UPDATED: Tuesday, August 21, 2007

This web site is an attempt to give community residents the much needed basic information to form a decision on the massive retail development on the Eureka Balloon Track.

Security National Corporation is asking the city for a key zone change on Eureka's largest vacant piece of waterfront land. We need to ask the city to move cautiously before committing to the first project that comes along. All potential uses for the site should be identified with a truly independent study. The only hurry is for the developer, to lock us inextricably into his vision.

It's imperative that we, as a community, get this right. Not only for us but for future generations as well.

Imagine the Possibilities
Are you thinking of the future of the Balloon Tract?

MARK YOUR CALENDAR to join Citizens for Real Economic Growth (CREG) on the evening of October 13.

We will present alternative visions—including architectural drawings— for Eureka’s public trust property containing the Balloon Tract.
Speakers, visual aids, and a slideshow will demonstrate what other visionary cities have done with their Balloon Tracts & Waterfronts.
Most importantly, a clear path to achieving alternatives will be presented.

OCTOBER 13, 2006
WHARFINGER BUILDING
5:45pm reception
6:30pm presentation
Seating is limited.

Looking forward to seeing you there!

FOR MORE INFORMATION: 267-8878
EMAIL: info@saveeurekawaterfront.org
www.SaveEurekaWaterfront.org there is a better way…

Watch CREG’s new TV ad >

Citizens for Real Economic Growth is a new voice entering the fray surrounding the controversial development of the Balloon track. CREG’s new TV ad urges adults and corporations to practice what we teach our children, “Clean up your own mess."

The Spot debuted last night during the KIEM Channel 3 News at 11p.m and goes into full rotation this weekend. Citizens for Real Economic Growth, a local non- profit, produced the ad in response to the efforts of Security National Corporation to engineer public support for a Big Box retail mall, the corporation has proposed for this prime, publicly zoned waterfront site.

The balloon track property is currently owned by Union Pacific and is considered to be contaminated by a number of toxic chemicals. Neither Union Pacific nor Security National has been willing to fully clean the site, advocating for a system of covering the site by "capping" it, instead.

The Eureka City Counsel, led by Jeff Leonard, turned down a 50,000.00 grant to fund a public study of the highest best use for the land in October of 2004, after having twice previously voted unanimously to approve just such a study. Last night’s news cast covered a town hall meeting called by Mr. Leonard to garner approval for the Big Box development.

Instead, according to the Broadcast, Leonard heard numerous citizens complaints concerning his role in turning down the grant and public participation as well as demanding a full clean up. The 30-second advertisement titled HAPPY TIME, is set in a day care where children have made a mess. When asked to clean it up they tell the teacher, "It’s too hard I’m just going to cover it up”. When the teachers tells them, "Clean it up , so someone else can play here tomorrow", the kids answer, “Nu uh! I’m just going to put a big box on it.”

The Balloon track was first acquired by what is now Union Pacific Rail Road in a 1884 eminent domain action. After filling what was at that time a tidal marsh, they built a C shaped track as a turn around location. It was the giant circle of the track, resembling a balloon that gave the parcel its popular name. The spot ends with a request to " sign the petition at www.SaveEurekaWaterfront.org ".

City of Eureka is holding a scoping session to take public comment on the Marina Center project as part of the environmental review process.
April 13, 4 to 7 p.m.
City Hall
531 K Street
Comments on the range of actions, alternatives, environmental effects, methods of assessment, and mitigation measures may also be submitted in writing to Sidnie L. Olson, AICP, Senior Planner, Community Development Department, 531 K Street, Eureka, CA 95501 or at solson@ci.eureka.ca.gov.

What are other cities doing with their railyards?
You might be surprised. Hanks Simms of the North Coast Journal did a little research to find out. Read all about in this weeks JOURNAL.

NEW GROUP TO SEEK ALTERNATIVES TO WATERFRONT BIG BOX MALL Public Workshop Series Planned

A new group calling themselves Citizens for Real Economic Growth (CREG) has declared their goal of ensuring a full range of options for the future of the Balloon Tract in Eureka. According to local business owner and group spokesperson Larry Glass, “We believe the choices for future economic development in our community should not be limited, curtailed or dictated by past use. There needs to be more than Big Box or Blight”. Glass added that, “It is not acceptable for an irresponsible corporate giant like Union Pacific to dump their toxic costs of doing business, contaminate the soil and water, then skip out when the bill comes due.”

CREG lists their other goals as achieving a superior alternative to a status quo-Big Box economy in Eureka and Humboldt County and to determine the highest and best use of the waterfront for all our citizens. “We are a group of everyday citizens who see a dangerous threat to our local business community from gigantic corporate bullies known for their tactics of crushing small entrepreneurs and eliminating choice in the market” said Glass. “We think there’s a better way to provide good jobs without handing over control of our future to wealthy elitists”

To kick off their “Campaign for True Prosperity”, the group is planning a five-part series of public workshops. The first meeting will present a survey of the environmental review process required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which is the required first step to enact a zoning change on this property. This workshop will include specifics about planning procedures for the City of Eureka and the California Coastal Commission, as well as how citizens can get involved during the process. This will be one of the few opportunities afforded the public to address these critical issues. Other workshops being planned will focus on specific environmental issues, Big Box Economics and, a Citizens Forum for Waterfront Futures. The series is expected to culminate with a “Rally for Real Opportunity.” Glass said to look for an announcement in the next week as to the time and location of the first workshop.

“We will be having experts from the university, government and citizens advocacy groups to present the facts, answer questions and provide advice for citizens interested in getting active in planning our future,” explained Glass. “This is the kind of practical empowerment that can help us all understand the nuts and bolts of how our great democracy operates so we can have a healthy, productive debate in the community rather than a cynical, self-serving power grab that pits us against each other.”

Glass summed up by saying, “We encourage everyone in the community to join us in forging our vision for Real Economic Growth!" Folks can sign-on as a supporter by visiting our web site: SaveEurekaWaterfront.org

CONTACT: Larry Glass, Eureka, CA, 442-8121
Citizens for Real Economic Growth post office box 738 Eureka, Ca. 95502 (California non-profit corporation # 1937861)

Blown Off Course
North Coast Journal 11/4/2004
by HANK SIMS

IT WAS EXPECTED TO BE A ROUTINE BIT OF BUSINESS FOR THE EUREKA CITY COUNCIL. At the council's meeting on Oct. 5, city staff were prepared to hire a consultant to help them develop a master plan for the most valuable piece of vacant land in the city limits -- the so-called "Balloon Track," a 34-acre plot on the western edge of Old Town, with frontage on Broadway and Waterfront Drive. The parcel, an old rail yard owned by Union Pacific, became the focus of intense controversy five years ago when Wal-Mart proposed to build a store on it.

The money for the master plan -- which was intended as a public effort to determine the future of the property -- was already in place. In November 2003, the county board that oversees the Headwaters Fund awarded the city a $45,000 grant to help fund it. The city was prepared to match that amount with $55,000 from its Redevelopment Agency. The feeling was that it would be money well spent. Even Eureka resident Aldo Bongio, a strident critic of government spending who spoke at the Oct. 5 meeting, said that it "isn't really a big amount."

But suddenly, Councilmember Jeff Leonard [photo below left] didn't agree. Despite the fact that the plan had been standing city policy for almost a year, re-confirmed by unanimous vote as recently as the previous meeting on Sept. 21, and despite the hundreds of hours of staff time spent writing grant applications and interviewing prospective consulting firms, Leonard had experienced a change of heart.

"With all apologies to council and staff, I'm not willing to go any farther forward down this particular road," he said. "A hundred thousand dollars is actually, in my mind, a lot to pay for a study."

Leonard said that unlike in other cases when the city had partnered with private interests, Union Pacific showed no interest in working on the master plan.

"Until I see someone out in the community who really thinks this study needs to be done to help them get this piece of property developed, I personally don't think we should go forward," he said.

With these concerns in mind, Leonard made a motion to put off hiring the consultant city staff had picked to lead the work on the plan. Councilmember Mike Jones quickly seconded Leonard's motion, and a vote was taken. With Councilmember Virginia Bass-Jackson's support, the contract with the consultant was delayed, for the time being.

Debate on whether to kill the study completely was scheduled for the next meeting on Oct. 19. In the meantime, Union Pacific had written the city to say that the company was in negotiations to sell the parcel to a developer, and the developer had made it known that he didn't want the city to do a master plan. He would prefer to do the plan on his own. If the city were to go forward, the letter implied, it could derail the deal. With the letter in hand, the council voted 4-1, with only Councilmember Chris Kerrigan dissenting, to send the Headwaters grant back and abandon the project.

A week after the vote was taken, Kerrigan was still reeling from the inexplicable reversal of the council's long-held position on the plan. "It was probably one of the most shocking incidents I've seen in my time on the City Council," he said. "It was, in my opinion, really, really unfortunate."

Deal in the works

The Balloon Track master plan had died, but one question remained: Why had Leonard, along with two of his fellow council members, changed his mind before the Oct. 5 meeting, before the city had received the letter from Union Pacific? What had changed?

In an interview last week, Leonard explained. Sometime in September, he said, he became aware that the property was close to changing hands. And he became aware the buyer would be Rob Arkley [photo below right] , the multimillionaire owner of Eureka's Security National Servicing Corp. who has, in recent years, taken a great interest in development in the city. And Leonard knew that Arkley wanted the Balloon Track master plan killed.

Reached at his office Monday, Arkley confirmed this. He spoke of the duplicity of local government spending $100,000 on a study at the same time it was asking voters to pass Measure L, a 1 percent sales tax increase. He reaffirmed his ideological commitment to private property rights, putting his position in the bluntest possible terms.

"If you're me, do you really care what the city thinks?" he said. "I don't want to have an alternate plan out there because it might not be what I want."

History of conflict

City Manager Dave Tyson [photo below left] said he took the change in stride. City staff members are there to carry out the will of the council, he said. If the council abandons one policy in favor of another, the staff switches gears along with it.

Regardless of council strategy, Tyson said, it is hard to overstate the importance of the parcel when considering the future of Eureka.

"It's a fairly significant piece of property for our community," he said. "It's largely a gateway for the Old Town/downtown area, and for our harbor."

Currently home to nothing more than weeds, rusted railroad cars and toxic waste, the Balloon Track was once a vital part of the city's infrastructure. It was the main yard for the Northwestern Pacific, the rail line that linked Humboldt County with the San Francisco Bay Area. Petroleum companies used the site to cache their automobile and diesel fuel until it could be sold to customers. But with the slow, steady demise of the railroad, along with serious problems with groundwater contamination, the property became less and less useful over the years. Eventually, it was almost completely abandoned.

The parcel sprang back into the forefront of public consciousness when Union Pacific proposed to sell it to agents representing Wal-Mart. In meetings with members of the City Council at the time, the company made it known that it wished to put one of its mega-stores on the site. According to Tyson, the majority of council members were tepid.

Instead of going through normal channels, where the company was looking at a potential defeat on the City Council level, Wal-Mart and its proponents decided to put the issue directly to the city's voters. They sponsored a ballot initiative -- Measure J -- that would have given the retailer the right to build on the site through a rezoning. A bitter campaign ensued, with the company backing an expensive, heavy-handed campaign to promote the initiative. Some residents, concerned about the company's negative effect of the local economy and claiming that Wal-Mart would be a poor use of a prime piece of real estate, formed an opposition group. When the issue came to a head at a special election in August 1999, Wal-Mart was defeated by a wide margin, 61 to 39 percent.

As Tyson noted, lifelong friendships were severed over the issue. The public was bitterly divided, each side suspicious of the other's motives. It was at that point, Tyson said, that the city decided it should be more forward-looking when it came to future development on the site.

"The master plan has been on our list of things to do probably since the Wal-Mart issue, the Measure J issue, back in the late `90s," he said. "Since that time, it's been the feeling of the city and many people in the city, residents here, that we ought to look at master-planning that site. In that process, we would look at what types of uses would the community want to see on that site. Would we want manufacturing, would we want more service/commercial -- retail. Do we want light industrial? Do we want parks? What do we want?"

The master plan was supposed to find the answers. City government holds what Tyson called the "trump card" over future development on the Balloon Track, as it does on all property in its jurisdiction, through its ability to zone properties for different types of development. The Balloon Track is currently zoned for "public" use, meaning that only public facilities such as schools and other types of government buildings can be placed there.

The master plan -- which would have functioned as a miniature version of the city's General Plan -- would have studied physical impediments to development, such as water and soil toxicity and protected wetlands, as well as impacts on the area's traffic. But it also would have listed what specific types of development the community wanted to see on the site. The zoning will have to be changed from its current "public" status if any new, private development is to occur at the site -- the master plan would have recommended what to change it to, after an extensive public outreach effort gathered enough community input on the recommendation.

The way Tyson understood it, that would have protected the community, but it would have protected the developer, too. If the public were to endorse a vision for the site, it would make it difficult for that same public to oppose a project that conformed to the recommendations.

"That's largely why we were thinking it was a good idea," he said. "We were looking at it as a defense mechanism, so we wouldn't have to go through this public process that was very divisive. Had there been this process in place, then we probably wouldn't have had the type of Wal-Mart fight in the community."

Waste of money?

Last week, Leonard recounted how he had come to change his mind about the wisdom of continuing with the Balloon Track master plan. A few months ago, when the county's various political factions were embroiled in the fight over the county's general plan update, a controversial article appeared in the Times-Standard. It told of a new study by the Workforce Investment Board that called the idea that young people were leaving the county in mass numbers -- a central tenet of those who sought to accelerate development -- a "myth."

By Leonard's account, the article had so upset Arkley and his colleagues that they called a meeting of some of the county's movers and shakers at Security National's headquarters on Fifth Street. Leonard was among the invitees.

"We ended up just talking about jobs and economic development -- the whole nine yards," he recalled. "During that meeting, I think, Rob said, `Well I'm going to be buying the Balloon Track soon. We've almost finished the deal,' or something along those lines. I think that's the first time I actually heard it from him, that in fact he was going to buy it.

"At some other point, the comment [from Arkley] came out, `What's the city doing with this Balloon Track master plan? It's a private piece of property! It's going to get privately developed. What are you guys doing spending a bunch of money on it? It's wasted money.' And then that launched into, `Here's what the Headwaters Fund ought to do...'

"At that point, I certainly knew -- OK, he's looking at buying it. He's not going to want to participate with this stage of the process. He has said on many occasions, `I don't use redevelopment money, I don't use economic development money.' OK -- he doesn't have to. So, again, it just seemed to me like, `How come we're taking Headwaters money and redevelopment money to put together a study that the person who has the property isn't going to use? It doesn't do us any good.'

Leonard said that he always felt that the primary purpose of the master plan would be to get developers interested in the site. If the community could put forward uses of the property that it would find acceptable, potential developers would have some assurance that they could build at the site without inspiring a WalMart-style battle in the community. But if Arkley was close to closing escrow on the property, Leonard said, perhaps the city could find better uses for its money than pre-determining what Arkley could build.

"I'm not going to say that that master plan wouldn't have helped in that decision -- it might have helped," he said. "Would it have been $100,000 worth of help? No. I don't think so. I don't know if it's worth $100,000, given the way the situation has developed in the meantime."

The next 'big fight'?

Minus the master plan, the Balloon Track project will go forward like any other. Assuming Arkley's deal with Union Pacific goes through, he will put forth a proposal to the city's Planning Commission and then to the City Council. (Because the property lies near the bay, it will also have to be approved by the California Coastal Commission.) At every point the public will have the opportunity to offer comment and critique, as Leonard takes pains to emphasize. At the city level, council members will give their thumbs-up or thumbs-down to the project.

What won't happen is a preemptive community dialogue aimed at reaching consensus before it goes before the decision-makers. Mayor Peter La Vallee -- who, like everyone on the council, said that he is eager to see the property developed -- sees the "potential for another public explosion," along the lines of the WalMart debate, which made national headlines for its rancor and bitterness.

"Rob has been interested in that property, and I think that's wonderful," he said. "But the issue is, are we going to have a public, forward-thinking debate on this, or are we going to have a big fight like last time?"

If such a fight were to break out, Arkley would certainly have the advantage going in. In recent years, he has demonstrated a willingness to go to the mat for his ideas. He spent over half a million dollars this election season in an effort to unseat North Dakota Senator Tom Daschle, the leader of the Congress's Democratic minority. He and his family have given over $100,000 to the Republican National Committee and George Bush's campaign. Locally, he put his weight behind DA Paul Gallegos and started his own newspaper, the Eureka Reporter, because he disapproved of the Times-Standard's coverage. (On Monday, he disclaimed any knowledge of the mysterious "Eureka Coalition for Jobs," which flooded the airwaves and local mailboxes with anti-Kerrigan ads over the weekend.) He is not an ordinary developer.

For his part, Arkley declined to specify what sort of plans he had for the site, except to say that it would be something that would benefit the area's economic development and would assist in the effort to provide local opportunities for the area's high-school graduates. He said that these were the same motivations that prompted him, in 2000, to offer to donate up to $3 million to the city in order to finance a public buyout of the property. (The city turned down the offer, citing the unknown costs of toxic clean-up at the site.)

In the event that anyone has any plans to bring the Balloon Track master plan back, Arkley wished to disabuse them of that folly.

"I'm not willing to sit at the table with anybody until I decide what to do with the land," he said. "If they think that taxpayer money is well spent doing that, they should think again."

BACK TO TOP


"FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our effort to provide for a more informed citizenry in our effort advance issues of civic and corporate responsibility. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner."