The Playground

Quote from [email protected]

I responded to insults with insults. I was put on "probation" without notice.

You know by now you deserved probation. And you know by now some of us are trying to make this a better place. I am pretty anti-rossi but I would rather keep voices than bounce them.

Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric

Quote from maryyugo

Rossi's accomplishments date back to the 1970's and seem well summarized in this brief excerpt from a Wikiedia entry:

While Wikipedia is a great source for starting your research, you never should trust what is written on Wikipedia since almost all articles can be edited by anyone.

You should do your own additional research and present the results of your research instead of quoting Wikipedia.

THHuxleynew,

I agree the writing style doesn't fit most of the time, but now and again it does, which suggests to me there are 2 or more involved. I seem to remember reading somewhere that AR"s wife Madeleine had an excellent grasp of the English language.

Anyway Alan seems sure AR's not extending his JONP puppetry here and I guess he has something more solid than Rossi's undoubted charm to say that, so best for all to drop this line of thought.

Quote from Alan Smith

THHuxley

The idea of a friendless Rossi feeling obliged to extend his undoubted JoNP puppetry into this place might well amuse you, but it would be a serious mistake. Even if you don't like hin, he is a man of immense charm (when he likes) who has many friends who would take up the keyboard on his behalf - even unprompted..

Yes, I agree Alan - I'm not denying the likelihood of friends. But equally the JoNP posts are bizaare and I don't know him well enough to exclude the possibility that he would enjoy derailing debates here in just the way Ele does.

If you had to categorise people here I'd say the Rossi supporters are more likely to be motivated by personal loyalty than the IH side, where you have people like sigmoidal, me, woodworker looking at the case without particular affection for IH.

Apart from Dewey Weaver, I very much doubt that anyone here has any affection for IH. They are a shell company whose only claim to fame is a stunningly stupid investment. The only sense in which anybody supports them is that the notion that an obvious crook like Rossi might fleece them out of a bunch more money is repugnant and so people are on their side with respect to the lawsuit. Otherwise, they are of no paticular merit.

Re the identities of Ele and SSC, let's let them remain shrouded in mystery and not speculate. Since the speculation might be on the mark, and we go to great efforts to protect other contributors from doxxing that is periodically done and not that hard to do.

Quote from Jimmy

Yeah, the PDF has nothing that hasn't already been discussed here. Is it such a big surprise that they are liable for clean-up when they bought the site? I guess UC Berkeley are bad guys too right, since they are in the same situation?

They received funds to clean-up the area and did not do it! There would not have been the need for a Order if they had done their job regularly, don't you think?

Quote from Jimmy

You and ele must spend too much time together, your tricks of linking to long-winded documents with nothing in them and trying to add innuendo are transparent and boring. I'm just interested in the facts, which are very easy for anyone to find with Google. The fact is that there were never any houses built there leading to illness, which is what both you and ele claimed.

Quote from Nigel Appleton

Yeah, I've been wondering for a while why some people persist with this claim of housing built on contaminated land. The fact is that there are no houses there, so persisting with this claim makes the claimer a liar, no bones about it.

Those are not a false claim. Instead of accusing me of lying you might dedicate yourself to some research on the internet.

Here's how things are.

Cherokee-Zeneca had already started redevelopment in Northern Lot 1 before California's DTSC intervened with two orders: Order n.1 Docket n.04/05-006 date of issue February 8, 2005 (which I have already published) and Order n.2 Docket n. IS / E-RAO 06/07-005 date of issue September 15, 2006.

From the map attached to the first order of 2005, called "Exhibit D - Area to be fenced", we can see that in Northern Lot 1 there are three buildings:

Site Map

As a further proof of the existence of the buildings built by Cherokee, you can also consult the written report from Erler & Kalinowski consultants dated July 2007, which on page 22 shows Lot 1 with the three built areas. This is the link to the report and below is an enlargement of that map:

http://rfs-env.berkeley.edu/do…dArsenic7_23_2007_EKI.pdf

Northern lot 1 -

In 2009, Cherokee-Zeneca signed a settlement agreement with California DTSC, which obliged them to pay and clean up but did not release them from their responsibilities. The document is as follows:

https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PressR…enecaConsentAgreement.pdf

Although you read only the name of Zeneca Inc, you have to remember that Zeneca has sold the lots to Cherokee and therefore according to the CERCLA law, Cherokee is liable as Zeneca. About CERCLA:

"Also known as "Superfund", CERCLA is aimed at cleaning up sites contaminated with hazardous waste, and prevent contamination of future sites by assigning liability to parties involved. The liability requires the parties to pay for the clean up of the sites. A part of Environmental Law.

Potentially Responsible Parties (PRP)

§107(a) lays out the responsible parties and in doing so establishes expansive liability.

1) Current Owners / Operator. Although this excludes property acquired through foreclosure or a security interest, this will still include current owners even if they made no contribution to the hazardous release.

2) Past Owner / Operator at time the pollution occurred."

(https://www.law.cornell.edu/we…_and_liability_act_cercla)

After the 2009 Consent Agreement, Cherokee-Zeneca demolished the buildings, and this is the reason why they are no longer on the Richmond landfill map or on Google images today. In fact, in this document (Assessor's map), which is today's cadastral map, buildings no longer exist.

Assessor's map -

From this photo taken by Google, however, you can see the clearer strips in the ground that most probably were the points where the foundations of the three buildings were:

Ground zero - LINK 4

So that's how it went: having started the redevelopment before cleaning up the area, Cherokee was subjected to an Order and the three buildings in Lot1 were demolished ..... so now there are no traces of the buildings!

Quote from [email protected]

In the western states we have the 9th circuit which is infamous for going off the rails. Their nickname is the 9th circus. Our judiciary is filled with activist judges.

I completely agree about activist judges. Consider Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist, finding an equal opportunity violation in favor of George W. Bush (IIRC the only time they ever found as equal opportunity violation) and then also holding that their ruling was one time only and not to be used as precedent. Damn those activist judges. Or the current justices who held that the Voting Rights Act, which had been recently renewed by Congress wasn't necessary anymore. Damn those activist judges. Or the judges saying that yes, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is just fine.

As for going off the rails, there are numerous other Circuit Courts of Appeal whom are reversed by SCOTUS on a higher percentage basis. Damn those activist facts, always interfering in a good propaganda spin.

Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric

Quote from SSC

They received funds to clean-up the area and did not do it! There would not have been the need for a Order if they had done their job regularly, don't you think?

Those are not a false claim. Instead of accusing me of lying you might dedicate yourself to some research on the internet.

Here's how things are.

Cherokee-Zeneca had already started redevelopment in Northern Lot 1 before California's DTSC intervened with two orders: Order n.1 Docket n.04/05-006 date of issue February 8, 2005 (which I have already published) and Order n.2 Docket n. IS / E-RAO 06/07-005 date of issue September 15, 2006.

From the map attached to the first order of 2005, called "Exhibit D - Area to be fenced", we can see that in Northern Lot 1 there are three buildings:

Site Map

As a further proof of the existence of the buildings built by Cherokee, you can also consult the written report from Erler & Kalinowski consultants dated July 2007, which on page 22 shows Lot 1 with the three built areas. This is the link to the report and below is an enlargement of that map:

http://rfs-env.berkeley.edu/do…dArsenic7_23_2007_EKI.pdf

Northern lot 1 -

In 2009, Cherokee-Zeneca signed a settlement agreement with California DTSC, which obliged them to pay and clean up but did not release them from their responsibilities. The document is as follows:

https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PressR…enecaConsentAgreement.pdf

Although you read only the name of Zeneca Inc, you have to remember that Zeneca has sold the lots to Cherokee and therefore according to the CERCLA law, Cherokee is liable as Zeneca. About CERCLA:

"Also known as "Superfund", CERCLA is aimed at cleaning up sites contaminated with hazardous waste, and prevent contamination of future sites by assigning liability to parties involved. The liability requires the parties to pay for the clean up of the sites. A part of Environmental Law.

Potentially Responsible Parties (PRP)

§107(a) lays out the responsible parties and in doing so establishes expansive liability.

1) Current Owners / Operator. Although this excludes property acquired through foreclosure or a security interest, this will still include current owners even if they made no contribution to the hazardous release.

2) Past Owner / Operator at time the pollution occurred."

(https://www.law.cornell.edu/we…_and_liability_act_cercla)

After the 2009 Consent Agreement, Cherokee-Zeneca demolished the buildings, and this is the reason why they are no longer on the Richmond landfill map or on Google images today. In fact, in this document (Assessor's map), which is today's cadastral map, buildings no longer exist.

Assessor's map -

From this photo taken by Google, however, you can see the clearer strips in the ground that most probably were the points where the foundations of the three buildings were:

Ground zero - LINK 4

So that's how it went: having started the redevelopment before cleaning up the area, Cherokee was subjected to an Order and the three buildings in Lot1 were demolished ..... so now there are no traces of the buildings!

Display More

This is a nice start, but I don't see evidence that 1) Cherokee built these buildings, 2) they were houses, 3) people lived in them, 4) people got sick. In case you accuse me of moving goalposts, look at my sentence you've just quoted, which clearly implies that these are the things you need to prove. So, sorry, but it is you who needs to do more internet sleuthing, you have set a high bar with your outlandish claims and I don't think you can find evidence for them. So want to take them back?

Anyway, it may be the case that Cherokee started construction there and had to tear the buildings down. That's not so important to me, and even that much isn't clear from your docs or your link to the Italian version of Google maps.

Quote from SSC

They received funds to clean-up the area and did not do it! There would not have been the need for a Order if they had done their job regularly, don't you think?

Those are not a false claim. Instead of accusing me of lying you might dedicate yourself to some research on the internet.

Here's how things are.

Cherokee-Zeneca had already started redevelopment in Northern Lot 1 before California's DTSC intervened with two orders: Order n.1 Docket n.04/05-006 date of issue February 8, 2005 (which I have already published) and Order n.2 Docket n. IS / E-RAO 06/07-005 date of issue September 15, 2006.

From the map attached to the first order of 2005, called "Exhibit D - Area to be fenced", we can see that in Northern Lot 1 there are three buildings:

Site Map

As a further proof of the existence of the buildings built by Cherokee, you can also consult the written report from Erler & Kalinowski consultants dated July 2007, which on page 22 shows Lot 1 with the three built areas. This is the link to the report and below is an enlargement of that map:

http://rfs-env.berkeley.edu/do…dArsenic7_23_2007_EKI.pdf

Northern lot 1 -

In 2009, Cherokee-Zeneca signed a settlement agreement with California DTSC, which obliged them to pay and clean up but did not release them from their responsibilities. The document is as follows:

https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PressR…enecaConsentAgreement.pdf

Although you read only the name of Zeneca Inc, you have to remember that Zeneca has sold the lots to Cherokee and therefore according to the CERCLA law, Cherokee is liable as Zeneca. About CERCLA:

"Also known as "Superfund", CERCLA is aimed at cleaning up sites contaminated with hazardous waste, and prevent contamination of future sites by assigning liability to parties involved. The liability requires the parties to pay for the clean up of the sites. A part of Environmental Law.

Potentially Responsible Parties (PRP)

§107(a) lays out the responsible parties and in doing so establishes expansive liability.

1) Current Owners / Operator. Although this excludes property acquired through foreclosure or a security interest, this will still include current owners even if they made no contribution to the hazardous release.

2) Past Owner / Operator at time the pollution occurred."

(https://www.law.cornell.edu/we…_and_liability_act_cercla)

After the 2009 Consent Agreement, Cherokee-Zeneca demolished the buildings, and this is the reason why they are no longer on the Richmond landfill map or on Google images today. In fact, in this document (Assessor's map), which is today's cadastral map, buildings no longer exist.

Assessor's map -

From this photo taken by Google, however, you can see the clearer strips in the ground that most probably were the points where the foundations of the three buildings were:

Ground zero - LINK 4

So that's how it went: having started the redevelopment before cleaning up the area, Cherokee was subjected to an Order and the three buildings in Lot1 were demolished ..... so now there are no traces of the buildings!

Display More

So - no objective evidence that there were ever houses on the site (your "most probably" doesn't qualify). In fact, as far as I can ascertain, that area is in an industrial area, and was never zoned for housing. Furthermore there is no mention of buildings, let alone houses, in the documentation.

You are letting your obsession with "proving" that Cherokee are villainous overcome whatever capacity you may have for sober and objective judgement

Quote from Alan Smith

It certainly confirms that their idea of 'due diligence' needs an overhaul.

I think we all are agreed on that at least.

Quote from Jimmy

This is a nice start, but I don't see evidence that 1) Cherokee built these buildings, 2) they were houses, 3) people lived in them, 4) people got sick. In case you accuse me of moving goalposts, look at my sentence you've just quoted, which clearly implies that these are the things you need to prove. So, sorry, but it is you who needs to do more internet sleuthing, you have set a high bar with your outlandish claims and I don't think you can find evidence for them. So want to take them back?

I find that your questions are somewhat absurd .... do you really think that if Cherokee had built commercial buildings on polluted land it would be less serious than if they had built homes? Business buildings are not frequented by humans? And it make no sense proving that Cherokee has built the buildings in Lot 1. That land was bought by Cherokee: who do you ever think could build on that?!

Anyway, you can take a look at this document (LINK) where you read the following:

2003 – 2004 Cherokee Simeon introduces housing or big box retail for Lot 2 and Lot 3

• Lot 2 10 acres and Lot 3 58 acres = 68 acres

• Lot 2, 10 acres previously named as part of 27 acre biotech park moved to residential/big box retail plan

o 2003 City or Richmond Redevelopment Agency supported Cherokee-Simeon Ventures’ housing or big box retail proposal

And you can read this article where they talk about community activist protests about cases of illness and death caused by toxic substances.

http://eastshorepark.org/articles%28PDF%29/zeneca.pdf

But in any case I find quite useless to answer you. On a polluted land, nothing should be built, not even a garage, because any activity involves the presence of people who are potentially at risk. If for a fortunate case none of the people who passed through one of the Lot of Cherokee died of cancer, then does this mean that Cherokee made a good thing when they built without cleaning up?

Your reasoning are quite astonishing. There is an Order and there is a settlement agreement. These documents prove that Cherokee did not perform the planned remediation. And there are two documents that show that they built on Lot 1 when the remediation wasn't finished. Whatever they built, they should not have done it before they had clean up the ground. It seems clear to me, isn't it?

Quote from SSC

I find that your questions are somewhat absurd .... do you really think that if Cherokee had built commercial buildings on polluted land it would be less serious than if they had built homes? Business buildings are not frequented by humans? And it make no sense proving that Cherokee has built the buildings in Lot 1. That land was bought by Cherokee: who do you ever think could build on that?!

Anyway, you can take a look at this document (LINK) where you read the following:

2003 – 2004 Cherokee Simeon introduces housing or big box retail for Lot 2 and Lot 3

• Lot 2 10 acres and Lot 3 58 acres = 68 acres

• Lot 2, 10 acres previously named as part of 27 acre biotech park moved to residential/big box retail plan

o 2003 City or Richmond Redevelopment Agency supported Cherokee-Simeon Ventures’ housing or big box retail proposal

And you can read this article where they talk about community activist protests about cases of illness and death caused by toxic substances.

http://eastshorepark.org/articles%28PDF%29/zeneca.pdf

But in any case I find quite useless to answer you. On a polluted land, nothing should be built, not even a garage, because any activity involves the presence of people who are potentially at risk. If for a fortunate case none of the people who passed through one of the Lot of Cherokee died of cancer, then does this mean that Cherokee made a good thing when they built without cleaning up?

Your reasoning are quite astonishing. There is an Order and there is a settlement agreement. These documents prove that Cherokee did not perform the planned remediation. And there are two documents that show that they built on Lot 1 when the remediation wasn't finished. Whatever they built, they should not have done it before they had clean up the ground. It seems clear to me, isn't it?

Display More

Please, please, show the evidence that anyone actually built anything on this land.

Thank you

Hmm, just been on ecat world and was greeted with what looked like a fake microsoft spyware alert. Needless to say, fake or not I killed the firefox process and wont be going back.