Oprah Winfrey decided that 24 years was enough and announced last week that she’s ending her popular talk show.
Meanwhile, another 24-year incumbent may have to be shoved out the door kicking and screaming by an electorate that has already put up with way more than enough of her shit.
Word around town is that the Bon Bon has few illusions about her chances in next year’s election and is trying desperately to line up an exit strategy.
Will there be peace with honor? Will she land one of the meaningless political appointments at the state she’s currently groveling for? Or will she find, as so many before her have, that friends and allies are two very different things?
One way or the other, we think it’s time to say goodbye.
Frankly, we’re perplexed.
First this, from a recent Times-Standard article:
Shortly after being term-limited out of the Assembly, [Patty] Berg announced she was pondering a run to be the state’s insurance commissioner, the elected official who oversees the California Department of Insurance, the state’s largest consumer protection agency. Monday, she also said she will not pursue that post, and has decided to throw her support behind Dave Jones.
But not so quick, Davey Jones! Because today finds the non-candidate’s none-too-flattering mugshot on the cover of the San Francisco Chronicle, no less, alongside a photo of Michela Alioto-Pier, the San Francisco Supervisor who is “running for insurance commissioner against former Assemblywoman Patty Berg of Humboldt County.”
Is this shoddy reporting, or just another example of a local pol who doesn’t know when to quit?
We’re leaning toward the latter. By June of this year, the Patty Berg for Insurance Commissioner 2010 committee had raised $102,630–nowhere near enough to mount a statewide campaign, but enough to suggest she might be dumb enough to try.
Besides, if she’s not running, what’d she do with all that dough?
ElectionTrack reports that despite the aggressive fundraising, as of June Berg had on hand a paltry $3,449.
That is the question.LAME UPDATE: Richard Marks has more over at Samoa Softball.
A Marina Center story in Saturday’s Times-Standard elicited this response regarding another local item on the California Coastal Commission’s December agenda. The agenda itself is here and the staff report on the item in question is here. Enjoy!
Notwithstanding the controversy regarding the Balloon Track, you may not be aware of a more egregious abuse of power by the Coastal Commission. If you look at the Commission’s Dec. 10 agenda you will note that there is also an appeal filed on the Eureka City Council’s action to approve a coastal development permit for Robert Colburn to construct an industrial warehouse on Washington Street. The site is industrial and has been for decades; it has an existing warehouse and the property owner just wants to build another warehouse behind the existing one of about the same size (congrats to the property owner if he can afford to grow his business in these hard economic times). The City’s approval of the coastal development permit was appealed by two Coastal Commissioners. There were no appeals filed by local persons or groups (no, not even Baykeeper, EPIC or NEC), there was no controversy and no press.
Why would the Coastal Commission take issue with the City Council’s approval of the coastal development permit? Because the property is adjacent to the Clark Slough and the warehouse would not be 100 feet away from the slough. ONE HUNDRED FEET! Give me a break! Just exactly where is the industrial growth supposed to happen if it cannot be on existing industrial property in the industrial area of the city?
And, do you want to know the kicker? I can’t even explain it properly, but I’ll try… Because Phase 1 of Marina Center will improve the aquatic habitat of the slough, it must be protected from encroachment by this industrial development… but, hey, isn’t that the SAME Phase 1 project that the Coastal Commission appealed to itself because (among other things) it didn’t do enough to protect the wetlands??? The Colburn project had a biological analysis done by local qualified professionals that included conditions for protection of the Clark Slough and improvements to the existing surface drainage on the industrial property. But that wasn’t good enough. Colburn can’t build a warehouse because it is too close to the Clark Slough which will be improved by Phase 1 of Marina Center but Phase 1 isn’t good enough which means Clark Slough may never be improved which means that the basis for the appeal of the warehouse is bogus!
Filed under: Humboldt County | Tagged: Balloon Track, California Coastal Commission, city of Eureka, Clark Slough, EPIC, Humboldt Paykeeper, Marina Center, Northcoast Environmental Center, Robert Colburn | 20 Comments »
Within 24 hours of the filing of the last of three appeals challenging the city of Eureka’s approval of the Balloon Track interim cleanup plan, the California Coastal Commission published a surprisingly thorough 82-page legal and environmental analysis of the plan, along with the expected recommendation that the appeals be heard.
You don’t think maybe the commission got some kind of head start on that, do you?
Even if one appellant was the commission’s lawyer for 20 years.
Or if the commission’s chair previously gave the appellant a job.
Or the appellant’s daughter is a commission staffer.
Or another appellant employs the first appellant.
Or two other appellants are current commissioners.
Or the commission’s executive director is a personal friend of the man whose business would be most affected by the Marina Center development.
No, those factors just make their achievement that much more impressive: It’s amazing they get anything done with that massive circle jerk they’ve got going.
Filed under: Humboldt County | Tagged: Bill Pierson, California Coastal Commission, EPIC, Humboldt Paykeeper, James Baskin, Marina Center, Mark Stone, Northcoast Environmental Center, Pete Nichols, Peter Douglas, Ralph Faust, Randy Gans, Rob Arkley, Ross Mirkarimi | 52 Comments »