◼ Humboldt County men plead guilty to marijuana real estate buys
Sean Garmire/The Times-Standard
Posted: 05/29/2009 01:15:32 AM PDT
Two Humboldt County men pleaded guilty in federal district court Wednesday to felony charges of maintaining property to cultivate marijuana and conspiring to launder money, after authorities uncovered large-scale pot gardens on four Humboldt County properties.
Jordan Pyhtila, 29, of Rio Dell, and Jessie Jeffries, 27, of Garberville, accepted plea agreements and pleaded guilty at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, after charges were issued against them in March, said U.S. Department of Justice spokesman Jack Gillund.
According to Gillund, Pyhtila and Jeffries surrendered themselves to authorities in early April after law enforcement investigators discovered about 4,677 marijuana plants growing on properties located in Garberville, Eureka, Miranda and Blocksburg.
Pyhtila and Jeffries agreed to forfeit those four properties as part of the plea agreements. Additionally, the two men agreed to give up a promissory note in the amount of $945,000, obtained from the sale of a subdivision the two men were developing on the Dinsmore Plateau in Rio Dell.
According to the plea agreements, the two men reportedly agreed a reasonable sentence is six years in prison, with an additional three years of supervised parole -- though that sentence has yet to be imposed by a federal judge.
Pyhtila and Jeffries began purchasing the properties in 1999, and maintained them through September 2008, according to the plea agreements. During that time, the men made the properties available to others for the cultivation of marijuana, and financed real estate purchased by others who planned to use the land to grow marijuana.
Pyhtila and Jeffries also helped other marijuana growing operations by financing equipment, building materials, plant clones, fertilizer, labor wages and various other expenses. In exchange, the two men received a portion of the profits made from the sale of marijuana grown on the properties.
The plea agreements also reveal the men admitted to using the net profits of the marijuana cultivation to finance their business, J&J Earthmoving, and to buy numerous other properties across Northern California, in order to conceal the profits earned from drug sales.
According to DOJ information, the two men used nominee owners on the various properties to conceal their ownership of the properties.
Pyhtila and Jeffries await sentencing, scheduled Sept. 9, before Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton in San Francisco.
Sean Garmire can be reached at 441-0514 or sgarmire@times-standard.com.
10.27.2009
Sexual Assault Focus Of This Month
http://web.archive.org/web/20040413234008/www.eurekareporter.com/Stories/op-04050402.htm
4/5/04 Sexual Assault Focus Of This Month
Rape and sexual assaults are not crimes of passion and lust; rather, they are crimes in which the aggressor uses power and control to instill fear, dominate, punish and humiliate victims.
It is a sad commentary for a so-called civilized society that a month, such as April, is set aside as Sexual Assault Awareness Month. After all, how civilized can a society claim to be when there are so many rapes and sexual assaults?
Based upon U.S. Justice Department definitions, the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (www.rainn.org) says that rape is forced sexual intercourse, including incidents where penetration is by a foreign object.
RAINN also says sexual assault includes a range of victimization distinct from rape and attempted rape. This also includes verbal threats.
No matter what definition is used or what statistics are cited, the United States cannot be proud of its problem with rape and sexual assault.
In fact, as of 2003, the United States had the highest rape rate among countries that reported such statistics: four times more than Germany, 13 times more than England and 20 times more than Japan, states Men Against Sexual Assault (www.sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php).
Statistics point to a troubling reality of American life.
RAINN says that one out of every six American women have been the victims of an attempted or completed rape, for a total of nearly 18 million women.
In 2002, seven out of every eight rape victims were female.
Approximately 15 percent of rape victims are under the age of 12, 29 percent are age 12 to 17, 44 percent are under the age of 18 and 80 percent are under the age of 30.
Most rapes are not committed by strangers. RAINN says approximately 48 percent of victims are raped by a “friend” or acquaintance, 30 percent by a stranger, 16 percent by an intimate, 2 percent by another relative and in 4 percent of the cases the relationship is unknown.
Indeed, it is a very sad commentary about our society. Despite all the good that is around, we have some troubling reminders that we have a long, long way to go.
As the Santa Barbara Rape Crisis Center (www.sbrapecrisiscenter.org) says, “Women can and do a lot of things to protect themselves. We can take self-defense classes; we can listen to safety tips on television; we can communicate with clarity and say ‘no’, but none of these will prevent a rape. The fact remains that only men can prevent rape. And it is men’s responsibility to do so.”
4/5/04 Sexual Assault Focus Of This Month
Rape and sexual assaults are not crimes of passion and lust; rather, they are crimes in which the aggressor uses power and control to instill fear, dominate, punish and humiliate victims.
It is a sad commentary for a so-called civilized society that a month, such as April, is set aside as Sexual Assault Awareness Month. After all, how civilized can a society claim to be when there are so many rapes and sexual assaults?
Based upon U.S. Justice Department definitions, the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (www.rainn.org) says that rape is forced sexual intercourse, including incidents where penetration is by a foreign object.
RAINN also says sexual assault includes a range of victimization distinct from rape and attempted rape. This also includes verbal threats.
No matter what definition is used or what statistics are cited, the United States cannot be proud of its problem with rape and sexual assault.
In fact, as of 2003, the United States had the highest rape rate among countries that reported such statistics: four times more than Germany, 13 times more than England and 20 times more than Japan, states Men Against Sexual Assault (www.sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php).
Statistics point to a troubling reality of American life.
RAINN says that one out of every six American women have been the victims of an attempted or completed rape, for a total of nearly 18 million women.
In 2002, seven out of every eight rape victims were female.
Approximately 15 percent of rape victims are under the age of 12, 29 percent are age 12 to 17, 44 percent are under the age of 18 and 80 percent are under the age of 30.
Most rapes are not committed by strangers. RAINN says approximately 48 percent of victims are raped by a “friend” or acquaintance, 30 percent by a stranger, 16 percent by an intimate, 2 percent by another relative and in 4 percent of the cases the relationship is unknown.
Indeed, it is a very sad commentary about our society. Despite all the good that is around, we have some troubling reminders that we have a long, long way to go.
As the Santa Barbara Rape Crisis Center (www.sbrapecrisiscenter.org) says, “Women can and do a lot of things to protect themselves. We can take self-defense classes; we can listen to safety tips on television; we can communicate with clarity and say ‘no’, but none of these will prevent a rape. The fact remains that only men can prevent rape. And it is men’s responsibility to do so.”
Wingnut Jeanette Jungers
http://web.archive.org/web/20040413233316/www.eurekareporter.com/Stories/op-04020401.htm
4/2/04 Sheriff’s Office Too
Cozy With MAXXAM
By Jeanette Jungers
Brenda Gainey of the Sheriff's Office, calls lawyer Ed Denson's comment that Sheriff's Office has a "cozy" relationship with MAXXAM/ PALCO "reckless and profoundly disturbing.”
When it comes to objective fairness and the ability to offer "equal protection under the law,” I find the relationship between the Sheriff's Office and MAXXAM/ PALCO to be "reckless and profoundly disturbing.”
Consider the following:
1. PALCO security chief, Carl Anderson, is a former member of the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department.
2. MAXXAM/PALCO and the Sheriff's Office planned the Freshwater tree-sit extraction for weeks. The Sheriff’s Office never verified whether MAXXAM owned the trees. It has yet to be proven.
3. The Humboldt County Sheriff's Office enforced an illegal road closure to aid MAXXAM in removing two long-term tree- sitters. The Sheriff's Office cited a permit allowing closure for eight hours. In reality, the permit allowed 20 minutes, and required 24-hour prior notice. No notice was given.
4. On March 17, 2003, sheriff’s deputies indiscriminately pepper-sprayed into a peaceful crowd of forest advocates containing women with small children in their arms.
5. Dozens of law-enforcement personnel were present but refused to witness one particularly dangerous extraction, even when frustrated residents requested them to.
6. MAXXAM provided lunch to the Sheriff's deputies during this incident.
7. Sheriff's deputies forced a woman to watch the 1,200-year-old redwood tree she risked her life to save be viciously limbed for no legitimate harvest purpose before taking her to jail.
8. Witnesses to the destruction were arrested on the orders of Carl Anderson. Charges were later dropped, as they had broken no law. One such person was a journalist with a legitimate press pass.
9. Sheriff's deputies served a lawsuit to everyone arrested on behalf of MAXXAM. Several people were dropped from the lawsuit after a judge ruled they had been prejudicially served.
10. When Judge Golden put a court-ordered "stay" on PALCO’s logging, it ignored it. Residents who presented the order to loggers were reported to the Sheriff's Department. When officers were asked to enforce the order, they responded that Sheriff's Office would not enforce the order unless Judge Golden issued a contempt-of-court ruling.
11. A deputy who hauled away one protester during the stay order announced he was a good citizen because he was "removing trash from the woods."
12. Many old-growth trees harvested along Greenwood Heights Road stood at the edge of the public road in what appears to be the easement or public right of way. Did our Sheriff’s Office help MAXXAM to steal trees that belong to the county?
13. A month before the Freshwater tree-sit extractions, I thought my wallet had been stolen from my car. I called the Sheriff's Office and was told my wallet was no doubt stolen by a "dirty Earth Firster!," and that the Sheriff’s Office would "take care of them" soon.
14. MAXXAM paid for the recall ad featuring a sheriff in uniform.
These are just a few points that have led people to perceive an inappropriate relationship between Humboldt County Sheriff’s and MAXXAM/ PALCO.
(Jeanette Jungers is a Eureka school teacher who is currently "Fasting for the Forest" in solidarity with Naomi Wagner, a 58-year-old grandmother of five who is serving a 40-day jail sentence for hugging an old-growth tree in defense of the Freshwater watershed.)
4/2/04 Sheriff’s Office Too
Cozy With MAXXAM
By Jeanette Jungers
Brenda Gainey of the Sheriff's Office, calls lawyer Ed Denson's comment that Sheriff's Office has a "cozy" relationship with MAXXAM/ PALCO "reckless and profoundly disturbing.”
When it comes to objective fairness and the ability to offer "equal protection under the law,” I find the relationship between the Sheriff's Office and MAXXAM/ PALCO to be "reckless and profoundly disturbing.”
Consider the following:
1. PALCO security chief, Carl Anderson, is a former member of the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department.
2. MAXXAM/PALCO and the Sheriff's Office planned the Freshwater tree-sit extraction for weeks. The Sheriff’s Office never verified whether MAXXAM owned the trees. It has yet to be proven.
3. The Humboldt County Sheriff's Office enforced an illegal road closure to aid MAXXAM in removing two long-term tree- sitters. The Sheriff's Office cited a permit allowing closure for eight hours. In reality, the permit allowed 20 minutes, and required 24-hour prior notice. No notice was given.
4. On March 17, 2003, sheriff’s deputies indiscriminately pepper-sprayed into a peaceful crowd of forest advocates containing women with small children in their arms.
5. Dozens of law-enforcement personnel were present but refused to witness one particularly dangerous extraction, even when frustrated residents requested them to.
6. MAXXAM provided lunch to the Sheriff's deputies during this incident.
7. Sheriff's deputies forced a woman to watch the 1,200-year-old redwood tree she risked her life to save be viciously limbed for no legitimate harvest purpose before taking her to jail.
8. Witnesses to the destruction were arrested on the orders of Carl Anderson. Charges were later dropped, as they had broken no law. One such person was a journalist with a legitimate press pass.
9. Sheriff's deputies served a lawsuit to everyone arrested on behalf of MAXXAM. Several people were dropped from the lawsuit after a judge ruled they had been prejudicially served.
10. When Judge Golden put a court-ordered "stay" on PALCO’s logging, it ignored it. Residents who presented the order to loggers were reported to the Sheriff's Department. When officers were asked to enforce the order, they responded that Sheriff's Office would not enforce the order unless Judge Golden issued a contempt-of-court ruling.
11. A deputy who hauled away one protester during the stay order announced he was a good citizen because he was "removing trash from the woods."
12. Many old-growth trees harvested along Greenwood Heights Road stood at the edge of the public road in what appears to be the easement or public right of way. Did our Sheriff’s Office help MAXXAM to steal trees that belong to the county?
13. A month before the Freshwater tree-sit extractions, I thought my wallet had been stolen from my car. I called the Sheriff's Office and was told my wallet was no doubt stolen by a "dirty Earth Firster!," and that the Sheriff’s Office would "take care of them" soon.
14. MAXXAM paid for the recall ad featuring a sheriff in uniform.
These are just a few points that have led people to perceive an inappropriate relationship between Humboldt County Sheriff’s and MAXXAM/ PALCO.
(Jeanette Jungers is a Eureka school teacher who is currently "Fasting for the Forest" in solidarity with Naomi Wagner, a 58-year-old grandmother of five who is serving a 40-day jail sentence for hugging an old-growth tree in defense of the Freshwater watershed.)
County May Temporarily Close Clam Beach
http://web.archive.org/web/20040413221546/www.eurekareporter.com/Stories/fp-04080415.htm
4/8/04 County May Temporarily
Close Clam Beach
by Glenn Franco Simmons
On Tuesday, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors will decide if it wants to close Clam Beach to vehicles again this year.
The vehicle closure stems from an annual tribute to marijuana at the beach the weekend of April 20.
“In 2001, hundreds of people gathered at Clam Beach during the weekend of April 20 to celebrate 4-20,” said Public Works Director Allen Campbell in a written staff report to the board. “No permit was issued for the event and the large gathering took county park staff by surprise. Many of the people in attendance chose to ignore posted regulations and were abusive to county staff.”
April 20 is internationally and unofficially known as “international smoke (marijuana) day.” The origin of the “holiday” is the subject of various urban myths.
Last year, the county blocked access to the beach by placing a rail across the beach’s opening.
There is a significant reason to close the beach to vehicles, Campbell said.
“Temporary closure of Clam Beach to vehicles for the weekend of April 20 may be needed to protect the western snowy plover,” Campbell said, “which nests from March 1 through Sept. 30. Large numbers of vehicles on the beach as a result of 4-20 could negatively impact nesting plovers.”
The snowy plover is listed as a federally threatened species, which means its habitat has to be protected.
People will still be able to use the beach.
“Monitoring and enforcement of camping regulations for the weekend will require an increased county presence,” Campbell said. “Staffing levels will be determined by the number of people who visit Clam Beach for the 4-20 event. Camping will only be allowed in designated areas.”
There is a financial impact to the county, but Campbell said it is “limited.”
“Increased costs will result if additional staffing is required to enforce county regulations because a large number of people use the park to celebrate 4-20,” he said. “The county has no control over how many people choose to visit the park. The only option to reduce costs would be to limit enforcement of park regulations.”
An alternative to Campbell’s recommendation could be for the board to allow the beach to remain open to vehicles, which it most likely will not do.
The board will meet Tuesday at 9 a.m. in the county courthouse in Eureka.
(Publisher/Editor Glenn Franco Simmons can be reached at editor@eurekareporter.com.)
4/8/04 County May Temporarily
Close Clam Beach
by Glenn Franco Simmons
On Tuesday, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors will decide if it wants to close Clam Beach to vehicles again this year.
The vehicle closure stems from an annual tribute to marijuana at the beach the weekend of April 20.
“In 2001, hundreds of people gathered at Clam Beach during the weekend of April 20 to celebrate 4-20,” said Public Works Director Allen Campbell in a written staff report to the board. “No permit was issued for the event and the large gathering took county park staff by surprise. Many of the people in attendance chose to ignore posted regulations and were abusive to county staff.”
April 20 is internationally and unofficially known as “international smoke (marijuana) day.” The origin of the “holiday” is the subject of various urban myths.
Last year, the county blocked access to the beach by placing a rail across the beach’s opening.
There is a significant reason to close the beach to vehicles, Campbell said.
“Temporary closure of Clam Beach to vehicles for the weekend of April 20 may be needed to protect the western snowy plover,” Campbell said, “which nests from March 1 through Sept. 30. Large numbers of vehicles on the beach as a result of 4-20 could negatively impact nesting plovers.”
The snowy plover is listed as a federally threatened species, which means its habitat has to be protected.
People will still be able to use the beach.
“Monitoring and enforcement of camping regulations for the weekend will require an increased county presence,” Campbell said. “Staffing levels will be determined by the number of people who visit Clam Beach for the 4-20 event. Camping will only be allowed in designated areas.”
There is a financial impact to the county, but Campbell said it is “limited.”
“Increased costs will result if additional staffing is required to enforce county regulations because a large number of people use the park to celebrate 4-20,” he said. “The county has no control over how many people choose to visit the park. The only option to reduce costs would be to limit enforcement of park regulations.”
An alternative to Campbell’s recommendation could be for the board to allow the beach to remain open to vehicles, which it most likely will not do.
The board will meet Tuesday at 9 a.m. in the county courthouse in Eureka.
(Publisher/Editor Glenn Franco Simmons can be reached at editor@eurekareporter.com.)
DFG Recommends Changes In Ocean Fishing Regulations
http://web.archive.org/web/20040419021055/www.eurekareporter.com/Stories/fp-04130401.htm
4/13/04 DFG Recommends Changes In
Ocean Fishing Regulations
Following federal action taken by the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the California Department of Fish and Game will recommend to the Fish and Game Commission changes to the 2004 recreational fishing regulations regarding retention of black rockfish at its April 22 teleconference meeting in Sacramento.
At the meeting, the commission will consider taking emergency action to ensure that state regulations remain consistent with the new federal regulations that will prohibit retention of black rockfish during May, and from September through December in ocean waters less than 30 fathoms (180 feet) from Cape Mendocino to the California-Oregon border.
In addition, the state will take conforming action affecting California's recreational fishery for federal groundfish and some state-managed species. These changes will take effect May 1 and are necessary to conform to in-season groundfish management actions taken by the PFMC the week of April 5 that will take effect on May 1. The PFMC's actions prohibit fishing at certain times and depths in specific areas in ocean waters off California.
For detailed information on the PFMC's actions, log on to www.pcouncil.org.
The recreational fisheries affected by this action include those for rockfish, cabezon, greenlings, California scorpionfish, lingcod, some flatfish, some sharks and other federally managed groundfish species. For the full list of federally managed species, check the Marine Region Web site at
www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/groundfish_fedlist.html.
The state will apply the same restrictions to ocean whitefish and California sheephead, which are not under federal management. Fish excluded from this action are leopard shark in San Francisco Bay waters, and sanddabs. The new regulations will apply to recreational anglers fishing in all waters off California. However, divers and shore-based anglers will be exempt.
The in-season changes were adopted April 8 by the PFMC and subsequently by the DFG after review of projected fishery catches through 2004.
Those projected catches showed that harvest limits for canary and black rockfish would have been met or exceeded well before the end of the year without these adjustments.
"The federal regulations, which the state conforms to, ensure resource protection and sustainability. This is in the interest not just of the federal fisheries agencies, but the states as well," said DFG Marine Regional Manager Patty Wolf.
For California's recreational anglers, the following changes include new depth regulations and season dates and will take effect on May 1:
In the Northern Rockfish and Lingcod Management Area (Oregon border to just south of Cape Mendocino), fishing is only allowed in waters less than 180 feet (30 fathoms) deep from May through December.
In the Central Rockfish and Lingcod Management Area (just south of Cape Mendocino to Pt. Conception), note that federal regulations have split this area into two sections at 36 degrees north latitude, near Pt. Lopez in southern Monterey County.
In the North-Central Section (just south of Cape Mendocino to near Pt. Lopez), there is no fishing during May through July, and November through December. Fishing is only allowed in waters less than 120 feet (20 fathoms) during September through October.
In the South-Central Section (near Lopez Pt. to Pt. Conception), fishing is only allowed in waters less than 120 feet (20 fathoms) during September through December. There is no fishing during July.
In the Southern Rockfish and Lingcod Management Area (Pt. Conception to the U.S.-Mexico border), fishing is only allowed in waters less than 180 feet (30 fathoms) deep during September through October. Cowcod Conservation Areas regulations remain the same.
The restrictions listed above will also apply to greenlings, ocean whitefish and California sheephead.
Fishing for sanddabs using gear specified in federal and state regulations is still allowed. Fishing for leopard shark in waters within San Francisco Bay is allowed. Divers and shore-based anglers may continue fishing.
The sport fishing regulation changes are not official until they are filed with the secretary of state. DFG will post any updated information on the fishing season on its Web site at www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd.
4/13/04 DFG Recommends Changes In
Ocean Fishing Regulations
Following federal action taken by the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the California Department of Fish and Game will recommend to the Fish and Game Commission changes to the 2004 recreational fishing regulations regarding retention of black rockfish at its April 22 teleconference meeting in Sacramento.
At the meeting, the commission will consider taking emergency action to ensure that state regulations remain consistent with the new federal regulations that will prohibit retention of black rockfish during May, and from September through December in ocean waters less than 30 fathoms (180 feet) from Cape Mendocino to the California-Oregon border.
In addition, the state will take conforming action affecting California's recreational fishery for federal groundfish and some state-managed species. These changes will take effect May 1 and are necessary to conform to in-season groundfish management actions taken by the PFMC the week of April 5 that will take effect on May 1. The PFMC's actions prohibit fishing at certain times and depths in specific areas in ocean waters off California.
For detailed information on the PFMC's actions, log on to www.pcouncil.org.
The recreational fisheries affected by this action include those for rockfish, cabezon, greenlings, California scorpionfish, lingcod, some flatfish, some sharks and other federally managed groundfish species. For the full list of federally managed species, check the Marine Region Web site at
www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/groundfish_fedlist.html.
The state will apply the same restrictions to ocean whitefish and California sheephead, which are not under federal management. Fish excluded from this action are leopard shark in San Francisco Bay waters, and sanddabs. The new regulations will apply to recreational anglers fishing in all waters off California. However, divers and shore-based anglers will be exempt.
The in-season changes were adopted April 8 by the PFMC and subsequently by the DFG after review of projected fishery catches through 2004.
Those projected catches showed that harvest limits for canary and black rockfish would have been met or exceeded well before the end of the year without these adjustments.
"The federal regulations, which the state conforms to, ensure resource protection and sustainability. This is in the interest not just of the federal fisheries agencies, but the states as well," said DFG Marine Regional Manager Patty Wolf.
For California's recreational anglers, the following changes include new depth regulations and season dates and will take effect on May 1:
In the Northern Rockfish and Lingcod Management Area (Oregon border to just south of Cape Mendocino), fishing is only allowed in waters less than 180 feet (30 fathoms) deep from May through December.
In the Central Rockfish and Lingcod Management Area (just south of Cape Mendocino to Pt. Conception), note that federal regulations have split this area into two sections at 36 degrees north latitude, near Pt. Lopez in southern Monterey County.
In the North-Central Section (just south of Cape Mendocino to near Pt. Lopez), there is no fishing during May through July, and November through December. Fishing is only allowed in waters less than 120 feet (20 fathoms) during September through October.
In the South-Central Section (near Lopez Pt. to Pt. Conception), fishing is only allowed in waters less than 120 feet (20 fathoms) during September through December. There is no fishing during July.
In the Southern Rockfish and Lingcod Management Area (Pt. Conception to the U.S.-Mexico border), fishing is only allowed in waters less than 180 feet (30 fathoms) deep during September through October. Cowcod Conservation Areas regulations remain the same.
The restrictions listed above will also apply to greenlings, ocean whitefish and California sheephead.
Fishing for sanddabs using gear specified in federal and state regulations is still allowed. Fishing for leopard shark in waters within San Francisco Bay is allowed. Divers and shore-based anglers may continue fishing.
The sport fishing regulation changes are not official until they are filed with the secretary of state. DFG will post any updated information on the fishing season on its Web site at www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd.
Redevelopment Advisory Board Takes Heat On Its Membership
http://web.archive.org/web/20040416040643/www.eurekareporter.com/Stories/fp-04140401.htm
4/14/04 Redevelopment Advisory Board
Takes Heat On Its Membership
by Wendy Butler
The Eureka Reporter
Eureka resident and Humboldt Taxpayers’ League member Howard Rien said he believes Glenn Goldan’s participation on Eureka’s Redevelopment Advisory Board is a conflict of interest, because Goldan is currently developing city-owned property at the foot of C Street.
However, Redevelopment Director Cindy Trobitz-Thomas, Eureka City Councilman Jeff Leonard and Goldan maintain the board’s composition is such that there must be potential conflicts of interest, but it’s the way those conflicts are handled that matters.
On April 6, the City Council voted to authorize a 360-day exclusive-right-to-negotiate agreement extension between the Eureka Redevelopment Agency and Glenn G. Goldan & ReProp Investments Inc. for the sale for a Waterfront parcel between C and D streets on which Goldan plans to construct Seaport Village Square.
City Manager David Tyson said one of the benefits the city will see partnering with Goldan on this project involves its plans to submit an application for close to $2 million of federal Community Development Block Grant funding to construct a piazza adjacent to Seaport Village. The application requires proof of jobs that will be created and Tyson said Goldan will develop 52 jobs with the construction of and following the opening of Seaport Village.
Before the vote for this item, which was listed on the City Council’s consent calendar, Rien pulled it for further discussion.
He told the City Council that though he respects Goldan and his project, he felt Goldan’s membership on the Redevelopment Advisory Board “is not in the public’s best interest,” because he is developing a property on land owned by the city’s redevelopment agency.
Following the City Council meeting, Trobitz-Thomas said Goldan, who is board chairman, has not requested the use of any redevelopment funds for his project and he and other RAB members routinely recuse themselves from making advisory decisions about projects whose applicants have any business relationship with its members.
For example, Goldan and fellow-board member Delores Vellutini, who is also developing Waterfront property, recused themselves when RAB was discussing proposals March 31 for the city’s future Fisherman’s Work Area, she said.
“I happen to like Glenn (Goldan),” Rien said. “He was a good member of the Humboldt Taxpayers’ League. But, I do think the position of chair puts him in an extremely awkward position to access redevelopment funds.”
Leonard said he has found RAB members are very clear when it comes to conflict-of-interest issues. He said appointing new people to the board, if the mayor deems them qualified, is a good idea; however, Goldan is not monopolizing the Waterfront.
“It’s not like Glenn Goldan has 20 different projects that are all related to city redevelopment funds,” he said. “He really has just got the one.”
Leonard said when he was first elected, he attended a seminar about conflicts of interest and The Brown Act, the state’s open-meeting laws. He recalled being told “the law recognizes that you have a life. People expect that. You are going to have conflicts of interest. … You are doing things in our community and at some point … (different relationships) are going to come together.”
Rien said he is concerned the City Council does not receive enough community input about redevelopment projects.
“Some of these advisory boards are too long in the asking and too long in the being with the same people,” he said. “City Council rubber-stamps the advisory board.”
Trobitz-Thomas said she disagrees that the City Council rubber-stamps the board’s suggestions. For example, last summer, RAB made a recommendation to the City Council and the City Council went with its own decision, she said.
Developers Greg Pierson and Larry DeBeni had proposed to develop the city’s Fisherman’s Work Area at the foot of C Street and RAB agreed. The city went with Peter Brodeur of J.P. & Assoc. of Auburn.
She said when the city established RAB in 1993, it did so with the intention of having people on it who had developing, banking and legal expertise in areas impacting the redevelopment area.
“You want people on there that can help guide us,” she said. “We’re not developers. … We can’t know everything. … We really rely on the community professionals.”
Goldan said he recalls why RAB was created.
During the 1980s, the city was accused of being arbitrary and “having its favorite sons get redevelopment,” he said.
When former Mayor Nancy Flemming took her post in 1991, she appointed a Mayor’s Redevelopment Blue Ribbon Committee to review existing development plans and make recommendations on possible programs, projects and activities in Eureka’s core area, he said.
The City Council formed the Redevelopment Advisory Board on June 15, 1993.
“What you see on one hand is a room that can be potentially fraught with conflicts of interest and on the other hand you see … people that can conduct an appropriate … meeting and give (the) City Council advice,” Goldan said. “My attitude has always been, it isn’t the potential conflicts of interest that matter, it’s the way … members handle those potential conflicts of interest that counts.”
In response to Rien’s “rubber-stamp” comment, Goldan said because RAB is comprised of developers, as well as attorneys and real estate professionals, the City Council counts on their reviewing lengthy documents and lending it expertise on matters.
“I would hope they would go along with most of what we do, not because they rubber-stamp it,” he said.
4/14/04 Redevelopment Advisory Board
Takes Heat On Its Membership
by Wendy Butler
The Eureka Reporter
Eureka resident and Humboldt Taxpayers’ League member Howard Rien said he believes Glenn Goldan’s participation on Eureka’s Redevelopment Advisory Board is a conflict of interest, because Goldan is currently developing city-owned property at the foot of C Street.
However, Redevelopment Director Cindy Trobitz-Thomas, Eureka City Councilman Jeff Leonard and Goldan maintain the board’s composition is such that there must be potential conflicts of interest, but it’s the way those conflicts are handled that matters.
On April 6, the City Council voted to authorize a 360-day exclusive-right-to-negotiate agreement extension between the Eureka Redevelopment Agency and Glenn G. Goldan & ReProp Investments Inc. for the sale for a Waterfront parcel between C and D streets on which Goldan plans to construct Seaport Village Square.
City Manager David Tyson said one of the benefits the city will see partnering with Goldan on this project involves its plans to submit an application for close to $2 million of federal Community Development Block Grant funding to construct a piazza adjacent to Seaport Village. The application requires proof of jobs that will be created and Tyson said Goldan will develop 52 jobs with the construction of and following the opening of Seaport Village.
Before the vote for this item, which was listed on the City Council’s consent calendar, Rien pulled it for further discussion.
He told the City Council that though he respects Goldan and his project, he felt Goldan’s membership on the Redevelopment Advisory Board “is not in the public’s best interest,” because he is developing a property on land owned by the city’s redevelopment agency.
Following the City Council meeting, Trobitz-Thomas said Goldan, who is board chairman, has not requested the use of any redevelopment funds for his project and he and other RAB members routinely recuse themselves from making advisory decisions about projects whose applicants have any business relationship with its members.
For example, Goldan and fellow-board member Delores Vellutini, who is also developing Waterfront property, recused themselves when RAB was discussing proposals March 31 for the city’s future Fisherman’s Work Area, she said.
“I happen to like Glenn (Goldan),” Rien said. “He was a good member of the Humboldt Taxpayers’ League. But, I do think the position of chair puts him in an extremely awkward position to access redevelopment funds.”
Leonard said he has found RAB members are very clear when it comes to conflict-of-interest issues. He said appointing new people to the board, if the mayor deems them qualified, is a good idea; however, Goldan is not monopolizing the Waterfront.
“It’s not like Glenn Goldan has 20 different projects that are all related to city redevelopment funds,” he said. “He really has just got the one.”
Leonard said when he was first elected, he attended a seminar about conflicts of interest and The Brown Act, the state’s open-meeting laws. He recalled being told “the law recognizes that you have a life. People expect that. You are going to have conflicts of interest. … You are doing things in our community and at some point … (different relationships) are going to come together.”
Rien said he is concerned the City Council does not receive enough community input about redevelopment projects.
“Some of these advisory boards are too long in the asking and too long in the being with the same people,” he said. “City Council rubber-stamps the advisory board.”
Trobitz-Thomas said she disagrees that the City Council rubber-stamps the board’s suggestions. For example, last summer, RAB made a recommendation to the City Council and the City Council went with its own decision, she said.
Developers Greg Pierson and Larry DeBeni had proposed to develop the city’s Fisherman’s Work Area at the foot of C Street and RAB agreed. The city went with Peter Brodeur of J.P. & Assoc. of Auburn.
She said when the city established RAB in 1993, it did so with the intention of having people on it who had developing, banking and legal expertise in areas impacting the redevelopment area.
“You want people on there that can help guide us,” she said. “We’re not developers. … We can’t know everything. … We really rely on the community professionals.”
Goldan said he recalls why RAB was created.
During the 1980s, the city was accused of being arbitrary and “having its favorite sons get redevelopment,” he said.
When former Mayor Nancy Flemming took her post in 1991, she appointed a Mayor’s Redevelopment Blue Ribbon Committee to review existing development plans and make recommendations on possible programs, projects and activities in Eureka’s core area, he said.
The City Council formed the Redevelopment Advisory Board on June 15, 1993.
“What you see on one hand is a room that can be potentially fraught with conflicts of interest and on the other hand you see … people that can conduct an appropriate … meeting and give (the) City Council advice,” Goldan said. “My attitude has always been, it isn’t the potential conflicts of interest that matter, it’s the way … members handle those potential conflicts of interest that counts.”
In response to Rien’s “rubber-stamp” comment, Goldan said because RAB is comprised of developers, as well as attorneys and real estate professionals, the City Council counts on their reviewing lengthy documents and lending it expertise on matters.
“I would hope they would go along with most of what we do, not because they rubber-stamp it,” he said.
LNG Debate: Moving Forward with Caution
http://web.archive.org/web/20040429232408/www.eurekareporter.com/Stories/op-03120401.htm
3/12/04 LNG Debate: Moving
Forward with Caution
by Jeff Leonard
Because we own property on the Samoa Peninsula, the city of Eureka is in the middle of the community debate currently taking place over Calpine’s proposed liquefied natural gas facility.
As a City Council member, I am writing this guest opinion in response to the many phone calls, letters and e-mails I’ve received from both proponents and opponents of the project.
I support continuing this community debate. I also support establishing a fair public process, in keeping with the democratic system we enjoy, that allows everyone to participate in the decision-making process. I have a responsibility as an elected official to ensure that both sides of divisive issues have a fair opportunity to present their case.
Because the Eureka city airport property is the most-feasible site for this project, the next step in that public process is the Eureka City Council’s March 16 meeting, when the council discusses an exclusive right to negotiate agreement with Calpine. This agreement provides the opportunity for our community to carefully examine this project, while preserving the city of Eureka’s control over the property’s future.
Essentially, the ERTN is the city’s agreement to reserve its property while Calpine presents its project to the community, and local governments complete their independent analysis. Before getting any option to actually buy or lease the property, Calpine will have to make its entire project public, fund an independent study of the project and convince our community that LNG is a suitable fit for Humboldt Bay. If it gets our community’s acceptance, Calpine will still be required to obtain all of the necessary permits – more than 100 – before it can complete any transaction with the city.
To ensure that the city of Eureka controls this entire process, the city has negotiated several important “off-ramps” into the ERTN. Most importantly, the Eureka City Council retains the power to meet and decide – for any reason – to halt negotiations if it feels this project is unsuitable.
Consequently, the city is not under any obligation to ever accept or permit an LNG facility. The Eureka City Council retains the absolute power to use its judgment and terminate this agreement.
Moving forward with the ERTN will allow Calpine to present its entire project in detail. The process will put the burden on Calpine to convince our community that an LNG energy center is both feasible and desirable for Humboldt Bay.
Furthermore, local governments will be able to complete their own independent analysis of the project, guaranteeing a fair public process that allows everyone to participate in this community debate.
Although I support moving forward with the ERTN, I cannot make a fair decision about the actual project until we get reliable answers to the many questions LNG poses for Humboldt Bay. Both supporters and opponents of the project are working hard to answer those questions. However, as an elected representative, I need to gather and absorb a lot more information before I can make an educated and reasonable decision. One thing is certain – the community debate has begun, and I am listening to both arguments.
Despite the many economic opportunities, there are a number of important concerns that must be completely satisfied before this project could ever become a desirable next step for our community. For the time being, we need to move forward so that we can evaluate all of these issues, and everyone can fairly participate in the decision-making process.
(Jeff Leonard is a Eureka City Council member.)
3/12/04 LNG Debate: Moving
Forward with Caution
by Jeff Leonard
Because we own property on the Samoa Peninsula, the city of Eureka is in the middle of the community debate currently taking place over Calpine’s proposed liquefied natural gas facility.
As a City Council member, I am writing this guest opinion in response to the many phone calls, letters and e-mails I’ve received from both proponents and opponents of the project.
I support continuing this community debate. I also support establishing a fair public process, in keeping with the democratic system we enjoy, that allows everyone to participate in the decision-making process. I have a responsibility as an elected official to ensure that both sides of divisive issues have a fair opportunity to present their case.
Because the Eureka city airport property is the most-feasible site for this project, the next step in that public process is the Eureka City Council’s March 16 meeting, when the council discusses an exclusive right to negotiate agreement with Calpine. This agreement provides the opportunity for our community to carefully examine this project, while preserving the city of Eureka’s control over the property’s future.
Essentially, the ERTN is the city’s agreement to reserve its property while Calpine presents its project to the community, and local governments complete their independent analysis. Before getting any option to actually buy or lease the property, Calpine will have to make its entire project public, fund an independent study of the project and convince our community that LNG is a suitable fit for Humboldt Bay. If it gets our community’s acceptance, Calpine will still be required to obtain all of the necessary permits – more than 100 – before it can complete any transaction with the city.
To ensure that the city of Eureka controls this entire process, the city has negotiated several important “off-ramps” into the ERTN. Most importantly, the Eureka City Council retains the power to meet and decide – for any reason – to halt negotiations if it feels this project is unsuitable.
Consequently, the city is not under any obligation to ever accept or permit an LNG facility. The Eureka City Council retains the absolute power to use its judgment and terminate this agreement.
Moving forward with the ERTN will allow Calpine to present its entire project in detail. The process will put the burden on Calpine to convince our community that an LNG energy center is both feasible and desirable for Humboldt Bay.
Furthermore, local governments will be able to complete their own independent analysis of the project, guaranteeing a fair public process that allows everyone to participate in this community debate.
Although I support moving forward with the ERTN, I cannot make a fair decision about the actual project until we get reliable answers to the many questions LNG poses for Humboldt Bay. Both supporters and opponents of the project are working hard to answer those questions. However, as an elected representative, I need to gather and absorb a lot more information before I can make an educated and reasonable decision. One thing is certain – the community debate has begun, and I am listening to both arguments.
Despite the many economic opportunities, there are a number of important concerns that must be completely satisfied before this project could ever become a desirable next step for our community. For the time being, we need to move forward so that we can evaluate all of these issues, and everyone can fairly participate in the decision-making process.
(Jeff Leonard is a Eureka City Council member.)