Board of Supervisors' upcoming meeting

Hopefully the Board of Sups will start to address the remediation of the Masonite site as well. I have been wondering also about well #6 at the Masonite property. It appears as though it is a significant water supply to the valley. Corps are busily buying western water resources so who owns the rights to that water? DDR? Is that water and that of the surrounding wells clean? How deep have the toxins at that site penetrated the soils substructures? How about a Board resolution requesting cleanup out there so we don't have to be barraged by DDR again? Their reps will be there, lets see how they avoid there responsibilities then. You know they will! The public has spoken! Will our Reps represent us?

So what you are saying is they will do nothing as usual.

Hopefully wrote:

Hopefully the Board of Sups will start to address the remediation of the Masonite site as well. I have been wondering also about well #6 at the Masonite property. It appears as though it is a significant water supply to the valley. Corps are busily buying western water resources so who owns the rights to that water? DDR? Is that water and that of the surrounding wells clean? How deep have the toxins at that site penetrated the soils substructures? How about a Board resolution requesting cleanup out there so we don't have to be barraged by DDR again? Their reps will be there, lets see how they avoid there responsibilities then. You know they will! The public has spoken! Will our Reps represent us?

Additionally, this is a public health and safety issue. If forced to, can the city, county or state require the cleanup? If it is then not performed can the property be declared a public nuisance and therefore RED TAGGED? No cleanup, no development! How about a substantial bond to insure the work will be done if not by them then by the next owner? These are questions the public wants answered. If this is not done can the City or County eminent domain that property in the public interest, do the work and resell it at the cleaned up value, therefore allowing future development sooner than later? So many questions to be answered post election!

CAH wrote:

So what you are saying is they will do nothing as usual.

Nope, I'm saying they have a public mandate to move forward, do what is needed and then maybe we can have a mall there. Or anything else for that matter. The site needs to be developed for the current and future economic well being of our valley and its residence. I would hope people will get off the our supes are jerks bandwagon and onto the lets move forward in a realistic and positive direction bandwagon as the voters have clearly stated in the vote. Does that sound reasonable?

Nope wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope, I'm saying they have a public mandate to move forward, do what is needed and then maybe we can have a mall there. Or anything else for that matter. The site needs to be developed for the current and future economic well being of our valley and its residence. I would hope people will get off the our supes are jerks bandwagon and onto the lets move forward in a realistic and positive direction bandwagon as the voters have clearly stated in the vote. Does that sound reasonable?

I am not talking about the recent vote. But if you could point out how these five individuals hove moved in any direction no less forward I would like to hear about it.

CAH wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not talking about the recent vote. But if you could point out how these five individuals hove moved in any direction no less forward I would like to hear about it.

The past is the past. The way forward is to find the common ground. Any development at Masonite can not take place until the remediation is done, period. That is what A was about. That will take many years. By addressing that problem we will pave the way for Masonite to become The Crossings or whatever. Until then there will simply be mud slinging between two immovable ideological forces, neither of whom will ultimately make the decision because each on;y controls a minor percentage of the vote and connot deliver on their own unilateraly. Get involved during the time of remediation and support moderate candidates who have a plan to proceed. The five you speak of may not be around at that time but there could also be no argument to development if the site is clean. If that fails, then bring this back to the ballot if needed and the development will win. Take it step by step to the proper use of this superbly located parcel. As DDR has said it would be MANY YEARS before anything will be built on this site even with a yes vote on A. If the reasons for not developing are removed then the 5 you speak of will be in DDR's position as it stands today. Until we stop polarizing and start cooperating nothing will ever happen there. Why, because it can't. Any thoughts?

Nope 2 wrote:

<quoted text>
The past is the past. The way forward is to find the common ground. Any development at Masonite can not take place until the remediation is done, period. That is what A was about. That will take many years. By addressing that problem we will pave the way for Masonite to become The Crossings or whatever. Until then there will simply be mud slinging between two immovable ideological forces, neither of whom will ultimately make the decision because each on;y controls a minor percentage of the vote and connot deliver on their own unilateraly. Get involved during the time of remediation and support moderate candidates who have a plan to proceed. The five you speak of may not be around at that time but there could also be no argument to development if the site is clean. If that fails, then bring this back to the ballot if needed and the development will win. Take it step by step to the proper use of this superbly located parcel. As DDR has said it would be MANY YEARS before anything will be built on this site even with a yes vote on A. If the reasons for not developing are removed then the 5 you speak of will be in DDR's position as it stands today. Until we stop polarizing and start cooperating nothing will ever happen there. Why, because it can't. Any thoughts?

There was an election and I it looks like you missed it. Minor percentage of the vote? You call a 62% majority minor?

Measure A had nothing to do with the environmental cleanup of the site. The former owner, Masonite, is already required to do that and pay for it. Measure A was about a multi-national corporation, DDR, attempting to rezone Masonite and approve a huge retail center without the normal conditions and environmental review. The developers wish list was rejected soundly by the voters. There will be no Mendocino Crossings at Masonite. Get over it.

I agree it is time to move forward. We are in a better position to do that with the current Board of Supes than at any time in the last twenty years. If you follow it closely, like I do, you can see that despite some rough spots there is a new spirit of cooperation. You still get spirited debate and 3-2 votes, but it is not the same 3-2 all the time. They are more focused on the issues instead of the ideology.

They voted 5-0 to ask the State Department of Toxic Substances to come in and provide oversight of the Masonite cleanup, but the department refused to do so. But that 5-0 vote never would have happened with the last Board. They voted 5-0 to provide redevelopment funds to finish the new gym (ARC) on the south end of town. That would not have happened with the previous board.

They also approved the General Plan on a 5-0 vote. Watch, I think you will start to see some real movement forward. I predict they will also approve the UVAP this year. We might even get a revenue sharing agreement between the County and the City of Ukiah if the coastal supervisors will step up and help solve an inland problem.

Logical One wrote:

<quoted text>
There was an election and I it looks like you missed it. Minor percentage of the vote? You call a 62% majority minor?
Measure A had nothing to do with the environmental cleanup of the site. The former owner, Masonite, is already required to do that and pay for it. Measure A was about a multi-national corporation, DDR, attempting to rezone Masonite and approve a huge retail center without the normal conditions and environmental review. The developers wish list was rejected soundly by the voters. There will be no Mendocino Crossings at Masonite. Get over it.
I agree it is time to move forward. We are in a better position to do that with the current Board of Supes than at any time in the last twenty years. If you follow it closely, like I do, you can see that despite some rough spots there is a new spirit of cooperation. You still get spirited debate and 3-2 votes, but it is not the same 3-2 all the time. They are more focused on the issues instead of the ideology.
They voted 5-0 to ask the State Department of Toxic Substances to come in and provide oversight of the Masonite cleanup, but the department refused to do so. But that 5-0 vote never would have happened with the last Board. They voted 5-0 to provide redevelopment funds to finish the new gym (ARC) on the south end of town. That would not have happened with the previous board.
They also approved the General Plan on a 5-0 vote. Watch, I think you will start to see some real movement forward. I predict they will also approve the UVAP this year. We might even get a revenue sharing agreement between the County and the City of Ukiah if the coastal supervisors will step up and help solve an inland problem.

All knowing one, I was a No on A VOTER! I never miss a vote! I am a moderate not as you appear to be an ideological member of an intransigent 20 or 30 percent, either way, of the electorate. I am one of the 40 percent +/- that is moderate. Logic would dictate that to move forward you cooperate with enough of the moderate base to achieve your goal. It just won't happen any other way.
I don't care what is planned for the site. Lets just call it a circus instead of the crossings or maybe a Christmas tree lot. I don't care.
The General Plan approval is so needed for anything to happen and for any progress to be made. And you are correct that the coastal sups must step forward and solve the revenue sharing issue.
It looks like those of you who are involved with the issue, perhaps even an ideology, have your work cut out for you. I have no idea what the Valley Plan says about the Masonite Property. But if anything is going to happen there the clean up is mandatory.
Now, you say the Board has voted to ASK the State Dept. of Toxic Substances to provide oversight but they refused. What HAPPENED NEXT? NOTHING? Move on to the next authority! Don't give up so easily!!!!! And why is there any oversight needed if the project is ready to go? Why not JUST DO IT?
If Masonite is required to clean up the site and it has not been done then WHY NOT? Is it Because They Are NOT GOING TO DO IT! And DDR NEVER WILL EITHER, O ALL KNOWING ONE! And I am in absolute agreement with you that DDR is a Parasite and Hopefully has suffered a rude awakening when it comes to how they will not be able to operate here at our home.
So, Good Luck with your good work and I hope you keep it up. Your efforts benefit us all. Thanks from a moderate.

Logical One wrote:

<quoted text>
There was an election and I it looks like you missed it. Minor percentage of the vote? You call a 62% majority minor?
Measure A had nothing to do with the environmental cleanup of the site. The former owner, Masonite, is already required to do that and pay for it. Measure A was about a multi-national corporation, DDR, attempting to rezone Masonite and approve a huge retail center without the normal conditions and environmental review. The developers wish list was rejected soundly by the voters. There will be no Mendocino Crossings at Masonite. Get over it.
I agree it is time to move forward. We are in a better position to do that with the current Board of Supes than at any time in the last twenty years. If you follow it closely, like I do, you can see that despite some rough spots there is a new spirit of cooperation. You still get spirited debate and 3-2 votes, but it is not the same 3-2 all the time. They are more focused on the issues instead of the ideology.
They voted 5-0 to ask the State Department of Toxic Substances to come in and provide oversight of the Masonite cleanup, but the department refused to do so. But that 5-0 vote never would have happened with the last Board. They voted 5-0 to provide redevelopment funds to finish the new gym (ARC) on the south end of town. That would not have happened with the previous board.
They also approved the General Plan on a 5-0 vote. Watch, I think you will start to see some real movement forward. I predict they will also approve the UVAP this year. We might even get a revenue sharing agreement between the County and the City of Ukiah if the coastal supervisors will step up and help solve an inland problem.

Additionally 62% of a 35% voter turnout is in no way a majority. It is rather approximately 17% of the registered electorate. Statistically you are on thin ice. Although, with the knowledge that in a super off year election, votes like this last one generally favor the conservative minority die hards and so therefore it was a good move for DDA to try to force their will upon us. So the 17% was a motivated group of citizens who clearly feel the same way we do. DDR took a BIG HIT due to their greed. Properly so in my opinion!

Hey, how about we put a measure on the ballot next time requiring the Masonite Property to become the Masonite Regional Civic Park! Nothing says it has to be economically developed yet. Compromise? What a beautiful park that property would make EH?

All Knowing One 2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Additionally 62% of a 35% voter turnout is in no way a majority. It is rather approximately 17% of the registered electorate. Statistically you are on thin ice. Although, with the knowledge that in a super off year election, votes like this last one generally favor the conservative minority die hards and so therefore it was a good move for DDA to try to force their will upon us. So the 17% was a motivated group of citizens who clearly feel the same way we do. DDR took a BIG HIT due to their greed. Properly so in my opinion!

Democracy is a participatory sport, so the % of the turnout is meaningless. You have to show up to be counted. I agree an off year election was DDR's best shot.

The problem with DDR is they never took the time to figure out who the people are. All they saw was a distressed industrial site that fit their model for a future regional shopping hub. They ran the worst kind of campaign, hiring a bunch of outside consultants, spending wads of cash outside the County, stuffing everyones mail boxes with slick trash and calling every few days to sell the project. In my opinion they oversold it. They might have had a majority at the start of the election campaing, but they turned lots of people off.

And the whole thing about creating a dummy grassroots group was laughable. How could they be independent when DDR was paying all their bills? Then they hired an up from hippy dingbat to be their spokesperson, but she didn't know her facts and all she could do was call everyone on the other side liars. What a joke. And the local supporters included all the extreme right wing types like John Mayfield, Dick Seltzer, Marge Handley, the disgraced Richard Ruff, and has been politicians like Wattenburger and the never pleasant Jim Mulheren. Oh, and Jimmy Rickel. That will get you at least 3% of the vote. But yuu're right, time to move on.

XXX wrote:

Hey, how about we put a measure on the ballot next time requiring the Masonite Property to become the Masonite Regional Civic Park! Nothing says it has to be economically developed yet. Compromise? What a beautiful park that property would make EH?

I would a big supporter of something like this. Think out of the box. A park to be used by the people of Ukiah and Mendocino County in perpetuity would be wonderful. Put in entertainment facilities. Move the fairgrounds there. Get creative! What do you think?

Logical One wrote:

<quoted text>
Democracy is a participatory sport, so the % of the turnout is meaningless. You have to show up to be counted. I agree an off year election was DDR's best shot.
The problem with DDR is they never took the time to figure out who the people are. All they saw was a distressed industrial site that fit their model for a future regional shopping hub. They ran the worst kind of campaign, hiring a bunch of outside consultants, spending wads of cash outside the County, stuffing everyones mail boxes with slick trash and calling every few days to sell the project. In my opinion they oversold it. They might have had a majority at the start of the election campaing, but they turned lots of people off.
And the whole thing about creating a dummy grassroots group was laughable. How could they be independent when DDR was paying all their bills? Then they hired an up from hippy dingbat to be their spokesperson, but she didn't know her facts and all she could do was call everyone on the other side liars. What a joke. And the local supporters included all the extreme right wing types like John Mayfield, Dick Seltzer, Marge Handley, the disgraced Richard Ruff, and has been politicians like Wattenburger and the never pleasant Jim Mulheren. Oh, and Jimmy Rickel. That will get you at least 3% of the vote. But yuu're right, time to move on.

I could not have said it better! NOW YOU KNOW WHY I WAS A NO ON A VOTER!