Times-Standard MY WORD Editorial - 01/18/06
Who sets the agenda on 'Balloon Tract' future?
by Dennis Huber of Local Solutions
With all the emerging perspectives about the future of Eureka's “Balloon
Tract,” it seems appropriate to look at one aspect of this
equation that has generally been glossed over, and that is Union
Pacific's role and responsibility as owner of this key commercial
real estate on the waterfront in Eureka.
In both the Leo Sears piece in the Times-Standard, and in the “Questions
for Cherie Arkley” article in the North Coast Journal, while
it is acknowledged that the property is seriously contaminated, it
is apparently accepted by both Leo and Cherie that the folks responsible
for such extensive toxic damage are somehow free from the ultimate
responsibility of rectifying this condition.
What is the logic that drives such assumptions? Why is a “$57
billion corporation” able to operate with such impunity? And
why is our community forced to accept such reluctance on the part
of a neighbor who has benefited from doing business here? If this
was a toxic condition that resulted from a meth lab, would we say
don't bother to clean up, the community will take responsibility
for your mess? Or maybe, if you would just clean up a little, we
will figure out a way to use the property in some restricted way.
Why would we consider excusing such a large corporation from the
very same standards to which we hold each other?
It is this willingness to excuse entities having vast economic resources
that ends up pitting citizens against each other. We need to file
suit against such corporations for their refusal to use safe business
practices, and simultaneously initiate eminent domain proceedings
against them in order to gain control of such a critical part of
our core commercial area. Does Union Pacific get a free 30-year pass
from acting as a responsible entity in the community simply because
we are afraid of their economic strength? Do we tell our children
and grandchildren that the toxicity of their downtown area is an
acceptable trade-off for having been “blessed” with
the presence of large corporations? And what is the real difference between “capping” the
toxic condition so that the property can be used for retail development,
and cleaning the site so that future generations can choose to use it
in whatever way best suits the needs of the community? Whose studies
are telling us that the community should accept such conditions? What
assurances are there that this “capping” will guarantee
that there will not be continuing toxic conditions that can migrate
into the nearby bay waters?
The Arkleys' willingness to take on the development of the property,
which has sat unused for decades, must be appreciated. We cannot afford,
however, to make short-sighted decisions about how we design the future
of our community. Real progress must reflect the courage and vision that
builds a healthy economic foundation for the people of Humboldt County
as far into the future as can be seen.
So to answer Leo's question, “whatever happened to private enterprise?” We
would have to accept that we, the citizens of Humboldt County, in
this instance, have indeed been subsidizing Union Pacific for decades,
both by taxing the property at the lowest possible rates, and allowing
them to contaminate the site and hold us hostage to the terms of
sale that prevent us from using the property in ways that are the
most beneficial for our community.
We are put at much greater risk by the attitudes and practices of such
private enterprise behavior than we will ever be by the poor and indigent
citizens who require the support of facilities like the Rescue Mission.
Dennis Huber, a Eureka native, is a woodworking artist and co-founder
of Local Solutions. He lives in Briceland.
Back to In The News
Donate TODAY
for a progressive future in Humboldt County!
