Ocean Beach, SF

The Reporta is dead. Long live The Reporta!

It is with great sadness that I inform you – my loyal fans – that this website will no longer be updated with any real regularity. As so many youth who migrate to Humboldt County with dreams of making a life for themselves here, I too fell victim to the region’s bittersweet truth – only the few, the lucky, and the fortuitous can survive, and the rest must flee to more lucrative pastures.

I have migrated to the Bay Area, specifically the fine city of Oakland (it’s not so bad). It has been an interesting transition so far as I have not lived in an urban area for a good eight years now, and by urban I mean a lousy suburb of Sacramento for a handful of months. I came to Oakland ready to dive into the media scene, because it is here in one of the last bastions of people-centric politics where the greatest innovations in media are taking place; and I want in.

That aside, I want to make a couple of points before I shut down this broadcast for the time being. Humboldt will always be in my heart: the people, the breath-taking scenery, and the fine food and drink warmed my soul in a way I will hold close to my heart living in a quite different environ. What I learned has given me an insight into the world so unique that I wish to spread its message with all I see. I may never be able to remove myself from the debate about her future, because I would love to return when the time is right. And speaking of debates, I want to share a story with you all, one I hope will resonate with each of you no matter where you stand on the slew of contentious issues the area faces.

In my eight years in Humboldt, I’ve had the opportunity to befriend many people across different backgrounds, may they be journalists, artists, scientists, tech-savvy folk, or blue collar workers. Especially for those who migrated to Humboldt for college, these people, including myself, had to face a difficult decision upon graduation, for we all fell in love with what we considered our new home – how can we stay and make a sustainable living?

A handful of my friends lucked out with stable work through the region’s primary employers: Humboldt State University and the County of Humboldt. My friends with the tech know-how appear to have landed the best jobs of the bunch, despite the general state of tech in Humboldt being rather abysmal (opportunity for growth here folks). For the remainder, the choice of whether to stay or go was more difficult.

I was shocked about how many of my friends, me included, seriously considered the possibility of growing marijuana to sustain ourselves and how many went through with it, because you have to really appreciate that pot is the fastest-growing industry in Humboldt whether you like it or not. The quicker the county as a whole comes together to create a realistic economic plan for marijuana, even if it’s still technically illegal, the better off you will be in staving off what will inevitably be an inflation of crime in the mountains and the cities, and the growing Big Pot machine down here in Oakland, Berkeley, and Richmond (there have been setbacks, for the time being though); because Humboldt is dependent on pot money. Period.

For those who chose not to take the marijuana route, the choices were severely limited. If you have the financial capital and a good idea, you could start a business. But even that is difficult in the midst of one of the worst economic meltdowns this country has ever seen. And of the other employers? You’re probably better off in the blue collar sector, but again the economic meltdown is impacting construction, and as a consequence every connected industry. The rest scrape by; I did off freelance work for a time and cooking at the North Coast Co-op. But media is my passion, so I chose to pursue it whole-hardheartedly.

When faced with no real opportunities outside of minimum wage or below-living wage work and for those who don’t have the support system of their families living in the area to provide either work or cash money, what you get is brain drain. Horrible brain drain. Humboldt, you are losing some of the most talented, creative, and hungry people coming out of HSU and College of the Redwoods, because there is no opportunities here. This isn’t a question of lack of want or trying, this is a consequence of a regional mentality still entrenched in the idea that resource extraction, retail, and the general status quo will save the county; it will not.

People across all political spectrum, with varying economic and social interests, need to seriously sit down and figure out how to work together, because I have no doubt from the many wonderful people I met that each person really does, in their heart, have the interest of Humboldt in mind, even if self-interest is the driving factor.

I don’t have all the answers; I don’t think anybody does. What I do know is that Humboldtians are a creative bunch when they stop fighting with one another and they start working together for the common betterment of the community. I know, I know, I’m an idealist, but someone has to be. I want to see Humboldt thriving –her economy and her natural beauty. There are ways to find balance between the two.

And with that, I say ado, until the next broadcast that is. If you would like to stay connected with my work and my travels, link up with the Facebook fan page at the bottom left of the page if you haven’t already, as I will keep all my work abroad posted through there.

Cheers, and Happy New Year!

A recent analysis by Times-Standard reporter Thadeus Greenson about the geographical breakdown of support in the District Attorney race evokes thoughts on why the rest of the races this election cycle played out the way they did. What may have gotten voters out this time around was not candidates, per say, but issues: Prop. 19 and Measure N.

In short, the left-leaning, more marijuana-friendly regions of the county supported a consistently pot-friendly, ideologically left Paul Gallegos verses a perceived conservative Allison Jackson. Whether marijuana policy was a key factor in that race is unclear, though Kym Kemp reports that the Humboldt Growers Association backed Gallegos and even hosted fundraisers for him in SoHum. An interesting connection is that all but one precinct in Southern Humboldt opposed Prop. 19 while supporting Gallegos. Meanwhile in Arcata, Prop. 19 overwhelmingly passed along with support for Gallegos.

Obviously, support for either DA, a non-partisan office, was geographically consistent to the general ideological leanings of communities, probably the reason Assessor candidate Johanna Rodoni got trounced as well. Jackson had a healthy lead in Eureka, the same city where pro-Marina Center candidates swept the open seats there. Although not directly campaigning together, Jackson was financially supported by the same interests who funded the campaigns of Marian Brady, Mike Newman, Virginia Bass, and Frank Jager; perhaps adding some light into a potential voter priority shift in Eureka…or was it turnout?

No, elections are more complex than that. Consider that Humboldt had an astounding 66 percent voter turnout in a non-presidential election; and consider that there are a number of interests here who did not want Prop. 19 to pass, may they be reefer madness conservatives or hands-off-my-pot growers and consumers. If the “get out and vote AGAINST/FOR Prop. 19″ got SoHummers and Arcata youth mobilized, it could also attribute to a Gallegos victory considering those voters vibe with him more than Jackson; the same way a “get out and vote Measure N” benefited all pro-Marina Center candidates in Eureka and Supervisor-elect Bass.

Either way, Humboldt County as a whole remains left-of-center for the moment (or pro-hands-of-marijuana), while many of its cities are pegged center or right. Arcata, SoHum, and Trinidad — the last liberal bastions in Humboldt? Time will tell.

Frank Jager and Matthew Owen gather at a campaign event for Mike Newman in the summer of 2010. Photo by Charles Douglas/Humboldt Sentinel.

In a mirror image of municipal political events just four years prior, the incoming Mayor of Eureka looks to nominate their successor.

Frank Jäger, who bested former Mayor Peter LaVallee by 700 votes in last month’s election, will take office next Tuesday, leaving open his 4th Ward seat on the City Council. In a notice issued late yesterday, City Clerk Pam Powell invited applications to the Mayor’s office for any qualified resident and voter in the ward, which covers the generally more affluent southeastern portion of the city.

Oddly, the notice states that the term of the new Councilmember would end on November 6, 2012 — while there’s a city election on that date, newly-elected officials wouldn’t take their seats until the following month.

While technically the City Council could choose to call a special election to fill the seat, as Arcata did following the abrupt resignation of Councilmember Elizabeth Conner in a cloud of scandal six years ago, there hasn’t been any indication of support for such a move considering the expense in the midst of an ongoing budget crunch.

Back in 2006, when Supervisor-elect Virginia Bass resigned in the middle of her second term as Ward 2 Councilmember to become Mayor, the Council unanimously chose the appointment route, eventually settling on businesswoman Polly Endert to fill the remainder of Bass’ mandate.

This decision wasn’t one that jived with voters, though: Endert was handily defeated in the 2008 election by Linda Atkins, the only Councilmember who won’t be leaving her seat on Dec. 7. By contrast, Arcata voters chose Mark Wheetley in their special election in Feb. 2005 — and then chose him again in 2006 and yet again in this year’s balloting.

For his part, Jager has previously stated that he will be appointing a committee of local citizens to suggest potential nominees to him — again, a ploy his predecessor made use of when choosing her successor.

Applications are available from Powell during business hours at City Hall, and are due back on Monday, Dec. 13 at 5 p.m. Interested citizens are asked to call (707) 441-4175.

Committee Floodgates Open

The spare Council seat isn’t all that’s on the new Mayor’s appointment calendar; the City Clerk in a separate release announced potential vacancies on almost every board, committee and commission in Eureka’s government. Particular scrutiny will likely be paid to prospective members of the influential Planning Commission and Design Review Committee due to these bodies’ strong influence on the course of development in the city. Ron Kuhnel, who was narrowly defeated by incoming Ward 3 Councilmember Mike Newman, remains chair of the Planning Commission.

Other seats up for nomination by Jager are on the Art and Culture Commission, the Board of Appeals, the Energy Committee, the Finance Advisory Committee, the Historic Preservation Commission, the Housing Advisory Board, the Open Space, Parks and Recreation Committee, the Personnel Board, the Redevelopment Advisory Board and the Transportation Safety Committee. All nominees of the Mayor must be ratified by a majority of the Council — one which will be shorthanded itself until the Ward 4 seat is filled.

Committee applications can also be obtained from Powell, either directly or through the city’s website, ci.eureka.ca.gov. These are due back by Friday, Dec. 17.

City residents are eligible, as are Eureka-based business owners and voters in the unincorporated areas covered by the Humboldt Community Services District and Humboldt County Service Area No. 3. However, these non-city residents can only be appointed by a four-fifths vote of the Council — which would mean a unanimous one while the Council remains shorthanded.

IMAGESOURCE: uen.org

With the GOP in control of the House, leaders are already promising a number of hearings and investigations into a number of issues, including the validity of climate change, stem cell research, and four specific investigations into President Obama.

This is what you voted for America if you voted Republican; not action toward alleviating the country from this horrid recession, but action toward assassinating Obama’s character to the point of preparing for a smooth victory in 2012 for a Republican president. This is what we have to look forward to over the next two years, and anyone who remembers the GOP reign of terror in the 90s, where it tried to destroy and impeach then-President Clinton for purely political purposes, you know this is exactly what is going to happen this time around.

On another note, Tea Party candidates scored key seats this election round. It will be interesting to see what kind of impact their presence in Congress will have in decision-making there.

Fourth District Supe candidate Virginia Bass speaks before supporters outside the Wharfinger. By John C. Osborn

Originally published in the North Coast Journal

NOTE: I realize that I should have not included the last sentence in this piece. It detracts from what I was trying to get at. I also realize I should have included more perspective on funders for some of the Prog candidates.

The first reaction that came to mind after the initial absentee ballot results trickled in last night was this: it would suck to be Linda Atkins right now. That reaction didn’t change as the night rolled on.

The moderate-conservative sweep across Humboldt County last night was part predicted, but also part shock and awe. The extent in which Progressive candidates would be pounced by their counterparts was grossly underestimated by media and local pundits. But why did it happen? What led to this virtually all-encompassing victory last night?

Last night, Progressives were denied representation on the Eureka City Council, save Linda Atkins; Bonnie Neely, a 24-year Prog on the Board of Supes, was delivered her pink slip in a the form of a landslide defeat against Virginia Bass; District Attorney Paul Gallegos nearly lost his re-election bid to Allison Jackson, and still may; and Ryan Sundberg commands a narrow lead over Pat Cleary for the Fifth District Supe seat.

Progressives should bust out a notebook and scribble down a lesson or two on politics, because the conservative elements in the county not only did their homework, they executed an amazingly effective campaign which hinged on harnessing a key central issue to rally voters, flooding campaign coffers with cash, and ensuring a strong turnout.

Progressives should be kicking themselves in the backside for not taking the opportunity to counter the Measure N (Marina Center) machine even though they opposed it every step of the way, whether publicly or in private. Their candidate’s insistence to distance themselves from the issue throughout the election and to not take a hard stand only fed strength to the candidates who fully seized upon the issue to help shape their campaign. The tens-of-thousands of dollars doled out by Security National to launch a Get Out The Vote campaign for Measure N was also an indirect mobilization for the slate of candidates who rallied behind the issue: Bass, Marian Brady, Mike Newman, and Frank Jager. They enjoyed, essentially, about a $30,000 campaign infusion of advertising each as a result.

This brings us to another major reason for the sweep this season: money. There is no doubt that a handful of business interests in Eureka colluded at some point in the election to pool their money together and financially prop up a slate of candidates that included the above mentioned, Jackson, Sundberg, and Johanna Rodoni for Assessor. Much of the financial support came from allies of Rob McBeth, who has ownership interest in O&M Industries and the Humboldt Builder’s Exchange non-profit. The hundreds of thousands of dollars injected to these candidates secured their financial superiority, and an effective propaganda campaign distracting their eye-widening fundraising habits by attacking the candidates receiving large donations from Bill Pierson worked to shield their own activities.

The “Marina Center Slate” had message and financial dominance; the Progressives, on the other hand, had little in an organized resistance to that bloc and gave their base little reason to rally. They remained fractured and relatively weak in their responses to the advertising blitz made by their opponents, deceptive as some ads were. Neely’s response, perhaps miscalculated, was to launch a negative attack blitz on Bass which, arguably, backfired but might have worked if she targeted the Marina Center or Security National — the foundation. Lack of solid response and the absence of a coordinated message to rally the Progressive vote ultimately showed in the polls, as the conservative base, rallied by the Marina Center and general national fervor, prevailed. But the Progressives always suffer from their support base – youth, liberals, poor – all demographics that are more likely to not turnout during an election unless there is a damn good reason to.

Over the next two years, conservatives will enjoy power in Eureka and on the Board of Supes, and as a result the spotlight will be shining bright on them. In Eureka, with Larry Glass gone, conservatives lose their scapegoat for all the city’s problems, unless Atkins is targeted for that role, and time will tell if Newman and Brady are more than Marina Center cheerleaders. And the unknown here is who Jager will appoint to take his seat. Sundberg and Bass will have to prove that they are, truly, independent politicians and not lackeys of the special interest money that filled their campaign coffers. These are tests that will shape the next election.

If they succeed, Progressives should be equally worried in 2012 and be prepared to brace for more sweeping losses. Humboldt Progressives can learn much from their massive defeat last night: unifying under the flag of a divisive issue, tons of money, and turnout win the day. It should be a lesson remembered for 2012 and on; if you want to play the game, be prepared to get dirty.

From the NCJ

The Eureka ballot measure on the hot-button Marina Center looks strong, but does it matter?

Originally published in the North Coast Journal

By John C. Osborn and Hank Sims

The politicos have been fighting over it for the last six years. The ground underneath it has been a city headache and a constant source of grief for at least a decade. Now, with Measure N on Eureka’s ballot next month, the public will have something to say about Marina Center, the massive waterfront development being proposed by Eureka entrepreneurs Rob and Cherie Arkley through their company Security National. Though even if the measure passes, it won’t be quite clear what message the voters intend to send, or what real-world effect — if any — their vote will have on the actual building of the project itself.

What is Measure N, really? On the one hand, you could think of it as a replay of 1999’s hard-fought Measure J, which would have allowed the retail giant Wal-Mart to build one of its superstores on the same site — the Balloon Track, a roughly 30-acre dilapidated railyard adjacent to Old Town. Like N, Measure J asked voters to take zoning decisions out of the hands of city staff and elected officials. Wal-Mart then, like Security National today, sought for the public to directly approve changes to the zoning map that would have cleared away many (but not all) of the legal obstacles that stood in the way of getting their store built. After a bitter election campaign that drew attention from the national press, Eureka handily rejected Measure J — the final vote was 61-39 percent against — and Wal-Mart was run out of town.

In other ways, Measures J and N are completely different beasts. Part of this is due to the nature of the proposed project: As Security National and its supporters never fail to reiterate, Marina Center isn’t just about a retail superstore, as the Wal-mart proposal was. Yes, a big box store will anchor Marina Center, if it is ever built, but the development will also include space for smaller retail outlets, offices and industry, in addition to wetlands and other public amenities.

But the biggest difference between 1999 and today may be that despite all the dissatisfaction with Marina Center among the city’s progressive wing, no one is mounting an official campaign of opposition to Measure N. Security National crews are out on the streets, talking with voters and handing out flyers and lawn signs; no one is fighting back. Why is this? Unsurprisingly, opinions vary.

“There seems to be a little change of stripes with the opponents who have fought this project from the start,” said Security National Vice President Randy Gans last week. “They’ve always been a small minority in Eureka, and with this election coming up they don’t want to be on the wrong side of this issue.”

On the other hand, Marina Center opponents are likely taking solace in the fact that even if the measure passes, the project is far from a done deal. A lawsuit brought by Humboldt Baykeeper and the Environmental Protection Information Center is currently wending its way through the court; the two groups charge that the environmental impact report for the project certified by the city earlier this year is inadequate. If the suit is successful, the project would be sent back to square one and Measure N could be invalidated. At the same time, since the project lies within the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission, that agency must ultimately sign off on any change in zoning to the site, regardless of whether or not such a change is directly approved by the city’s voters.

“It’s a measure to change the zoning,” said Humboldt Baykeeper Executive Director Pete Nichols last week, emphasizing the precise technical and legal nature of Measure N, which could be overturned by higher authorities. “I think that a lot of the public thinks it’s a referendum on the project. It’s not.”

It’s taken a long time and a lot of money to get to here. In the wake of the Wal-Mart battle, Rob and Cherie Arkley offered to purchase the Balloon Track and donate it to the city. The city declined the offer. A few years later, in 2004, the Arkleys made clear their interest in developing the parcel themselves. Eventually they unveiled their plan for Marina Center — a 500,000-square-foot mammoth mixed-use project to be anchored by a Home Depot. A mammoth environmental review of the project was launched, and after several years of study the Eureka City Council quickly approved it, along with a first phase of work that would include an environmental cleanup. This first phase was quickly appealed to the California Coastal Commission, where the matter now languishes.

Back in May, Security National made an offer to the city, tempting it with a $30,000 check to cover the expenses of placing the next phase — a change in zoning — on the ballot. After a long and heated meeting in June, the council unanimously approved, but not without dissent from Councilmembers Larry Glass and Linda Atkins, who did not want to see the city lose control over the zoning changes. Measure N was born.

Measure N does what planning commissions and city council typically do — decide what types of uses a particular piece of land can be put to. The measure would amend the city’s general plan and local coastal program to make the zoning changes that would allow Marina Center to be built, while also blanketing the property with what is called a “Qualified Combining Zone” — a fancy way to say that certain restrictions would apply. The Marina Center zoning would ban a “discount superstore,” which is define as a big box-type store that also sells groceries (such as a Wal-Mart Superstore). Apart from that, Marina Center as it is currently envisioned might shift a bit — perhaps a Lowe’s or some other anchor retail establishment in place of Home Depot — but its broad outlines would be locked in.

The original estimate to draft the measure, figure out all the legal details and place it on the ballot was $30,000, an amount Security National happily and promptly paid. But the total more than doubled due to the amount of resources needed to get the measure together in quick fashion — $71,000 in all. Roughly $26,000 was paid out to Meyers Nave Professional Law Corporation and $9,000 to Environmental Sciences Association for consulting work, while $35,000 was spent on staff time and fees to get the measure in order.

Due to the complexity of the ballot measure, particularly having to fulfill certain California Environmental Quality Act requirements, Eureka Community Development Director Sidnie Olson said the costs associated with putting it together were more than what’s typical for a city measure.

“Adding CEQA to the process ratchets up the cost dramatically,” Olson said, “and the complexity.”

Besides the CEQA requirements, the city had to put this measure together fast in order to make the deadline for the November election. For that reason, Olson said the city contracted out some of the work in order to speed up the process, and ESA in particular crafted the EIR for Marina Center.

“The time frame to prepare the necessary paperwork was extremely short,” Olson said, “and city staff just couldn’t have done it without help.”

To date, Security National has paid the city $46,000 of the total owed and made its most recent payment of $16,000 last week. Security National has also subsidized the entire campaign for the measure despite the lack of organized resistance, dropping $21,731 toward that end, according to recent financial filings covering everything up to Sept. 30. The company has also offered office space and personnel to the cause. Much of the $14,275 spent for the measure has been used on advertising so far, mostly through Christian Pennington, who received $8,075, about $6,000 of which was payback for print ads.

What would Security National get for their investment? First of all, it removes Eureka city government from zoning decisions at the site — the biggest weapon it wields in influencing development there. If the measure is approved by the voters, the city council would no longer have the ability to change the zoning from what the voters have approved without putting the matter back on the ballot. That could be critical if the balance of power on the council changes in the upcoming election. Currently, Security National can pretty much depend on at least a 3-2 vote on matters related to Marina Center; if Ron Kuhnel or Xandra Manns were elected to replace current councilmember Jeff Leonard in Ward Three, that balance would change. But with Measure N passed, Security National will have cleared the most critical hurdles at the city level.

Which leaves the Coastal Commission, and the courts. For his part, Gans believes that if the measure passes — he believes it will, and by a healthy margin — the commission will take notice. “I think everyone respects the will of the voter,” he said. “And I think that’s extremely important in a project like this in front of the Coastal Commission.”

Originally published in the North Coast Journal

If the recent campaign finance disclosures for both Eureka and Humboldt County races are any indicator about how high the stakes are in this election, it is clearly evident that a number of special interests locally continue to fervidly pour oodles of cash into the election — a total of almost $1 million in just cash and loans alone in this election season.

Consider this: Whoever sits on the Board of Supes over the next four years will likely be updating the road map of Humboldt County development, the General Plan, ending a 12-year long standoff that has fractured this community. Then there is a Eureka riddled with a number of horrible ailments — so many that in the city’s fragile state any more stress could very well break it. The city is on the verge of insolvency. Most of its higher administrative staff is fleeing for greener pastures. The prospect of two massive developments — the Forster-Gill project and the Marina Center — may further challenge already strained infrastructure. This upcoming council will have to juggle that while attempting to cauterize a bleeding budget without paralyzing services.

Added to the stakes in this election is the prospect of a substantial power shift — particularly for Eureka, where the traditional power brokers, representing many of the city’s most influential and powerful businesses, will have to face a politically progressive-leaning, and potentially less friendly, council. It could well be the reason why a group of these businesses are anteing up a good chunk of change to prevent that from happening. And what is clear from a reading of the latest round of financial disclosure documents — which detail fundraising and spending through Sept. 30 — is that the candidates who are supported by the Eureka establishment have raised massive amounts of cash compared to their opponents.

Marian Brady (candidate for City Council from the First Ward), Frank Jager (candidate for Mayor) and Mike Newman (Third Ward) all raised nearly four times the amount of money as their opponents in the first wave of the election. These are the same candidates that pledged not to take more than $500 per contribution this year, in the name of keeping big money out of the races. And although their opponents — Larry Glass, Peter La Vallee and Ron Kuhnel, respectively — share a few common donors, Brady, Jager, and Newman collectively received $10,750 from the same 17 donors, and many of their contributions came in at $500 a pop.

The 17 financial benefactors who gave to those three above candidates are also the same players who frequently, and generously, give to non-progressive, business-friendly candidates at the county level. Here’s a list: S&W Properties, Lisa Slack and Slack Family LLC, Robert Barnum and Barnum Timber, Kramer Investment Corp., TJS Leasing and Holding Company, Harvey Harper, C.P.A. John Fullerton, Glenn Goldan and ReProp Investments, Maxine Maples, Hilfiker Pipe Co., Eureka Oxygen, Shaw and Peterson Insurance (Newman works here), Lundblade and Company, and Rob McBeth, owner of O&M Industries, through the Humboldt Builder’s Exchange PAC, which he chairs, along with three other members of his family. This doesn’t include a number of other regular and similarly connected donors who only gave to two of the three candidates.

All told, Brady has raised $19,440, against Glass’ $5,169; Jager has raised $16,616 to La Vallee’s $5,133; and Newman has raised $16,497 to Kuhnel’s $4,384.

Glass received 14 contributions of $100 or more, the single largest being $500. His largest contributors are the Eureka Firefighters PAC ($500), Donna Brown, a Eureka Real Estate Broker ($475) and Thomas Preble, Retired of Eureka ($450). He has spent $1,499.

Of La Vallee’s 27 contributions of $100 or more, not one was over $500. His largest donors are Thomas Preble ($325) and four donors at $250: Marion Amber, Robert Fasic, James Tenney, and Roy Greshaber. He has spent $3,123.

Kuhnel got 17 contributions of $100 or more, with the highest being one $500 contribution. His largest donors are the Eureka Firefighters PAC ($500), Thomas Preble ($350), and Betty Kuhnel ($250). He has spent $4,928.

Newman got 42 contributions of $100 or more, with more than half at $500. He has spent $7,792.

Jager raked in 41 contributions of $100 or more, and 21 that were $500 or more, including Amy’s Delight and Jackie and John McBeth of O&M Industries (both $1,000). He spent $9,229.

Finally, of the 43 contributions of $100 or more that Brady received, more than half were $500. She spent a total of $14,990, making her the largest spender in the race.

Kuhnel remains steadfast that his modest earnings, coupled with his experience and past public service work, will keep him competitive, as he doesn’t expect to raise, or personally invest, that much more in the race.

“Mr. Newman has obviously raised a huge war chest from the large business interests, real estate, developers, and his pals at the Chamber of Commerce,” Kuhnel said in an e-mail. “I think I am competitive now as I clearly have the superior message for Eureka voters.” Newman was contacted but didn’t respond before deadline.

Brady said she plans to raise at least another $5,000 before the race’s end. “There’s huge issues going on,” Brady says. “People support the people who they think will move them forward. What this shows is broad-based, community support.”

Kuhnel, a critic of the campaign finance ordinance, sees the finances in the race so far as an indicator for how future races will play out with the cap in place, particularly with the ordinance doing nothing to address the costs of running an election.

“I pointed out the danger of a candidate with strong ties to a constituency that could easily stay within the $500 individual donation cap,” Kuhnel said, “and still raise substantial sums of money.”

No single donor has spent as much in support of countywide candidates as the Blue Lake Rancheria. The tribal powerhouse in the region has dropped almost $70,000 between Neely, Fifth District candidates Patrick Cleary and Ryan Sundberg and incumbent District Attorney Paul Gallegos this election. Another surprising up-and-coming large donor is the Humboldt County Deputy Sheriff’s Organization PAC, which apparently had enough cash to give $28,000 to Bass ($8,500), Cleary ($9,500), and DA candidate Allison Jackson ($10,500). And Bill Pierson, whether as an individual or through his company Sedgefield Properties, has donated a combined total of $28,000 this election between both Neely ($18,000) and Cleary ($10,000) — an obvious benefactor to progressive candidates running for the Supe seat.

Much the criticism levied toward Neely by her opponent, current Eureka Mayor Virgina Bass, involves the amount of cash she raised outside of the county, and from Pierson. Only four of the 91 documented contributions came from outside Humboldt in this cycle, three of which are elected officials she works with. She has raised a total of $139,289 to date — $55,145 in this cycle — and spent a total of $112,546. While Pierson did donate another $8,000 this cycle, many of her contributions were under $1,000.

Neely scoffed criticisms of her accepting out-of-area contributions, elaborating that it’s not where the funds come from but why they fund you to begin with. She also noted that she received many small contributions from within the county, but overall she views the donors funding her opponent as trying to sidestep long-term smart growth by propping up a candidate who represents their interests.

“I won’t stand for it,” Neely wrote in an e-mail, “and the public deserves to know there is a difference between the two candidates in this race.”

Meanwhile, Bass said that she is supported by a diverse group of people, including students retirees and developers. She said she found it ironic that Neely now criticizes some of her donors when the same people had supported Neely’s campaigns in the past.

Bass isn’t completely innocent, however. Many of the same people and businesses funding pro-Marina Center candidates in Eureka have collective dropped hundreds of thousands in every contentious county race this election to ensure sweeping success for their candidates — which include Bass. To document the elaborate web of funding between these developers, real estate brokers and financial institutions in Humboldt would take more space than allocated here. But taking a small sample of the 17 business interests mentioned above, who all funded the same Eureka candidates, you begin to see another financial force in elections here, one often glossed over. These businesses divided their gifts between Bass, Sundberg, Jackson, and Assessor candidate Johanna Rodoni: Robert McBeth ($9,100 total), Kramer Investment ($8,500), Shaw and Peterson Insurance ($7,500), Eureka Oxygen ($6,000), Lundblade and Co. ($6,850), Hilfiker Pipe Co. ($6,500), TJS Leasing and Holding Co. ($5,500) and Humboldt Builder’s Exchange ($5,000).

Of the all the races, the Assessor’s has been the most dramatically impacted by special interest money. Rodoni has raised almost $100,000. Assistant Assessor Mari Wilson, a political neophyte, has raised a third of that ($31,960), and largely from her own pocket.

Ultimately, the question here is: “Is it just a coincidence that these same interests funded the same candidates with the same perspectives that just happen to benefit them, or was there a concerted plan to to fund all these candidates in moderate individual amounts? Is it better or worse than single donors dropping ginormous amounts of cash in a single thrust?”

Whatever the answer, there’s no shortage of interested parties dropping cash in this election — especially, in Eureka, on one side of the aisle.

Yeah, one more day to go! This certainly is an important election for not only our local piece of pie, but also throughout the rest of the country. Hank Sims over at the Journal has his predictions up. Here’s mine:

Arcata

This is going to be an interesting race only in so far as there are seven candidates to divide the votes between. The student vote has always been the linchpin of the progressive vote here, and I don’t feel confident that there will be a big showing, which will hurt Dave Meserve. The specter of Meserve’s last reign on the council will probably shy moderates away, certainly conservatives. The question is whether he convinced those moderates that he will not waste city time on important national issues that are ultimately irrelevant for the city.

Also, even though there have been a few controversies, like the Panhandling Ordinance, that have angered residents to the point of not voting for the incumbents — Alex Stillman and Mark Wheetly — I don’t think that there is enough anger to pull enough votes away from them. Both incumbents, along with the rest of the council, have brought practicality back to city business, but also incessant planning. Given another four years, both incumbents, along with the other councilmembers, will likely implement the plans that have been cooking up over the past years, so that alone is probably what will drive voters, particularly the moderates.

Both Josh Mohland and Mark Sailors, although rich with ideas, had little in terms of presence during the election outside of their respective bases, though any avid reader of the Arcata Eye would have had enough of Sailors to know what he is about, just like any nightlifer probably ran into Mohland on any given night. Robert Benson, too, is a regular on the Eye website, but there seems to be an unfortunate stigma when it comes to the houseless even when they have awesome and rational ideas. And finally, Geronimo Garcia will pull in a small percentage, but that’s about it.

Alex Stillman – 33 percent

Mark Wheetly – 31 percent

Dave Meserve – 22 percent

Josh Mohland – 5 percent

Mark Sailors – 4 percent

Robert Benson – 3 percent

Geronimo Garcia -2 percent

Eureka

WARD 1

Marian Brady has not showed herself to be anything more than a yes-woman for the Marina Center and an staunch nemesis of incumbent Larry Glass. She has offered no real ideas on how to alleviate the current fiscal situation in Eureka aside from deriding opponents of the Marina Center for stonewalling the process and preventing (possible) tax revenue from filling city coffers. She has pumped exorbitant amounts of money into her campaign to make up for her lack of ideas. Glass, on the other hand, has made tangible improvements while in office and has shown himself to not be afraid to stand-up for what he believes in, even if you don’t agree with it. The Problem-oriented Policing Program alone has earned him the support of the Eureka Police Department and residents who have seen the real-world results of such a program. But money and deceptive ads have a way of swaying voters, so we’ll see how this one goes.

Larry Glass – 59 percent

Marian Brady – 41 percent

Ward Three

The Third Ward is a different cup of tea, however. With no incumbent to show off their colors, the race will come down to personality, political allegiance, and, sadly, money.

Mike Newman, a political newcomer, is known in the business community at least, which will earn him their votes for sure. He, along with Brady, is an avid Marina Center proponent, but unlike her, Newman, as Board Director for the Greater Eureka Chamber of Commerce, probably has a greater pulse on the broader economic picture in Eureka, probably more so than his opponents. He has personal experience as a small business owner and as a liaison for attracting business and tourism to the city. That will win him points. So will the money he pumped into the election and his allegiance with Brady and Virginia Bass, for it is safe to say whomever votes for Brady and Bass will likely vote for him as well.

Then there is Ron Kuhnel, who has more public experience than his opponent and sometimes having the experience to navigate the bureaucracy and work with staff trumps private sector experience. Even though he is not an incumbent, he has been on the Planning Commission for some time, and voters need only look at his record to see what he is about. Kuhnel is passionate about neighborhood empowerment and grassroots democracy, something which will earn him many votes tomorrow. But one only has to look at the 2006 election to see how close this race is going to be. He almost won then, and at that time against a candidate quite similar to Newman — Jeff Leonard. But the progs in Eureka will be quick to make sure Kuhnel takes this important swing vote seat.

Finally, Xandra Manns, although passionate about quality of life and environmental issues, will more likely than not be overshadowed by Kuhnel and Newman. Comparatively, Manns is a hardcore progressive to the more moderate Newman and Kuhnel. Eureka voters, I suspect, are looking for those moderate voices right now to get them through the city’s crisis. But as for Kuhnel and Newman, it will be close, real close. I’m seeing a handful of vote difference here one way or another.

Ron Kuhnel – 47 percent

Mike Newman – 47 percent

Xandra Manns – 6 percent

WARD FIVE

In the Fifth Ward, I have a strong suspicion Lance Madsen will win, but I don’t know if he will be able to pull total victory. That dubious write-in candidate may pull some votes away.

Lance Madsen – 98 percent

Other- 2 percent

MAYORAL

This race hasn’t been as exciting as one would expect. In general, the race has been fairly invisible compared to the council races, in my opinion. So I think this one is going to come down to popularity. Voters who enjoy the work Frank Jager is doing on the council will see him as mayor; but hey, maybe some will not cause they don’t want him to lose his voting power. Who knows, but he has more recent name recognition so that might earn him points. As for Peter LaVallee, those who liked his work as mayor in the past will give him another run. Neither really have much deviation in terms of ideas, so, like I said, it’s personality and past all the way. Marshall Spalding dropped out, but his name will be on the ballot to steal away a percent or two.

Frank Jager – 58 percent

Peter LaVallee – 40 percent

Marshall Spalding – 2 percent

Measure N

With no real opposition to this measure, and with all the money Security National pumped into this race, it’s safe to say it will pass, but by how much of a margin? I think only the most hardcore Rob Arkley-skeptical, Marina Center-loathing voters will go against this. I think it’s safe to say most Eurekans really don’t care about the politics; they just want the property cleaned up and something done with it .

Yes – 65 percent

No – 35 percent

Measure O

Contrary to what other people are projecting with this, I don’t think Eureka voters are going to go for another tax increase. I think it will be close, but no dice for the city.

Yes -49 percent

No – 51 percent

Measure Q

Bond measures tend to pass, whether or not they make sense. Improvements are needed at Arcata and McKinleyville High, but, again, tax increases are generally unpopular right now. There is no certainty with how the money will be spent, which will likely detract voters from going with it.

Yes – 43 percent

No – 57 percent

Fourth District Supervisor

Of all the races, this one between Virginia Bass and Bonnie Neely has been the most vile and mudslinging of them all. The lies and distortions coming from both camps should be enough to cause pause to any voter who is following the race in any detail. But, one of them is going to win, and it will probably be Bass for several reasons.

First, Neely has done little to actually show voters why they should care to vote her for yet another four years. She has touted her past experience, but she has also added nothing in the realm of new ideas or direction. Then there is the Marina Center. Her detractors have done an effective job in branding her as the main reason the Marina Center project has stalled due to her Chairmanship on the California Coastal Commission, and the Marina Center is the embodiment of the Eureka races this time around. Bass has recognition with Eureka voters with her eight years in government there. While Neely has been representing the area for 24 years now, she remains rather detached from the circles of everyday people. That will hurt her. Finally, Neely’s success hinges on either convincing Bass supporters to back off, or to grab Jeff Leonard loyalists. Neely will probably fail in this endeavor, as she would need to grab nearly all 20 percent of the votes cast to Leonard in the Primary to beat the lead Bass has on her.

On the other hand, Bass isn’t much of an alternative. She has shown herself to be inept when it comes to the intricacies of the General Plan Update, has been unwilling to take a solid position on what version of the mammoth plan the county should go with, and has danced in generalities from day one. Don’t take this as an endorsement, but it’s probably safe to say that when Neely first started on the Board of Supes, she wasn’t completely knowledgeable about all the ins-and-outs of every facet of government or the various plans that the Board must deal with. Maybe Bass will prove herself to be capable once elected. Maybe not. Either way, if the Primary and negative attack environment of the past months is any indicator, Neely should be real concerned about tomorrow’s results, unless Leonard’s base decides to vote defensively against Bass.

Virginia Bass – 56 percent

Bonnie Neely – 44 percent

Fifth District Supervisor

I don’t have much to say about this race. It all depends on how supporters of Pat Higgins toss their weight. As far as I know, Higgins hasn’t come out to endorse either candidate, so this race will truly be the wild card of all of them. Even with the oodles of cash injected into his campaign, Ryan Sundberg has little renown outside of the Trinidad/McKinleyville bubble. But maybe McKinleyville is enough. And certainly the whole DUI issue will probably play little if any role in this race.

Pat Cleary, by extension, has been running a successful business for years now, has mediated over tense and notable disputes — the North Coast Co-op and KHSU debacles to name two — and certainly that has showed voters in the Fifth his meddle. Still, if I had to rub the crystal ball for clarity here, I would scry that Pat Cleary will have a narrow victory.

Pat Cleary -51 percent

Ryan Sundberg – 49 percent

Assessor

Easy. People who are serious about this race will vote on experience, not personality. The question here is who will be fooled by Johanna Rodoni’s attempt to buy the election in order to make up for her lack of experience for this extremely important and non-political office. Her solid support base ends outside of the Fortuna/Scotia region of the county, especially if you factor in how Jon Brook’s votes will be dispersed. Mari Wilson, who already had a lead in the Primary, will easily grab at least half of those Brooks votes.

Mari Wilson – 58 percent

Johanna Rodoni – 42 percent

District Attorney

I know Hank Sims is calling it for Gallegos, but I don’t think so. Paul Hagen, who lost in the Primary, is the only former candidate to have publicly denounced one of the remaining candidates. The question here is whether or not Hagen’s supporters will follow the lead of their candidate and vote Allison Jackson, or shake their heads, hold their noses, and vote Paul Gallegos. Both candidates have their problems; the question here is this: if you like how the District Attorney’s Office has been operating over the past eight years, then go with Gallegos. If you don’t like it, go with Jackson. Simple right? Not really.

The main problem with Jackson, for me, is that I question her ability to be objective in the courtroom. During debates, she has blasted Gallegos on specific plea bargains where sexual assault was concerned, saying with utter certainty that the person in question was indeed guilty and undeserving of a lesser charge. Her fanaticism with victim’s rights makes me question whether anyone who is charged with a sex crime or child abuse will get a fair trial in her courtroom. And her constant campaigns of misinformation on the campaign trail, whether it was endorsements that weren’t or half-truths about cases, shows the kind of character to expect if she is elected.But in contrast to Gallegos, she won’t be as willing to dive into highly controversial cases without having solid grounding, for better or worse, and she will probably be more of an iron fist in the courtroom, which if you like that kind of justice you’ll like her.

But for Gallegos’s part, he has blotched a number of high profile cases — PALCO, David Gundersen, the Cheri Lynn Moore to name a few — and detracts others from the real issues with his constant articulations of moral imperatives and philosophical rants about justice and fairness. He also has his fair share of half-truths and lies during the election campaign, particularly about where he has worked in the past, amd there has been fallout from previous plea deals that lead to continued, maybe even preventable, criminal behavior — Kevin Scott Walker, who alleged raped an Arcata female recently, was up for kidnapping and sodomy charges in 2008, but they were plead down to lesser offenses. But he is more likely to be compassionate than his opponent in terms of how to treat those accused of a crime and more likely to find a fair resolution to a case rather than the one that comes with the most stringent sentence.

This race is going to be close, but Jackson is going to grab victory, abiet barely; if anything because of the conservative mobilization this election season, which none of us should underestimate.

Allison Jackson – 51 percent

Paul Gallegos – 49 percent

Prop. 19

End the Prohibition.

Yes – 53 percent

No – 47 percent

As a child of the new generation sweeping across the land, born within the knowledge-filled bounty of the Internet at my fingertips, and as a human who watches with abject horror the overcrowding of prisons and state bans on harmless and beneficial plants, I say this: we must end this archaic prohibition on marijuana. We must end it on Nov. 2.

Proposition 19, affectionately called the Tax and Regulate Cannabis Act, would, in a nutshell, allow for the recreational use, cultivation, and sales of marijuana, with restrictions. It could end, in California at least, a 75-year prohibition on a plant that contains a plethora of professionally documented medicinal effects, is not physically addictive, is not lethal, is enjoyed by an estimated 15 million Americans, and is packing our prisons with non-violent stoners.

Never before has an issue proposed on a ballot caused such a strong rift with me at least, requiring a constant examination, and then re-examination, of the facts and possible effects behind this law. At first, I viewed Prop. 19 with a suspicious eye and initially criticized the provisions that would criminalize use around minors and about allowing municipalities the ability to restrict recreational sales. It made me think of Prop. 215 and how, after 14 years, officials and governments are still baffled about how to reconcile the right of a patient to grow with the rights of a community.

Add into this the unique experience of living within the coveted Emerald Triangle, the region where most of the state’s, if not the country’s, marijuana is cultivated, feeding a rural economy here devastated by the decline in the timber industry with much needed economic sustenance. The quandary of what kind of impact bringing this black-gray market to light will have on this region has certainly been a cause of concern for any person with at least a minimal amount of perspective here. It is not an exaggeration to say that virtually every industry in Humboldt County – groceries, hardware, fuel, agricultural supplies, clothing and entertainment to highlight a few – is invigorated to some degree by marijuana money and could suffer from a collapse in prices.

This perspective is not widely acknowledged by Californians, and people captiously deride opponents in the North as voracious growers who want to keep a stranglehold on the lucrative black market at any cost. While this might be true for some, please understand there is more to legalization than that for us Northerners.

As if this issue wasn’t hippy enough, what ultimately convinced me that Prop. 19 needs to pass was a short, yet vivid, dream the other night that highlighted two main reasons. The first was simple enough – cannabis is medicine. It does not have “roots in Hell” as the propaganda of past days had tried to push on us; it is rooted in health, and if you ask any user how effective it is at relieving stress and anxiety, how they have been able to quell other addictions with its use, or how it helps alleviate the adverse effects of modern treatments, e.g. chemotherapy, they will tell you, without hesitation, that marijuana is a blessing, not a curse.

The second reason is more existential: our children should not grow up and live in a world where this medicine is outlawed, where state power is wasted incarcerating small-time users and damning them to share bunk space with violent criminals, where our law enforcement apparatus expends precious time targeting this harmless crop and it’s harvesters over the scourge of meth and other truly social ails, and where people still live in the zeitgeist of the “Reefer Madness” world, where stoned zombies murder and rape in drug-induced frenzies. Wake up.

What has always made marijuana “violent” has been it’s illegal status, plain and simple. If you meet the growers just trying to make a living or who are providing for their personal consumption, you do not see the mafias, the cartels, the individuals and institutions violently battling to control this plant for its profitability; you see mothers, fathers, teachers, musicians, artists, and entrepreneurs. And that last point will be the boom for our local and state economy; just imagine all the innovations that will come from marijuana finally being legal.

Prop. 19 isn’t perfect, but the time has come for this prohibition to end. We must remember the specter of the short-lived prohibition on alcohol in the 1920s, which was also perpetuated by zealous interests in the government who sought to impose their moral perspective on the rest of the county, and the ultimate consequence of that fueled the vicious and violent black market of that time.

The times are truly changing. Perhaps it’s time to change with them, if not for yourself, for your children.

The latest Rasmussen Report shows that Brown has a six-point lead over Whitman as of today (48 percent verses 42 percent). Last week, Brown’s lead remained the same, but he was ahead 50 percent to 44 percent, showing that the number of “not sure” voters is on the rise.

Then again, how many people are even aware of the four other candidates that are running, cause dang, the media isn’t doing a good job. Those four — Carlos Alvarez, Dale Ogden, Chelene Nightingale and Laura Wells — have four percent support according to the poll under the question “some other candidate.”

And for those who don’t have the luxury of cable, the attack ads are getting brutal by both sides.