"Urgent!"


a note from Bob: This e-mail from Casandra showed up in my mailbox today along with other Reggae oriented things. I’ve started transcribing the interview I did with Michael Richardson, who is mentioned below, and will post it soon. From talking with him I’m not sure what good it will do to send him stories about your experiences at Reggae — unless they relate to the permit in some fashion.

Members and friends of The Mateel Community Center,

The planning commission needs to know your views, opinions and experiences about Reggae on the River. If you have positive experiences working with and confidence in the Mateel Community Center and 2B1 multimedia please show your support.

Email your letters of support for The Mateel Community Center to retain the Conditional Use Permit for Reggae on the River to:
Michael Richardson
mrichardson@co.humboldt.ca.us
Please c.c. to Casandra@mateel.org

Show your support- Wear your Mateel Forever T-shirt, Reggae on the River T-shirt, or Mateel Community Center hats and T-shirts when you attend the following meetings.

The Planning Commission Meeting on March 1st @ 6:00pm in Board of Supervisors’ Chamber, Humboldt County Courthouse, Eureka, California.

The Hearing on March 5th @ time-TBA at the Humboldt County Courthouse in Eureka. It is unknown at this time if this hearing is open to the public, so please stay tuned.

Come into The Mateel Community Center office today to sign the petition!

Please forward this email to all your friends and family so we can retain the permit for Reggae on the River and prevent our most important economic community asset from being privatized.

Mateel Forever!

Casandra Taliaferro

Special Projects
Mateel Community Center

Advertisements

2 Comments

  1. from anon at the Mateel

    There is a lot of confusion over what this permit hearing is all about. Basically, this hearing is to review how last year’s event went. We already have the permit. It was granted last year. The Mateel is required to submit a annual report at the end of the year. On the permit there is listed the Applicant, the property owner(s), and the agent.

    The agent is a legal term whereby they represent the applicant. The county, in my understanding, sees no difference between the agent and the applicant. The applicant on the permit always has been (that I am aware of) the Mateel, the property owner(s) until last year were the Arthurs (and now Dimmick is listed too) and the agent was People Productions. The permit is attached to the land but there are multiple property owners here and the Mateel would have to abandon their permit (is my understanding) before a transfer could happen.

    Now there has been some discussion currently in the news and elsewhere about who can say who gets to do what. The Mateel disputes what was inferred in the papers from Michael Richardson’s comments.

    People Productions handed in the annual report on the 29th of December on behalf of the Mateel. There was no Mateel review of this report prior to submission.

    Now, the agent will be Boots Hughston. The applicant is still the Mateel and the property owners… well you get the idea.

    The Mateel has the position that it has a valid lease agreement with Tom Dimmick and Tom Dimmick disagrees.

    The question then becomes if Tom Dimmick can ask the county, since he deems the Mateel lease invalid, if he can take the permit, and all the studies which the Mateel paid for to have done to get and retain that permit ($$$), and simply modify it, a bit, for the Reggae Rising show.

    Therein is the bone of contention about the property owner having control.

    Casandra’s letter is very well meant but it is a very complex issue to explain.

    Reply

  2. Well, you explained pretty well. At least the way I understand it. The permits are in the Mateel’s name. For Carol Bruno/People Productions to put on the show they would have to get their own permits. ALL OF THEM (except the CUP). Carol Bruno/People Productions would have to apply for all the permits (except the CUP) in their name (Can you imagine the protests at the county offices that issue the permits? Just from the people from Piercy! Hehehehe Hahahahahaha). It is being said (by Dimmick and Richardson) that the Conditional Use Permit (just one of the permits needed) is Dimmick’s and he can use it anyway he wants (Except he needs other permits to do an event. This permit just says he can use his land.). The Mateel says the Conditional Use Permit (CPU) may be Dimmick’s but the Mateel has a contract with Dimmick to use his land. Dimmick says he canceled the contract because the Mateel fired Carol Bruno/People Productions in late Decmber. Dimmick conveniently leaves out the fact that Carol Bruno/People Productions quit in front of over 400 people at the meeting in November and in writing in October and that the Mateel was informed by Dimmick that this was going to happen the day before Carol Bruno/People Productions quit in writing (It says that right there in the lawsuit in “Cause No. 1: Anticipatory Breach Of Contract” http://rotrblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/13-causes-of-action-mateels-lawsuit.html). It looks to me like Carol Bruno/People Productions and Tommy Dimmick are NOT letting the facts get in the way of their accusations. Do you think that Carol Bruno/People Productions and Tommy Dimmick will be able to pull the wool over the judge’s eyes?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s