After a slow year the practice has been slammed with business lately, and we’ve been working nights and weekends to keep pace. It seems that some sort of economic recovery has reached us, and other businesses are feeling it as well. Basically however, I’ve been neglecting what I would consider quality and depth in my posts as I just haven’t had much spare time, and that which I’ve had I’ve selfishly spent catching up on reading.
Anyway, I feel a little bad as I’d promised to put some thought into the Richardson Grove issue and post about it. I’ve said I lean in favor of the proposed widening project for reasons raised by small businesses and safety concerns which have come up in my own work.
I was asked to review some papers from Dr. Miller which make a good case that the involved agencies have not provided for adequate public information and input, and that they have not considered the impact of increased traffic and sprawl which would occur as the result of easier road access into the county. I defer to the parties who know more than I about the adequacies of public notice and process. On the second issue, I have some qualms about the opposition.
I believe we should take care to avoid the conflation of issues, particularly the environmental impact of any project to the grove itself with broader concerns about growth, traffic, and sprawl. As is well known, I advocate controlled growth. In fact, I would like to discuss the possibility of a no-growth model for development, economic and otherwise. I don’t believe it’s necessary for us to fill up every corner of the planet with people, and while I don’t support mandatory population control I would hope that we evolve as a species where we take only from the earth that which we can return, and ensure that we leave the earth without increasing the burden on it. The point is I have strong feelings about maintaining the quality of communities and I don’t view growth as inevitable nor universally healthy.
On the other hand, I don’t believe we should control growth by trying to bottle up traffic on a winding road. We control growth with appropriate policies – we make a conscious choice. And besides, I don’t really link a short stretch of winding road to growth, and certainly not increases in traffic. I have in mind that some opponents picture a couple’s discussion in the Bay Area re vacation plans:
Partner 1: Hey, I love Oregon. Let’s drive up the coast and we can stop off in Humboldt County, try the stuff, visit the trails. I know a great B&B in Ferndale, you know, where Outbreak was filmed? Then we can head up into Oregon and try all the microbreweries.
Partner 2: Yeah, that sounds like fun, but don’t you remember the last time we went? That winding road with the trees just as you come into Humboldt County. Man, that was pretty dicey and we couldn’t safely drive more than 45 miles per hour. Must have added two or three minutes to our trip. I don’t want to go through that again!
Partner 1: I forgot about that. Hey, let’s just drive to Vegas instead.
I mean, I agree that the “if you build it they will come” principle has relevance in some situations, but I don’t think it applies to the grove. The cars that will come here; they’ll come either way, or they won’t.
That being said, I’ve a concern which I haven’t seen raised, and it’s about the representations being made about the trees which would be removed. It’s being said that none of the larger redwood trees will be removed, that the state of the art tools will just blow the dirt off of the roots and the root structure won’t be compromised. Maybe. But every time I drive through it seems to me that there are a couple of spots at which large redwood trees are inches from the pavement and line up opposite each other on opposite sides. I can’t see how the road can be widened in those spots without the removal of at least one of them. Maybe someone can educate me.
19 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 31, 2009 at 6:01 am
Dave Kirby
As to the widening project I don’t have a dog in that fight. I don’t care which way it is resolved. The asse
July 31, 2009 at 6:02 am
Fred Mangels
I can’t see how the road can be widened in those spots without the removal of at least one of them.
I haven’t seen one, but I haven’t really looked. I’m sure somebody in Caltrans has a map/sketch/diagram of the proposed project that shows pretty much what they plan to do and what trees will be removed. Keep in mind they’re not really widening the road (as I understand it) but straightening it out a bit.
I know what you’re saying about some of the big trees but they might not need to remove the bigger trees. Instead, maybe the smaller ones near it (and I really wouldn’t care if they did remove the old growth trees)?
I am certainly distrustful of government overall, but I have a hard time believing they’re going to lie about removing any old growth and then, at the last minute, go ahead and do exactly that.
July 31, 2009 at 6:18 am
Dave Kirby
clicked the wrong button. Premature speculation. There is no mass of folks yearning to flood into Humboldt. We’ve got an economy that’s flat on its ass. The highest fuel prices in the state. Ridiculous food prices and not enough water to service what’s already built in the rural areas. Not to mention real estate prices that are hugely inflated due mainly to the pot scene. It appears that after all these years folks are finally growing more than buyers can smoke. As the air goes out the price of pot we are looking at a contraction not sprawl. There were many towns in the gold country that thought the boom would last that are now obscure stops on a tourist map. The no growth crowd are simply nimbys tilting at windmills.
July 31, 2009 at 7:26 am
ecumenik
I’m liking the No-Growth model.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/31-1
I want to recommend a decent si-fi thriller. a french movie “Chrysalis” I liked it.
July 31, 2009 at 8:13 am
Mr. Nice
Actually, I’ve heard that conversation, but not the conversation with the two or three minutes. Here is the version I’ve heard.
Road Tripper 1: “Hey, let’s take a road trip to Oregon”
Road Tripper 2: “Great idea, what road should we take, the coast?”
Road Tripper 1: “Well, I was thinking about the 1 to the 101… the coast is beautiful… but isn’t it dangerous?”
Road Tripper 2: “Yea… I’ve read in the newspaper that people die on that stretch all the time”
Road Tripper 1: “Totally, fuck that, let’s take the 5.”
July 31, 2009 at 10:09 am
ED Denson
Opponents of widening have suggested to me that there are essential root systems for the redwoods very near the surface which will be destroyed in the process of widening and “realigning” the road, which will cause damage or death to trees which are not being cut.
If the claim by the railroad industry that moving freight by rail is greatly more fuel effecient than by truck, is true, then we are going to have to reopen the rail line in the future. Why not do it now and not destroy these trees that are for all practical purposes, impossible to replace. Perhaps people will get out of their cars, also, and travel by train on the SF-Eureka route, cutting back traffic even more.
I oppose widening in Richardson Grove, I support reopening the rail line as soon as possible.
July 31, 2009 at 10:21 am
Eric Kirk
I know what you’re saying about some of the big trees but they might not need to remove the bigger trees. Instead, maybe the smaller ones near it (and I really wouldn’t care if they did remove the old growth trees)?
The point is, there are at least two points I can think of in which the trees seem to me to be directly opposite each other, directly across the road like Roman pillars at the Coloseum entrance, hugging the pavement. The removal of no other trees would allow for widening at those points, but if it’s really just straightening, then maybe that’s the answer.
Truth be told, I’m not dead set against the removal of old growth trees either. But misrepresentations concern me, and I’ve seen so many instances where concerns are raised, officials or contractors telling everybody to relax, and then …. “ooops. We didn’t forsee this problem, and now we’re committed…. aw gee, sorry.”
July 31, 2009 at 10:50 am
Anonymous#1
All of these comments address traffic/growth issues at this moment in time, using the current transportation technology. Let’s face it, train transport, while and older method of moving goods and people is going to happen to this county again. But where? The original plan to bring a railroad to Humboldt County was right up 101 but because of the 1906 earthquake and a resulting fire the plans were lost or shelved. The current defunct line down the Eel has its problems and none of the plans for it are for moving people, just freight, if there is any. On top of that there are not any population centers or feeder roads along that route. So there will not be any economic benefits along that route from moving people. Eventually some sort of rail will come through the area of Richardson grove, Garberville, Fortuna, Eureka, etc. When? Who knows. But rest assured it will not come through the grove itself, but rather across the river. That route will not need any railroad bridges in that area. Cheaper to go that way. So my contention is that anything that is done to the Grove now is just a short term, and short sighted fix. Leave the Grove to tourists and bicyclists going slow and not impacting the trees. Get rid of the bottleneck, save trees, enhance tourism, and use a little future vision. Build the freeway and the coming railroad across the river and leave the trees alone. The result will be less carbon footprint, maybe a huge increase of use of public transportation when the train does come.
July 31, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Ernie's Place
Sadly, It is obvious how little the Redwood lovers understand about this project, even thought the information is out there. I forgive you, because it is impossible to glean good info from anything provided by our state government.
First they are NOT widening the road, indeed they are barely re-aligning the road, just enough to meke it TRUCK LEGAL. The major project expenses are to make everybody happy, but they have only confused the issue.
It doesn’t hurt to cut the roots of a redwood tree as long as other trees aren’t crowding them out. (I promise)Been there, done that.
Eric’s approach is correct. If you are worried about the people who will possibly move up here if we make the road safer, you are taking the wrong approach. We should simply adopt “no growth” policies. In fact we should have done it years ago! (With the exection of the people that want to move up here, and sincerly want to educate themselves about who we are, and what the eccology is all about up here.)
July 31, 2009 at 1:51 pm
unanonymous
Dr. Miller says the EIR is not complete. nice. This is the same Dr. Miller, proponent of the Mad River bluff “repair” at the end of School Road along the bank near HIS house that did not submit an EIR until AFTER the project was built.
It was an emergency, they said, and we’ll make any mitigations after it’s built.
Dr. Miller can step off. We’ll mitigate the sprawl later, by blowing his house off the bluff and making a park out of his land.
July 31, 2009 at 3:00 pm
ananamuse
it doesn’t hurt to cut the roots of a redwood tree?!?! you are nuts beyond belief.
July 31, 2009 at 3:41 pm
anon
kneejerk rednecks say cut them threes; kneejerk hippies (me) say save the trees…
not sure if i have a point, damn, don’t cut!
July 31, 2009 at 4:13 pm
unanonymous
anon, sorry there are no hippies or rednecks here. just goat ropers and drugheads, and of course the rest of us normal folk. left or right.
July 31, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Anonymous
Again……. has anyone noticed how bad the road is through Redway’s grove even though it was resurfaced by State Parks not so long ago. I wonder why the repairs and resurfacing there never lasts!
July 31, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Skippy
“I would like to discuss the possibility of a no-growth model for development, economic and otherwise. ”
I would like to discuss this as well.
There is probably no other myth that is both so pervasive and so destructive as the myth that growth = prosperity and lots of growth = lots of prosperity. This includes the both the idea that continuous economic growth is necessary/desirable, and the related idea that. in general, population growth is desirable/unavoidable as this is one of the major factors that fuels economic growth.
One reason that this paradigm is so essential to modern industrial capitalism is that continuous growth is the only way where the top 1% of billionaires/millionaires can get much richer, while the next highest 4% of millionaires of get somewhat richer, the next 10% of the upper-middle class gets a little bit richer, larger middle class gets little or no richer, and those at the bottom stay even or lose. Without continuous growth, the System as a whole would be forced to deal with the disparities of wealth and disparities of income. Growth allows exploitation to continue, as just enough people feel they are getting at least a little bit ahead, so as to continue to support the system with their labor and intellect.
I’m all in favor zero overall population growth, and a stable, sustainable economy that can provide well for the population without strip-mining the soil and, as you put it “we take only from the earth that which we can return, and ensure that we leave the earth without increasing the burden on it.”
Aside from the small problem that right now in the U.S., I would guess that at least 80% of the population buys into the “growth=prosperity” myth, there is also the problem, as you noted above, of “how to get there from here.” Like you, I’m not in favor of any kind of mandatory population control. Like you, I hope that we can evolve our cultural consciousness to bring about voluntary reduction in population growth.
From my point of view, just as bottlenecking traffic at Richardson Grove is not really any kind of effective pressure point to combat uncontrolled growth, I don’t also think that policies like requiring special permits to build on a rural parcel or requiring water-wasting suburban-oriented septic systems in arid rural areas (and then complaining about the amount of water that rural residents use) — I just don’t think those are very effective ways to combat “growth” either.
Reducing rural housing options while the overall population grows is just kicking the can down the road a little. The additional urban population still impacts the environment, still makes demands on resource lands in ways that are different, but at least equally harmful as they would have if they had been allowed to live in a more rural setting.
Conversely, slowing/stopping population growth would actually address the issue, it’s just that this is a bigger problem and is much harder to solve, as opposed to just changing where the increasing population is allowed to live. But the latter is really just another case of rearranging the seats on the Titanic as opposed to steering clear of the iceberg.
Curious about your thoughts on this, Eric… I’ll be checking in tomorrow afternoon!
August 3, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Eric Kirk
I’ll have to start a new thread on this, when it isn’t so late and my mind so kablooey from a long drive.
Thank you for some great thoughts.
By the way, I don’t think septic systems will do it either. But limiting construction to rural residential parcels, and not creating additional major subdivisions would. If that was the goal.
August 4, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Skippy
Hi Eric,
Thanks for the response. I look forward to continuing this discussion as part of a new thread at some point in the future. For now, a few points:
“…limiting construction to rural residential parcels, and not creating additional major subdivisions would.”
(1) Would what? I’m assuming for the purpose of this response that, in response to my 6th paragraph, you mean “would be effective ways to combat growth.”
(2) Currently owners of parcels zoned for agriculture can build one house on their parcel. In SoHum many of these parcels are 160 acre homestead parcels. Are you proposing that, going forward, no one should be allowed to build a house on such a parcel, unless it’s re-zoned rural residential?
(2) I agree with the idea of not creating additional major subdivisions. But I don’t think that would do much to promote population stabilization or the ddevelopment of a sustainable economy. It seems like stopping subdivisions, while helpful locally, in the short term, would still just direct the population and economic growth into certain already-defined areas — “building up” instead of “building out.” Again, this may be desirable locally, and in the short term, and I’m not against it at all. But “building up,” while population and economic growth (and the increased resource extraction and pollution that accompanies this growth) continues — well, that isn’t really going to be sustainable either, in the long run.
From my point of view, two major factors,
(a) continuous population growth,
and
(b) a highly materialistic and wasterful consumer culture,
are the ultimate root causes of unsustainability. People looking for new housing is just a symptom. With a smaller (or at least stable) population, and lifestlye changes that make fewer demand on resources per capita, the housing “problem” disappears, and a wide array of choices could continue to exist.
On the other hand, with a constantly growing population, and constantly growing consumer appetites, sustainability and long-term ecological health will continue to elude us, whether we plan to “build out,” “build up,” or both (the status quo).
Thanks again for addressing this issue, which is seldom addressed head-on (probably because it is almost heretical in our culture to suggest that more and more “growth” is not always better!)
August 12, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Jeff Muskrat
Don’t let Cal-Trans rip a hole through the Redwood Curtain! Sign this petition now and help save the Richardson Grove Old Growth Redwoods!
August 12, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Eric Kirk
I think I got an email about this. I’ll post it later.