45228
From: Chuckles , [DNS_Address]
Subject: Humboldt County
| Such a beautiful magical place! |
45229
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Humboldt County
URL: https://lostcoastoutpost.com/2024/nov/15/pacific-seafood-halts-all-processing-eureka/
|
i agree,,,lived in many places, even hawaii...this is the best! on a sad note, the last major fish processing plant just shut down...fishing used to be a huge industry up here, along with loggng...both are pretty much gone now...the main "industry left is Cal Poly Humboldt (formerly HSU), and also the lesser tourism...a norwegian company is starting a big fish farming company out in samoa, on old mill land...and offshore wind energy generation was supposed to be a big new industry up here, but it sounds like rump want's to shut such projects down... Pacific Seafood Halts All Processing in Eureka, Laying Off an Undisclosed Number of Employees ESPAÑOL ### Pacific Seafood, the processing and distribution giant based in Clackamas, Ore., has halted all processing activity at its Eureka plant, dramatically scaling back its operations there and laying off an undisclosed number of local employees. In an emailed statement, the company’s director of communications, Lacy Ogan, said the Eureka facility at 1 Commercial Street is still operating “but in the limited capacity of unloading oysters, crab, and groundfish as well as icing vessels” — i.e., providing flake ice for drag boats, salmon fishermen and other vessels that keep fresh catch onboard. The seafood getting unloaded here in Eureka is now being shipped north for processing at Pacific Seafood plants in Oregon, Ogan said. The 83-year-old company has nearly 40 locations across the country — from Kodiak, Alaska, to Miami, Fla. — and employs somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,500 people nationwide. Local fisherman Mike Cunningham, who has been selling his catch to Pacific Seafood for 35 years, said the company has removed much of its processing equipment and shipped it north to plants in Oregon, where it anticipates more abundant crabbing. “They are going to continue to buy crabs here, and they have some residual processing capacity,” Cunningham said. Last month, Pacific Seafood abruptly pulled out of Crescent City Harbor, leaving Del Norte County fishermen without the vital services of its ice plant. Owners of the company blamed “onerous” California Environmental Protection Agency regulations for its decision to move the ice plant to Charleston, Ore., the Del Norte Triplicate reported. Ogan, the company spokesperson, told the Outpost that Pacific Seafood’s decision to halt processing here in Eureka was made due to “weak economic conditions coupled with a challenging regulatory environment.” She did not respond to a follow-up email asking how many employees are being affected by this consolidation, though she wrote, “All impacted Team Members were given the opportunity to continue with Pacific at another location.” Dave Bitts, another local fisherman, said Pacific Choice remains the largest single buyer of crab in the Port of Humboldt Bay. “Regardless of what we think of the company, we definitely need that buying capacity,” Bitts said. “They’ve been it for a while.” The loading dock at Pacific Seafood. ### While this cutback in operations will negatively impact the local fishing industry, Pacific Seafood is not likely to leave altogether — not anytime soon, anyway. Eureka City Manager Miles Slattery told the Outpost that the company signed a five-year lease renewal for city-owned warehouse earlier this year. Monthly lease payments for 1 Commercial street are a little over $13,000, he said. “They’re still paying us rent and will continue to pay us rent,” Slattery said in a phone interview. Typically referred to as Pacific Choice here in Northern California, the company was selected as Eureka’s business of the month in February of 2016. At the time it employed between 100 and 200 people in Eureka, depending on the season. Local fishermen estimate its recent employee count at somewhere near 60, maximum. Cunningham said that Pacific Seafood ramped up the processing capacity at the Eureka plant a few years ago, production slowed dramatically last year. “They really scaled back this summer,” Cunningham said. “They normally process drag fish here, but the market was really poor.” Slattery heard the same thing. “I do know [Pacific Seafood] stopped purchasing bottom fish [and] other products a couple months ago, forcing our fishermen to go find other buyers,” he said. The local drag fleet converted to fishing for shrimp, according to Cunningham, who compared the movement of equipment and boats to strategic chess moves. And he acknowledged that California has some unique market disadvantages. “The manager told me what their PG&E bill [costs] a month to run that plant even in low production mode,” he said, adding that the number was “pretty staggering.” One local employee posted to Facebook after receiving his layoff notice. He said his last day on the job will be his birthday, Dec. 2. |
45232
From: Chuckles , [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Humboldt County
|
Times were hard back around 2000 as their were people with college degrees working low paying jobs just to be able to live there. I commuted to Napa once a week and gave up looking for a good job there. I didn't know that it was Cal Poly Humboldt now. I according to the link I provided, there are three main logging corporation that are privately own, meaning no share holders to mass cut to please share holders. The Carlotta area along hwy 36 is just far enough inland that the weather is a little more pleasant, not so fogging, but it's all so beautiful! |
Responses:
None
45230
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Humboldt County
URL: https://lostcoastoutpost.com/2024/nov/15/weed-illegal-now/
|
i forgot to mention the weed industry, which kept humboldt afloat for the last 40 years before weed was made "legal" in cali...but even that is now under fire... A State Appellate Court Says Weed is Illegal ‘Because Federal Law Says So.’ What Does That Mean for Humboldt? ESPAÑOL Photo by Jeff W on Unsplash. ### A recent ruling by the Second District Court of Appeal is raising eyebrows among legal experts for its shocking assertion that cannabis is, in fact, illegal in California. Why? Simple: “Because federal law says so.” “It is often said that cannabis is legal in California,” the Oct. 29 ruling states. “The statement is not true. Under federal law cannabis is illegal in every state and territory of the United States.” The shocking determination emerged from a lawsuit – JCCrandall LLC v. County of Santa Barbara – that centers around road access to a permitted 2.5-acre cannabis farm, owned by Kim Hughes, near Lompoc in Santa Barbara County. JCCrandall LLC, a neighboring oat and barley farm, sued the county in 2021 over a Board of Supervisors decision that allowed Hughes to transport cannabis through the Crandall property via a pre-existing easement, according to an article published in the Santa Barbara Independent. “The Hughes property lies adjacent to the Crandall property with a private access road connecting the two,” the article states. “The road — whose usage terms were laid out in an easement between property owners in 1998 — is the only means of accessing the Hughes property. … When the Board of Supervisors approved Santa Rita’s permit application in 2021, Crandall alleged that not only did this violate the terms of the easement, but it also violated federal law due to the illegality of cannabis at the federal level.” A three-justice panel of the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Six, agreed with Crandall, adding that the county-issued conditional-use permit “is premised on JCCrandall being forced to allow its property to be used in cannabis transportation.” Not only that, but the scope of the easement “does not include the illegal transport of cannabis.” “No matter how much California voters and the Legislature might try, cannabis cultivation and transportation are illegal in California as long as it remains illegal under federal law,” the ruling states. Ettersburg resident Rod Silva came across the appellate court ruling two weeks ago while searching the internet for an attorney to help him sort out an easement dispute with a neighbor. Now, he’s hoping the court’s determination will prevent Humboldt County from approving new permit applications. “I complained to the Planning Department and I just got the runaround,” Silva told the Outpost. “The final result was, ‘Well, that’s civil litigation between you and your neighbor.’ I’m just really tired of it because I feel like the county has given farms shortcuts, even when they’re out of compliance. … This case opens up a can of worms. I think the county will have to stop permitting farms and maybe eliminate all the [farms] they have already permitted.” Silva is particularly concerned about a conditional-use permit application for The Hills, LLC, and Shadow Light Ranch, LLC, submitted by Garberville resident Joshua Sweet, who was fined $1.75 million in February for various environmental violations. The permit application appeared on the Humboldt County Planning Commission’s Nov. 7 agenda but it was continued to the commission’s next meeting on Nov. 21 due to time constraints. Silva submitted a document – linked here – about the “landmark ruling” to the clerk of the Planning Commission, warning that commissioners “cannot approve any [conditional-use permits] for cannabis-related business because ‘cannabis cultivation and transportation are illegal in California as long as it remains illegal under federal law.’” It remains to be seen what the recent judgment will mean for California’s weed farmers and other cannabis-related businesses. Reached for additional comment on the matter, Humboldt County spokesperson Catarina Gallardo said, “The opinion in JCCrandall, LLC v. County of Santa Barbara is narrowly focused on the application of a specific provision within the Santa Barbara County Code.” We also contacted the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) for comment on the matter and were told that the DCC “does not comment on ongoing legal matters or the deliberations of local planning commissions.” The County of Santa Barbara has until Dec. 9 to appeal the case to the California Supreme Court, though there is no guarantee that the court will hear the case. Silva said he contacted one of the attorneys representing JCCrandall LLC to find out if the county was going to appeal. “He told me the odds are against [the county] because the California Supreme Court only hears roughly three percent of the cases submitted to them for appeal,” Silva said. Reached for additional comment via email, Kelsey Gerckens Buttitta, a communications specialist for Santa Barbara County, told the Outpost that the county will seek review of the recent appellate court decision, but she did not say when the county would submit the appeal. |
Responses:
[45233]
45233
From: Chuckles , [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Humboldt County
|
I've been saying for years now, they need to make it federally legal, it will solve so many issues that comes from illegal grow sites as far as contamination of water sources and the poisoning of wild animals. |
Responses:
None