Thursday, April 12, 2012

Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee hates HumCPR. Rejects Estelle Fennell endorsement. Patrick Higgins barely makes associate. Change happening soon.

The Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee (HCDCC) is at it again. They decided to not endorse the only Democrat running in the 2nd District Supervisor race. Why? Because of her involvement with Humboldt Coalition for Property Rights (HumCPR). Seems that members of the HCDCC are afraid of uncontrolled growth in Rural property. Did anyone point specifically what they were in disagreement with her? Of course not. That would be relevant. What percentage of the people in Humboldt County care about the General plan or even know there is one? There are over 600 pages of documents to the Humboldt County General plan and I would guess very few in the room have actually read and understand the document. Estelle is a sitting HCDCC member and will be serving another term. That should make things awkward. Sitting 5th District Harbor Commissioner Patrick Higgins barely was elected as an associate. That is whole story in itself.

The HCDCC E-Board is unraveling. Chair Milt Boyd announced his stepping down in June. Vice Chair Chris Beresford also announced her resignation. I haven't always agreed with either of them but respect them none the less. They are good people and will be sorely missed.


Rose said...

Again - HCDCC is being used as a personal PAC, and not operating as a Central Committee is supposed to.

This hurts us all - no matter what your party is. One would think it is also a violation of their charter.

Anonymous said...

"Henchman Of Justice"

2 political positions not aligned, nothing new.

Both political positions affiliated with organizations....nothing new too.....this is election season isn't it?

Good Luck to all candidates whether we can agree on political positions or not. Kudos to those willing to brave the criticism because politics is not supposed to be fun, but it is very critical...always has been, always will be until human emotions change what causes a critiquing reaction. Less government, less critiquing......


Eric Kirk said...

I don't know if her association with HumCPR is adequate grounds for denying such an endorsement. I suspect that the majority of HumCPR members are Democrats. I don't know that, but I suspect it's the case.

But Richard, do you really believe that party membership should guarantee the endorsement? I would hope that the criteria would be a little more substantive.

Eric Kirk said...

I should also say that Democrats around the state tend to back candidates who support controlled growth in local politics, and tend not to endorse those they believe to be associated with controlled growth-opposing developers. Now maybe it's not "inclusive." But Humboldt County's Democratic Committee his hardly unique in this respect. Plenty of Democrats are also anti-choice, but would you challenge an endorsement decision made on that basis?

samoasoftball said...

Eric: It was loud and clear that her affiliation with HumCPR was the reason for denying her an endorsement. It was a brutal argument for and against endorsement. No one questioned her Democratic values. She was and is the only Democrat in the race in is a member of the HCDCC. That should have been enough for an endorsment.

Estelle was endorsed last time she ran. Is she a worse Democrat now? No. Her affiliation struck her down.

Party membership should be of some criteria, but this committee has denied other Democrats in the past. And I have been in agreement with some of those.

But denying some well intentioned Democrats has created a hostile environment on the HCDCC. I have already documented my gripes what happened to me, and I said it was bad practice for this committee to endorse one Democrat over another, but what about Roy Curless, who was denied even though he was past chair of the HCDCC. And Mari Wilson, Allison Jackson, Worth Dikeman, Mary Beth Wolford (Who was a lifelong Democrat), Virgina Bass, Marian Brady,Paul Hagen and Kathleen Bryson and many more I am sure I am forgetting.

samoasoftball said...

4:22: That is a good question. I will have to ponder.

Anonymous said...

Richard, are you going to answer the questioner from the previous thread?

Anonymous said...

Estelle is a lobbyist for the real estate industry, no longer a radio reporter. Good for HCDCC.

We're lucky Clif Clendenden has turned out to be intelligent and independent. He deserves a 2nd term.

samoasoftball said...

5:13-Yes. No problem. When the person identifies themselves. I won't answer for an anonymous.

Eric Kirk said...

How about if the candidate is anti-union?

There has to be some core values involved in the endorsement, or it's meaningless.

Anonymous said...

Eric Kirk said...
How about if the candidate is anti-union?

Jim Smith from the Labor Council made an impassioned speech about Estelle's core Values and service to her community. And then went on to say that Estelle had been endorsed by the Central Labor Council the night before.

Eric Kirk said...

So what was the vote total for the HCDCC? Can we have the names of those who voted and how, or is that secret information?

Were there any dissenters in the votes for Cheryl Seidner and Mark Lovelace?

samoasoftball said...

Erik: Mark Lovelace was unanimous pick. Cheryl was not present at either meeting and only Sid Berg dissented due to her not being present and wanted to hear her platform. (I agree with Cheryl being endorsed as she was the only Democrat to step forward.)

No secret ballott. The meeting was public. People on the HCDCC that voted against endorsement of Estelle were: Mel Kreb (As proxy for Charlene Ploss) Phillis Seawright, Milt Boyd, Mike Winkler, Chuck Harvey, Bob and Pam Service, Chris Beresford, Barbara Kennedy, Julie Timmons and Linda Atkins proxy.

Sad. Estelle should have had this endorsement. But some of the above had sent money to Cliff's campaign. Kind of strange.

Eric Kirk said...

And who voted for the endorsement?

I don't know who's on the committee, so I can't use the process of elimination.

Eric Kirk said...

This isn't the first time this kind of thing has come up. I remember there was some contention between supporters of Paul Gallegos and Allison Jackson the last time around.

And there was apparently, at one point, an endorsement of someone not in the Party - which apparently violates Party rules. I for one think it's a silly rule as the endorsement shouldn't be just about promoting Democrats, but about candidates who represent the core values. I'm not saying that means that Clif should be endorsed, or whether that other endorsement was appropriate ( I don't even remember who it was). I'm just saying that I think that rule is a bit rigid when you're talking about a non-partisan position.

There is also a good argument that the committees should stay out of endorsing for non-partisan positions anyway, especially where party difference really doesn't make a difference in policy (Assessor, etc.).

Anonymous said...

Too funny for words. the list of folks voting is the list of the folks running around this community knowing they are superior than everyone else ---in their own minds. Does it really matter what they think?

What does matter to me is that Estelle is who she says she is: someone that cares for the County, and the people in it. Cliff can't do anything for himself except for maybe prune apple trees; which in and of itself is not bad, except he does not and has not yet accepted that if his family were to try and start up the business he is so proud of now it could not happen because of all of the new and needless rules he and his Master Puppeteers (Marky et al) have voted for.

Cliff is a deer caught in headlights; Estelle is a very capable, strong woman who is true to her word. VOTE ESTELLE!!!!

Anonymous said...

You might at least spell Clif's name right.

Anonymous said...

Clif is doing a fine job and his son is doing a great job running the family business. Just because someone is a democrat or lifelong democrat does not make an endorsement. Estelle was a paid lobbyist for a special interest group that now has 2 lawsuits against the county. She is funded by the same special interests that are backing Rex and Karen.

Please support Lovelace, Clendenen and Seidner.

Brian Connors said...

Anonymous @ 7:45 PM; Wasn't Mark Lovelace a "paid lobbyist"? Please name the " the same special interests" that are backing Estelle, Rex and Karen?

Betty Foster said...

Okay Richard, I'll bite!  My questions may not be relevant to a candidate for this committee, but it will help me understand your overall positions much better.  Thanks for offering a forum!

1.  I've read about some big plans to develop our port into a major transit hub for chinese trade.  Do you think our bay will become a major destination for international trade?  Will fishing, recreation, oyster industry be able to coexist?

2.  Where do you stand on the Marina Center project?  (sorry, had to ask!)  Do you side with those whom argue that the Coastal Commission should back off, do you believe that the Commission is too powerful and overbearing?  Waterfront drive was in the T-S this morning, and it appears the Council may challenge the CCC too.  Sorry for the rambling question, but I'm curious to your position on the Environmental protection groups development standards, and whether or not they are fair to those in the development industry.

3.  I remember at one time the Council was considering a big box ordinance for Eureka, which would apply to any new business looking to develop a very large warehouse type store.  I believe it was something like 250,000 sq ft or more in proposed retail space would require a CUP.  Would you support this or a similar requirement for these large scale developments?

4.  I would like your opinion on Occupy's right to protest.  Should they be allowed to express their right to protest during all hours at the courthouse grounds?  Do you agree with the Supervisors actions?

5.  I am also curious to your position on the whole TPZ debate.  Should the County allow residences unconditionally on TPZ zoned property?  If not so, your conditions would be _____.

Thanks Richard!

Betty Foster

Anonymous said...

So when faced with a real estate lobbyist, the committee "decided to not endorse the only Democrat running in the 2nd District Supervisor race."

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

samoasoftball said...

Betty: Without going to far in depth, I will bite.
1. I have been vocal and public with my dismay at raw resource extraction from Humboldt County. The shipment of logs to Asia is not forward "value added" thinking. We need finished products being produced for shipping. Like Lumber, particleboard, waferboard and other wood products. We would want to make sure that any shipping and aquaculture could co-exist safely.
2. I am in agreement with both sides. We need environmental clean up. To what standard? Any would be good right now. I have been vocal about my concerns of a Home Depot, but that is another story. I would like to see a Big League Dream franchise there on the balloon tract.
3. I am not a fan of big box stores, but I am not really in favor of an ordinance. Don't shop there is the answer.
4. I am all for the Occupy's right to protest. Not all hours though. And please don't block the pathways. Or poop out in the open. Or intimidate workers and people doing business. Not so sure this should have went to the Supes. Their action was due to experience first hand, so I won't judge them.
5. TPZ. Nope. My answer on conditions would be long and convoluted.

Betty Foster said...

Thanks Richard. I understand and respect your comments on exporting raw materials. What about importing, in particular these rumors of a large scale port that would compete with Oakland, Long Beach, etc? Is it possible to develop our bay into a major transportation hub while simultaneously balancing our sensitive bay ecosystem?

Anonymous said...

Without the infrastructure like the rail and big container ships, not going to happen.