Liberal Humboldt, CA

Now with FOUR readers!

Busy, Promising, and Fun Week(s) Ahead.

54 Comments

Tuesday and Thursday – Continued Planning Commission meetings on the Housing Element of the GPU. These are important to the direction of regional planning in HumCo. This is a part of the GPU generally, but a different task than passing the entire GPU update. It’s confusing and I do not know enough to say more. Time and Place: Tue & Thurs 6pm Courthouse.

Thursday – Sharon Latour for Supervisor campaign kick-off. This is our chance to return the public to “public” participation and our public sector. Supervisor Ryan has been extremely busy and deserves some R&R. Time and Place: Thursday, noon, HumCo Courthouse, 5th and I, Eureka.

Friday – North Coast Young Democrats (NCYD). Hezekiah Allen Chair. “Young” = under 35. Time and Place: 6:45 pm HCDCC HQ (see above)

Saturday - Fair Wage Cafe. Come join the family-friendly party. Fighting for a fair wage in Eureka and continuing to put together a progressive ground game that will certainly help both Supervisorial Candidates Kerrigan and Latour. Time and Place: 12:00 pm – 5:00 pm, Labor Temple 840 E Street Eureka.

Thursday March 27th- Eureka Progressive Democrats Club – Time and Place: Thursday 7 pm, HCDCC (Humboldt Democratic Central Committee) Headquarters, 129 5th St. Eureka (across 5th from Denny’s)

Saturday MARCH 29th - Planet Matters at the Wharfinger hosted by the NCYD. More here.

About these ads

54 thoughts on “Busy, Promising, and Fun Week(s) Ahead.

  1. Nice graphic for the Sharon Latour campaign. It’s both Zen and woody at the same time. Just like the 5th District itself.

  2. Interesting she chose the courthouse instead of somewhere in the community she wants to represent.

    • We have to work together. She will be one of 5 supervisors guiding the County. She will be representing her entire District and not simply the 30 top contributors to her campaign. It’s pretty cool.

      The Courthouse is where she will be working. It is the seat of the County and represents the heart of us as an extended community working together.

      If you are implying she will sell out to values represented most by others outside her District, say the 3rd, I wonder if you have the same problem with money coming from outside, say Supervisor Bass’ or Supervisor Sundberg’s District.

  3. I think the point is she does not appear connected to the community. Move there 3 years ago, works in Arcata, not apparently involved in any service clubs in the district, etc. Pretty hard to represent people you don’t interact with.

    • That doesn’t stop unknowns like Cherie Arkley from spending $50,000 for Eureka City Council and winning. Having homes in various states doesn’t mean you actually LIVE in any of them.

  4. Anonymous 7:29:

    I wish I didn’t agree with you.

    Perhaps someone has a different take on this? Please, PLEASE someone have a different take on this!

    • She has been in Humboldt longer than just Arcata. She was in Garberville before Arcata.

    • Here are a couple of comments I made that addresses this “problem” we are going to hear a great deal. It’s a “problem” defined as such by people who will ultimately be voting for Supervisor Sundberg because the current 5th District Supervisor can’t run on actual issues.

      “Remember this. The Board of Supervisors is just that, a Board, not an executive position. As I’ve seen first hand, an individual’s capacity for leadership, understanding of material, etc is not of primary concerns to people who support 4 of the 5 Supervisors with the possible exception of Supervisor Fennell to add to Supervisor Lovelace. The other three are there to warm a seat. I don’t meant that personally, I don’t. From my perspective on this most imporant issue, the General Plan Update, 3 of the 5 and arguably 4 are not taking all the information in. They are swayed by voters and money that would simply like the status quo, as long as the status quo is defined as 1984.”

      From the LoCO article – here is my response to this concern…

      “I wonder what percentage of the 5th’s district Ryan know’s personally. It’s population is around 135,000/5 = 27,500 people. Do you think there is a significant difference in the number of people they don’t know? There is not. This may seem like figures lying and liars figuring, but I think it’s an important point.

      Who is representing the huge majority of people who don’t have the time, motivation, or whatever to vote or even pay attention. These people need to be represented too. I’m guessing most of them, if informed, would not have voted to modify out of effectiveness their County’s efforts to “protect natural resources” or ” agland and timberland for the long term”.

      Note: only 5,000 of the approximately 27000 people in the 5th voted for Supervisor Sundberg. in 2010. * That means 22K/27K = 81% of his District did not feel it was worth it to either get an absentee ballot or get out to vote for him. Why do you think this is? Perhaps some of these 22,000 people are happy that Sharon doesn’t know the influential people that attend the Chamber function. Is that a possibility?

      *http://www.scribd.com/doc/162925851/Selected-Humboldt-County-CA-Board-of-Supervisor-and-Eureka-City-Council-Elections-June-and-November-2010-and-2012″

      Hope that helps. This type of argument is nothing but another baloney misdirection argument that conservatives, Republicans and the good folks with personal or vested interests in land use policy will love to bring up because it will focus on a perceived weakness of Sharon while completely taking the spotlight off of Supervisor Sundberg’s outrageous votes on the GPU, taking the plan back to 1984 planning priorities.

  5. ummm yeah, the district is mckinleyville though.

  6. go watch the kickoff video at lost coast outpost. she is totally clueless, doesn’t understand the issues. wtf is she talking about, the aging sewer system and 1000 new houses? it sounds like somebody strung together a bunch of talking points, but there is no depth or understanding of the issues. better call in sick for the debates.

    • thank you…anoonnymoouus. hmm. sounds like a totally disinterested opinion. Thanks for the man/woman on the street report. I haven’t seen it yet, but even without using my pro-Sharon filter, I’m guessing I’d see it another way.

    • So far, three local cities have had building moratoriums imposed due to irresponsible development beyond sewage capacity.

      Average county incomes cannot qualify to own 75% of the McMansion subdivisions they subsidize via infrastructure. Eureka citizens waded through 35 years of illegal sewer spills into the Bay during crab season before the $30 million Martin Slough Interceptor was finally begun…to serve Cutten homes few can afford…

  7. good to know you still form your opinions before you get the facts. if you watch the video maybe you can clarify her positions, because she certainly isn’t.

  8. anon. my opinions on who I vote for will not be based on an introduction speech, but rather 3 years of following exactly the wrong land use policies we need to be committed to.

    And then, again, remember that you too are biased, so I was trying to say that I all but gauruntee my perception will not conform with yours. I don’t know which of the anon’s you are, but I don’t ever remember agreeing with any of you.

    So, it’s not a pre-opinion, it’s an honest educated guess. Since we have spent so much time on this back an forth, I’ll let you know what I do think.

  9. ahhh, but you won’t be voting in the 5th, will you? we’ll see how well your misinformation campaign on the land use policies works when statements made need to be backed up. “I have advisers who will tell me what to say and I am still learning” will not play well, as demonstrated by the Loco article.

  10. I watched and winced. She clearly has no idea what she is talking about. Too bad, it would be nice to have a good, competitive race and a spirited battle of ideas, but that’s not looking likely. Sadly, she seems to have little to no understanding of land use planning and the GPU, the issue she (or someone) has chosen as her lead issue. She didn’t even seem to understand the talking points she was reciting and got them all garbled, and then she was just completely, embarrassingly lost when asked even simple questions. On the bright side, she’s certainly lowered expectations and has nowhere to go but up.

    • Who are you anon? What are your interests? Is one of them simply having a competitive race? What about baseball or the World Cup which will be starting soon. That’s one way to get you’re desire for a competition. What this election is about is policy. One candidate will say one thing or absolutely nothing at all and then do another. Another candidate will have an honest discussion. Having been to GPU meetings it’s clear that no one knows enough about everything encompassed in the GPU. The ones who do, Planning Director Kevin Hamblin and staff we pay to specifically understand and advise us are not being listened to by Supervisor Sundberg.

      Supervisor Sundberg will be listening to those on his contributor list to include Lee Ulansey.

      So I ask again, who are you, what are your interests? Is it simply a competitive race? Will we be deciding issues by voting? No. The decisions and platforms are set. You can vote for regional planning that will work to protect agriculture and timberland for the long term (for absolute starters), which will be hard, but absolutely necessary for our public sphere. Or, we can vote for a Supervisor who has proven that when he gets a chance to stand up for the public sector, for things that all of us do believe in – a future that lasts into the future with the stuff we cherish now, he makes the easy and palatable decision to vote on a set of Guiding Principles written by a couple of friends outside the restrictions of the Brown Act. Tossing aside principles written in the light of day and in the opinion of Lee Ulansey and Humboldt Builder’s Exchange’s lawyers creating a document so innately inconsistent that it needs to be entirely rewritten.

      It’s that simple.

      Or you can take a magnifying glass to Sharon’s opening speech. I still haven’t seen it but I’m still guessing I’m not going to have the same reaction you have. Possibly it was attending the Planning Commission that prevented me from having the time you had to listen to her, what was most likely outstanding, introduction.

      My personal opinion is that behind the anon, we would find many biases that help color your perceptions. But if, on the off off off chance, you are an independent paying little attention to whats going on in civics and caring mostly about ______ (family, work, hobby, etc.) but having a couple of seconds to post quickly on this site about your concerns for a competitive race that helps elucidate issues and helps you to come to a decision this June, then apologies. Thank you for taking the time. I hope you give Sharon a second chance.

      But I don’t for a second believe the latter is true. For one, this blog isn’t that exciting. :)

    • You’re not fooling anyone.

      Sharon’s credentials reveal experiences and ability far exceeding the other supes…an auctioneer, broker, radio host, waitress, are you kidding? Did you ever actually watch Virginia at any of the HAOG meetings?

  11. You have a false set of choices there. But that’s OK,

  12. No, if that’s true, that wouldn’t be OK anon, what would be a true set of choices?

  13. i have been around and around with you on a number of these issues. you say or repeat things that you have heard. i point to facts to the contrary and you say you haven’t read it or don’t have the time to study the issue. it is very frustrating and quite frankly, dishonest on your part. You haven’t even watched her speech to determine what she said, but you are pretty sure it was good? you are asking people to support somebody for public office who literally moved into the district a few years ago, works in arcata, and seems to have no connection to the community. OK, fine, lets see what she has to say – - then when she starts talking it doesn’t make any sense and she defers to her secret advisers. I can’t wait until she has to explain her policy positions (which you will notice she is unable to articulate in her Q & A) to the people who will be voting. I don’t know if it’s true, but I heard up in Orick she was talking about stopping the rampant development to somebody. Really? in Orick I think it stopped about 30 years ago. What you are missing is that sundberg is out in the district every day talking to the people who live there, and he carries their concerns forward, in a balanced manner. do you really think a plan put forward by Healthy Humboldt and Epic represents a balance that takes into consideration the problems Hoopa, Orleans, Orick, Willow Creek, and McKinleyville face? I can tell you, rampant development in Orick is not the problem.

    • Apparently, no one informed you that building beyond sewer capacity, and the moratorium that resulted, does not have to be “rampant” to be irresponsible, illegal, greedy, and the reason the development industry needs to control every elected and appointed office.

      Tell us your “facts” again…I need a laugh.

      • The only thing to put McKinleyville beyond its capacity is the county’s smart growth and low income housing plan.

  14. “Or you can take a magnifying glass to Sharon’s opening speech. I still haven’t seen it but I’m still guessing…

    Jon, it’s only 6 and a half minutes long, so I suspect you could have watched it quite a number of times in the time you’ve spent commenting on what you haven’t bothered to watch.

    Here’s the link:

    http://lostcoastoutpost.com/2014/mar/20/sharon-latour-launches-campaign-unseat-sundberg/

    You don’t need to “take a magnifying glass” to her speech to see how poor her understanding of land use planning is. Even Ryan Burns, clearly no fan of the current Board majority, seemed a bit surprised by how unprepared she seemed.

    All your self-righteous huffing and puffing about anonymity is pretty funny, given that you don’t seem to make the same complaints to anonymous posters who agree with your positions, for example “Heraldo” and the “Tuluwat Examiner.”

    But for the record, while I do care a lot more about family and work than politics, I never said I was

    “paying little attention to whats going on in civics….but having a couple of seconds to post quickly on this site about [my] concerns for a competitive race that helps elucidate issues and helps [me] to come to a decision this June.”

    If I lived in the 5th district I would probably be voting for Sundberg because from my point of view he seems to be doing a pretty good job of trying to achieve a balanced approach rather than either of the cartoonish extremes you portray, and the because the criticisms I’ve seen from folks like yourself appear to be ill-founded and highly exaggerated.

    At the same time, I did hope (and still hope for) a more “competitive race” and a “spirited battle of ideas,” because that’s always a good thing. I assume her supporters are going to work to try to get her up to speed so that she can at least name some specific policies where she would have voted differently than Sundberg, and so that she can at least answer what other priorities she has besides the GPU (a pretty important question given that, as Ryan Burns pointed out, even if she wins, the GPU might be completed before she takes office).

    • This is amazing. I just listened to it. She was great. No, she did not answer GPU questions with specifics, but no one could. That’s why in chambers both the Supervisors and Commissioners defer to staff to give context to this or that policy, goal, implementation standard etc. before voting on it. You know, they use their advisors.

      So pink anon, did you see Supervisor Bass’ opening? How would they compare on a) Thoughtfulness, b) specifics vs generalities c) tone. Which Supervisor (sorry they are not running against one another, but I don’t know of a video of Supervisor Sundberg’s campaign) would you like approaching a complicated subject.

      Did you happen to watch the procedings as the BOS deliberated in front of the public on GP #4 and then came back the next meeting and changed the meaning completely for extremely tenuous reasoning? Don’t you think that someone that wrote such a thoughtful and inspiring opening salvo (sorry for the military analogy) would have handled thinking on her feet with a little more integrity? I’m sorry, but to vote one way one night then, after listening to whom? (We don’t know for sure, but the realtors sure where fit to be tied for one,) to change your vote) is not indicative to me of a process characterized by integrity.

      I think getting Sharon to replace Supervisor Sundberg would help return integrity to the process. AND I disagree with you, I think her campaign kick off was a huge success and boads well for her chances.

      Maybe she won’t win. We’ll have to let the election decide that, but I could not be happier with the candidate WE have.

      • This is amazing. I just listened to it. She was great. No, she did not answer GPU questions with specifics, but no one could. That’s why in chambers both the Supervisors and Commissioners defer to staff to give context to this or that policy, goal, implementation standard etc. before voting on it. You know, they use their advisors.

        So pink anon, did you see Supervisor Bass’ opening? How would they compare on a) Thoughtfulness, b) specifics vs generalities c) tone. Which Supervisor (sorry they are not running against one another, but I don’t know of a video of Supervisor Sundberg’s campaign) would you like approaching a complicated subject.

        Did you happen to watch the procedings as the BOS deliberated in front of the public on GP #4 and then came back the next meeting and changed the meaning completely for extremely tenuous reasoning? Don’t you think that someone that wrote such a thoughtful and inspiring opening salvo (sorry for the military analogy) would have handled thinking on her feet with a little more integrity? I’m sorry, but to vote one way one night then, after listening to whom? (We don’t know for sure, but the realtors sure where fit to be tied for one,) to change your vote is not indicative to me of a process characterized by integrity.

        I think getting Sharon to replace Supervisor Sundberg would help return integrity to the process. AND I disagree with you, I think her campaign kick off was a huge success and boads well for her chances.

        Maybe she won’t win. We’ll have to let the election decide that, but I could not be happier with the candidate WE have.

        • “This is amazing. I just listened to it. She was great…I think her campaign kick off was a huge success and boads well for her chances.”

          LOL! If that was a “huge success,” I’d hate to see abject failure!

          Seriously though, it’s a bit hard to take you seriously if that’s genuinely your reaction to that Q & A session. I don’t question your sincerity, but I do question your judgement.

          Looks like whoever posted the video at least spared her the embarrassment of posting her (non)answer to the last question Ryan referred to:

          “Your LoCO correspondent pointed out that the general plan update could theoretically be complete by next January, when new supervisors (should there be any) get seated, and asked Latour what other priorities she has for the county. She again returned to the importance of the general plan, calling it a ‘living document,’ before lauding the county’s natural beauty and its niche business endeavors, including Humboldt Made.”

          So she’s running on the GPU as her main issue, but doesn’t know enough about it to comment beyond vague generalities without further coaching from her advisors. Meanwhile, the GPU may well be finished before she takes office, but she has no answer to the question of what other priorities she has for the county, and (non) answers a question about that by just looping back to her GPU talking points, ignoring the premise of the question.

          Saying you need to check with your advisors before you can comment in any detail on your own #1 issue is bad enough, but “what are a few of your other priorities for the county” is a very simple, straightforward question that any candidate should be able to answer for themselves. If you need coaching for that, you’re not a candidate, you’re a puppet.

          • Strong points and well made. I disagree with most, but don’t have the time to respond as the work day bekones. It may not be ’till next weekend or later before I get more time.

            However, one point. Know a great deal about the process of everyday people looking for someone to run against the special interests that Sundberg represents I’d like to ask you who do you think the puppet masters would be.

            I think it’s not too out of the truth to say my Mother would be one and good friends of hers who have been spoken up with grace and integrity at the GPU public comment section would be others.

            So I think by implying behind the scenes maneuvering, wondering about your interests in this race becomes important again. Doesn’t Ryan have puppet masters too if you would characterize Sharon as having puppet masters.

            Since I’m on a roll, another quick point. The GPU, it’s implications, the knowledge needed to do whats right on it is huge. In the end all the candidates will be relying on publicly funded professionals to be their advisors. I do stand by that quote of mine. I want a Supervisor to depend on professionals and not on the Chamber of Commerce as Ryan does.

            So a kick-off which in which a person is not afraid to say “I’ll get back to you as I consider this subject” is absolutely wonderful to me and I stand by my excitement over watching the clips. We need that right now from the 5th District Supervisor.

            • All politicians (at least all successful ones) have supporters. To me, the question is to what degree is the pol leading their supporters, and to what degree are they being led/handled/scripted by a few of those supporters. “I’ll get back to you as I consider this subject” is more understandable when it comes to technical details or obscure issues that one could not be be blamed for not having considered before running. Not as understandable when the question is something as basic as “what are a few of your other priorities for the county?”

              But in fairness, we don’t have the video from that part of the Q & A, and I wasn’t there, so perhaps her response to that question that was at least somewhat more cogent and less avoidant than Ryan Burns made it seem in his report. And a commenter below, “Sim” states that there was one questioner with “some issues of a personal nature” who may have been somewhat distracting and disruptive. I can well imagine that taking place at a campaign kick-off on the courthouse steps, and I can certainly see how that could throw someone off their game.

              At any rate, Latour will have additional opportunities to show a greater mastery of the issues, or at the very least a better mastery of her own campaign priorities. While there’s of course some truth to the old adage that “you only get one chance to make a first impression,” in this situation there are probably plenty of voters that won’t even have really tuned in yet, so she still has a chance to make a good first impression (and for that matter second and third impressions) on those voters. So we’ll see how it goes.

  15. Sorry, just to clarify, there are two videos embedded in that LoCO article, a 6 1/2 minute one, and a 3 minute one — and the Q & A section where LaTour struggled so much is the second video, the 3 minute one.

    If anyone can explain what she’s talking about when she talks about “a dense building area with no regulations” I’d be interested to hear about it. I wasn’t aware we had any building areas with no regulations, not to mention “dense” ones, and if anyone was proposing such a thing, that would be news to me. That would be quite a story, if true.

  16. John,
    Your text and what Sharon is saying are very similar. If you are one of her “advisors” you should be a volunteer for the Sundberg campaign because you will be helping him win!

  17. Doing a Q & A about your candidacy and being unable to offer a clear answer to the question “what are one or two votes that your opponent took that you would take differently?” is like going to a job interview without having a good answer to the question “what are your greatest strengths and weaknesses?” Those questions are almost always going to be asked in those situations.

    Her (non) answer to the question about what other priorities she has for the County, aside from the GPU, was also quite striking. Is she not aware of the possibility that the GPU will be finished before she would even take office? Now it may well not be finished, and it’s certainly an important policy area, so I don’t think there’s anything wrong with her deciding to make it a major issue in her campaign. But it’s certainly a fair question to ask what other priorities she has and how those would differ from her opponent.

  18. When she was asked a McKinleyville question, she knew so little about the community that she could not answer the question. That is serious, but the most serious problem that I have with her is that she is just taking what her advisors say and repeating that with insufficient knowledge to see that the information she is giving is way off base. Just wonder what she is saying when she knocks on doors. As above, I also saw her at the McKinleyville Chamber of Commerce Annual Dinner and she was a duck out of water, she did not even know how to find where the event was in the building and had to ask for someone to help!! It is obvious that John is behind her because his mother was seeking signatures for Sharon’s petition.

    • To be fair, Bill, I don’t think Jon is hiding the fact that he’s backing LaTour, so I don’t really get the comment about Jon’s mother seeking signatures for LaTour’s petition.

      But I agree that LaTour seems to have little involvement in, or understanding of, the 5th District. Seems more like she’s kind of running to be a second Supervisor from Arcata. But she’s still got a few months to demonstrate otherwise. We’ll see.

      At this point I don’t think her chances look very good. When attempting to unseat an incumbent, it’s helpful if the incumbent is seen as out of touch with the concerns of those in their district, etc., and if the challenger can credibly portray themselves as a remedy to that. But neither appears to be the case here.

      Of course that’s just my impression, maybe I’m wrong and there really is some big groundswell of dissatisfaction with Sundberg and LaTour will be able to tap into that. In a bigger race we would likely have some data to go on, like public opinion polls showing the incumbent’s approval rating, and head-to-head polling match-ups between the contenders. But as I recall, nobody ever polls these races (or if they do, they don’t share the results publicly) so we only find out on election day. Which is fine, it’s not that far off anyway.

  19. Jon, seriously. Look at the LoCO coverage. It’s not good.

    I want Sharon Latour to be good, honest. But she is simply not ready for “prime time.”

    Sorry

    If I lived in the fifth district I wouldn’t vote for Sundberg. But unless she really blossoms I can not see myself voting for Latour either.

    • And there you have it. It’s not just those already supporting Sundberg who see LaTour as “not ready for prime time.”

  20. MOLA – I appreciate your point of view and input. I disagree. I’m working on a line by line listen/reply to Sharon’s announcement while also doing Sunday chores on this beautiful day. I’m about 3 min in and I like, so much what I’ve heard. I’ll post it by tonight.

    Remember this. The Board of Supervisors is just that, a Board, not an executive position. As I’ve seen first hand, an individual’s capacity for leadership, understanding of material, etc is not of primary concerns to people who support 4 of the 5 Supervisors with the possible exception of Supervisor Fennell to add to Supervisor Lovelace. The other three are there to warm a seat. I don’t meant that personally, I don’t. From my perspective on this most imporant issue, the General Plan Update, 3 of the 5 and arguably 4 are not taking all the information in. They are swayed by voters and money that would simply like the status quo, as long as the status quo is defined as 1984.

    There is a great deal of leadership needed on this issue and I think even if Sharon Latour is not a polished politician, or maybe exactly because she is a not a polished politician, I think she is exactly the right type of person to guide the GPU and all other materials a Supervisor will cover. Why? Because she is honest and has integretiy AND get’s it. Supervisor Sundberg may be honest and have integrity, but he certainly doesn’t “get it”.

    But thanks for the heads up. I do take your opinion seriously. I hope you will give Sharon another shot.

    Oh, and I still have to finish watching the announcement. I don’t know yet if I even agree that among all her attributes she won’t make a very “polished” politician. From what I saw at last month’s HCDCC and at least from the first 3 minutes of the video. I really like her and am so glad she decided to run. That’s mho, your opinions may vary. :)

  21. Thanks for your close attention to this blog anon. Who are you voting for again? Are you affiliated with either campaign?

    Also, another sincere thank you. Thanks for at the very least using a unique email or username (I forget which) that allows readers to at least recognize you as a unique poster. This helps readers (and myself) at the very least judge consistency and adds a modicum of accountability.

    Seriously, thank you for at least that, because these elections are going to be very important to the direction of HumCo’s future and the more accountability of opinion makers and givers the more better!

    • LJ asked: “Who are you voting for again? Are you affiliated with either campaign?”

      As I said above: “If I lived in the 5th district I would probably be voting for Sundberg… ” And no, I’m not affiliated with any campaign.

      LJ said: “Thanks for at the very least using a unique email or username”

      No problem. For the record, the light blue anon at 16:51 was me, too. I guess I forgot to put my e-mail address in. I’ll try to remember.

  22. Thanks again cool pink gravatar anon. I’m actually fine with that level of anonymity. In fact kinda prefer it as it might encourage more people to comment whereas Facebook type comment zones are just too demanding of identity, as always imo.

  23. The “wheels fell off” Latuours Q & A session a bit because a woman with some issues of a personal nature monopolized the questioning with her issue for almost ten awkward minutes. I was there. Sharon was very patient and kind to this woman at the expense of her own event. I was there, that’s how it was. Latours own kindness derailed her a bit. It was very human and very nice. I am voting for her. I want someone in office who cares about people not casino profits.

    • Thanks for the context. If that’s what happened I sympathize with her — that could throw anyone off their game. Still, she should have been able to offer clearer answers to the questions about what she would have voted differently on than her opponent, and what other priorities that she had aside from the GPU. But I assume she’ll have some better answers for those questions when they come up in the future.

    • Your line about “I want someone in office who cares about people not casino profits,” seems rather odd, given that the casino-owning tribe that has actually been one of the biggest donors to local campaigns, Blue Lake Rancheria, gave very generously to Sundberg’s opponent last time around (Patrick Cleary) as well as giving very generously to other Lovelace-aligned candidates in every recent election cycle (for example, I believe that in his first run for office, Clif Clendenen received $10,000 from Blue Lake Rancheria).

      As I recall, Blue Lake Rancheria actually gave Cleary $10,000 AFTER the election to help repay money Cleary had loaned to his own campaign. In other words, Cleary took advantage of the fact that he is personally wealthy, which enabled him to loan his own funds to his campaign and then get money back from the tribe AFTER the election, so that the voters did not have the opportunity BEFORE the election, to see where he was getting his campaign funds from — basically circumventing the disclosure provisions of our campaign laws.

      Now none of this is Sharon LaTour’s responsibility, and hopefully she will not engage in the kind of shell-game trickery that the Cleary campaign did in that instance, but there’s no denying that the Blue Lake Rancheria has been a major funder of local elections, with the majority of that funding going to LaTour’s allies in the Lovelace-led faction.

      So I don’t know what your basis is for playing the “casino profits” card against Sundberg, other than that he has native American ancestry. Given the history of casino-funded political contributions mostly going to his opponent and his opponent’s allies, it seems like an odd complaint. If you have examples of where Sundberg has voted to put “casino profits” ahead of people, feel free to mention them. Otherwise it just comes off as a cheap shot based on his ancestry. I hope that’s not the case.

  24. If we judged our local candidates from their early events, every one of them is goofy and it hardly mattered.

    What matters foremost is whether or not the development industry is behind you because the right wing will coalesce behind their candidates while the Liberals are looking for “Jesus”, or someone “ready for prime time”, HUH??

    What we have are average citizens elected in a corrupt environment. Average competitors are at a huge disadvantage.

    • Go read her answer on the electricity tax on loco. I don’t think she understands what they are talking about. So far, it is like this on every issue, she speaks in generalities and says things that don’t relate to the issue or are just wrong (1000 houses built in open space in McKinleyville? ). “That’s what happens when you don’t have a plan”…. Ever heard of the McKinleyville Community Plan? Nice lady, just doesn’t know anything.

  25. Breaking News: According to the Tuluwat Examiner, Supervisor Mark Lovelace is “siding with the Developers cabal” and is part of a “small group of property rights zealots and developers.”

    http://tuluwatexaminer.wordpress.com/2014/03/27/override-the-supervisors/

    Well, actually they say that about Rex Bohn, but since they’re talking about a letter that all 5 Supervisors, including Lovelace, unanimously approved, the accusation applies to Lovelace just as much.

  26. If local right wingers rejected their candidates based on one erred vote….the liberals might have a chance.

  27. Thanks for the heads up blue anon – I wanted to read that article and haven’t had a chance, then forgot about it!

    Green anon – yup! Especially when the Supervisors admit their error (ie Supervisors Bass and Sundberg on sending the Open Space Element back to the PC).

  28. I found it hard to believe that Mark Lovelace would not support protection for farm land and as it turns out, that legislation doesn’t provide any protection for farm land. It only requires counties to identify it, inventory it and provide the state with the information. There already is an existing soil survey and I believe everyone , farmers especially, know where the best soils are. The bill may have started out with the idea of protecting farm land and got watered down as it went through various committees and wound up being a bill with a misleading title. Something like No Child Left Behind which did so much damage to education. Tuluwat and others interested in farmland would do well to pay more attention to the Supes’ going over the GPU where they are being pressured to undo protections for ag and timber lands. In the housing element discussions, there is a lot of enthusiasm for allowing second units on ag and tpz land, which could be a first step to subdivision.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 47 other followers