job done, or to destroy his enemies -- people who harbor wrongheaded notions about the rights of capital and the role of government regulation?
You can't look at the history of Marina Center long without concluding that the former is secondary, the latter supreme. More than anything, he itches for a fight. And this time, he'll have a whole bunch of his psychic irritants in the ring: Humboldt County Supervisor and Coastal Commission Chair Bonnie Neely, left-leaning hardware king Bill Pierson, enviros like Pete Nichols and Scott Greacen and others, state bureaucrats like Humboldt County Planning Commissioner and longtime Coastal Commission bureaucrat Ralph Faust. This -- the broad scope of the upcoming score-settling -- is what gives the current conflagration its end-of-days feel.
Whether it ultimately happens in today's hearing or not is open to question -- there'll certainly be plenty of others to follow -- but the Coastal Commission shows itself perfectly willing to whittle Marina Center down to nothing. The staff report in the case recommends reversing the city's permit to allow Arkley's CUE VI company to begin work on the site, and that's probably what will happen. If so, what will be most frustrating is the already audible whining from inside City Hall and Arkley's Security National that it is all so unfair. The Coastal Commission has been a brick wall growing steadily larger for four years now, and neither the company nor the city has done anything to alter course. The Coastal Commission wrote an objection to the city's draft environmental impact report containing the precise objections which are now on appeal; the city staff waved the commission off, then urged the City Council to approve the 1,000-page-plus report, complete with this objection and others, in a matter of days. Which the City Council did. So now the city is getting what it paid for, and no one should be shocked.
Anyway, come join us on the North Coast Journal Blogthing today (Thursday). We'll be live-blogging the Coastal Commission hearing when it gets underway, complete with a background sense of how underhanded and silly it has all been.
^^^^^
The North Coast Journal is proud to be fielding a team of reporters in Copenhagen for the duration of the United Nations Climate Change Conference, which may actually come up with some sensible strategies for limiting humankind's assault on the planet. In the coming weeks, we'll be printing regular dispatches from Manila's Dan Ihara, an economist who has specialized in climate change, and Petrolia playwrights/activists/raconteurs Jane Lapiner and David Simpson. The first of their reports, which takes the pulse of the summiteers as the conference gets underway, appears this week.
comments
1. Thirdeye: Yesterday, 1:14 p.m.
"The staff report in the case recommends reversing the city's permit to allow Arkley's CUE VI company to begin work..."
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG
The staff report did not recommend reversing the permit. The staff report recommended hearing the objections. What's a little fact twisting in the name of the chosen narrative, right Hank?
The whole speculation about ideology driving the Marina Center project is just silly. If there's any ideological motivation it's on the part of assorted groovy people (mostly from outside of Eureka) who can't get over their knee-jerk reaction to Home Depot. And how does the expansion of the wetland element in response to public input constitute some sort of middle finger?
I suppose we'll next be hearing about how timber companies harvest trees to teach hippies a lesson.
2. Hank Sims: Yesterday, 1:27 p.m.
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG
Eh?
Paragraph one: "Staff recommends that the Commission determine that a substantial issue exists with respect to the grounds on which Appeal No. A-1-EUR-09-049 has been filed and that the Commission hold a de novo hearing."
The Commission holds the new hearing. Not the city. See? Reversing -- or superceding, if you like -- the city's permit.
If there's any ideological motivation it's on the part of assorted groovy people (mostly from outside of Eureka) who can't get over their knee-jerk reaction to Home Depot.
I'm not denying that, as you can read above. But if you're saying that Arkley's intentions have been snow-pure throughout, you live on a different plane of existence.
And how does the expansion of the wetland element in response to public input constitute some sort of middle finger?
Erm, you mean the wetland element absolutely required by law if other wetlands on the site are going to be filled? The one leaned on throughout the present EIR? That was "in response to public input," somehow?
3. Dork: Yesterday, 2:10 p.m.
Hank, you're either higher than usual or just proving again that facts are no match for your biases. Opposition to Arkley's Marina Center plan was well under way before there was a Marina Center plan--before the big box, before the big middle finger, before know-it-alls like you were rewriting history like this. The opposition began the day the word "Arkley" became associated with a blighted shithole that mattered not at all to anyone until the day he bought it.
4. Hank Sims: Yesterday, 2:24 p.m.
The opposition began the day the word "Arkley" became associated with a blighted shithole that mattered not at all to anyone until the day he bought it.
What? You ever heard of Wal-Mart? The stillborn Headwaters Fund study? Who's rewriting history?!?
5. Thirdeye: Yesterday, 2:39 p.m.
Hank:
Now that you've cut and pasted the relevant passage, I suggest you read it again and try to understand it this time. You're a literate guy. I think you can do it. A recommendation to hear the appeals is not the same as a recommendation to reverse the City of Eureka's approval of the permit. It is a review process. Comprende?
Whatever Arkley's innermost thoughts are (and of which you claim some special knowledge), we know one thing: he sees an opportunity to make some bucks. Maybe the thought of Home Depot gives him a wet dream and maybe it doesn't, I don't know. Did his deal with North Coast Co-op mean he fell in love with Co-op people? Probably not. He saw an opportunity to make some bucks.
Yes, the wetland element was expanded during the scoping phase of the project, in response to public input. I take it you didn't know that before you wrote with such authority. Given that virtually the entire site is fill, the project is a net gain for wetland. Puddles on top of fill do not wetlands make, unless you share the delusions of Baykeeper.
6. Hank Sims: Yesterday, 2:46 p.m.
You've heard the words "de novo" before?
Come on over, Thirdeye! -- http://www.northcoastjournal.com/blogthing/
7. Thirdeye: Yesterday, 2:54 p.m.
Who's rewriting history? You are, Hank, you are. Marina Center is not Wal-Mart part II. And your argument that the proposed Headwaters-funded study was somehow necessary for a public process to occur has been refuted many times over. You should know better than to keep invoking it.
8. Hank Sims: Yesterday, 3:03 p.m.
Jeez, dude, I'm going to have to spend some time with you here. Word-by-word-style.
"Dork" wrote:
...a blighted shithole that mattered not at all to anyone until the day he bought it.
Whereupon I wrote that the shithole did, in fact, matter to people before he bought it, and gave two citations.
And your argument that the proposed Headwaters-funded study was somehow necessary for a public process to occur has been refuted many times over.
I never said any such thing. Of course a public process is possible without it. The public process is happening without it. Just moments ago, for example.
9. Thirdeye: Yesterday, 3:30 p.m.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d010.htm
DE NOVO - Anew. afresh. Considering the matter anew, the same as if it had not been heard before and as if no decision previously had been rendered. Ness v. Commissioner, 954 F.2d 1495, 1497 (9th Cir. 1992). Such review is 'independent.' Premier v. Fuentes, 880 F.2d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1989).
The staff's (approved) recommendation to review the permit De Novo is essentially a recommendation to invoke full authority. It is not a final judgment on the merits of the issues under appeal, despite what Hank and other spinmeisters may claim.
10. Hank Sims: Yesterday, 3:39 p.m.
"Anew. afresh. Considering the matter anew, the same as if it had not been heard before and as if no decision previously had been rendered."
Right? And that's not the same as reversing the City Council's decision?
But this is getting stupid. I think we agree -- now the Coastal Commission gets to decide whether to grant the permit, and the city does not.
11. Thirdeye: Yesterday, 4:44 p.m.
No, that's not the same as reversing the City Council's decision. Just as in the case of an appeals court agreeing to hear a case, that is not the same as reversing the lower court's decision.
Now, onto the issue of your position on the Headwaters-funded study and public participation:
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/092806/shortstories0928.html
"An hour or so later, Marina Center spokesman Brian Morrissey took the stage to deliver a presentation on the Marina Center, which he referred to as a 'smart growth' project.' I'm a smart growth guy,' Morrissey said. The characterization drew immediate objections from Andrew Whitney of the Humboldt County Planning Department, who said that community involvement in development was a cornerstone of the smart growth movement. (He didn't mention that Arkley had the Eureka City Council kill a public study on the Balloon Track, specifically to limit public participation in the planning."
(Hank Sims)
Of course, there was a large amount of public input in the scoping phase of the project that resulted in, among other things, expansion of the wetland element. But you chose to ignore that.
12. JJ: Yesterday, 7:16 p.m.
It's fairly obvious that Security National could care less about the existing wetlands, characterizing them as nothing more than "tire tracks" in their commercials
Eerily similar to the "Eureka Coalition for Jobs" campaign smearing Chris Kerrigan
13. Anon: Yesterday, 9:12 p.m.
Hank, you are rewriting history in pretending this is about a location instead of about a man. Let's just test your theory: Name a location in the city where Rob Arkley could put in a building supply store and the progs wouldn't climb up his butt.
Anything coming to mind?
14. wrong jj: Yesterday, 9:13 p.m.
JJ, those farking supposed wetlands ARE tire tracks. That's not an opinion that is a fact. It's been documented.
To try and taint this with the Kerrigan hit piece, who many believe was a Salzman move to garner sympathy for Chris is lame.
15. Anony2: Yesterday, 9:16 p.m.
Dayum, HanQ,
Thirdeye OWNS you. In each and every conversation here and on the mainsite and on the blogthing you have been spanked and spanked hard. I do wish you'd try for some actual reporting instead of trying sprinkle the news with your personal bias, hell we get enough of that on fox and msnbc.
16. Hank Sims: Yesterday, 11:05 p.m.
Jesus Christ. You lovable freaks.
Let's just test your theory: Name a location in the city where Rob Arkley could put in a building supply store and the progs wouldn't climb up his butt.
I can't. Which is why I stated EXACTLY THAT in the second goddamn paragraph of this column!!! Whose theory are you testing, now?
Just as in the case of an appeals court agreeing to hear a case, that is not the same as reversing the lower court's decision.
Kinda. Kinda not. Because the appeals court reverses the lower court on matters of law, not facts established at trial. Whereas in this case, the hearing is de novo -- the matter will essentially be retried, with the Coastal Commission as jury rather than the City Council.
Again, you're getting tediously hung up on semantics here. You are wrong, but you are also boringly wrong. Who cares? Call it anything you want. Call it a Tony Award-winning Broadway musical, if you like. I'm beyond caring.
The fact is that the city's permit is, as of today, stayed -- i.e., the company does not get to act upon it. Now the Coastal Commission decides whether or not the company will get to perform the work envisioned in the permit. Agreed?
Of course, there was a large amount of public input in the scoping phase of the project that resulted in, among other things, expansion of the wetland element.
That's PR hype, plain and simple. The wetland element had to be included, BY LAW. Read the EIR. One of the matters currently on appeal is whether there's ENOUGH wetland to mitigate for the wetlands taken.
To simplify matters somewhat. Hypothetically, let's say Security National first publicly unveiled blueprints of the project consisted entirely of detonating a 500 megaton nuclear weapon underneath the old Union Pacific roundhouse. And so there was hue and cry from the damned environmentalists. And so, instead, out of the kindness of its heart, the company modified the project, scrapping the nuke and instead proposing a Home Depot and some office space. And you're jumping up and down saying they did this in response to public concerns?
The project can't be built with out the wetlands, and it wouldn't have gotten even this far if they weren't in the EIR.
17. Hank Sims: Yesterday, 11:06 p.m.
Now, onto the issue of your position on the Headwaters-funded study and public participation:
I'm seriously having to take it down to dictionary level with you, here. You see, in that passage you quote, that I write that the company killed the public study to "limit" public participation?
You know that "limit" and "eliminate" have different meanings, right?
You don't think that Arkley had the public study killed to limit public participation in the planning for that site? Arkley himself begged to differ, at the time:
"I'm not willing to sit at the table with anybody until I decide what to do with the land," he said. "If they think that taxpayer money is well spent doing that, they should think again."
Good night, sweet princes!
18. Thirdeye: Today, 1:16 a.m.
Hank:
Yes, details do get boring. But they matter. And understanding the significance of boring technical and legal details is what is required for a journalist to perform adequately in a situation such as this one.
Your analogy between the CC's DeNovo hearing and a retrial is not correct. Recirculating the EIR and re-doing responses to comments would be like a retrial. The DeNovo hearing is driven by specific issues that are being appealed.
You just repeated your contention on the wetlands issue from post #2. My response is in post #5. The appeal on the wetlands issue is based on calling puddles on polluted fill "wetlands" and "sensitive habitat" per the propaganda of armchair "scientists" from Baykeeper. Baykeeper propaganda aside, there is very little existing, functional wetland on the site. Sneer if you want, Hank, and throw in some silly nuke analogy, but the fact remains that the proposed restoration of Clark Slough goes beyond what is strictly required by law, and that occurred in response to the public input that you, either by default or deliberately, remained unaware of. Sorry if the public input wasn't in the format you wanted, but it was incorporated into the project.
Here's a little gem of journalistic fellatio performed by Hank on Paul Gallegos and Tim Stoen after the Freeborn ruling in the Palco case:
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/070705/cover0707.html
There's no effort to find any opinion on the ruling from other than from Gallegos and Stoen. It's obvious that Hank never even read the ruling. But that didn't stop him from venturing this pearl of wisdom:
"If Stoen had stuck with [Judge] Wilson, the case would almost certainly have gone to trial."
The appeals court and the Supreme Court didn't see it that way, did they?
For all its factual recklessness, insubstantial opinions, and sucking up, it's quite a hilarious read looking back. Recommended.
19. Anon: Today, 8:40 a.m.
So there is no location in the city where Arkley could put up a building supply store without prog interference, but opposition to the Marina Center is somehow related to Wal-Mart? Please, Hank. Pick a storyline and stick to it. Maybe instead of rewriting history you should rewrite your article so it makes some fucking sense.
20. Hank Sims: Today, 8:47 a.m.
Ach, you are hopeless.
21. JJ: Today, 9:02 a.m.
Love it when these fools pat themselves on the back for a job well done, all the while digging themselves an even deeper grave of nonsense
Thanks for the laugh this morning anony2!
*************
RELATED:
◼ LIVE webcast
◼ JN Cleanup Mess
◼ TS California Coastal Commission to hear appeal on Marina Center interim cleanup
...comments
◼ http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2009/12/Th14c-12-2009-a3.pdf
◼ TS Groups asks court to stop Marina Center project
◼ TS Groups ask court to scrap Marina Center analysis
◼ Appellants prepare for Coastal Commission hearing on Marina Center (some interesting revelations in this report actually)
Local blog posts...RELATED:
◼ Meanwhile, back at the North Coast Journal… The Mirror
◼ Coastal Commission gives Eureka the smack down Heraldo/a
◼ Another city stunt in support of the Marina Center Heraldo/a
◼ Eureka City Council to Certify Marina Center EIR Tonight Tom Sebourn
Really - there is a ton of material on this topic, and it isn't one I have been following all that closely - this link is to Google "Marina Center, Eureka"
◼ JN Cage Match
By Hank Sims The Town Dandy
◼ http://www.northcoastjournal.com/issues/2009/12/10/cage-match/
As Journal reporter Ryan Burns writes elsewhere in this paper, the California Coastal Commission is set to hear an appeal connected with the proposed Marina Center development today (Thursday, Dec. 10). The hearing will kick off the true beginning of the fight over the proposed big box-anchored development on the old railyard on the Eureka waterfront, which has been kicking around for almost four years now. Opponents of the project didn't bother putting up any serious effort when the City of Eureka approved the environmental impact report and a project permit last month -- figuring, probably correctly, that the vote was already in the bag. The Coastal Commission is the body that's going to make -- or, more likely, break -- the thing.
For honesty's sake, let's admit a couple of things at the outset. For one, California law pertaining to this and many other matters is Byzantine beyond belief, to the extent that it can sometimes actively stifle the very thing it was written to accomplish. The Balloon Track could sit there as is for another 100 years, leaching its ugly self into the Bay, and the Coastal Commission would never say boo. For another, much of the opposition to the project has little to do with environmental remediation per se. For various historical, cultural and economic reasons, some people -- some powerful people -- don't like the fact that the proposed Marina Center is anchored by a Home Depot. And there are a few powerful opponents whose passions are chiefly aroused by the opportunity to give financier/developer Rob Arkley and his supporters in Eureka City Hall a poke in the eye. If Arkley were to put forth plans to turn the site into a sustainable organic cooperative farm, there are people who would sue him for not devoting enough space to the hemp crop.
But it's almost as if Arkley and City Hall wished these antagonists into existence, and then provided them with cudgels. Believe it or not, there are developers in other parts of the state, and even locally, who invite the opposition into the tent before a project ever gets underway. Arkley, instead, has delivered the middle finger to his opposition, consistent with the strange, ideology-driven approach he takes to nearly all his Humboldt County projects. (Leaving aside some of the charitable ones.) What does he want more: To get the job done, or to destroy his enemies -- people who harbor wrongheaded notions about the rights of capital and the role of government regulation?
You can't look at the history of Marina Center long without concluding that the former is secondary, the latter supreme. More than anything, he itches for a fight. And this time, he'll have a whole bunch of his psychic irritants in the ring: Humboldt County Supervisor and Coastal Commission Chair Bonnie Neely, left-leaning hardware king Bill Pierson, enviros like Pete Nichols and Scott Greacen and others, state bureaucrats like Humboldt County Planning Commissioner and longtime Coastal Commission bureaucrat Ralph Faust. This -- the broad scope of the upcoming score-settling -- is what gives the current conflagration its end-of-days feel.
Whether it ultimately happens in today's hearing or not is open to question -- there'll certainly be plenty of others to follow -- but the Coastal Commission shows itself perfectly willing to whittle Marina Center down to nothing. The staff report in the case recommends reversing the city's permit to allow Arkley's CUE VI company to begin work on the site, and that's probably what will happen. If so, what will be most frustrating is the already audible whining from inside City Hall and Arkley's Security National that it is all so unfair. The Coastal Commission has been a brick wall growing steadily larger for four years now, and neither the company nor the city has done anything to alter course. The Coastal Commission wrote an objection to the city's draft environmental impact report containing the precise objections which are now on appeal; the city staff waved the commission off, then urged the City Council to approve the 1,000-page-plus report, complete with this objection and others, in a matter of days. Which the City Council did. So now the city is getting what it paid for, and no one should be shocked.
Anyway, come join us on the North Coast Journal Blogthing today (Thursday). We'll be live-blogging the Coastal Commission hearing when it gets underway, complete with a background sense of how underhanded and silly it has all been.
^^^^^
The North Coast Journal is proud to be fielding a team of reporters in Copenhagen for the duration of the United Nations Climate Change Conference, which may actually come up with some sensible strategies for limiting humankind's assault on the planet. In the coming weeks, we'll be printing regular dispatches from Manila's Dan Ihara, an economist who has specialized in climate change, and Petrolia playwrights/activists/raconteurs Jane Lapiner and David Simpson. The first of their reports, which takes the pulse of the summiteers as the conference gets underway, appears this week.
comments
1. Thirdeye: Yesterday, 1:14 p.m.
"The staff report in the case recommends reversing the city's permit to allow Arkley's CUE VI company to begin work..."
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG
The staff report did not recommend reversing the permit. The staff report recommended hearing the objections. What's a little fact twisting in the name of the chosen narrative, right Hank?
The whole speculation about ideology driving the Marina Center project is just silly. If there's any ideological motivation it's on the part of assorted groovy people (mostly from outside of Eureka) who can't get over their knee-jerk reaction to Home Depot. And how does the expansion of the wetland element in response to public input constitute some sort of middle finger?
I suppose we'll next be hearing about how timber companies harvest trees to teach hippies a lesson.
2. Hank Sims: Yesterday, 1:27 p.m.
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG
Eh?
Paragraph one: "Staff recommends that the Commission determine that a substantial issue exists with respect to the grounds on which Appeal No. A-1-EUR-09-049 has been filed and that the Commission hold a de novo hearing."
The Commission holds the new hearing. Not the city. See? Reversing -- or superceding, if you like -- the city's permit.
If there's any ideological motivation it's on the part of assorted groovy people (mostly from outside of Eureka) who can't get over their knee-jerk reaction to Home Depot.
I'm not denying that, as you can read above. But if you're saying that Arkley's intentions have been snow-pure throughout, you live on a different plane of existence.
And how does the expansion of the wetland element in response to public input constitute some sort of middle finger?
Erm, you mean the wetland element absolutely required by law if other wetlands on the site are going to be filled? The one leaned on throughout the present EIR? That was "in response to public input," somehow?
3. Dork: Yesterday, 2:10 p.m.
Hank, you're either higher than usual or just proving again that facts are no match for your biases. Opposition to Arkley's Marina Center plan was well under way before there was a Marina Center plan--before the big box, before the big middle finger, before know-it-alls like you were rewriting history like this. The opposition began the day the word "Arkley" became associated with a blighted shithole that mattered not at all to anyone until the day he bought it.
4. Hank Sims: Yesterday, 2:24 p.m.
The opposition began the day the word "Arkley" became associated with a blighted shithole that mattered not at all to anyone until the day he bought it.
What? You ever heard of Wal-Mart? The stillborn Headwaters Fund study? Who's rewriting history?!?
5. Thirdeye: Yesterday, 2:39 p.m.
Hank:
Now that you've cut and pasted the relevant passage, I suggest you read it again and try to understand it this time. You're a literate guy. I think you can do it. A recommendation to hear the appeals is not the same as a recommendation to reverse the City of Eureka's approval of the permit. It is a review process. Comprende?
Whatever Arkley's innermost thoughts are (and of which you claim some special knowledge), we know one thing: he sees an opportunity to make some bucks. Maybe the thought of Home Depot gives him a wet dream and maybe it doesn't, I don't know. Did his deal with North Coast Co-op mean he fell in love with Co-op people? Probably not. He saw an opportunity to make some bucks.
Yes, the wetland element was expanded during the scoping phase of the project, in response to public input. I take it you didn't know that before you wrote with such authority. Given that virtually the entire site is fill, the project is a net gain for wetland. Puddles on top of fill do not wetlands make, unless you share the delusions of Baykeeper.
6. Hank Sims: Yesterday, 2:46 p.m.
You've heard the words "de novo" before?
Come on over, Thirdeye! -- http://www.northcoastjournal.com/blogthing/
7. Thirdeye: Yesterday, 2:54 p.m.
Who's rewriting history? You are, Hank, you are. Marina Center is not Wal-Mart part II. And your argument that the proposed Headwaters-funded study was somehow necessary for a public process to occur has been refuted many times over. You should know better than to keep invoking it.
8. Hank Sims: Yesterday, 3:03 p.m.
Jeez, dude, I'm going to have to spend some time with you here. Word-by-word-style.
"Dork" wrote:
...a blighted shithole that mattered not at all to anyone until the day he bought it.
Whereupon I wrote that the shithole did, in fact, matter to people before he bought it, and gave two citations.
And your argument that the proposed Headwaters-funded study was somehow necessary for a public process to occur has been refuted many times over.
I never said any such thing. Of course a public process is possible without it. The public process is happening without it. Just moments ago, for example.
9. Thirdeye: Yesterday, 3:30 p.m.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d010.htm
DE NOVO - Anew. afresh. Considering the matter anew, the same as if it had not been heard before and as if no decision previously had been rendered. Ness v. Commissioner, 954 F.2d 1495, 1497 (9th Cir. 1992). Such review is 'independent.' Premier v. Fuentes, 880 F.2d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1989).
The staff's (approved) recommendation to review the permit De Novo is essentially a recommendation to invoke full authority. It is not a final judgment on the merits of the issues under appeal, despite what Hank and other spinmeisters may claim.
10. Hank Sims: Yesterday, 3:39 p.m.
"Anew. afresh. Considering the matter anew, the same as if it had not been heard before and as if no decision previously had been rendered."
Right? And that's not the same as reversing the City Council's decision?
But this is getting stupid. I think we agree -- now the Coastal Commission gets to decide whether to grant the permit, and the city does not.
11. Thirdeye: Yesterday, 4:44 p.m.
No, that's not the same as reversing the City Council's decision. Just as in the case of an appeals court agreeing to hear a case, that is not the same as reversing the lower court's decision.
Now, onto the issue of your position on the Headwaters-funded study and public participation:
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/092806/shortstories0928.html
"An hour or so later, Marina Center spokesman Brian Morrissey took the stage to deliver a presentation on the Marina Center, which he referred to as a 'smart growth' project.' I'm a smart growth guy,' Morrissey said. The characterization drew immediate objections from Andrew Whitney of the Humboldt County Planning Department, who said that community involvement in development was a cornerstone of the smart growth movement. (He didn't mention that Arkley had the Eureka City Council kill a public study on the Balloon Track, specifically to limit public participation in the planning."
(Hank Sims)
Of course, there was a large amount of public input in the scoping phase of the project that resulted in, among other things, expansion of the wetland element. But you chose to ignore that.
12. JJ: Yesterday, 7:16 p.m.
It's fairly obvious that Security National could care less about the existing wetlands, characterizing them as nothing more than "tire tracks" in their commercials
Eerily similar to the "Eureka Coalition for Jobs" campaign smearing Chris Kerrigan
13. Anon: Yesterday, 9:12 p.m.
Hank, you are rewriting history in pretending this is about a location instead of about a man. Let's just test your theory: Name a location in the city where Rob Arkley could put in a building supply store and the progs wouldn't climb up his butt.
Anything coming to mind?
14. wrong jj: Yesterday, 9:13 p.m.
JJ, those farking supposed wetlands ARE tire tracks. That's not an opinion that is a fact. It's been documented.
To try and taint this with the Kerrigan hit piece, who many believe was a Salzman move to garner sympathy for Chris is lame.
15. Anony2: Yesterday, 9:16 p.m.
Dayum, HanQ,
Thirdeye OWNS you. In each and every conversation here and on the mainsite and on the blogthing you have been spanked and spanked hard. I do wish you'd try for some actual reporting instead of trying sprinkle the news with your personal bias, hell we get enough of that on fox and msnbc.
16. Hank Sims: Yesterday, 11:05 p.m.
Jesus Christ. You lovable freaks.
Let's just test your theory: Name a location in the city where Rob Arkley could put in a building supply store and the progs wouldn't climb up his butt.
I can't. Which is why I stated EXACTLY THAT in the second goddamn paragraph of this column!!! Whose theory are you testing, now?
Just as in the case of an appeals court agreeing to hear a case, that is not the same as reversing the lower court's decision.
Kinda. Kinda not. Because the appeals court reverses the lower court on matters of law, not facts established at trial. Whereas in this case, the hearing is de novo -- the matter will essentially be retried, with the Coastal Commission as jury rather than the City Council.
Again, you're getting tediously hung up on semantics here. You are wrong, but you are also boringly wrong. Who cares? Call it anything you want. Call it a Tony Award-winning Broadway musical, if you like. I'm beyond caring.
The fact is that the city's permit is, as of today, stayed -- i.e., the company does not get to act upon it. Now the Coastal Commission decides whether or not the company will get to perform the work envisioned in the permit. Agreed?
Of course, there was a large amount of public input in the scoping phase of the project that resulted in, among other things, expansion of the wetland element.
That's PR hype, plain and simple. The wetland element had to be included, BY LAW. Read the EIR. One of the matters currently on appeal is whether there's ENOUGH wetland to mitigate for the wetlands taken.
To simplify matters somewhat. Hypothetically, let's say Security National first publicly unveiled blueprints of the project consisted entirely of detonating a 500 megaton nuclear weapon underneath the old Union Pacific roundhouse. And so there was hue and cry from the damned environmentalists. And so, instead, out of the kindness of its heart, the company modified the project, scrapping the nuke and instead proposing a Home Depot and some office space. And you're jumping up and down saying they did this in response to public concerns?
The project can't be built with out the wetlands, and it wouldn't have gotten even this far if they weren't in the EIR.
17. Hank Sims: Yesterday, 11:06 p.m.
Now, onto the issue of your position on the Headwaters-funded study and public participation:
I'm seriously having to take it down to dictionary level with you, here. You see, in that passage you quote, that I write that the company killed the public study to "limit" public participation?
You know that "limit" and "eliminate" have different meanings, right?
You don't think that Arkley had the public study killed to limit public participation in the planning for that site? Arkley himself begged to differ, at the time:
"I'm not willing to sit at the table with anybody until I decide what to do with the land," he said. "If they think that taxpayer money is well spent doing that, they should think again."
Good night, sweet princes!
18. Thirdeye: Today, 1:16 a.m.
Hank:
Yes, details do get boring. But they matter. And understanding the significance of boring technical and legal details is what is required for a journalist to perform adequately in a situation such as this one.
Your analogy between the CC's DeNovo hearing and a retrial is not correct. Recirculating the EIR and re-doing responses to comments would be like a retrial. The DeNovo hearing is driven by specific issues that are being appealed.
You just repeated your contention on the wetlands issue from post #2. My response is in post #5. The appeal on the wetlands issue is based on calling puddles on polluted fill "wetlands" and "sensitive habitat" per the propaganda of armchair "scientists" from Baykeeper. Baykeeper propaganda aside, there is very little existing, functional wetland on the site. Sneer if you want, Hank, and throw in some silly nuke analogy, but the fact remains that the proposed restoration of Clark Slough goes beyond what is strictly required by law, and that occurred in response to the public input that you, either by default or deliberately, remained unaware of. Sorry if the public input wasn't in the format you wanted, but it was incorporated into the project.
Here's a little gem of journalistic fellatio performed by Hank on Paul Gallegos and Tim Stoen after the Freeborn ruling in the Palco case:
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/070705/cover0707.html
There's no effort to find any opinion on the ruling from other than from Gallegos and Stoen. It's obvious that Hank never even read the ruling. But that didn't stop him from venturing this pearl of wisdom:
"If Stoen had stuck with [Judge] Wilson, the case would almost certainly have gone to trial."
The appeals court and the Supreme Court didn't see it that way, did they?
For all its factual recklessness, insubstantial opinions, and sucking up, it's quite a hilarious read looking back. Recommended.
19. Anon: Today, 8:40 a.m.
So there is no location in the city where Arkley could put up a building supply store without prog interference, but opposition to the Marina Center is somehow related to Wal-Mart? Please, Hank. Pick a storyline and stick to it. Maybe instead of rewriting history you should rewrite your article so it makes some fucking sense.
20. Hank Sims: Today, 8:47 a.m.
Ach, you are hopeless.
21. JJ: Today, 9:02 a.m.
Love it when these fools pat themselves on the back for a job well done, all the while digging themselves an even deeper grave of nonsense
Thanks for the laugh this morning anony2!
*************
RELATED:
◼ LIVE webcast
◼ JN Cleanup Mess
◼ TS California Coastal Commission to hear appeal on Marina Center interim cleanup
...comments
◼ http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2009/12/Th14c-12-2009-a3.pdf
◼ TS Groups asks court to stop Marina Center project
◼ TS Groups ask court to scrap Marina Center analysis
◼ Appellants prepare for Coastal Commission hearing on Marina Center (some interesting revelations in this report actually)
Local blog posts...RELATED:
◼ Meanwhile, back at the North Coast Journal… The Mirror
◼ Coastal Commission gives Eureka the smack down Heraldo/a
◼ Another city stunt in support of the Marina Center Heraldo/a
◼ Eureka City Council to Certify Marina Center EIR Tonight Tom Sebourn
Really - there is a ton of material on this topic, and it isn't one I have been following all that closely - this link is to Google "Marina Center, Eureka"