Bigotry in Ferndale

Raw and unbridled.

No excuses please. I hope the guy sues them senseless.

John Rogers on TPZ

http://www.times-standard.com/opinion/ci_7577968

Yet another tough question

Leo Sears raised some important issues in his Nov. 9 column in the Times-Standard, “TPZ brings up tough questions that demand answers.” He asks: “How, in principal, is Palco’s proposal different from what happened with the Tooby Ranch?”

There are many significant differences between PL’s proposal and the Tooby Ranch subdivision. PL’s property is:

1. Highly productive, high timber value, redwood forest.

2. Under active industrial management regulated by an HCP.

3. A critical supply base for a lumber mill providing employment for local residents and markets for local timber producers.

PL’s cash flow projections presented in bankruptcy court depend on land sales at inflated prices to pay off an unsustainable level of debt. If these lands sell at real market prices, PL will have no choice but to subdivide additional TPZ property to cover debt service shortfalls. PL’s high debt load, low standing inventories and fantasy-level asset valuations virtually assure subdivision of PL’s productive timberlands ad infinitum into the future.

The Tooby Ranch project shares none of these characteristics.

No wonder the PL reorganization plan is controversial:

The Redwood Ranch subdivision cuts the beating heart out of the redwood timber industry in Humboldt County.

PL’s reorganization plan also brings countywide TPZ zoning issues into sharper focus. Three separate questions lay behind the public outcry surrounding the recently ended moratorium:

Residential use

Smaller TPZ parcels have been bought and sold for decades for residential use. Landowner perception of potential property value losses from limiting residential use drives much of the strong reaction to the moratorium. However, the effort to bring county policy in line with state TPZ law through the conditional use permitting (CUP) process should not significantly impact property values.

Owners of existing small parcels that find the CUP process onerous should have the option of rolling out of TPZ into a zoning classification that allows limited residential use “by right” through a clear, simple ministerial permitting process.

Subsidized residential use

Today’s smaller TPZ parcels often have comparable sales values that far outstrip timber values. Timber management is not the primary economic driver for acquiring these parcels. Unless owners are providing a clear and demonstrable public benefit through the management of their property, it is past time to reduce subsidies for the residential value of TPZ property.

Subdivision of large parcels

It’s understandable that large TPZ owners are reluctant to have their development “entitlements” taken away. But the current rush to cash out productive timberland by selling residential parcels into a declining real estate market is premature.

The timber industry is well-known for cyclical economic behavior. Reduced competition in domestic lumber markets and increasing competitiveness in overseas markets from a declining dollar, increasing payments for sequestered carbon, and funding for conservation easements may all increase timber values relative to development value.

Ongoing returns from sustainably managed timber rather than single-shot profits from development may yet provide the best “HBU” value for larger TPZ ownership’s in the long-term and for the county as a whole.

Subdivision of industrial ownerships under an HCP certainly violates the intent and likely the letter of the HCP process. Residential TPZ “kingdoms” may not even be compatible with HCP requirements. Instituting a 600-acre minimum parcel-size industrial TPZ classification on HCP timberlands only constrains a potential for development that may not even exist — at least not for 40 years. What is that really worth today?

For larger non-industrial ownerships, we need to better understand what a commitment to 600-acre parcel sizes is worth. Offering marketable development credits for the removal or merger of patent parcels could compensate landowners for a commitment to maintaining large parcel ownerships of 600 acres or more.

Tradable Development Rights would provide an incentive for landowners to keep their land in production — the original purpose of the TPZ. As developers applied for waivers to current county development constraints, county approval — dependent on the developer’s acquisition of sufficient credits — would allow market dynamics to set values for existing entitlements. Open space and productive forest management would be protected, landowners would be compensated and real estate development values would be realized.

Think about it.

Do we sell the economic foundation of the timber industry into a falling real estate market due to a lo- point lumber product business cycle? Or do we support and protect the future of our timber industry, our intact forestland and our quality of life through this downturn in timber values?

Yet another tough question.

John Rogers is executive director of the Institute of Sustainable Forestry. He resides in Redway.

Add Your Comments: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/timesstandard/7577968/