Baykeeper, CUE VI settle Balloon Trac...

Baykeeper, CUE VI settle Balloon Track lawsuit

There are 28 comments on the Eureka Times Standard story from Sep 22, 2010, titled Baykeeper, CUE VI settle Balloon Track lawsuit. In it, Eureka Times Standard reports that:

After almost five years of litigation, Security National subsidiary CUE VI and Union Pacific Railroad have agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by Humboldt Baykeeper over Eureka's contaminated Balloon Track property, according to a press release.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Eureka Times Standard.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
SKL

Georgetown, TX

#1 Sep 22, 2010
'Bout time!
I sure am interested in the details, though.
DIRT DEVIL

Muskogee, OK

#2 Sep 22, 2010
Did Petey and his "band of Mafia brothers" get their usual extortion check along with it.
Domino 21

South San Francisco, CA

#3 Sep 22, 2010
Baykeeper, where extortion is the norm.
Paykeeper

San Jose, CA

#4 Sep 22, 2010
Extortion is the only way they can fund themselves. Pete Nichols and his so called experts are not going to get anything accomplished that was not already going to be done. I cannot stand this bunch of selohssa. I cannot wait to shop at Home Depot!!!!!!!!!!
Is this a joke

Santa Rosa, CA

#6 Sep 22, 2010
This is a story I would have expected to see in the ARCATA EYE on April 1.
Dennis Scrums

San Francisco, CA

#7 Sep 22, 2010
So it appears that the Security National cleanup was never what they led us to believe

Thank you Baykeeper for protecting our bay

Shame on you CUE IV, Security National, Randy Gans, et al.
WTF

San Francisco, CA

#8 Sep 22, 2010
Hey DEVIL, your "Citizens for a better Eureka" lawsuit is looking very foolish right about now

Thanks for nothing-

“I don't know who I am”

Since: Dec 07

Fortuna

#9 Sep 22, 2010
Dirt Devil, Domino 21 and Paykeeper:

You accuse Baykeeper of a history of practicing extortion, which is a crime.

Please, for the rest of us who were not paying as close attention to the issue as you have: Tell us specifically when Baykeeper has committed extortion, against whom and for how much?
Blown_tire

Santa Rosa, CA

#10 Sep 22, 2010
Now I'm really confused.

Baykeeper was involved in a law suit to force the UP and the developers to clean up the balloon track property. Then they ran to the Coastal Commotion to block the widely approved clean up of the same land.

So if the bank started to clean up the land, that would have made Baykeeper's law suit moot, and they would not have been able to involve themselves in the clean up (so it could be done how THEY think it should be?).

It does make you wonder. What's in it for Baykeeper? Are they going to see money flow in their direction? Or do they think they are smarter than anyone the railroad or the bank hires to do the clean up?

What is Baykeeper going to do if the Coastal Commission doesn't want to play ball and denies approval?
Sweet Dee

Martinez, CA

#11 Sep 22, 2010
Blown_tire wrote:
...CUE VI is now required to remove contaminated settlement at numerous hot spots...
Freudian slip or classic Times-Standard spahell chahecker.
Anon

Gilroy, CA

#12 Sep 22, 2010
Typical Times Standard biased hatchet job. Prints only one side of the story and doesn't even pretend to have tried to contact Security National for their side. They also fail to mention in their list of litigants that NEC and therby Eureka City Council member Larry Glass was a partly to the suit as well.
Dennis Scrums

San Francisco, CA

#13 Sep 22, 2010
Spin away "Anon" and the rest of the Security National apologists!

This settlement was agreed upon more that a week ago. The silence from Security National tells the real story!
Thanks

Shingletown, CA

#14 Sep 22, 2010
Paykeeper wrote:
Extortion is the only way they can fund themselves. Pete Nichols and his so called experts are not going to get anything accomplished that was not already going to be done. I cannot stand this bunch of selohssa. I cannot wait to shop at Home Depot!!!!!!!!!!
Arley knew the site would more than likely have to be cleaned up and toxins removed he wanted to short change the public and do as little clean up as possible.
You can thank Humboldt Baykeeper for taking this to court or else the site would not be cleaned up to the extent that both sides have settled on.
Security National will still have to go through the coastal commission to build what they want to build.
Sneeky Pete

Mckinleyville, CA

#15 Sep 22, 2010
How can you blame me. I know I couldn't win, but at least now I get gas money for the boat and can say I won, which is more important than actually protecting the environment.
Baykeeper Losers

Eureka, CA

#16 Sep 22, 2010
I would actually call it "Legalized Extortion". Baykeeper files the lawsuit against Arkley, pulls in as many lawyers as possible (his buddies) so they can get paid as well, Nichols gets a little piece of the pie until "someone" decides to settle. How much do you think Pete received from the Settlement? He has no "job" to speak of. Clean up was already approved months ago but it wasn't up to Pete's satisfaction. What a fuc%$# loser! Remember the yahoo who started suing business owners for ADA Compliance? He knew most of the business owners would settle out of court for a few thousand dollars so he can line his pockets. Same MO!
Enviromental Terror

Eureka, CA

#17 Sep 22, 2010
See I can get more money for my next lawsuit so I can destroy Humboldt county even more.... hahaha.....
Yep

Menlo Park, CA

#18 Sep 22, 2010
"..conducted three site visits with nearly a dozen experts from across the United States to document the environmental condition of the site."

Hey Baykeeper, go up to the outfall pipe at the Arcata sewage treatment plant and take some samples.
Rot Baykeeper

Arcata, CA

#19 Sep 22, 2010
I hope everyone from Baykeeper is happy with themselves for contiually blocking good projects. Someone needs to make these scum suckers accountable for frivolous lawsuits like this...extortion at its finest.
Mark Twain

Arcata, CA

#20 Sep 22, 2010
Richard Salzman wrote:
I wish to officially announce that I am in favor of the Marina Center now.
You mean Mark Twain, don't you?
tomtom

Arcata, CA

#21 Sep 22, 2010
The True Anonymous wrote:
Dirt Devil, Domino 21 and Paykeeper:
You accuse Baykeeper of a history of practicing extortion, which is a crime.
Please, for the rest of us who were not paying as close attention to the issue as you have: Tell us specifically when Baykeeper has committed extortion, against whom and for how much?
Bray Kreeper swindled Simpson Timber out of $600,000 to allow Simpson to cap in place heavy Dioxin at the foot of Del Norte street. The whole time BK was wailing that removing all the contamination there was the only way they would approve the permit, until Simpson flashed the color green...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ecology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News How systems theory can help us reflect on the w... Mar '18 What s Your Exper... 1
News City ponders purpose of its golf courses Feb '18 Taxpayer abuse by... 1
News CVC hands out awards to Halton Hills 'Friends' (Apr '11) Feb '18 what Joan say 6
News Plants may be key to new medicines (Sep '16) Dec '17 was auch immer 2
News Union County Deer Hunt Starts Monday in Cranford (Jan '16) Aug '17 CranfordDeer 3
News Trump administration moves to withdraw clean-wa... (Jun '17) Jun '17 kwg2503 1
News Port Townsend paper mill already below carbon c... (Jan '16) Jun '17 David Eubanks 2