Protect the Humboldt brand
Richard Salzman/For the Times-Standard
05/15/2009
Governor Schwarzenegger said he is open to hearing the debate on legalizing marijuana for adults, and Assemblyman Tom Ammiano has a bill (AB 390) pending before the California Legislature to do just that.
There will certainly be much debate here in Humboldt around this issue, particularly on its effects on our local economy. If and when legalization comes, the best-case economic scenario for local growers and our local economy may be a model similar to that of the wine industry, where there is a market for small-scale operations to compete with larger commercial growers, based on vintage and variety.
Knowing that such a market is even a possibility should motivate our elected officials to act now to protect the Humboldt name or brand, in the way that the name Champagne is protected, and not to let the name fall into the public domain or to take on a generic meaning. In Europe and elsewhere, for a product to be called Champagne, the wine must come from that region of France -- and this distinction is protected by international laws and treaties going back as far the 1891. There is also the “Protected Designation of Origin” (PDO), as defined in European Union law and recognized in other countries, to protect the names of regional foods. That law from 1992 ensures that only products genuinely originating in a region are allowed in commerce as such.
A more recent example, but without the legal teeth, is Napa's “Declaration on Place,” which
is essentially an agreement among winegrowers internationally, similar in scope to the PDO.
I hope our county supervisors and state and federal representatives will explore our options to protect the Humboldt name -- as others are already planning to profit, by having trademarked variation on the name Humboldt, and we should limit its use to products actually produced in Humboldt County.
Richard Salzman
Arcata, CA.
http://www.times-standard.com/othervoices/ci_12376676
Friday, May 15, 2009
Thursday, April 13, 2006
HELP is of no help to Humboldt [TS My Word]
HELP is of no help to Humboldt
4/13/2006
My Word by Richard Salzman
Eureka Times Standard
In response to Kay Backer's My Word of March 22, Getting Humboldt leaders to lead: Kay Backer is a paid professional spin doctor from Sacramento. Hired by local developers, she is paid to badger county government and bamboozle the public. She feigns concern for our families by shedding crocodile tears about so-called affordable housing here in Humboldt County.
It's ridiculous that Kay Backer is even treated as a legitimate voice in our local affairs just because Rob Arkley and HELP summon her to town for a meeting, or to send off an e-mail full of accusations and threats to the media. She represents nothing other than a handful of developers. Are there even five people who will admit to being a member of HELP?
It's absurd that those who pay her (they call themselves HELP but really should be called HELP-Yourself) are implying that the reason they want to build more houses is because they want to see home values drop. When has any developer ever wanted to see any housing prices drop? Do you want to see the value of your home decline?
In the Sacramento area, where Ms. Backer lives, homes are being built at an astounding rate. Strangely enough, housing prices there are still shooting up and now routinely cost about half a million dollars. Is that what Ms. Backer's backers have in mind as affordable housing?
Now Rob Arkley is threatening to use his money to sue the county unless planning officials buy into HELP's fabricated projections of housing needs. Isn't that called blackmail?
I have no objection to developers making money off constructing houses. But it's an outrage to be told that the reason they want permission to build more -- and forever change the essentially rural character of Humboldt County -- has anything to do with stopping people from moving out of town, lowering home prices or anything other than their search for higher profits.
Where will Kay Backer's concern for our community be the day after her paychecks stop coming in? Will she still be shouting HELP or just go on to her next lucrative public relations campaign?
4/13/2006
My Word by Richard Salzman
Eureka Times Standard
In response to Kay Backer's My Word of March 22, Getting Humboldt leaders to lead: Kay Backer is a paid professional spin doctor from Sacramento. Hired by local developers, she is paid to badger county government and bamboozle the public. She feigns concern for our families by shedding crocodile tears about so-called affordable housing here in Humboldt County.
It's ridiculous that Kay Backer is even treated as a legitimate voice in our local affairs just because Rob Arkley and HELP summon her to town for a meeting, or to send off an e-mail full of accusations and threats to the media. She represents nothing other than a handful of developers. Are there even five people who will admit to being a member of HELP?
It's absurd that those who pay her (they call themselves HELP but really should be called HELP-Yourself) are implying that the reason they want to build more houses is because they want to see home values drop. When has any developer ever wanted to see any housing prices drop? Do you want to see the value of your home decline?
In the Sacramento area, where Ms. Backer lives, homes are being built at an astounding rate. Strangely enough, housing prices there are still shooting up and now routinely cost about half a million dollars. Is that what Ms. Backer's backers have in mind as affordable housing?
Now Rob Arkley is threatening to use his money to sue the county unless planning officials buy into HELP's fabricated projections of housing needs. Isn't that called blackmail?
I have no objection to developers making money off constructing houses. But it's an outrage to be told that the reason they want permission to build more -- and forever change the essentially rural character of Humboldt County -- has anything to do with stopping people from moving out of town, lowering home prices or anything other than their search for higher profits.
Where will Kay Backer's concern for our community be the day after her paychecks stop coming in? Will she still be shouting HELP or just go on to her next lucrative public relations campaign?
Thursday, January 19, 2006
The big box vs. local entrepreneurs [TS My Word]
The big box vs. local entrepreneurs
My Word by Richard Salzman
Eureka Times Standard
I want to thank my friend Cletus Isbell for furthering the discussion on big-box stores in his My Word of Dec. 23. I do, however, want to respectfully disagree with three points he makes.
First, I disagree that those consumers now comfortably buying items off the Internet (and getting them home-delivered) will switch to the big boxes. Instead, the big box's customers will mainly be those of us who now frequent locally owned and operated brick-and-mortar stores.
The second and third reasons have to do with the intertwined subjects of jobs and taxes, and can perhaps be best illustrated with the example of Home Depot, a timely subject coming before the Eureka City Council in the form of a zoning change request for the Balloon Track. A Home Depot would have a devastating effect on everyone who sells everything from appliances to flooring, hardware to cabinets, lumber to home heating. The list goes on and on (and a Best Buy -- another possibility -- would include everyone in music and home electronics). Since Home Depot now also does installation, work would be snatched from all sorts of contractors and tradespeople, too.
Yes, some driven out of business will be able to get jobs at the Home Depot, but the ripple effect on our community will be devastating. The key difference is that Home Depot spends most of its money with out-of-the-area suppliers -- and sends all of its profits back to corporate headquarters.
Whatever short-term gains there may be in the tax base would pale in comparison to the money drained from our local community. Because whenever a dollar is spent at a locally owned company, it recirculates several times through the local economy. The county has already acknowledged this economic fact of life in a comprehensive study called Prosperity -- The North Coast Strategy? (available at www.northcoastprosperity.com), which the city of Eureka signed onto.
I urge readers to just do a Google search on big box impact? and read any of the myriad studies detailing the disastrous effect these stores can have on the economy of areas with a limited population like ours. Our locally owned and operated small businesses are the lifeblood of what has proved to be a vibrant and resilient local economy, but there are limits to how much more impact we can sustain.
The loss of extraction-industry jobs already has been hard on us, and small businesses are the best hope for living-wage jobs. Yet even those businesses which might survive the initial impact and aren't forced to close down will have to cut back: Cut back on their workforce and downsize their American dream. There is simply not enough business in such a small community to support both the big box and the local entrepreneur.
I don't know that the government could or should stop a big box from coming to town, but business owners, tradespeople and all their customers and neighbors alike ought to tell their elected officials, starting with the Eureka City Council, not to facilitate the process through zoning changes or the rejection of study grants.
My Word by Richard Salzman
Eureka Times Standard
I want to thank my friend Cletus Isbell for furthering the discussion on big-box stores in his My Word of Dec. 23. I do, however, want to respectfully disagree with three points he makes.
First, I disagree that those consumers now comfortably buying items off the Internet (and getting them home-delivered) will switch to the big boxes. Instead, the big box's customers will mainly be those of us who now frequent locally owned and operated brick-and-mortar stores.
The second and third reasons have to do with the intertwined subjects of jobs and taxes, and can perhaps be best illustrated with the example of Home Depot, a timely subject coming before the Eureka City Council in the form of a zoning change request for the Balloon Track. A Home Depot would have a devastating effect on everyone who sells everything from appliances to flooring, hardware to cabinets, lumber to home heating. The list goes on and on (and a Best Buy -- another possibility -- would include everyone in music and home electronics). Since Home Depot now also does installation, work would be snatched from all sorts of contractors and tradespeople, too.
Yes, some driven out of business will be able to get jobs at the Home Depot, but the ripple effect on our community will be devastating. The key difference is that Home Depot spends most of its money with out-of-the-area suppliers -- and sends all of its profits back to corporate headquarters.
Whatever short-term gains there may be in the tax base would pale in comparison to the money drained from our local community. Because whenever a dollar is spent at a locally owned company, it recirculates several times through the local economy. The county has already acknowledged this economic fact of life in a comprehensive study called Prosperity -- The North Coast Strategy? (available at www.northcoastprosperity.com), which the city of Eureka signed onto.
I urge readers to just do a Google search on big box impact? and read any of the myriad studies detailing the disastrous effect these stores can have on the economy of areas with a limited population like ours. Our locally owned and operated small businesses are the lifeblood of what has proved to be a vibrant and resilient local economy, but there are limits to how much more impact we can sustain.
The loss of extraction-industry jobs already has been hard on us, and small businesses are the best hope for living-wage jobs. Yet even those businesses which might survive the initial impact and aren't forced to close down will have to cut back: Cut back on their workforce and downsize their American dream. There is simply not enough business in such a small community to support both the big box and the local entrepreneur.
I don't know that the government could or should stop a big box from coming to town, but business owners, tradespeople and all their customers and neighbors alike ought to tell their elected officials, starting with the Eureka City Council, not to facilitate the process through zoning changes or the rejection of study grants.
Sunday, November 7, 2004
Statements Reflect Number Of People Supporting Gallegos [Eureka Reporter]
Statements Reflect Number Of People Supporting Gallegos [Eureka Reporter]
by Christine Bensen, The Eureka Reporter
January 27, 2004
On Friday, Friends of Paul Gallegos turned in its Jan. 1-17 campaign disclosure statements to the County Elections Office. The Committee to Recall Paul Gallegos missed the deadline, but turned in its information in by Monday afternoon.
In the past 17 days, the recall committee has received no donations; between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31, the committee received $30,973 in monetary contributions and $43,347 in nonmonetary contributions.
Of the $30,973 in monetary contributions, $3,000 came from Steve Wills Truck & Logging and $26,000 from The Pacific Lumber Co. The nonmonetary contributions came entirely from PALCO, with $40,770 going to pay petition signature-gatherers.
Recall committee member Rick Brazeau said he did not know why no donations had been made between Jan. 1-17.
“I just went and picked it up from the account", he said.
Brazeau said the committee is not concerned about the lack of donations during that time.
In the past 17 days, FOPG has received $22,727 monetary contributions and $3,230 in nonmonetary contributions. Of the monetary donations, 40 have been $100 or more and 255 from people donating less than $100.
Between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31, FOPG received $44,617 in monetary contributions and $19,179 in nonmonetary contributions.
“We're just so pleased at people's incredible generosity", said Richard Salzman FOPG campaign manager.
He said people are giving donations ranging from $5 to thousands of dollars and many contributors have contributed at least twice.
Salzman said “it really speaks volumes about how people in the community feel about this attack on democracy."
Although many contributors are Gallegos supporters, he said others are not sure if they support Gallegos, but “sure as hell don't support the recall."
Salzman said he hopes to raise $50,000 in the next week to pay for advertising. He said so far $10,000 has been raised.
He said although comparisons have been made between the amount of contributions FOPG and the recall committee have received, it is difficult to compare the two.
Salzman said all the recall committee has to do is make a call and they can get a check for thousands that day. He said running a "grass-roots campaign" such as FOPG comes with a lot of overhead cost such as installing phone lines and paying utilities at the headquarters.
by Christine Bensen, The Eureka Reporter
January 27, 2004
On Friday, Friends of Paul Gallegos turned in its Jan. 1-17 campaign disclosure statements to the County Elections Office. The Committee to Recall Paul Gallegos missed the deadline, but turned in its information in by Monday afternoon.
In the past 17 days, the recall committee has received no donations; between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31, the committee received $30,973 in monetary contributions and $43,347 in nonmonetary contributions.
Of the $30,973 in monetary contributions, $3,000 came from Steve Wills Truck & Logging and $26,000 from The Pacific Lumber Co. The nonmonetary contributions came entirely from PALCO, with $40,770 going to pay petition signature-gatherers.
Recall committee member Rick Brazeau said he did not know why no donations had been made between Jan. 1-17.
“I just went and picked it up from the account", he said.
Brazeau said the committee is not concerned about the lack of donations during that time.
In the past 17 days, FOPG has received $22,727 monetary contributions and $3,230 in nonmonetary contributions. Of the monetary donations, 40 have been $100 or more and 255 from people donating less than $100.
Between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31, FOPG received $44,617 in monetary contributions and $19,179 in nonmonetary contributions.
“We're just so pleased at people's incredible generosity", said Richard Salzman FOPG campaign manager.
He said people are giving donations ranging from $5 to thousands of dollars and many contributors have contributed at least twice.
Salzman said “it really speaks volumes about how people in the community feel about this attack on democracy."
Although many contributors are Gallegos supporters, he said others are not sure if they support Gallegos, but “sure as hell don't support the recall."
Salzman said he hopes to raise $50,000 in the next week to pay for advertising. He said so far $10,000 has been raised.
He said although comparisons have been made between the amount of contributions FOPG and the recall committee have received, it is difficult to compare the two.
Salzman said all the recall committee has to do is make a call and they can get a check for thousands that day. He said running a "grass-roots campaign" such as FOPG comes with a lot of overhead cost such as installing phone lines and paying utilities at the headquarters.
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Affordable Housing, or Starter Castles [TS My Word]
Affordable Housing, or Starter Castles
Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - Eureka Times-Standard
My Word
by Richard Salzman
As the county updates its General Plan, a small vocal group of developers (HELP) say their Plan H would make housing more affordable in Humboldt. While all proposals deserve careful consideration, the Alliance for Ethical Business finds HELP's claim overly optimistic at best -- and perhaps outright dishonest.
These developers and Realtors want the county to assume a 2 percent annual population growth as an antidote to rising housing costs. Plan H calls this a "conservative" rate of growth -- even though it would quadruple the current county target. What's more, it neglects to mention that all of California has a projected growth rate of only 1.19 percent.
When we look at what 2 percent annual growth would really mean to Humboldt County, can we imagine another 80,000 new residents, stuffed mostly between Rio Dell and Trinidad?
In fact, only 18 of California's 58 counties aim for a growth rate of 2 percent or greater. According to HELP's friends at the California Association of Realtors ( www.car.org these high-growth counties, such as Fresno, Kern and Riverside, also have the fastest-rising housing prices, from 24 to 30 percent in the last year. Meanwhile, slow-growing Marin's home prices increased only 9.4 percent.
Developers in once-rural Sonoma have actively encouraged growth and urban sprawl. The results, aside from notorious traffic congestion? Average home prices now exceed $514,000, up $70,000 in the last year. Greater growth does not automatically lead to affordable housing.
Most authorities agree the California housing market is due to cool off. Mortgage rates are bound to rise as the Fed bumps up the prime-lending rate. Northern California foreclosure rates jumped as much as 26 percent in some counties. And that same California Association of Realtors reports that the statewide Housing Affordability Index dropped to 19 percent in May, its lowest level since 1989. So, depending on your point of view, Humboldt County has reached the top (or bottom) of the housing market crisis.
To grow Humboldt County at anything approaching the rate urged in Plan H, developers would have to keep stoking outside investment -- creating an overheated local housing market. This would cost taxpayers like you and me millions in subsidized infrastructure, while primarily benefiting developers.
Although claiming to be "anti-sprawl," HELP also is demanding that the county set aside more than 40 square miles of what is now prime agricultural or timber production land for housing in the next 20 years. That's an average of almost a full acre per unit for over 18,000 units. What HELP means by affordable housing isn't what the average Humboldter means by affordable -- HELP is more interested in "starter castles" costing a million or more.
Besides, no amount of regulatory reshuffling can alter Humboldt County's geographic isolation or flatten our rugged, earthquake-prone topography to accommodate uncontrolled growth that HELP advocates.
AEB (Alliance for Ethical Business) finds it self-serving, unethical -- and perhaps dishonest -- for HELP to seek an unrealistic, unacceptable level of population growth based on the false claim that it will alleviate Humboldt's current housing crisis. Do we need higher housing costs, increased taxpayer obligations and unwelcome urban sprawl just to fatten the wallets of developers? That's not HELP, that's "help yourself."
Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - Eureka Times-Standard
My Word
by Richard Salzman
As the county updates its General Plan, a small vocal group of developers (HELP) say their Plan H would make housing more affordable in Humboldt. While all proposals deserve careful consideration, the Alliance for Ethical Business finds HELP's claim overly optimistic at best -- and perhaps outright dishonest.
These developers and Realtors want the county to assume a 2 percent annual population growth as an antidote to rising housing costs. Plan H calls this a "conservative" rate of growth -- even though it would quadruple the current county target. What's more, it neglects to mention that all of California has a projected growth rate of only 1.19 percent.
When we look at what 2 percent annual growth would really mean to Humboldt County, can we imagine another 80,000 new residents, stuffed mostly between Rio Dell and Trinidad?
In fact, only 18 of California's 58 counties aim for a growth rate of 2 percent or greater. According to HELP's friends at the California Association of Realtors ( www.car.org these high-growth counties, such as Fresno, Kern and Riverside, also have the fastest-rising housing prices, from 24 to 30 percent in the last year. Meanwhile, slow-growing Marin's home prices increased only 9.4 percent.
Developers in once-rural Sonoma have actively encouraged growth and urban sprawl. The results, aside from notorious traffic congestion? Average home prices now exceed $514,000, up $70,000 in the last year. Greater growth does not automatically lead to affordable housing.
Most authorities agree the California housing market is due to cool off. Mortgage rates are bound to rise as the Fed bumps up the prime-lending rate. Northern California foreclosure rates jumped as much as 26 percent in some counties. And that same California Association of Realtors reports that the statewide Housing Affordability Index dropped to 19 percent in May, its lowest level since 1989. So, depending on your point of view, Humboldt County has reached the top (or bottom) of the housing market crisis.
To grow Humboldt County at anything approaching the rate urged in Plan H, developers would have to keep stoking outside investment -- creating an overheated local housing market. This would cost taxpayers like you and me millions in subsidized infrastructure, while primarily benefiting developers.
Although claiming to be "anti-sprawl," HELP also is demanding that the county set aside more than 40 square miles of what is now prime agricultural or timber production land for housing in the next 20 years. That's an average of almost a full acre per unit for over 18,000 units. What HELP means by affordable housing isn't what the average Humboldter means by affordable -- HELP is more interested in "starter castles" costing a million or more.
Besides, no amount of regulatory reshuffling can alter Humboldt County's geographic isolation or flatten our rugged, earthquake-prone topography to accommodate uncontrolled growth that HELP advocates.
AEB (Alliance for Ethical Business) finds it self-serving, unethical -- and perhaps dishonest -- for HELP to seek an unrealistic, unacceptable level of population growth based on the false claim that it will alleviate Humboldt's current housing crisis. Do we need higher housing costs, increased taxpayer obligations and unwelcome urban sprawl just to fatten the wallets of developers? That's not HELP, that's "help yourself."
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Gallegos recall effort underway [Arcata Eye]
Gallegos recall effort underway
By Daniel Mintz, Eye Staff
March 24, 2004
A campaign to recall recently-elected District Attorney Paul Gallegos is in its embryonic stages, but is quickly mounting as the county's progressive activists rally just as hard to bolster the D.A.'s legal moves against Pacific Lumber Company.
Gallegos' filing of a fraud lawsuit against Pacific Lumber (PL) has triggered a battle of public opinion for and against the suit and its opposing sides. Rumblings of a recall effort began almost as soon as the lawsuit was filed, and Arcata resident Robin Arkley, former owner of Blue Lake Forest Products and a locally well-known political motivator, has announced that a campaign to remove Gallegos has begun and is quickly attracting masses of determined supporters.
Soon after the suit was filed in late February, Arkley offered $5,000 to anyone interested in starting a recall campaign. “I have advanced the money and the recall is underway," he said. “We have a terrific amount of support and I can't believe how fervent the response has been."
Take it back from the hippies'
Arkley said the effort will be helmed by “a very, very good campaign manager" but didn't want to divulge the name yet. He did say that Tom Herman, a former PL forester now practicing law with the Eureka-based Barnum and Herman firm, will be the campaign's legal advisor. Herman was out of town and not available for comment.
The first tangible signs of the recall were evident last weekend, when volunteers began a voter registration drive at a logging conference at Eureka's Redwood Acres Fairground. And those who work for and favor PL are eager to vote and do anything else they can to oust Gallegos, said Arkley, who is certain that recall petition drives will be successful.
“Paul's probably done us a favor," Arkley continued. “We're going to take the county back, and we're going to take it back from the hippies."
He said the lawsuit is bunk, and that's why it has provoked people. “We're finally saying, shit, we've just had it, we're just not going to put up with it anymore and we do intend to take this county back – and that includes all those whackos at HSU [Humboldt State University]."
Gallegos has said the lawsuit has “taken on a life of its own" and it has inflamed the division of opinion on PL that has fermented here for years. The word “outrage" isn't an overstatement in describing reaction to the PL lawsuit, Arkley said. He's sure that the recall campaign will finally magnetize a political force that has been mute until now.
“There is a great, silent, unregistered majority of men and women who work and educate their children, and they have thought that it's futile to vote, but they now know that it's not," said Arkley. “And that's how we're going to do this. We are going to do it, it's for real."
Arkley added that animosity against PL has been tolerated, but now, people “are just sick and tired of it." He portrayed ongoing direct action forest protests as a particularly odious phenomenon, comparing the persistence of tree-sitters to “dogshit on a waffle- sole shoe."
Arkley said he will hire MTC, Inc., an Arcata-based advertising agency that's promoted many high-profile political campaigns, including those for former Humboldt D.A. Terry Farmer (who Gallegos defeated last March), County Supervisor Bonnie Neely, Eureka Councilman Chris Kerrigan, Eureka Mayor Peter LaVallee and the Southern Humboldt Healthcare District's successful parcel tax measure.
Rick Brazeau, MTC's owner, said his firm hasn't been contracted yet, but “if something evolves, I'm interested in being involved because this is an important issue – I, myself, will support it."
And raising money won't be a hard sell, Arkley asserted. “I can tell you this – we're spending a lot of money, because we've got lots of money."
Plugging for Paul
The other side of what has become a community-wide P.R. battle is also mobilizing. Groups have formed and are raising money to aid the lawsuit and sway public support for it.
Gallegos' key election campaign organizer, Richard Salzman, is the coordinator of the Alliance for Ethical Business, a new group that advocates for fair business practices and whose first project will be to hold forums presenting information on the lawsuit. The first is set for April 9 at the Arcata Community Center, and a Eureka forum will follow later that month.
Salzman said that effort, too, is drawing fast and substantial support, and the Alliance is planning a community outreach campaign that will probably involve print and television advertising.
“We feel that Maxxam [PL's parent company] has a powerful P.R. and media influence here," said Salzman, citing the county's daily newspaper and highest-rating TV station as examples. “We're trying to counter-balance that and make sure that the D.A. gets his voice out there he doesn't have a mechanism to do that, so our work is necessary."
Salzman isn't surprised that a recall effort is blossoming, but he thinks it amounts to an attempt to derail justice. And that, he added, demands a response. “This is not a popularity contest, but nine weeks into [Gallegos'] job, Arkley's already threatened to remove Paul from office just because he's making allegations about one of his friends – and just because a company is liked by many people doesn't mean that they're above the law."
The cost of a recall election to the county is a questionable expense, Salzman continued. He estimated that the county will pay $100,000 to send sample ballots to voters. And he predicted that it will fail to accomplish anything because “Paul will win by an even greater margin than he did last November (when Gallegos captured 52 percent of the vote to Farmer's 48 percent).
Southern Humboldt activist Jared Rossman has opened a fundraising account the Citizens Fund for Equal Justice at the Community Credit Union in Garberville, and he said that over $5,000 in donations has been deposited in it. Rossman is researching whether the funds can be given to the D.A.'s Office directly, but he said if that's not legally viable, the money might be used to hire a private law firm to file a “parallel lawsuit."
If that can't be done or isn't feasible, Rossman continued, the money will be returned to donors. Another option is to use it for “ publicity to counter-balance the onslaught of misinformation PL is putting out."
Rossman thinks the recall drive “is very sad, because [Gallegos] has barely hit the ground and people are so tired of the same old business' of the past D.A. – what do we want, a D.A. who's in the deep pockets of folks with money or a D.A. who is independent? I don't think Humboldt County will be fooled."
The need for public interfacing has motivated Gallegos himself. On March 18, he made a presentation on the suit to the county's Democratic Central Committee, which passed a resolution that praises Gallegos' work and “encourages the Board of Supervisors to support the financial needs of his office."
The legal fight
The embattled lawsuit alleges that PL submitted false information on the effects of logging in unstable areas, and then “suppressed" corrected data to facilitate the approvals that led to the 1999 Headwaters Agreement.
The suit argues that PL's “deception" influenced state environmental officials to approve the cutting of an additional 100,000 trees in unstable areas over a 10-year span (to 2010).
An initial public showdown on the lawsuit erupted at the March 11 Board of Supervisors meeting, where throngs of PL employees, subcontractors and supporters lobbied against Gallegos' attempt to enlist the law firm of famed trial attorney Joseph Cotchett. That move requires approval from supervisors.
Some of them were clearly annoyed by the request, but all five expressed doubts, and the contract request failed. A letter from the state Department of Fish and Game refuting the suit's claims was cited by supervisors as a warning flag.
Legal argumentation will focus on how the environmental documents define unstable areas and whether PL's inaccurate study actually influenced approval of additional cutting in them.
Gallegos has alternately been portrayed as a hero and an idiot for filing the suit. It comes as confrontation between PL and tree-sitting activists in Freshwater reach a boiling point. “There hasn't been a week in office when I haven't had to deal with PL issues," Gallegos said wearily.ÂÂ
Some of the emotional reactions to the suit are influencing misperceptions, he continued. And the D.A. said he doesn't think PL's status as a high-volume employer should steer his office's moves.
“People seem to be saying that we either do, or should, have different rules based on wealth. But we have to stand firm on this, because otherwise, our laws will lack integrity and without integrity, we will have cynicism."
There is plenty of evidence to support his office's case, Gallegos added, and he emphasized that he has no regrets about filing the suit. “One the one hand, people complain that it will cost money, but on the other hand, we have PL asking for substantial assistance from law enforcement to pull tree-sitters out and now we're seeing a recall effort that will further divide this community but this office cannot, and will not, be intimidated."
Tim Stoen was picked by Gallegos for the long-vacant assistant D.A. position and is the suit's engineer and lead prosecutor. He will seek monetary damages ($250 million was initially cited) as well as suspension of logging.
He has said that PL is “scared" of facing the suit in court.
Jim Branham, PL's communications director, responds: “Believe me, we're not scared. We are outraged. We're outraged that Mr. Gallegos would file a suit with no merit, a suit that wastes taxpayers' money and doesn't even demonstrate a basic understanding of [environmental approvals]."
Branham said it's likely that Gallegos has put the county in a position of having to defend itself in a counter-suit. “I think it's important that the Board of Supervisors understands that the D.A. can't run around and sue people without a factual or legal basis for it, the county has a vulnerability here. We will consider all our legal options, and they could well include recovering our costs."
Asked about the recall effort, Branham said his company is “watching it with interest." He also said that that “new faces" are surfacing to support PL. “It's like nothing I've ever seen since working for this company," he continued.
The rules of recall
Election law mandates that petition drives for the D.A. recall can't start until April 7. If 15 percent or roughly 11,000 of the county's 74,000 registered voters sign them within a 160-day window, a recall election will be held.
There are two ballot periods, in June and in November. Recall supporters will have to work hard and efficiently to get a recall election on the November ballot.
The recall voting ballot will cite reasons why Gallegos should be removed from office and will also include his answer to those arguments. Votes will be cast for and against a recall, as well as for a candidate or candidates who would replace Gallegos. Arkley said his team will choose a replacement candidate soon.
Political observers have little doubt that the petition drive will succeed, as PL has almost 1,000 employees and draws strong support from the areas of the county where it has operations. Fortuna is one of them.
That city's City Council recently passed a resolution portraying the lawsuit as a waste of taxpayers' money and in a separate action, voted to research the viability of filing a complaint against the D.A.'s suit with the county's Grand Jury.
Fortuna Mayor Mel Berti is the longtime meat department manager at Hoby's Market in Scotia, a PL-owned town that is the company's center of operations and residential hub. He said that over the last five years, he's seen people in Scotia become increasingly uncertain about their future.
“To see what people go through mentally and physically over things like this is astounding," Berti said of the lawsuit. “All five of us on the [Fortuna] Council are standing strong, and the people of this county will stand strong, too. We've had enough of this, it's time to stand up and say, Whoa, we've had enough and we're going to fight."
Berti added that he's part of the recall campaign and will “work with Mr. Arkley and do everything I can ... we are seeing a sleeping giant wake up."
From the lawsuit's outset, Gallegos said he expected political waves to roll against him. Saying he “loves Democracy," the D.A. accepts the likelihood of a recall election as an aspect of it.
“It will be a test, and it will determine what this community is all about," he continued. “There are good people here, and they deserve the best government, not one that only represents the rich and powerful."
By Daniel Mintz, Eye Staff
March 24, 2004
A campaign to recall recently-elected District Attorney Paul Gallegos is in its embryonic stages, but is quickly mounting as the county's progressive activists rally just as hard to bolster the D.A.'s legal moves against Pacific Lumber Company.
Gallegos' filing of a fraud lawsuit against Pacific Lumber (PL) has triggered a battle of public opinion for and against the suit and its opposing sides. Rumblings of a recall effort began almost as soon as the lawsuit was filed, and Arcata resident Robin Arkley, former owner of Blue Lake Forest Products and a locally well-known political motivator, has announced that a campaign to remove Gallegos has begun and is quickly attracting masses of determined supporters.
Soon after the suit was filed in late February, Arkley offered $5,000 to anyone interested in starting a recall campaign. “I have advanced the money and the recall is underway," he said. “We have a terrific amount of support and I can't believe how fervent the response has been."
Take it back from the hippies'
Arkley said the effort will be helmed by “a very, very good campaign manager" but didn't want to divulge the name yet. He did say that Tom Herman, a former PL forester now practicing law with the Eureka-based Barnum and Herman firm, will be the campaign's legal advisor. Herman was out of town and not available for comment.
The first tangible signs of the recall were evident last weekend, when volunteers began a voter registration drive at a logging conference at Eureka's Redwood Acres Fairground. And those who work for and favor PL are eager to vote and do anything else they can to oust Gallegos, said Arkley, who is certain that recall petition drives will be successful.
“Paul's probably done us a favor," Arkley continued. “We're going to take the county back, and we're going to take it back from the hippies."
He said the lawsuit is bunk, and that's why it has provoked people. “We're finally saying, shit, we've just had it, we're just not going to put up with it anymore and we do intend to take this county back – and that includes all those whackos at HSU [Humboldt State University]."
Gallegos has said the lawsuit has “taken on a life of its own" and it has inflamed the division of opinion on PL that has fermented here for years. The word “outrage" isn't an overstatement in describing reaction to the PL lawsuit, Arkley said. He's sure that the recall campaign will finally magnetize a political force that has been mute until now.
“There is a great, silent, unregistered majority of men and women who work and educate their children, and they have thought that it's futile to vote, but they now know that it's not," said Arkley. “And that's how we're going to do this. We are going to do it, it's for real."
Arkley added that animosity against PL has been tolerated, but now, people “are just sick and tired of it." He portrayed ongoing direct action forest protests as a particularly odious phenomenon, comparing the persistence of tree-sitters to “dogshit on a waffle- sole shoe."
Arkley said he will hire MTC, Inc., an Arcata-based advertising agency that's promoted many high-profile political campaigns, including those for former Humboldt D.A. Terry Farmer (who Gallegos defeated last March), County Supervisor Bonnie Neely, Eureka Councilman Chris Kerrigan, Eureka Mayor Peter LaVallee and the Southern Humboldt Healthcare District's successful parcel tax measure.
Rick Brazeau, MTC's owner, said his firm hasn't been contracted yet, but “if something evolves, I'm interested in being involved because this is an important issue – I, myself, will support it."
And raising money won't be a hard sell, Arkley asserted. “I can tell you this – we're spending a lot of money, because we've got lots of money."
Plugging for Paul
The other side of what has become a community-wide P.R. battle is also mobilizing. Groups have formed and are raising money to aid the lawsuit and sway public support for it.
Gallegos' key election campaign organizer, Richard Salzman, is the coordinator of the Alliance for Ethical Business, a new group that advocates for fair business practices and whose first project will be to hold forums presenting information on the lawsuit. The first is set for April 9 at the Arcata Community Center, and a Eureka forum will follow later that month.
Salzman said that effort, too, is drawing fast and substantial support, and the Alliance is planning a community outreach campaign that will probably involve print and television advertising.
“We feel that Maxxam [PL's parent company] has a powerful P.R. and media influence here," said Salzman, citing the county's daily newspaper and highest-rating TV station as examples. “We're trying to counter-balance that and make sure that the D.A. gets his voice out there he doesn't have a mechanism to do that, so our work is necessary."
Salzman isn't surprised that a recall effort is blossoming, but he thinks it amounts to an attempt to derail justice. And that, he added, demands a response. “This is not a popularity contest, but nine weeks into [Gallegos'] job, Arkley's already threatened to remove Paul from office just because he's making allegations about one of his friends – and just because a company is liked by many people doesn't mean that they're above the law."
The cost of a recall election to the county is a questionable expense, Salzman continued. He estimated that the county will pay $100,000 to send sample ballots to voters. And he predicted that it will fail to accomplish anything because “Paul will win by an even greater margin than he did last November (when Gallegos captured 52 percent of the vote to Farmer's 48 percent).
Southern Humboldt activist Jared Rossman has opened a fundraising account the Citizens Fund for Equal Justice at the Community Credit Union in Garberville, and he said that over $5,000 in donations has been deposited in it. Rossman is researching whether the funds can be given to the D.A.'s Office directly, but he said if that's not legally viable, the money might be used to hire a private law firm to file a “parallel lawsuit."
If that can't be done or isn't feasible, Rossman continued, the money will be returned to donors. Another option is to use it for “ publicity to counter-balance the onslaught of misinformation PL is putting out."
Rossman thinks the recall drive “is very sad, because [Gallegos] has barely hit the ground and people are so tired of the same old business' of the past D.A. – what do we want, a D.A. who's in the deep pockets of folks with money or a D.A. who is independent? I don't think Humboldt County will be fooled."
The need for public interfacing has motivated Gallegos himself. On March 18, he made a presentation on the suit to the county's Democratic Central Committee, which passed a resolution that praises Gallegos' work and “encourages the Board of Supervisors to support the financial needs of his office."
The legal fight
The embattled lawsuit alleges that PL submitted false information on the effects of logging in unstable areas, and then “suppressed" corrected data to facilitate the approvals that led to the 1999 Headwaters Agreement.
The suit argues that PL's “deception" influenced state environmental officials to approve the cutting of an additional 100,000 trees in unstable areas over a 10-year span (to 2010).
An initial public showdown on the lawsuit erupted at the March 11 Board of Supervisors meeting, where throngs of PL employees, subcontractors and supporters lobbied against Gallegos' attempt to enlist the law firm of famed trial attorney Joseph Cotchett. That move requires approval from supervisors.
Some of them were clearly annoyed by the request, but all five expressed doubts, and the contract request failed. A letter from the state Department of Fish and Game refuting the suit's claims was cited by supervisors as a warning flag.
Legal argumentation will focus on how the environmental documents define unstable areas and whether PL's inaccurate study actually influenced approval of additional cutting in them.
Gallegos has alternately been portrayed as a hero and an idiot for filing the suit. It comes as confrontation between PL and tree-sitting activists in Freshwater reach a boiling point. “There hasn't been a week in office when I haven't had to deal with PL issues," Gallegos said wearily.ÂÂ
Some of the emotional reactions to the suit are influencing misperceptions, he continued. And the D.A. said he doesn't think PL's status as a high-volume employer should steer his office's moves.
“People seem to be saying that we either do, or should, have different rules based on wealth. But we have to stand firm on this, because otherwise, our laws will lack integrity and without integrity, we will have cynicism."
There is plenty of evidence to support his office's case, Gallegos added, and he emphasized that he has no regrets about filing the suit. “One the one hand, people complain that it will cost money, but on the other hand, we have PL asking for substantial assistance from law enforcement to pull tree-sitters out and now we're seeing a recall effort that will further divide this community but this office cannot, and will not, be intimidated."
Tim Stoen was picked by Gallegos for the long-vacant assistant D.A. position and is the suit's engineer and lead prosecutor. He will seek monetary damages ($250 million was initially cited) as well as suspension of logging.
He has said that PL is “scared" of facing the suit in court.
Jim Branham, PL's communications director, responds: “Believe me, we're not scared. We are outraged. We're outraged that Mr. Gallegos would file a suit with no merit, a suit that wastes taxpayers' money and doesn't even demonstrate a basic understanding of [environmental approvals]."
Branham said it's likely that Gallegos has put the county in a position of having to defend itself in a counter-suit. “I think it's important that the Board of Supervisors understands that the D.A. can't run around and sue people without a factual or legal basis for it, the county has a vulnerability here. We will consider all our legal options, and they could well include recovering our costs."
Asked about the recall effort, Branham said his company is “watching it with interest." He also said that that “new faces" are surfacing to support PL. “It's like nothing I've ever seen since working for this company," he continued.
The rules of recall
Election law mandates that petition drives for the D.A. recall can't start until April 7. If 15 percent or roughly 11,000 of the county's 74,000 registered voters sign them within a 160-day window, a recall election will be held.
There are two ballot periods, in June and in November. Recall supporters will have to work hard and efficiently to get a recall election on the November ballot.
The recall voting ballot will cite reasons why Gallegos should be removed from office and will also include his answer to those arguments. Votes will be cast for and against a recall, as well as for a candidate or candidates who would replace Gallegos. Arkley said his team will choose a replacement candidate soon.
Political observers have little doubt that the petition drive will succeed, as PL has almost 1,000 employees and draws strong support from the areas of the county where it has operations. Fortuna is one of them.
That city's City Council recently passed a resolution portraying the lawsuit as a waste of taxpayers' money and in a separate action, voted to research the viability of filing a complaint against the D.A.'s suit with the county's Grand Jury.
Fortuna Mayor Mel Berti is the longtime meat department manager at Hoby's Market in Scotia, a PL-owned town that is the company's center of operations and residential hub. He said that over the last five years, he's seen people in Scotia become increasingly uncertain about their future.
“To see what people go through mentally and physically over things like this is astounding," Berti said of the lawsuit. “All five of us on the [Fortuna] Council are standing strong, and the people of this county will stand strong, too. We've had enough of this, it's time to stand up and say, Whoa, we've had enough and we're going to fight."
Berti added that he's part of the recall campaign and will “work with Mr. Arkley and do everything I can ... we are seeing a sleeping giant wake up."
From the lawsuit's outset, Gallegos said he expected political waves to roll against him. Saying he “loves Democracy," the D.A. accepts the likelihood of a recall election as an aspect of it.
“It will be a test, and it will determine what this community is all about," he continued. “There are good people here, and they deserve the best government, not one that only represents the rich and powerful."
Humboldt D.A. fights to keep job [San Francisco Chronicle]
Humboldt D.A. fights to keep job [San Francisco Chronicle]
Lumber firm funds recall campaign after being sued
by Greg Lucas, Sacramento Bureau Chief
February 28, 2004
Eureka -- On the wall of District Attorney Paul Gallegos' fourth-floor office at the Humboldt County courthouse is a shadow box containing a hatchet, a pair of pliers and a Yankee screwdriver.
The tableau was assembled by the man who hung signs for Gallegos in his upset 2002 win to become the county's top prosecutor.
"I keep it here to remind me that hard work gets the job done,'' said the youthful-looking Gallegos.
There's plenty of hard work ahead for the 41-year-old former defense attorney before Tuesday's election in which Humboldt's 77,000 registered voters will decide whether to throw him out after a little over a year in his first elected office.
Bankrolling the effort to recall Gallegos is Pacific Lumber, whose contributions represent more than 90 percent of the money Gallegos' opponents have spent against him.
The company's nearly $230,000 in contributions -- and Gallegos' efforts to keep pace -- have made the recall the most expensive campaign in Humboldt County history.
The timber company says its only concern is the district attorney's supposed coddling of criminals.
"There's a lot of misinformation out there that's kept going by the Gallegos campaign,'' said Erin Dunn, a Pacific Lumber spokeswoman. "This is a safety issue, a personal safety issue. There's time after time after time his office has botched cases.''
Despite its claim not to be orchestrating the recall, Pacific Lumber helped hire a consultant affiliated with its Sacramento lobbying firm to manage the final weeks of the recall effort the company is largely financing.
Using office space provided by Pacific Lumber, the consultant has mapped out an aggressive campaign featuring crime victims groups, peace officers and television ads to buttress the claim Gallegos is a wimp on crime.
Gallegos insists the company's real motivation is to punish him for suing Pacific Lumber, the county's second-largest private employer, for providing false information to the state about the impact of its logging on creek ecosystems.
"The recall costs less than attorneys' fees,'' Gallegos said. "Either way, they're not going to pull any punches.''
The power struggle reflects the schism within Humboldt County itself as its old natural-resources-based economy -- where fishing and timber were king -- is eclipsed by newer, more service-oriented industries.
Those divisions are mirrored in the three candidates who want Gallegos' job, should he be recalled.
One is an 18-year veteran deputy in Gallegos' office. Another -- who echoes the criticisms of Pacific Lumber -- is a disgruntled former deputy. The third is a local lawyer who champions Gallegos.
A recall so bitter that school officials keep an eye on his 7-year-old daughter was not something Paul Gallegos imagined he would find in Eureka when he and his wife, Joni, left Los Angeles in 1994 to search for "a beautiful place to live where we would want to raise children."
Not knowing a soul, they hung their shingle in Eureka and built a successful practice as defense lawyers. They also built a family that now includes three kids, ages 22 months to 7 years old.
In 2002, Gallegos ran for district attorney. "Justice for All'' was his slogan.
"Government needs to represent and treat everyone equal,'' said Gallegos in an interview. "It's an issue in this community and it has been for a while -- the perception that not everyone here is treated equally.''
His populist promises of change helped him beat a 20-year incumbent by 52 percent to 48 percent.
Trouble started when Gallegos kept his promise.
First, Gallegos was criticized for expanding the county's limit on pot plants grown for medicinal purposes. He says his standards are more restrictive than his predecessor and mirror the rules in neighboring Del Norte and Sonoma counties.
Unions representing police officers and sheriff deputies grew tepid about Gallegos.
Then, just over one year ago, Gallegos lowered the boom on Pacific Lumber.
He accused the timber company of low-balling the amount of creekside landslides its logging caused in a habitat conservation plan governing tree- cutting on its 211,000 acres.
Pacific Lumber's buy off on the conservation plan was required before the state and federal government would spend $480 million to buy the 7,500-acre Headwaters Forest and two other stands of old growth redwoods owned by the timber company.
Environmentalists, who had made similar claims for years, cheered the maverick district attorney.
The suit seeks the return of some of the money spent on Headwaters and penalties of as much as $75 million.
Pacific Lumber blasted the litigation as frivolous and baseless. Loggers protested the suit by surrounding the courthouse.
State agencies, like the Department of Fish and Game and the attorney general's office, declined to help Gallegos.
Even a request to hire Joe Cotchett, the nimble Burlingame personal injury lawyer, on a contingency basis was turned down by county supervisors.
Saying he wanted to take back the county from "environmentalists and hippies,'' a retired timber executive began a drive to recall Gallegos.
Last October, the effort stalled at 12,000 signatures.
Recall supporters then approached Pacific Lumber, and the company's parent, Maxxam Inc. of Houston, Texas, opened its checkbook.
Since then, Maxxam has spent nearly $230,000 -- $74,000 contributed Monday.
Gallegos refutes charges of weak prosecuting by noting he personally tried four cases last year and won all of them, on all counts.
In the first nine months of 2003, Gallegos charged 994 people with felonies -- a 14.8 percent increase over the 866 felony filings during his predecessor's last year in office.
At Gallegos' storefront campaign headquarters a few blocks from the courthouse, volunteers open envelopes containing checks ranging from $5 to $50.
Gallegos estimates his campaign, which has raised 80 cents for each of his opponents' dollars, has logged more than 700 contributions from county residents.
A lanky supporter in a porkpie hat, a braided beard and nose ring wants a couple of yard signs.
An artist's agent by trade, Gallegos' campaign manager, Richard Salzman, encourages the supporter to leave a donation.
Gallegos also makes the rounds of the candidate forum circuit.
At Humboldt State University, sighs, snickers and chuckles greet two of Gallegos' opponents, Gloria Albin-Sheets and Worth Dikeman.
Dikeman worked for 19 years under Gallegos' predecessor. He claims to have no position on the recall but argues that should it succeed, he is the most qualified to run the office.
"I'm bothered the district attorney's office has fallen into such disfavor. I'm the person to bring it back,'' Dikeman told the 200 mostly college-age people at the forum.
The Fortuna, Arcata and Eureka police associations back Dikeman, as does the county sheriffs association.
Albin-Sheets, who lost her prosecutor job because of budget cuts after Gallegos took office, echoes Pacific Lumber's insistence Gallegos is soft on crime.
"Mr. Gallegos is a defense attorney. He will always be a defense attorney, '' she said.
Both opposition candidates at the forum were periodically skewered by Steve Schectman, a local lawyer and gadfly, who denounces the recall and defends Gallegos' 13 months on the job.
"(The recall) has nothing to do with crime. It has to do with a corporation that wants to control this county,'' Schectman said.
After the candidates pummeled one another for an hour, Gallegos defended his record in a one-on-one interview.
Every decision made by his office is criticized by someone, he says. He cautions against singling out the handling of individual cases from out of the thousands his office processes.
In his personal office, next to the door, at eye level, is a photograph of Abraham Lincoln. The 16th president looks haunted but indomitable.
Gallegos compares Lincoln's recognition of the immorality of slavery to the issues Humboldt faces with Pacific Lumber.
The decline of timber breeds the same fear about the end of a way of life Southerners felt about the demise of slavery, Gallegos says.
"I am just the poster boy. I'm the focus of an issue not just this community but all of America is dealing with -- who is our definition of us? Is it some of us? Or is it all of us?"
Lumber firm funds recall campaign after being sued
by Greg Lucas, Sacramento Bureau Chief
February 28, 2004
Eureka -- On the wall of District Attorney Paul Gallegos' fourth-floor office at the Humboldt County courthouse is a shadow box containing a hatchet, a pair of pliers and a Yankee screwdriver.
The tableau was assembled by the man who hung signs for Gallegos in his upset 2002 win to become the county's top prosecutor.
"I keep it here to remind me that hard work gets the job done,'' said the youthful-looking Gallegos.
There's plenty of hard work ahead for the 41-year-old former defense attorney before Tuesday's election in which Humboldt's 77,000 registered voters will decide whether to throw him out after a little over a year in his first elected office.
Bankrolling the effort to recall Gallegos is Pacific Lumber, whose contributions represent more than 90 percent of the money Gallegos' opponents have spent against him.
The company's nearly $230,000 in contributions -- and Gallegos' efforts to keep pace -- have made the recall the most expensive campaign in Humboldt County history.
The timber company says its only concern is the district attorney's supposed coddling of criminals.
"There's a lot of misinformation out there that's kept going by the Gallegos campaign,'' said Erin Dunn, a Pacific Lumber spokeswoman. "This is a safety issue, a personal safety issue. There's time after time after time his office has botched cases.''
Despite its claim not to be orchestrating the recall, Pacific Lumber helped hire a consultant affiliated with its Sacramento lobbying firm to manage the final weeks of the recall effort the company is largely financing.
Using office space provided by Pacific Lumber, the consultant has mapped out an aggressive campaign featuring crime victims groups, peace officers and television ads to buttress the claim Gallegos is a wimp on crime.
Gallegos insists the company's real motivation is to punish him for suing Pacific Lumber, the county's second-largest private employer, for providing false information to the state about the impact of its logging on creek ecosystems.
"The recall costs less than attorneys' fees,'' Gallegos said. "Either way, they're not going to pull any punches.''
The power struggle reflects the schism within Humboldt County itself as its old natural-resources-based economy -- where fishing and timber were king -- is eclipsed by newer, more service-oriented industries.
Those divisions are mirrored in the three candidates who want Gallegos' job, should he be recalled.
One is an 18-year veteran deputy in Gallegos' office. Another -- who echoes the criticisms of Pacific Lumber -- is a disgruntled former deputy. The third is a local lawyer who champions Gallegos.
A recall so bitter that school officials keep an eye on his 7-year-old daughter was not something Paul Gallegos imagined he would find in Eureka when he and his wife, Joni, left Los Angeles in 1994 to search for "a beautiful place to live where we would want to raise children."
Not knowing a soul, they hung their shingle in Eureka and built a successful practice as defense lawyers. They also built a family that now includes three kids, ages 22 months to 7 years old.
In 2002, Gallegos ran for district attorney. "Justice for All'' was his slogan.
"Government needs to represent and treat everyone equal,'' said Gallegos in an interview. "It's an issue in this community and it has been for a while -- the perception that not everyone here is treated equally.''
His populist promises of change helped him beat a 20-year incumbent by 52 percent to 48 percent.
Trouble started when Gallegos kept his promise.
First, Gallegos was criticized for expanding the county's limit on pot plants grown for medicinal purposes. He says his standards are more restrictive than his predecessor and mirror the rules in neighboring Del Norte and Sonoma counties.
Unions representing police officers and sheriff deputies grew tepid about Gallegos.
Then, just over one year ago, Gallegos lowered the boom on Pacific Lumber.
He accused the timber company of low-balling the amount of creekside landslides its logging caused in a habitat conservation plan governing tree- cutting on its 211,000 acres.
Pacific Lumber's buy off on the conservation plan was required before the state and federal government would spend $480 million to buy the 7,500-acre Headwaters Forest and two other stands of old growth redwoods owned by the timber company.
Environmentalists, who had made similar claims for years, cheered the maverick district attorney.
The suit seeks the return of some of the money spent on Headwaters and penalties of as much as $75 million.
Pacific Lumber blasted the litigation as frivolous and baseless. Loggers protested the suit by surrounding the courthouse.
State agencies, like the Department of Fish and Game and the attorney general's office, declined to help Gallegos.
Even a request to hire Joe Cotchett, the nimble Burlingame personal injury lawyer, on a contingency basis was turned down by county supervisors.
Saying he wanted to take back the county from "environmentalists and hippies,'' a retired timber executive began a drive to recall Gallegos.
Last October, the effort stalled at 12,000 signatures.
Recall supporters then approached Pacific Lumber, and the company's parent, Maxxam Inc. of Houston, Texas, opened its checkbook.
Since then, Maxxam has spent nearly $230,000 -- $74,000 contributed Monday.
Gallegos refutes charges of weak prosecuting by noting he personally tried four cases last year and won all of them, on all counts.
In the first nine months of 2003, Gallegos charged 994 people with felonies -- a 14.8 percent increase over the 866 felony filings during his predecessor's last year in office.
At Gallegos' storefront campaign headquarters a few blocks from the courthouse, volunteers open envelopes containing checks ranging from $5 to $50.
Gallegos estimates his campaign, which has raised 80 cents for each of his opponents' dollars, has logged more than 700 contributions from county residents.
A lanky supporter in a porkpie hat, a braided beard and nose ring wants a couple of yard signs.
An artist's agent by trade, Gallegos' campaign manager, Richard Salzman, encourages the supporter to leave a donation.
Gallegos also makes the rounds of the candidate forum circuit.
At Humboldt State University, sighs, snickers and chuckles greet two of Gallegos' opponents, Gloria Albin-Sheets and Worth Dikeman.
Dikeman worked for 19 years under Gallegos' predecessor. He claims to have no position on the recall but argues that should it succeed, he is the most qualified to run the office.
"I'm bothered the district attorney's office has fallen into such disfavor. I'm the person to bring it back,'' Dikeman told the 200 mostly college-age people at the forum.
The Fortuna, Arcata and Eureka police associations back Dikeman, as does the county sheriffs association.
Albin-Sheets, who lost her prosecutor job because of budget cuts after Gallegos took office, echoes Pacific Lumber's insistence Gallegos is soft on crime.
"Mr. Gallegos is a defense attorney. He will always be a defense attorney, '' she said.
Both opposition candidates at the forum were periodically skewered by Steve Schectman, a local lawyer and gadfly, who denounces the recall and defends Gallegos' 13 months on the job.
"(The recall) has nothing to do with crime. It has to do with a corporation that wants to control this county,'' Schectman said.
After the candidates pummeled one another for an hour, Gallegos defended his record in a one-on-one interview.
Every decision made by his office is criticized by someone, he says. He cautions against singling out the handling of individual cases from out of the thousands his office processes.
In his personal office, next to the door, at eye level, is a photograph of Abraham Lincoln. The 16th president looks haunted but indomitable.
Gallegos compares Lincoln's recognition of the immorality of slavery to the issues Humboldt faces with Pacific Lumber.
The decline of timber breeds the same fear about the end of a way of life Southerners felt about the demise of slavery, Gallegos says.
"I am just the poster boy. I'm the focus of an issue not just this community but all of America is dealing with -- who is our definition of us? Is it some of us? Or is it all of us?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)