SoHum Parlance

Nice, truthful article!
 

The column was slightly twisted to make a point about strange political bedfellows. We'll straighten it out a little and see how it looks.

Great food for thought, and fuel for discussion.
 

Eric, sorry for reposting, but you had not yet responded to my post (but it is a holiday and I could give you a couple of days)!

Eric, in your article you say,"...Clif Clendenen...opposes big box development in the district,...His SoHum opponent, Estelle Fennell... actually supports big box development in Fortuna."

Eric, as you must be aware, this is an issue that is not an issue until it is defined.

Let's take Winco in Eureka as an example. Ever shopped there?
Great prices on food.

If Winco opened a store in Fortuna, what part of our small town atmosphere would suffer...what businesses? Safeway Superstor and Ray's Food Place would now have competition.

Would they go out of business? Who knows, but for sure their prices will drop (or not...the Safeway in Eureka near Winco has been there for years and still has high prices). Hardly mom and pop family owned businesses.

Eric (Clif) says absolutely no big box, with maybe an exception if it is studied first.

Estelle says "some big boxes", and no to Walmart. Not sitting on the fence, but sensitive to the shopping needs of the residents, while still wanting to maintain small town atmosphere. She has not been evasive, and she has always been inclusive.

Estelle has stated that this issue has nothing, or at least very little with the workload of the job of County Supervisor, and it makes sense she would not spend too much time on it.

As far as big box being symbolic for the candidate, I see Clif's stance as a symbol of repression. I am a progressive, an environmental activist, and I live in Fortuna.

I have not spoken to Estelle since June 3, and I do not speak for her.

This big box question is an issue that is not an issue until it is defined.

Using Winco as an example, why would one take a stance against this store coming to Fortuna, when everyone in Fortuna would benefit?
 

Again, when has Estelle ever said no to WalMart? Are we supposed to infer that from "it depends on what kind of big box?" For all we know she would prefer a WalMart to a Costco. Why didn't she just say what she meant?
 

And here's a link to an article written by "a Sohum resident."

Speaking of yourself in the third person has some psychological implications I am sure. What they are, we will leave up the the psycho-babblers in the crowd. It sure threw me off. What would have been wrong with "MY column in the NCJ?"
 

It was a joke 1:56. Read the early comments in the thread made before he posted the link.
 

Okay, I've already answered some of these questions in the threads below, I'm pretty sure. Or maybe I'm confusing this discussion with past discussions.

First, Estelle and you may or may not be right to support "some" big box such as WinCo in Fortuna. I happen to think it's a bad idea, but that wasn't really the point in my article. My point was that Estelle's position, and yours, diverges from the traditional Sohum opinion of it, and certainly from the Green/controlled development/enviro/worker rights view. I was actually surprised when Estelle answered the debate question the way she did and I wondered if it was a concession to the conservative half of her coalition. But I came to suspect that maybe there is a division in the local progressive community, and some of these posts seem to reveal as much.


Safeway may have higher prices than WinCo, but Safeway is a union shop and pays its employees higher wages and benefits. So there's a tradeoff between the benefits of a consumer vs. a worker, an ancient tension. What tips the balance away from the big box for me is the impact on the character of the community such a development would bring, the impact on local businesses, and the loss of opportunity for the use of such property for something other than retail which could actually benefit the economy and local working people more than a 20 cent break on a half gallon of milk, especially since there is a WinCo just a few miles up the road, in a town which is larger and more able to metabolize such a business.

I do shop at WinCo for certain items, but I don't buy much of their produce because none of it is local.

I should point out that there are two approaches from Estelle supporters in this discussion. You are taking me to task for suggesting that Estelle's position is anti-progressive, if I'm reading you correctly, because I did not venture an opinion of my own on the big box issue in my article. Another poster in one of the threads below called me a liar for suggesting that she does support big box development in Fortuna. As someone else pointed out, Estelle's response was pretty much that it's Fortuna's business, then followed up that she supports "mixed use" of the subject property, and as to the big box "it depends on which big box." That implies that she supports some big boxes. It may be that she opposes WalMart, though I have not heard her say that. It's irrelevant though, because I did not say she supports WalMart in my article. I said she supports big box development, and as vague as "it depends on which" is, it does imply support for big box development.

If she opposes big box development she can say so. Or she can clarify. She has 4 months to do that if she chooses.

Rose, I'll have to address your points about Jill Geist later. But no, I didn't speak to her, nor anyone else, prior to writing the article. My wording was phrased to indicate that her motivation for the last vote was my opinion, but obviously I did not have the space to go into past votes and discussions to explain why I believe the interpretation is justified. Frankly, I didn't even think the interpretation would be controversial.

Oh, and to the others, I know Barry Keene was probably not the perfect progressive. The point of my original intro (which Bob graciously posted in the quickies thread below) was simply to point out that a clear line of politics on the north coast had been drawn in that election, and Keene's standing up for Bird in that climate was courageous and admirable, whatever his shortcomings. If you want to send me more laundry lists of his failings, feel free to do so, but seeing that Green and White sign in opposition to Dick Brann's made an impression on a very politically disillusioned young man.

I'm sure I'm missing something, but it is my day off and I want to get home to my kids.
 

Oh, and 1:56, I was just being flippant. The cigar is just a cigar.
 

Winco is not a big box. It is our provincial view in this county of what a store is that is the problem. It isn't local but then neither are many of the other stores around. Personally I don't buy into the argument that people who arrived ten years ago from Los Angeles and now when faced with competition have reinvented themselves as local, local. But that is the point about making some definitions. Waremart fills a niche need that the other stores don't fill and it stays to a specific economic market. It isn't a competitor to Eureka Natural Foods or the Coop. Yes the food prices are lower. The choices are unhealthier. They cater to the hispanic working class market. And its prices are lower because the workers own the corporation.
 

When I'm in the neighborhood already, I often stop by and pick up a few things at Winco, and you certainly can save a lot of money there, especially on certain items.

I'd probably go more often, but I'm not crazy about the general vibe of the store. All those bright yellows and oranges, bathed in the flourescents leaves me anxious to get the heck out of there with my cheap groceries.

But more importantly, I wanted to point out that WinCo is reportedly a worker-owner enterprise, unlike Safeway, Ray's, or the Co-op for that matter.

Am I incorrect in believing that about Winco?

And if they are indeed a worker-owned business, or even majority-worker-owned, that would seem to add a very interesting twist to the question of Safeway (a giant corporation, but with a union workforce) versus Winco, with worker ownership and much lower prices...
 

The big difference, between Estelle and Clif is that Estelle acknoweldges that it is the City's right to determine what goes in, be it a big box or another lumber mill.

Eric's wetdream notwithstanding, a County Supervisor will be told to go pound salt when he or she tries to direct the City and its business.

Maybe Clif if elected to get a resolution passed by his fellow supes asking for Fortuna to not allow a big box development, but such resolutions carry no legal weight.

Eric has mentioned infrastructure in the past as another possible way a BOS could stop such a development, but once again, all the relevant infrastructure already belongs to the City, with the exception of highway 101, which belongs to the state.

So Eric comes out with outright falsehoods when he writes:

"Estelle Fennell, does not comment on the General Plan except to call for the process to be “inclusive” (implying that it is not), and she actually supports big box development in Fortuna."

The fact that Clif is against big box in Fortuna is about as relevant as the lie that Estelle is for such development.

Estelle simply recognizes that it is Fortuna's decision to make, while Clif, who would be better suited for a city council position to fight against such development, is going for the 80 grand per year position instead.
 

In all fairness, Eric should have disclosed that he is a member of Clif's campaign team. I hope a member of Estelle's gets equal time from the not-so-dandy.
 

Estelle LOST.
 

I thought the same thing as I was reading it, 6:21 - Eric was more than just a member of Clendenen's campaign, from all of the posts he did. about all the things he did.

Eric, I really think you ought to stop getting your opinions about Jill from disgruntled Salzmanites who are still pissed off that she didn't give Gallegos his way on the Cotchett/Palco thing. It's high time she got an apology, actually since every court that touched it has thrown it out. The First District Court of Appeals justices laughed at his arguments, and the California Supreme Court didn't buy his pleas.

You maybe oughtta consider the fact that she READS her packet, and asks tough questions. And has reasoned answers as to what, why and how she votes.

I'm frankly quite sick of the - to use yours and heraldo's term - swiftboating - of Jill Geist that has been instituted, and I am disappointed in you for being part of it.

But I'll be interested to read your rationale, maybe you put alot more thought into it than I can see evidence of.
 

Hey, in progressive solidarity, right?
 

Estelle "LOST"? 7:26?

That's funny because the last time I checked she made the runoff election.

Eric's mischaracterizations show that Clif supporters are worried enough about her garnering Rodoni support that they are swiftboating her with out and out lies regarding big box development.

Once again, Clif, as an elected supervisor will have about as much influence on what Fortuna does vis a vis big box development as the Dave Meserve led Arcata City Council had on stopping the war in Iraq.
 

"In all fairness, Eric should have disclosed that he is a member of Clif's campaign team. I hope a member of Estelle's gets equal time from the not-so-dandy."

Who in the hell ever told you this world is fair?
 

So...if meaningless resolutions are your bag, then Clif's your boy.
 

Ya know I can tolerate the idea of Estelle running in an election but the muppethead people who front for her are really, um, well, gee, dumb.

Eric Fimbres for Supervisor. At least he has a business degree.
 

I thought that Winco was owned by the employees? Doesn't that mean it's locally owned, and not a Big Box, just a big store?
 

So can Clif go on Thank Jah for about 4 months in a row to equal the time kathleen has spent campaigning on the air for estelle? ksthleen has never said that not only is she part of estelle's campaign, but also her lover. People have a right to know.
 

estelle came in last place. isn't that losing?
 

uhhm, not when you just have to place in the top two LIVING candidates to make the runoff...

there's a runoff election when nobody garners a majority of votes...

Sure she faces an uphill challenge, but last time I checked, her name will be on the ballot in November...
 

"I thought that Winco was owned by the employees? Doesn't that mean it's locally owned, and not a Big Box, just a big store?"

Wrong,I believe.Employees buy stock options.
 

Geeze! I wrote one paragraph about the second district race, dedicating one sentence to the positions of each candidate relevant to my overall theme. Only one poster has challenged the accuracy of my account of her positions. Other posters defend her big box position, which I did not attack in my piece.

Rose - I have not spoken to "Salzmanites" about Jill Geist's vote against allowing Gallegos to farm out the lawsuit, nor did I mention her vote in my piece. I did mention Bonnie's position at the time, on a vote which should have been fiscally based and not second guessing the DA on the merits of the case.

What I did do was speak to environmental activists about Supervisor Geist, the Sanctuary Forest/Mattole River issue, and her role in the General Plan discussions. She may have perfectly good reasons for her position, but nevertheless the environmental groups view her as a political opponent on the issue at this time.

As my piece was about reshuffling of alliances and not about the merits of any particular side, the interpretation of the environmental activists, valid or not, was the issue. And given her prior positions on the General Plan, the conflation of criticisms of planning department officials in terms of process with the merits of sanctioning Sanctuary Forest's involvement, and Roger Rodoni's perception of a voting block between the two (at the Code Enforcement issue town hall meeting he referenced the need for a third vote), the perception is not unreasonable. If it's a misperception, then I can tell her that she really needs to do some outreach and PR to the environmentalists. If it's important to her.

But I can't read minds about intentions, I can only interpret through the actions and words. Hence my use of the word "apparently" in my (and others') interpretation of her latest vote and accompanying argument.

And the theme of my piece (which seems to be lost by political operatives here focusing on the trees and missing the forest) is actually a defense on her behalf, as my point in discussing her role in the change of political terrain, was to suggest that her position was based on what she believes are the best interests of her mostly rural district, at the expense of her personal ideology. That's not a bad thing, necessarily. Having seen her very sincere and moving account of her vote for a symbolic measure supporting marriage equality a couple of years back, there's no doubt in my mind that she holds a progressive world view that simply may not apply to local politics at the moment.

This was not a campaign piece. If you take sentences out individually and out of context I'm sure you can find something to whine about. But then there are certain anonymous operatives who will cherry pick and attack any piece which contains even an ounce of divergence from some agenda's official frame, and ignore the context or the point of the piece as a whole. Just ask David Bergin. Or for that matter, Estelle.
 

Oh, and as for my "fear" that Estelle will pick up some Rodoni supporters - I fully expect that to happen. That was my point actually.
 

Eric, the article here helps illustrate how much of a moron and sycophantic dweeb you are.

Clearly your only objective here is to become a tabloid abomination - disgusting and full of nothing but disagreement and distrust. Shame on you.

This is further backed up by your coverage of the Reggae wars. They are covered in much the same way the British press covers the Royal family.

Disgusting.

Is this how you promote your "law practice"? You wouldn't be the first to scour the gutter for a few extra dollars. You would be the first though in how you do so while proclaiming wisdom and magnanimity while you wring the filth and detritus out of the conflict of our local scene.

Shame on you.

Tabloid whore.
 

hey 215

sign your name or your vile words have no import...
 

Well 2:15, that was productive.
 

Not enough 215 for 2:15?
 

Man, It is such a bore to hear these people who hide behind anonymity.
 

I wonder what color the inside walls of Tabloid Whore's bubble is decorated in.

This rhetoric reminds me of a small cluster of people I know.
 

You nailed it 215. Excellent comment, very succinct.
 

Eric says: "This was not a campaign piece. If you take sentences out individually and out of context I'm sure you can find something to whine about."

Campaign piece or not, I asked logical questions about how you define 'big box' so we could have a meaningful discussion.

Apparently, from what I could wrench out of you, you consider big box stores to be any store that is of unspecified fairly large size, and not already in Fortuna.

Walgreens opened up a year ago in Fortuna, in direct competition to family owned Center Pharmacy and Greens Pharmacy. There's also Rite Aid. I am sure that Clif must have been out gathering support against Walgreens?

Tetrault Tire opened a few years ago in direct competition to Fortuna Wheel and Brake and Hummel Tire...both old time Fortuna families. And the Fortuna progressives were up in arms? Clif? Anyone?

Eric considers WinCo to be a big box store.

Anon said: "Winco is not a big box. It is our provincial view in this county of what a store is that is the problem."

mresquan said...
"I thought that Winco was owned by the employees? Doesn't that mean it's locally owned, and not a Big Box, just a big store?"

"Wrong,I believe. Employees buy stock options."

So there is obviously much confusion in peoples minds...just what is a 'big box store'? Clif brought 'big box store' as a fundamental campaign issue, so maybe you can clarify where he is coming from.

Eric, I am not whining. I am simply asking for a definition of 'big box store' so we can have a meaningful discussion.

By refusing to define 'big box store' you seem to be avoiding meaningful discussion.
 

8:14 - truth be told I wasn't complaining about your post. The questions were fair. Not really pertinent to the topic of the article, but a good discussion item for Second District politics.

I mentioned the issue in my article specifically because opposition to big box stores in rural communities is a progressive political staple from which Estelle has deviated. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as everyone running for office makes certain compromises and perhaps it's an issue on which she really does distinguish herself from the progressive mainstream. There are issues from which Clif will also differ with progressives, and that's essential for anyone representing the Second District.

You are actually defending her big box position, and that's fair for discussion. My issue is with those who think that my mentioning it is a an attack on her. It isn't. I disagree with her, but there is a rational basis for her position.

To your First my definition of a big box, I'm not sure WinCo technically qualifies. However, I don't think WinCo would be good for Fortuna, and probably not the Second District as a whole. I've gone into the reasons why in other threads, and I'll be happy to repeat and even expand on them as the discussion progresses.

A big box in my view is any retail outlet, whether a general merchandiser or selling a particular category of products (hardware, electronics, bookss, etc.), with a specific business strategy aimed at wiping out opposition through economies of scale, exclusivity with large distributors, and streamlined business practices which eliminate positive interaction with local business, with the net result being the elimination of choice for consumers with the centralization of commerce around cloverleaf "quick off, quick on" highway access. The trend is destroying the business character which made the American business community in rural and suburban areas unique but now leading to a bland homogenization of culture based on cheap plastic crap from China.

I actually support moderate big boxes in areas which can metabolize them without too much destruction to the community, and particularly Costco's ventures into the inner cities where small business had been dying anyway.

I mean, we really do need to have this discussion, but let me start with some links to sites of organizations dealing with these issues. Take a look at them. I'll probably start a whole new thread and revamp some of the old stuff I'd posted about the Home Depot proposal in Eureka - concerns from local activists including one recently elected.

Atascadero opposition to WalMart Check out their links page.

Big Box Tool Kit

Sprawl Busters


Business Alliance for Local Living Economies
 

And once again, Eric nails the positions of the two candidates perfectly - Estelle recognizes that it is the City of Fortuna's business as to what type of retail to allow.

Clif will fight against it as a county supervisor with no jurisdiction whatsoever, beyond nonbinding resolutions.

Thanks, Eric.
 

Right. So if you support just allowing a big box to destroy the character of the place we live and doing nothing, vote for Estelle. If you support the idea that a community leader is supposed to lead, then vote for Clif.
 

Arrrgh. Eric send me Cliff's email address and I'll send him a brief. I am not posting it on the blog. Let the other team do their own research.
 

After reading these blogs on the "Big Box" issue I will definitely be voting CLIF.
 

cliff is not anti big box, he just does not want it located next to his property.

cliff is on record stating that "there is a time and place for big box just not in fortuna " the location in question just happens to be right next to his property and that's why he is working so hard to make this a county issue rather than a Fortuna City issue.
He should drop out of the supes race and try for Fortuna city council if he wants some influence over who can build next to his land.
 

the north coast journal and kirk should have mentioned that kirk is an integral part of the clendan campaign.There should have been a disclaimer.

Someone from Estelle's campaign or Estelle herself should have equal time with their own article regarding this election.
 

Any time kirk gets to blab on about the second district election he should put some truth in advertising into his blabbing. "Oh, by the way I am one of clif's campaign workers"
That will at least put things into "perspective" for the readers .
 

you guys don't get it, eric is a lawyer....HELLO......he is trained to sway people to believe something even if it is not true in order to get people on his client's side and this case his client is clendenan.
 

I am a local independent business owner and I can tell you that Estelle has the vast majority of diverse local independent business owners solidly supporting her. The vast amount of these business owners consider themselves environmentalists and they support and overtly promote sustainable business/environmental practices.AND they are solidly behind Estelle and Estelle is solidly behind us as well.

erik either chooses to be blind to these facts or just practicing his "lawyer tactics of disinformatio to benefit clif" for trying to imply that Estelle does not have that kind of support. It's just completely dishonest of him to resort to these kinds of campaign tactics.
 

I, too, am a local business owner who talks with other local business owners, and the notion that the "vast majority" of owners solidly support Estelle is not supported by many of the conversations I've had. First, I assume you're speaking of SoHum, not Fortuna, Hydesville, Rio Dell, etc., where the majority of 2nd District businesses lie. And second, I'm beginning to suspect that the Fortuna political phenomenon of "think what you will, but never speak out against the business establishment" has a SoHum counterpart that demands unquestioning support of Estelle because "she's one of us." Whatever happened to "think globally, act locally"?
 

How many smaller urban/rural areas has Wal-Mart moved into and wiped out stores like Target and Staples? Wal-Mart has huge negative impacts on such a wide variety of stores, that many many businesses go under, including other not-so-big-big boxes. Shop local at locally owned stores. all big boxes are bad, no matter "what kind of big box" it is. Go local!!
 

This article reminded me of an old pirate wench scouring the proverbial bottom of the barrel.
 

Someone from Estelle's campaign or Estelle herself should have equal time with their own article regarding this election.

In this case it would be about 3 sentences.
 

this thread is hilarious
 

Soon clendenan will run dry of the apple juices which provide him sustenance.
 

But it'll soon be apple harvest time!
 

You're right, this thread IS hilarious. Especially the poster who says that Clif's position regarding big box development in Fortuna cements his or her vote FOR Clif - DESPITE the FACT that a County Supervisor will have NO SAY beyond trying to pass a meaningless nonbinding resolution.

Good luck with that, LOL.

This makes about as much sense as voting for Clif or Estelle based on their positions on NAFTA or US participation in NATO.

Whats that you say? They have no say in those things? BINGO.
 

STOP CORPORATE GREED!

VOTE CLIF!
 

(Sigh). Now I know how Gen. Wes Clark feels.
 

4 out of 5 doctors are endorsing Clif for what his apples have done for the countywide epidemic of constipation. Perhaps even political gridlock is something Clif can get moving again!
 

Again, can Clif go on Thank Jah every Friday and have equal time since kathleen, estelles lover and partner and campaign person, has been on air campaigning for months now?
 

"Three years later Bonnie Neely embraced Gallegos at his reelection party.She also celebrated her own victory taking her to a runoff election with a fellow Republican, beating out the lone Democrat with the blessing of local Democratic Party activists. She was deemed the “liberal” candidate.In that same election moderate Republican Virginia Bass was elected Mayor of Eureka with the help of a progressive activist campaign manager (who had opposed Wal-Mart)on a de facto slate opposite Neely’s coalition,in which Neely informally caucused with unmistakable liberals like Larry Glass and Chris Kerrigan."

Bonnie a "Liberal" Republican and Virginia a "Moderate" Republican that support the leaders in California and the US President. And the Humboldt County Republican Women.Huh?

Is Clendenen the "Liberal" declined to state running against the "Conservative" Democrat?

Politics in Humboldt County are way screwed up.

Erik, you were right on in your observation.Next,give some sane answers to the mayhem!
 

6:57 - Finally! Somebody with the reading comprehension to understand the point of my article!

Almost restores my faith in the education system.

Are we screwed up, or just mixed up? I'm sure there are local politics anomalies from national politics in other areas as well. They've just taken a dramatic turn here. Almost Shakespearean.
 

First you compare yourself to Supreme NATO Commander, Four Star General Wesley Clark, retired. Now you are a player in some Shakesperian tapestry.

Get over yourself!
 

Yeah, because the comparison was a military reference.

Second the point about education.
 

We're not screwed up or mixed up, it's just that many of our would-be elected officials at the local level are still real, live human beings, pragmatic individuals who are not so easily pigeonholed into the kind of narrow and therefore rather meaningless left-right political categories that most of the politicians who get to higher offices must define themselves with.

Thank goodness for the fact that, at least at the local level, pragmatism, experience, and individual integrity still count for more than broad ideological orthodoxies.

We've got two terrific candidates for the 2nd District...rejoice!
 

Amen.

In fact all the cross-political and cross-cultural mixing should be seen as opportunities. It's like the national leagues. Players get traded. It's all part of the game.
 

First you compare yourself to Supreme NATO Commander, Four Star General Wesley Clark, retired. Now you are a player in some Shakesperian tapestry.

And now, so are you!
 

Eric, thank you for the big box links, and for a definition that allows us to discuss the subject.

Eric says, "A big box in my view is any retail outlet...with a specific business strategy aimed at wiping out opposition through economies of scale, exclusivity with large distributors, and streamlined business practices...with the net result being the elimination of choice for consumers..."

From the links, I can see that in addition to your definition, floor space is a factor. Walmart, Target, Lowes and Home Depot were the stores named.

Definition of big box:

A big box is any retail outlet with a specific business strategy aimed at wiping out opposition through economies of scale, exclusivity with large distributors, and streamlined business practices.

Eric, if the term 'big box' were defined as above, and then both Clif and Estelle were asked if they would support a big box store in Fortuna, both of their answers I believe would be an emphatic NO!

Neither Clif nor Estelle support a big box in Fortuna. Same answer.

Eric says, "I actually support moderate big boxes in areas which can metabolize them..."

Maybe by "some big boxes" Estelle is referring to moderate big boxes?
Clif opposes all big boxes so is apparently against moderate big box stores also?

With no definition, answers are meaningless, and then subject to attack by the opposition.

Estelle has a common sense, clear headed approach to all issues, and I know where she stands. Clif obviously has several 'deciders' on his team...complicated and scary.
 

God forbid Cliff gets advice from people who know. Why that would be something akin to being prudent and responsible. A better known tradition outside of the southern humboldt arena for business.

The big box issue is getting more definition, finally. Now you have to explain what advantage economy of scale gives to a retailer (as compared to Texas Instruments per say). Then you have to deal with the sticky wicket of saying someone has a strategy to wipe out competition. Ahem not always a legal strategy to be using. I am sure the attorneys can fill us in more on this issue.

I just realized this Estelle thing could be good for some of the rubes she has fronting for her. They are learning something at least. A little behind the curve but maybe there is value for the community there after all.
 

Eric says, "I actually support moderate big boxes in areas which can metabolize them..."

Maybe by "some big boxes" Estelle is referring to moderate big boxes?
Clif opposes all big boxes so is apparently against moderate big box stores also?

Clif opposes them for Fortuna. He knows the Fortuna economy better than I, so I'd defer to him on the question. I doubt that Fortuna and the Second District can accommodate any of the previous list without taking out most of the rest of the retail economy. A Lowes would have to do in Dazy's and at least one of the Sohum hardware stores in order to survive, which means we in Sohum would have to drive to Fortuna for most items at an affordable price. Probably Dazy's would survive, which means Lowes would not, and then Fortuna have to fill it with something else, or just leave it vacant.

The big boxes have to eliminate competition, and lots of it. 10 years ago Eureka commissioned a study from Bay Area Economics, to look into the potential impact of various big boxes in the Eureka Economy. In this previous post I highlighted the projections for Home Depot.

The big box doesn't walk into an empty shell of an economy with people just waiting for a place to spend their dollars. Right now, people are buying their materials from stores in Sohum, Fortuna, and perhaps some are driving up to Pierson's or another Eureka based store. Let's say this latter represents 50% of the total market, and I think I'm being very liberal, and let's say that Lowes only has to corner 75% of the existing market for Second District consumers, on the theory that it will draw people from the northern part of the county, assuming the Home Depot doesn't go through in Eureka. That's still half the existing market in the Second District.

But I don't think Lowes can even be content with that.

The BAE figures are probably dated, even in their projections. But when I spoke with the Security National people who were suggesting that a moderate sized Home Depot in Eureka might head off a "monster" Lowes in Fortuna, it suggests that the Lowes will be seeking far more than the 30 million (conservative) for the "moderate" Home Depot of the 1998 projections.

So I would defer to Clif, but personally be open to information with additional and updated studies. What portion of the market would Lowes need to survive, let along thrive? How much will they be counting on extra-Second District customers? What will happen with the Marina Center Project? What is the projection for expansion of construction in the next couple of decades? And what are the short and long term economic consequences if Lowes fails, for Fortuna and the county as a whole? What are the opportunity costs in terms of potential economic development with something other than retail?

These businesses operate on scales the county has never seen. Big boxes have helped revitalize some communities, and they've destroyed others. It's not something you should just throw in and say "let's see what happens."
 

In short, I don't believe we can metabolize even a moderate big box without major consequences for the local economy and the character of the community (I don't want to live in Oroville West). But I'm open to evidence to the contrary. It hasn't been forthcoming.
 

uh, wouldn't banning big boxes be limiting consumer choice? Wouldn't you be taking away that option for a poor family scraping by to go to a walmart where they can get access to things they need at a lower price? Lower prices mean more access, which means more choices for those with lower incomes.

Essentially you're saying 'screw those poor schmucks' because you're sitting pretty earning a relatively high income.

I don't metabolize your elitist garbage.
 

No, it would render it the only choice, and it would bring local incomes down - something nobody supporting big boxes has addressed in this thread or any other.
 

OK, so you're free to shop so long as you're capable of paying an extra 15-20%.

And maybe you're not giving Dazy's enough credit. They might have to change the way they do business, no longer being the only game in town, but they would survive.

You're assuming this is a zero sum game. What you completely ignore is the fact that cheaper access actually brings more consumers into the game.

As far as local incomes, that comment proves you're an elitist. Are you aware of how little these local companies pay their workers? Then are you aware of how much a Home Depot does?

Big boxes did not create the stagnant declining humboldt economy that exists today. But I sure as hell know we got poor people who would like access to cheaper socks, shirts and maybe even some paint for their homes or baby formula. You are advocating denial of access to those things for the poor working class (The people who work at your great locally owned retail establishments).
 

Another part of the debate missing is the Internet. Poor people can shop the Internet and beat any prices in this county. You have to plan ahead. Those without credit cards can now buy prepaid credit cards to use on the Internet. No risk also to those who don't like to use their credit cards.

Any local business that doesn't want to invite competition in should not be 15%-20% over the low price leader. That is like waving a red flag and saying there is money here to be made. That figure is a gross exaggeration in most cases.

The truly poor can't even shop Walmart. They frequent second hand stores for most items. So the definitive word would be working poor.

Then there is the argument about how Walmart exploits third world labor to lower its prices and depletes forest products world wide to make disposable furniture and goods for the working poor. That should interest some folks.
 

And maybe you're not giving Dazy's enough credit. They might have to change the way they do business, no longer being the only game in town, but they would survive.

If they do, then Lowes may not.

You're assuming this is a zero sum game. What you completely ignore is the fact that cheaper access actually brings more consumers into the game.

Which consumers are you talking about? What are they doing with their money now?

As far as local incomes, that comment proves you're an elitist. Are you aware of how little these local companies pay their workers? Then are you aware of how much a Home Depot does?

First of all, Home Depot's not an option for Fortuna. It would be Lowes. Security National is negotiating with Home Depot for the Eureka site, Lowes for the Fortuna site, and what is absolutely undisputed is that both cannot be sustained.

Secondly, HD pays more than WalMart certainly, and I'm told more than Pierson's. But there will be a net loss in jobs. And HD won't necessarily pay much more than the prevailing rate locally anyway. They're not bound by a national standard or anything.

Big boxes did not create the stagnant declining humboldt economy that exists today. But I sure as hell know we got poor people who would like access to cheaper socks, shirts and maybe even some paint for their homes or baby formula. You are advocating denial of access to those things for the poor working class (The people who work at your great locally owned retail establishments).

Again, the net result is invariably lower income rates in rural communities. I've linked you to the information. I've linked you to the only comprehensive study on the impact of big boxes locally (Security National hinted at the release of some of their own data, but it hasn't happened yet).

It's mostly a question of arithmetic. Why are you refusing to discuss the data? Do you believe it's outdated? Do you believe it's otherwise flawed? Give me facts rather than platitudes which only look at one dimension of the economy, that being consumption. In order to buy goods, people have to have money.
 

Eric, in your NCJ article you say,"...Clif Clendenen...opposes big box development in the district,...His SoHum opponent, Estelle Fennell... actually supports big box development in Fortuna."

As far as I can tell, by the definition you have given (abridged by me): "A big box is any retail outlet with a specific business strategy aimed at wiping out opposition through economies of scale, exclusivity with large distributors, and streamlined business practices...", I think both Clif and Estelle would oppose big box stores in Fortuna.

Therefore your statement is simply wrong.

I'll tell you what. Define the terms, and ask them both. I have never seen a county supervisorial candidate put such emphasis put on an irrelevant and petty issue as this.

At least Estelle spends her time campaigning on issues that matter on a county level.

Another post said: "Poor people can shop the Internet and beat any prices in this county."

Not for food.
 

Estelle is on record as saying "it depends on which big box" when asked. That implies that there are big boxes developments she would support.
 

So Estelle's supporters see the big box issue as "irrelevant and petty?"

Now I'm really glad I voted for Clif!
 

As far as I can tell, by the definition you have given (abridged by me): "A big box is any retail outlet with a specific business strategy aimed at wiping out opposition through economies of scale, exclusivity with large distributors, and streamlined business practices...", I think both Clif and Estelle would oppose big box stores in Fortuna.

Therefore your statement is simply wrong.

Well, except that she is on record as saying "it depends on which big box." I don't know how to read that other than to imply that there are big boxes she would support.
 

Or, what 12:57 said! Heh.
 

Based on what Estelle's "supporters" say, rather than what Estelle herself says?
 

Note in this discussion which side is presenting facts for argument and which side is appealing to emotion.
 

Emotional judgments are no less valid than rational judgments.
 

Therefore your statement is simply wrong.

"Well, except that she is on record as saying "it depends on which big box." I don't know how to read that other than to imply that there are big boxes she would support."

By the definition Clif uses for big box, he would say no to Costco, Winco, Staples, Walgreens, and Tetrault Tires. To say "no big boxes" with Clif's definition is restrictive and repressive.

Eric, the idea that you can just jump in your car and zoom (25 min @ 75mph from my house) to Eureka from Fortuna to buy groceries is not progressive.

Forcing residents to pay more for their groceries in Fortuna than Eureka, although it may have good motivation, or not, is a form or regressive taxation: The poor pay a much higher percentage of their income for food than the rich. This is not progressive.

WinCo is a worker owned company...it seems like an idea a progressive would get behind, but Clif says "keep 'em out". This is not progressive.

Other than stores proven to be bad neighbors, like Walmart, Target, Lowes, and Home Depot, market forces should be the deciding factor in which stores move into the area - not some economist or sociologist pulling strings from a centralized think tank. From my perspective as a grass roots activist, this is not progressive.

Your arguments are hollow, and your candidate is vacant. His supporters are arrogant.
 

"Emotional judgments are no less valid than rational judgments."

Does this frighten anyone else besides me?
 

"Forcing residents to pay more for their groceries in Fortuna than Eureka, although it may have good motivation, or not, is a form or regressive taxation: The poor pay a much higher percentage of their income for food than the rich. This is not progressive."

This is an assumption (and not a good one) unless you cite facts or the math to back it up.
 

"Other than stores proven to be bad neighbors, like Walmart, Target, Lowes, and Home Depot, market forces should be the deciding factor in which stores move into the area - not some economist or sociologist pulling strings from a centralized think tank."

The first five sentences are a contradiction of the last three. Does Estelle's campaign have anyone with something better than a high school degree working for it?
 

It's mostly a question of arithmetic. Why are you refusing to discuss the data? Do you believe it's outdated? Do you believe it's otherwise flawed? Give me facts rather than platitudes which only look at one dimension of the economy, that being consumption. In order to buy goods, people have to have money.

You cite organizations whose whole purpose is to organize against big box development. They can be a mishmash of interests, from anti-sprawl to people who want to see government money reinvested in blighted downtown areas (In other words, asking everyone else to pay for their own redevelopment). So, the data is invariably skewed. I am not saying it is completely incorrect, but you are citing people who look at this through the lense of big box being bad no matter what.

If it were, what about Ukiah Eric? If Humboldt cannot sustain two Home Depot type boxes, why is Humboldt able to accommodate three Target/Kmart developments? Why was
it OK to have a target, but not Walmart? Why is local coffee thriving, even though Eureka now has three Starbucks? Do you really think parents are OK with buying their kids socks, underwear and other clothing from second hand, even in SoHum? Do you think it's OK that most familys drive south to Santa Rosa for their essentials, spending at least $50 on transport alone?

And another Anon had an excellent point. What about the internet? What about catalog shopping? Certainly by your own logic, if you oppose purchasing at big boxes, you would oppose buying over the internet or via catalog. Those methods do employ UPS and FedEx people though. But then again, big boxes also employ people.

Fundamentally, big box development comes down to the devastating effects of Prop 13. So are you Eric, a homeowner, willing to repeal prop 13 and pay higher property taxes so that city governments aren't so desperate to fiscalize 'dead' land and get the sales tax money??? ...Ooops, that actually probably effects your pocketbook big time Eric. So I doubt we will see you pony up. That's the problem here Eric (Maybe you will agree) otherwise I don't think you would see city councils bend over backwards to push these projects through.
 

Try again. The argument is getting better though. First your assumption that the Kmartish developments are all making money. This is not necessarily true unless you have their individual financials on hand by chance. The same goes for Starbucks. When a chain is that big it goes for the total pie created. It is trademark and brand hungry. It wants to soften the market in places that are showing growth. Establish a presence so to speak. Meaning slice A can lose money but B, C, and D will make money. Starbucks inparticular targeted expansion into Northern California markets last year to spread its branding and soften up the market. Now because of the economic decline it is going to start closing those nonproductive stores. They have targeted 500 or so. I also won't go too far astray and mention that several local coffee stops are cover businesses or at least started that way. Regular market economics don't apply.

Again please cite your statistical source on how you concluded "most" families drive South. Is this just your opinion or do you know this for a fact.
 

The funniest fucking thing is though - IT doesnt FUCKING MATTER what the FUCK a COUNTY sup's position is on a big box develepment within CITY LIMITS of FORTUNA, EUREKA, RIO DELL - well y'all get it - Clif may be against it, but his fucking new 80k salary notwithstanding, he has NO JURISDICTION WITHIN CITY LIMITS.

Eric is smart enough to see this.

Estelle is intellectually honest enough to define the debate to the area that she would actually have a voice in as a Supervisor.

Notice how Ewic grows strangely silient when this fucKING cogent FACT is brought up?
 

And that folks is known in the public relations world as 'duck and run'. Brought to you by 8:32 PM.
 

The funniest fucking thing is though - IT doesnt FUCKING MATTER what the FUCK a COUNTY sup's position is on a big box develepment within CITY LIMITS of FORTUNA, EUREKA, RIO DELL - well y'all get it - Clif may be against it, but his fucking new 80k salary notwithstanding, he has NO JURISDICTION WITHIN CITY LIMITS.

Eric is smart enough to see this.

Estelle is intellectually honest enough to define the debate to the area that she would actually have a voice in as a Supervisor.

Notice how Ewic grows strangely silient when this fucKING cogent FACT is brought up?

Actually, I went silent because I had to drive to Eureka for a court appearance. But I probably would have been silent anyway as I've addressed the question over and over again. It's all about your view of community leadership, and whether you elect someone to simply perform the tasks constitutionally assigned to him/her or whether you also expect the person to be a community leader and speak up on the issues of the day, facilitate public discussion, and make sure that county concerns are addressed in Fortuna's public meetings. There are any number of ways a community leader/supervisor can address the issue, and it's all about what you want to stand for and your vision of leadership.

If your view is that a supervisor should stick to managing the county budget and shut up about everything else that goes on in the county, the your vote should reflect that philosophy. It's not mine.
 

You cite organizations whose whole purpose is to organize against big box development.

Wrong. The BAE is an independent think tank which was hired by the city of Eureka to study the impact of a Big Box. That's the arithmetic I'm talking about.

As to the impact in Ukiah, I don't have the time right now, but I'll be happy to discuss that. Maybe I'll even dedicate a thread to it.

As to prop 13, I would gladly vote to repeal at least some of it.

I wasn't happy about Target, but it's there now and the damage is done.

Starbucks isn't a big box and the coffee isn't good enough to put locals out of business, particularly as there is a large segment who will not buy coffee there. Same with Borders.

Do you think it's OK that most familys drive south to Santa Rosa for their essentials, spending at least $50 on transport alone?

It's more than 50 bucks at this point, and I don't believe that's true. If it was, it's probably not now. It's certainly not a rational economic decision if it's true. And what do you mean by "essentials?"
 

Nice how Kirk just ignores the Internet and Catalog shopping issue.

You going to be consistent Mr. Liewyer? Or are you going to pander to the big box freaks? Oh, whats that you say? Internet/catalog shopping isn't a wedge issue? You can't prove how 'progressive' the apple boy is talking about internet/catalog shopping??

PRESTO!!!

You are clumsy Kirk, clumsy.
 

If you read the studies on Starbucks I think you'll find your supposition only holds up in niche communities. Southern Humboldt may well be one of these. Starbucks is a different type of invasive species. It has enough margin on the product it can expand just for the sheer pleasure of taking out the competition (Walmart does this too) and then can close shop later. Although for the most part I like Starbucks it is rather progressive on the international culture front.

Back to the point. If you believe this Erik then the same argument might be made for Walmart here. Let it come in and the local resistance will keep it from succeeding. What do you think... yea or nay?
 

I don't know what the "Internet issue" is exactly, but if you're talking about retail, yes, it's bad for local business too.

Happy?
 

So why don't you try to close off that option (Intenet/Catalog shopping) for the consumer as well?

This really is an issue about choice Eric. You are very paternal and don't trust the consumer to support local business. You want to limit the consumers choice. And you refuse to recognize that lower prices provide access to poorer residents; access to clothing, home materials and other things the upper class (that would be you in this county) take for granted.

Maybe you could let us know where you purchased your work clothes? Where do you get clothes for your kids? I really want to know! Where are these great local shops that sell the Pokemon shirts your children want and that you can get for a decent price? Where is that local shop that sells a wide variety of sportjackets? And don't blame Target that you can't find this stuff 'locally' because it wasn't here before Target (or the mall) came!

OK, so I better not see you in a big box. I better not see you in circuit city getting those fat stacks of high quality legal paper. Where do you get your printer paper btw? I better not see you in home depot buying carpet (and installation) for $199 dollars so that your kids bedroom floor is cleaner and safer. And if you don't ever go to big boxes, where do you get your plastic bins to store and organize stuff?
 

This is so fucking stupid. It isn't about choice it is about complete information. Eric is doing his best to build and share information but you aren't smart enough to take it and examine it. Put your head in the sand you moron and don't look at all sides just make it a political argument. This is exactly what is wrong the tyranny of the masses. Too ashamed to admit they don't know everything and not enough self esteem to receive information for its own sake and forget the asshole or saint who gave it to you. Dunderhead. Sorry Eric I have much less patience than you do.
 

"This is exactly what is wrong the tyranny of the masses."

Damn that pesky democratic notion!

"Too ashamed to admit they don't know everything"

Yes, we need you to do our thinking for us, because, you know so much more than us.

"and not enough self esteem to receive information for its own sake and forget the asshole or saint who gave "

uhhm, right. As if this information has been given without any type of idealogical bent; riiiight.

BTW Eric, did'nt you post something about shopping at Target with your kids not too long ago?
Hypocrite.
 

Eric said..."It's all about your view of community leadership, and whether you elect someone to simply perform the tasks constitutionally assigned to him/her or whether you also expect the person to be a community leader and speak up on the issues of the day, facilitate public discussion,..."

These are the kinds of things Estelle has been doing for 20 years.

Eric, Clif has never done anything remotely close to what you describe as a good leader.
 

I do on occasion shop at Target. Never at WalMart. The place creeped me out before I even knew about the politics. And I would never hire Home Depot to install anything in my home. Too many horror stories.

If the biggest problem in my life was trying to find a place to buy a Pokemon t-shirt, I'd be living a pretty mellow life. Alas.
 

These are the kinds of things Estelle has been doing for 20 years.

Eric, Clif has never done anything remotely close to what you describe as a good leader.

Estelle is a community leader. Her willingness to step up to the plate and run for office alone evidences that. Clif will be better.
 

A couple of years ago, the Family Resource Center in Redway received a $2,000 grant from Target, to provide child care during parental education classes and to purchase educational materials to be distributed to parents.

Costco pays its workers better than any local grocer, and provides them with health insurance.

Yes, it's actually true that "not all big boxes are the same." The mere fact of being corporate doesn't make it intrinsically evil. While WalMart does, indeed, have a long and nasty history of abuse (which is why I don't set foot in it), equating every big-box store with WalMart is both ignorant and simple-minded.

Sorry, but I can't afford "local" prices for a lot of things. I get my dry goods and hygiene supplies at Costco, and my makeup at Target, during my shopping & errand run to Eureka every four to six weeks. We do support the local farmers Fridays at the Farmers' Market in Garberville, and Wednesdays at the Gravel Pit on Bell Springs Road. If we don't make it to those, we look for local produce at Chautauqua and Shop Smart. I buy Humboldt Creamery dairy products (except for butter, which they apparently don't make unsalted), and when giving gifts, I look for locally-made soaps, oils, etc. at Pomegranate and at the Hemp Connection.

Oh, and speaking of Humboldt Creamery: the Kirkland brand ice cream - the Costco brand - is actually Humboldt Creamery. Yes, our very own Humboldt County creamery makes the ice cream for one of the biggest boxes of them all.

As for the "moral" question, which is where a lot of people who see this as a black-and-white issue take it, let me ask you this: would you still be so gung-ho about shopping locally if you knew the guy who owned the store you frequent went home at night and beat his wife, or molested his daughter? (This is an entirely fictional scenario; I'm just asking the question hypothetically.) Where would THAT leave your "morality"?

It's easy to say "all big box is evil" and "people who shop at big boxes are thoughtless drones who don't care about their local economy." And in this community, it's especially easy to manifest that kind of attitude when you already have your property paid for, your kids off to college, your plants in the ground, and your three-month winter getaway to Costa Rica planned.

Not that growers tend to be the only holier-than-thou species around here, mind you.
 

Nicely written Cristina.

I would also point out that 99%+ of us go around interacting in one form or another with a corporation. Especially if you're one of the trust fund babies that is so prevelant here.

And if big boxes equaled economic death, why is California the richest state in the union?

It's good to have diversity, and that can include big box retailers. I have a feeling many of you have been duped by Bill Pierson on this issue. Oh well...
 

These are the kinds of things Estelle has been doing for 20 years.

Eric, Clif has never done anything remotely close to what you describe as a good leader.

Tue Jul 08, 09:32:00 AM

Estelle was a reporter. Not a leader.

Mostly a pretty good reporter, though not unbiased.

Try not to get confused about her qualifications.
 

It's not that big boxes are evil. It's that they are destructive to rural economies. Eureka is less of a rural economy than Fortuna.

And Safeway pays better than Costco, just so you know.
 

I certainly don't propose having big boxes everywhere. It's what's destroyed so many small towns in America. My argument is against the moral absolutism that has so many people in Southern Humboldt who HAVE the means to "shop locally" for everything passing judgment on those of us who simply don't have those resources. I actually do believe that big boxes have a place in substantially more heavily-populated areas, where the economy CAN support them. Of course, that's a big part of the debate on this thread - what communities can and cannot afford them. And it's a healthy debate to be having.
 

For the record I also shop at Costco, WinCo, and sometimes Target. I also sometimes buy things online, although I almost always go to a locally owned store to buy books. There's a little bit of a straw man in this discussion.
 

Judy is a neighbor who moved into a new subdivision several years ago in Fortuna, and we had her over to dinner last night.

She is not computer literate, does not vote, and watches Fox, channel 3 and 6.

The subject of blogs was floating around the table and she asked me what I had been blogging about.

"Big boxes in Fortuna."

Her immediate comeback was to ask if anyone had suggested that there be no big boxes at all allowed in Fortuna. "Why?"

Judy said she had grown up in Palo Alto, and she had seen what happened when big boxes came in selling cheap stuff. Mexicans moved into the community, poor people, and the crime that goes with it. She retired to Fortuna to get away from that, and she didn't want to see these kinds of people moving into Fortuna. Paying 30% more for food and furnishings was ok if that is what it took to keep these people out.

"That seem's kind of elitist", I said.

"Damned right it's elitist. I'm not going to apologize for that."

"How about a gated community like where John Campbell lives?" I asked her. She couldn't afford that, but she could afford to drive to the bay area or Eureka if that's what it took to do her shopping. She even thought prices should be raised in Fortuna just to "keep out the rif-raff ".

I believe that Judy hit the nail on the head as far as defining why there is a group in Fortuna pushing to keep the "small town atmosphere".

From Wiki: Xenophobia is a fear or contempt of that which is foreign or unknown, especially of strangers or foreign people.

There is a strong undercurrent of this among the Fortuna evangelical conservatives like Clif.

Eric, you may think Clif is just ducky, and label him a duck. But he does not walk like a duck, does not quack like a duck, because he is not a duck. Next time I see Heraldo label Clif as a liberal I'm going to puke.

Likewise, this effort to keep Fortuna as a "small town" by building 'gates' of high living expenses, with the intention of keeping the poor out is no better morally than living in a gated community, and then claiming you are making life better for the rest of your neighbors.

What a sham!
 

Eric said:"There's a little bit of a straw man in this discussion"

Completely agree Eric, and you are the one who built that straw man when you said "she actually supports big box development in Fortuna" with regards to Estelle.

I understand you were trying to fit it into your Town Dandy theme of "Geography Trumps Ideology", but in this case you assert something that is completely false.

Estelle Fenelle asserts the right of a city to chart its own course, but that doesnt fit neatly into the prepackaged ideas you had for your article, so you build a strawman to make it appear that her position is 180 degrees from Clif's.

Sad, really.

You make the rather elitist comment that now you feel like General Wesley Clark, evidently because some of us missed this supposed point, but your point, your premise is false, a classic strawman.
 

Completely agree Eric, and you are the one who built that straw man when you said "she actually supports big box development in Fortuna" with regards to Estelle.

Sorry. Her words: "some big boxes are better than others." Nice try though.
 

7:39, saying "some big boxes are better than others" and

"she actually supports big boxes in Fortuna" are two COMPLETELY things.

Nice try though.

Next time try and keep things in context, like what she actually said when asked about big boxes in Fortuna, which was to say that it was an issue that belonged to the City of Fortuna, not a supervisorial issue.

Again, nice try.
 

Yes, they are completely things. They're support for bix boxes in Fortuna.
 

Next time try and keep things in context, like what she actually said when asked about big boxes in Fortuna, which was to say that it was an issue that belonged to the City of Fortuna, not a supervisorial issue.

Yes, she said it's Fortuna's business exclusively, which by itself is a very conservative position. And that's fine, but it was Clif's big box position expressed last December which clinched my vote for him. The idea that a Supervisor representing the county as a whole should remain silent in deference to municipal jurisdiction when a proposal potentially impacts everybody inside the city and out is precisely the attitude which Roger Rodoni held and why some of us are looking for a change.

But she also said she supports "mixed use" and when asked directly about big boxes she responded that she prefers some big boxes over others. That implies that she does in fact support some form of big box.

If that's not what she meant, then she really ought to clear it up. But she's said it precisely the same way about five times to my count. I don't know how else to interpret it, cryptic as the statement is. It was obviously crafted to giver her wiggle room on the issue to play different constituencies. But again, why would she have made the statement if she didn't support some form of big box development?

Sorry, but you don't get the benefit of the doubt when you're deliberately vague. Estelle's a good person and she would make a decent Supervisor. But she's getting some bad advice if she doesn't support big boxes in Fortuna, because what she said implies she does. Hence my statement, which really, I didn't even expect to be controversial. I expected more of a response to the portion of the sentence about the General Plan.
 

But you know what? She could prove my interpretation wrong. She could come out and say "I don't believe the Supervisor has any say in the matter but I personally don't support big box development in Fortuna."

She could say that tomorrow, and I'll post a big retraction. Happily.
 

Don't hold your breath Eric
 

Problem is, Eric, Clif's Local Solutions handlers, as well as yourself are acting as if a county supervisor can have some kind of meaningful issue on what is entirely a city matter.

You've mentioned infrastructure in the past as one way a county can insert itself into the matter, but all of the surrounding infrastructure belongs to the city, with the exception of highway 101.

Clif may be able to get a resolution passed opposing such a development, but that will be symbolic at best.

You say it best here:

"The idea that a Supervisor representing the county as a whole should remain silent in deference to municipal jurisdiction when a proposal potentially impacts everybody inside the city and out is precisely the attitude which Roger Rodoni held and why some of us are looking for a change. "

So let's say Clif is loud and proud in his opposition to a big box development - there is nothing as a supervisor he can DO about it.

I believe Fortuna is almost finished with their general plan update. When that happens, and the property is zoned accordingly, there is not a doggone thing Clif will be able to do.
 

And so the "Change" you are looking for will be symbolic in nature - at best.
 

So you'd throw up your hands and surrender - I got that through your past posts. If you want to learn what Clif can do about it, vote for him. If not, vote for someone lacking in imagination who sticks to managing county budgets and voting for stop signs. That's what elections are about.
 

Well, to further your analogy, NO, I wouldn't surrender, but in your war analogy, I would be a neutral observer as a supervisor.

But, I CAN see that meaningless rhetoric lobbed at Cities from the Supervisor Chambers amount to empty shells, blanks if you will, being fired across the bow of cities doing their own business.

If that floats your boat, fine, but the job a supervisor is to do the business of the county - managing budgets and making sure stop signs are in place in unincorporated areas. Boring? Perhaps, but that's the job, Counselor.
 

The straw man is that Estelle is obviously pandering to Fortuna voters. She is proclaiming local control essentially. But take a good hard look at the people she surrounds herself with. These are the adamant moral absolutists that Cristina is talking about. And to say they are unfriendly to Big Boxes is a gross understatement.

She can say its up to Fortuna, but you bet Estelle would oppose a big box development in the 2nd district - so long as it was politically expedient.
 

It's about personal philosophy as much as policy. That the conversion of the PALCO piece to a mega-mall doesn't bother her is a legitimate campaign issue. If it was simply a matter of respecting municipal sovereignty why did she feel it necessary to say she liked some big boxes? Or that it should be mixed use?

I think she's been talking to certain people she doesn't want to alienate. Understandable, but maybe that's one reason Clif will be more effective. Nixon could go to China. Clif can have meaningful discussions with environmentalists without losing too much support in Fortuna.

Or maybe the libertarian streak in hippiedom has met the free market ideologies and they get along. My article gives her more credit than you're acknowledging. She's not alone. Look at some of the names in the HumCPR list. You may recognize a few.
 

Barry Keene was part of a three-headed lapdog. According to Judi Bari.
 

"If that floats your boat, fine, but the job a supervisor is to do the business of the county - managing budgets and making sure stop signs are in place in unincorporated areas. Boring? Perhaps, but that's the job, Counselor."

Classic tunnel vision. The very fact you are elected puts you in a political position. There is no neutrality in politics because you need to get elected. The job is to understand not only how the decisions you make today will have an effect but what their effect will be on the future. The county needs to have a firm strategy in place for how to offset resource depletion, how to integrate technology, how to stay abreast of consumer needs, health needs, and emergency service needs so they can give oversight to the county agencies. They have to understand labor law, civil code, contract theory, land use theory, and how to go to church on Sunday (sorry couldn't help but throw that in) just to make a good decision for the here and now.

I don't know Cliff but I haven't seen that from any of the other candidates in my experience. Of course I haven't seen it from many local politicians either.
 

Eric says: "If that's not what she meant, then she really ought to clear it up. But she's said it precisely the same way about five times to my count. I don't know how else to interpret it, cryptic as the statement is. It was obviously crafted to giver her wiggle room..."

This big box issue is Clif's issue, and it is very ill defined. Estelle's answer is not cryptic, it is the only reasonable response possible to such a vague issue. After all, she might support a Dunkin-Donuts in
Fortuna?

Eric says, "Clif can have meaningful discussions with environmentalists without losing too much support in Fortuna."

I am an environmentalist and have had discussions with Clif. Meaningful? He was scared shitless to be seen talking to me.
I could get as much out of a religious tract or farm bureau propoganda because that is the level of Clif's thinking. I will not be looking for help from Clif.

He does drive a beat up Volvo station wagon though...is the source of the confusion about Clif being a liberal?
 

Dunkin' Donuts is not a big box.
 

Boy, if you think Dunkin Donuts is a big box, then I guess the issue is confusing.

The proposal on the table includes a Lowes which would be larger than the Home Depot proposed for the Marina Center Project, with some others. Let's stick to Lowes. Does Estelle support a Lowes in Fortuna? As an environmentalist in Fortuna, would you? Do you support the Marina Center Project in Eureka?

Again, Estelle can correct me in a heartbeat. She either supports big box development in Fortuna, or she doesn't. When she says "some big boxes are better than others" that implies that there are big boxes she would support and those she won't. If she doesn't know what a big box is, then she ought to clarify. Dunkin Donuts is a chain, but it's certainly not a big box.
 

Estelle may not want to support a LOWES in Fortuna because there is a small family owned furniture store there already with the name LOW'S.
 

Lowe's isn't going to back off because of Low's. They won't want the name confusion most likely. They will simply buy them out first. That is how it is done.
 

And Low's is in its last generation. The kids aren't interested in continuing.
 

I've heard that as well. Pity. We've bought some great furniture from them in the past. Maybe someone else will buy them out.
 

Eric asks "Does Estelle support a Lowes in Fortuna? As an environmentalist in Fortuna, would you?"
------
No way. I am informed about problems with big boxes and I am sure Estelle is even more versed than me.

Walmart, Home Depot, Target and Lowes are on my shit list, and link me to a read and I may decide to add other big box stores to this list. I may actively participate should someone pick up the banner. I've worked on zoning issues in Fortuna and the environs over the years, and keeping these proven 'bad neighbor stores' out would be a worthy cause if Fortunan's were truly behind this 'no big box' ideology. They're not.

You say Lowes may be coming to Fortuna? Hell, if the Low family cares, Clif could lead the charge, and the citizens of Fortuna would pour into the streets, chase Lowes reps out of town, and while they're at it, elect Clif as their supervisor in November!

Should Costco, Staples, Winco or any other store wish to make a go of it in Fortuna, they shouldn't have government standing in their way other than requiring compliance with required permits, regulations, laws, ordinances, codes, statutes, commissions, reports and reviews already on the books.

So the answer to your question: No, I do not support Lowes coming into Fortuna. Lowes is a big box store, and therefore

I do not support big box stores coming to Fortuna.

Costco, Staples, and Winco are not big box stores...they are just big chain stores.

I would be happy to see one of these chain stores open in Fortuna.

I do not support big box stores coming into our area.
 

Costco...NOT a big box?

I think you are incorrect in your supposition

"the citizens of Fortuna would pour into the streets, chase Lowes reps out of town"

is bassackwards - they would be lined up at the doors waiting for it to open, while Clif showed up with a meaningless resolution decrying the fact that Fortuna allowed a Lowes to open.
 

In the opinion column "Geography Trumps Ideology", Eric makes the statement: "Clendenen receives considerable support from the environmental activist community in a remarkable coalition with Fortuna business owners concerned about the big box impact on the city’s economy..."

Clif has grown up in the community with long time environmental activists and their paths have crossed:

1) at the Fortuna Concert series, with Clif introducing acts,

2) at the Apple Harvest Festival, and

3) Clif plays the mandolin and sometimes hangs out with 'liberals' to play music.

Clif went to all of his friends and acquaintences and asked for thier support and of course they said yes.

A number of these people are environmental activists - hard workers for good causes, and loyal to the core. They support Clif and I would hope continue to support Clif.

I imagine Clif has crossed paths with a lot of kayakers also, and being friends, Clif asked for their support. They would support Clif and I would hope continue to support Clif.

But to say "Clendenen receives considerable support from the environmental activist community..." may be true, but would be just as irrelevant and misleading as saying "Clendenen receives considerable support from the kayaking community..."

Bad boy.
 

Eric has done nothing but bumble ass first through this entire election. It is embarrassing watching a man who is supposed to be at his prime resemble a messy pig. oink oink messy pig.
 

But to say "Clendenen receives considerable support from the environmental activist community..." may be true, but would be just as irrelevant and misleading as saying "Clendenen receives considerable support from the kayaking community..."

But he is getting support from environmental activists he doesn't know as well. People who should have been natural supporters for Estelle.
 

What about the non organic growing practices of his family farm.
 

What about them? Most farmers can't afford to go organic. Certainly not small farmers.
 

Keep thinking like that and eating your poison .Also the runoff into the environment is just dandy
 

Most working people can't afford the ridiculous prices organic suppliers charge, and the fact is that by the time the produce reaches the market there is almost never a measurable amount of pesticide.

And "organic" pesticides can be just as damaging to the environment and your health. Sometimes more so. It's quite the racket some corporations have you hippies strung out on.
 

Some, but not all, of the reason for high prices for organic food is due to the reality of what it costs to raise food. Organic farmers are not subsidized. They produce small amounts, they have more spoilage, and more risk (they can lose an entire crop under many situations), and because it is labor intensive they can't bring as much to market as big production farms. Yet people keep wanting more and more of it. Demand rises and supply doesn't that means higher prices.
 

Organic farmers are not subsidized.

Where did you hear that?