It’s set for 11:00 a.m. You can watch it live, although I’m having a hard time getting through. Maybe too many people are on it.
Addendum: Okay, it does help to get the facts. Jill Duffy just clarified that the only issue to be decided today is where the unit will be housed, the County Counsel’s Office or the D.A. (the Sheriff is not interested). The issues such as whether the agents will be armed, and other issues the Task Force dealt with are not on the table today. Since the bill for the D.A. place would be about $175,000 per year, the County Counsel model appears to be the one which will prevail.
A client called and I missed the last half of Jill’s comments, and all of Clif’s. I’m listening to Mark’s right now, and he’s saying that there are a long list of issues to be dealt with in months to come.
Even though they’re not deciding much today, they are allowing public input. I doubt much of the comment will be about where it’s housed. The first speaker is already commenting on whether the agents should be sworn officers.
Second addendum: I take it back. The first speaker opposes placing the unit with the D.A. But now he’s back onto the sworn officer issue, which won’t be decided today.
The problem is, of course, the fact that it’s taken so long for the county to even take up the issue, that people are anxious to get their points across while they have the opportunity.
Third addendum: I’m at work, so I’m only hearing bits and pieces, but so far the consensus is that the program should not be housed with the D.A.’s office. I probably agree, but for the issue of accountability I prefer that a single elected representative be directly in charge. But the only elected reps we have are the Sheriff, D.A., Recorder/Clerk, and Assessor, none of which are appropriate for this function for various reasons. Why don’t counties have an elected executive administrations anyway?
Fourth addendum: Query due to bad memory, but wasn’t Jill Duffy on the task force?
Fifth addendum: Did Bonnie just say that they would be deciding there would be no guns with the “civil mode” Clif has proposed? Cool! I thought they were just deciding where it would be housed.
Actually, I think I either misheard, or she misspoke. Either way, the motion carried unanimously. The CEU remains with County Counsel.
Sixth addendum: Heraldo watched the proceedings as well, and makes some notes of points I missed. I had missed, for example, Jill’s explanation that the Task Force’s 17 recomendations don’t apply because they anticipated a hybrid model which involved both the Sheriff and D.A. But Liz Davidson disagreed, saying that some of the recommendations are useful regardless of the model.
32 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 15, 2009 at 10:30 am
Anonymous
I can’t get on either. It’s a conspiracy!
December 15, 2009 at 10:54 am
Eric Kirk
I just got on. They’re in recess. Now’s a good time.
December 15, 2009 at 10:54 am
Anonymous
At least the county is treating the issue of law enforcement accountability with something resembling maturity and open public process…a far cry from dark ages Arcata which refuses to even put police review on their agenda, despite the Arcata General Plan which called for its implementation a decade ago. You can thank the yuppiecrat City Council and their pimp Kevin Hoover for that.
December 15, 2009 at 12:16 pm
anon says
clif has been a dismal failure re: real leadership on Code Enforcement……He still is making his case that it’s really really dangerous and compared the job to being a Cal Highway patrol officer……”regarding Code Enforcement officers, think about when you get stopped by the cal. highway patrol, you notice that they come up REAL slow with their hand on their guns because they don’t ever know what they’re getting into, well it’s kinda like that for C.E, that’s why I think they should carry guns”
I heard he’s flip flopping now that his gun carrying Code Enf idea is widely Unpopular….what a leader
December 15, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Anonymous
Apparently with you he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. He’s definitely not going to make you happy. But I personally am very happy with his leadership. He weighs issues very carefully before deciding. We’ve had enough of the other kind of leadership.
December 15, 2009 at 1:22 pm
anon says
clendenan only changed his mind about C.E. carrying guns because he knew it was political suicide if he didn’t. That’s not good leadership that’s just him trying to save his ass.
why did he throw out the 17 unanimous recommendations that the C.E. task force came up with?
December 15, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Anonymous
anon is probably an estelle groupie.
December 15, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Eric Kirk
He didn’t. They’re all still in play. Today’s meeting was to decide only where the CEU would be housed.
December 15, 2009 at 1:52 pm
SkiptToMyLou
My take from the entire episode is that we have a group of people that want to build whatever the hell they want on “their” land and give the finger to local government. Of course, these same snickering weasels than get into their cars and drive on public roads, take advantage of all public services offered, but if you dare tell them to clean up the crap from their property, whether it’s piles of junk, the fouling of waterways or buildings that poorly constructed and pose a physical danger, well then you’re just jack-booted Nazis trampling on their civil rights. I haven’t seen a more disrespectful and contemptuous collection of sad sack parasites since the last Republican National Convention. These are the same folks who want to “live their own way, apart from society” and it stretches credulity to the breaking point to believe that is the goal.
After today’s display of deliberate disrespect, ignorance and pettiness voiced by the public speakers, any sympathy the victims of the gross over-reach by armed Code Enforcement unit members backed up by Deputies has eroded.
December 15, 2009 at 2:43 pm
anon says
SkitToMyLou must be a clendenen groupie
December 15, 2009 at 2:45 pm
anon says
If anon 1:22 is an ESTELLE groupie, cliff made them one
December 15, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, it shouldn’t be a question of sympathy. The point is that at Yee Haw and Elk Ridge, law enforcement was out of control. And while Jill may be right that Wendy Chaitin has it under control, safeguards must be set up so that it doesn’t happen again, regardless of who’s in control.
There is definitely a “leave us alone” element at play, I agree. On my last radio show I discussed health care reform and for a few of the callers was the paramount issue that they might be forced to pay for something. The politics around here seemed to be geared towards “how does it affect me?” But then, that’s probably the case everywhere.
December 15, 2009 at 3:28 pm
anon says
Hey skiptomyluie, enlighten up:
Having participated for nearly thirty years in the attempt to make Humboldt County government’s attitude and actions regarding code compliance more reflective of its proper goals, I continue to be appalled at the evident continuing willingness of County staff and government in general to virtually ignore the simple human realities that people face in acquiring, building, and maintaining their homes; to establish policies which are far too often harmful rather than helpful, and to allow those policies to develop in such a way that they become intolerable.
When they do become intolerable, the public arises in justified outrage. The Board establishes a committee to deal with the issue (never on their own, it seems; only when forced to do so by the citizenry). Then the committee is too often co-opted, stonewalled, and generally crippled by staff and it is allowed, even encouraged to be so by the Board. If the committee still manages to produce a meaningful report, that report is almost completely ignored, and the policies that caused the problem in the first place are allowed to continue, unnecessarily.
This is precisely what has happened in the case of the most recent outrage (Yee Haw), wherein guns were pointed at a four-year old child in its mother’s arms, over a greywater line emptying into a berry patch. The resulting Task Force was dealt with exactly as described above (it is simply not truthful to say otherwise; I attended almost every meeting). They nonetheless managed to produce a good report, which has been ignored. Now the Board seems to be attempting to institutionalize the practice of code enforcement officers carrying guns. The Board seems to be willing to completely ignore the many failings in such a proposal, including for just one example the attempt to simply ignore the need for meaningful oversight of the CEU. The former Oversight Committee was a bad joke; it failed utterly to carry out its duties as prescribed by the Board, and rather than dealing appropriately with that shocking fact, the Board gives every evidence of being willing to do what staff proposes; to just do away with any pretense of oversight; to change the name of the committee to the Case Management Committee and let it go at that.
This is just not right. Your Board has had an enormous amount of information put before you which, if properly understood and applied, would have gone a long way toward solving the problems that we continue to experience with code enforcement. You have almost completely ignored that information, its implications, or the feelings and rights of the individuals who have presented it to you.
You now have an opportunity to take testimony on these matters from an expert whose credentials nobody can pretend are not relevant or useful; the President of the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers. I ask you; I BEG you to give him the opportunity to speak fully on these matters. If you do, I think you will find that there really are ways to improve this situation so that our difficulties are resolved and everyone feels good about the outcome.
Sincerely,
Peter O. Childs
December 15, 2009 at 5:23 pm
SkiptToMyLou
Peter you were well worth listening to this morning and I don’t believe anyone in that room or watching on television doubted the sincerity and the merits of your stance. Other than Ye Haw and Elk Ridge, which have already been addressed by disbanding the CEU (remember, it consists of one man now) your letter contains no details. Jill Duffy knocked down a bunch of talking points brought up by public speakers when she stated that the line between civil code enforcement and criminal codes can blur quickly.
Do we want to see local government respect the rights of its citizens, of course we do. But what I witnessed today was a childish, willfully ignorant rant against Chaitin (who had nothing to do with yee Haw or Elk Ridge considering she didn’t work for the county at the time) and government in general. Even in your wonderful letter you provide no meat, plenty of froth about commissions and committees, but no actual details about abuse or neglect on the part of county employees.
Again, what I witnessed were disrespectful rants directed at elected officials without an understanding of how government works. It was simply “stay off my property”, of course, those are the same people who will use 9-1-1 when their poorly-wired and shoddily constructed house catches fire.
December 15, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Heraldo
Here’s the part you missed.
December 15, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Ben
Just to remind STML that all those “hippie hovels” went on the tax rolls as soon as they were built. The assessor’s office must be psychic. They’re all paying property taxes just like you “real guys”. Assessors don’t carry guns.
December 15, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Anonymous
there are so many people who live here who could give a rats ass about how they affect the environment or their neighbors. yet claim to be environmental hippies. dope growers on food stamps, don’t pay taxes but take advantage of every tax rebate possible. they want to be left alone until they need community help, or state or government help, then scream having to fill out forms or go through the hoops. they have a “don’t tread on me” attitude, but tread on everyone else, and give the finger if called on it, now they call epic and others the enemy because these “hippies” want to continue to live a dirty and polluting lifestyle. the pboard is a prime example of the “leave us alone” element at play. they have disrespected a large amount of people in the community, and contemptuously held concerts even after being told it was illegal.skiptomylou is absolutely right.
December 15, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Eric Kirk
Nice conflation, even if inappropriate.
December 16, 2009 at 8:26 am
moviedad
That brings up an interesting question; If the county couldn’t collect taxes on a place until it was “signed off”, would they be inclined to be helpful to the home owner? Or would they continue on as they do and just make it more and more difficult?
They always have law enforcement at their disposal. What’s the problem? When have the inspectors ever been in fear of their lives? (Case of Don Knott’s: The Ghost and Mr. Chicken, not withstanding)
December 16, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Anonymous
inappropriate?
December 16, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Rose
That issue about the tax assessor and the legality of the buildings is a REALLY big one – and the one that is going to bring about really, truly unintended consequences that CLMP and co. is NOT going to be happy about.
Person after person got up and spoke angrily about paying taxes on their house and equating that with legality, screaming that the County was not playing fair. This lack of appreciation for and recognition of the situation is going to hurt you now.
That is a big mistake, because now, the County will rectify the situation and the various County agencies will begin sharing information which was previously kept separate.
Yes, you may have been paying taxes for structures on your property, but the assessor did not turn you in to the Building Dept. and no one came after you for violations.
Now they will. I am sure everyone will thanks Bonnie Blackberry and crew.
Making government more efficient is NOT conducive to that free and happy lifestyle the back-to-the-landers want.
December 16, 2009 at 12:27 pm
anon says
the Times standard quote this wed a.m.=”Clif Clendenen quickly made a motion to keep the unit under the supervision of the county counsel, saying that it would save the county money.”
Clendenan is for saving money???? what??? this guy said the exact opposite last week. He was the one advocating that C.E. wear guns and continued to mix that civil office up with criminal enforcement.
He then was the Supe that wanted to spend an additional $175,000 EXTRA that our county does NOT have to arm more C.E officers in the field.
He only changed his “mind” when he realized that his position was wildly unpopular and flip flopped in order to save his buns politically.
Clendenan is a real disappointment, I’m sorry I let myself get talked into voting for him.
December 16, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Eric Kirk
I said that awhile ago. Obviously most homesteaders do not want the assessors and planners comparing notes. That being said, it would add a lot of work to their load. I doubt it’ll be happening.
December 16, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Rose
Then we are in agreement, Eric.
I am in favor of owner-building, believe that the building department ought to be in a more ASSISTIVE mode first and punitive second.
The process as it is takes too long, is too intimidating and too rife with in equities and stupid rules. It puts people off. Anyone who thinks the planning and building department functions well need only talk to the carpenters and contractors.
And you have to admit that the idea that code enforcement was going to be given to Gallegos is absolutely horrifying if you look at his schizophrenic prosecutions record. If you were trult worried about INNOCENT people being persecuted, you would never consider this. By the same token, pot growers would get a free pass.
And, conversely, I can understand people being upset about armed officers coming to their homes – but until you do something about the pot growers being heavily armed – and dangerous, it is not fair to disarm law enforcement.
So that’s my question – now they’ve disarmed the inspectors – is the Bonnie Blackberry crew going to do something about the armed pot growers and drug dealers? Now only the bad guys are allowed to carry weapons?
We all know there have been many murders out there in the hills – and I don’t hear any hew and cry about that. Just that chilled protective silence.
December 16, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Anonymous
rose, you are so so so so right. protective silence about diesel growing neighbors who pollute the rivers and creeks, yes, murders in the hills, how many in the last 5 years? clif should have stuck to his “guns”, and lovelace too, but dennis huber et al are constantly putting pressure on him, clendenan, on mmm, and elsewhere. there always seems to be “threatening” tone in hubers’ voice saying do it or you’ll be out next election.
December 16, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Eric Kirk
I think the substance of the prosecutions would have been driven by the particular agencies in question, rather than the D.A.’s discretion. That wasn’t the issue for me. The issue was the conflation, at least as a matter of perception, of the property code violations with other criminal investigations was problematic.
And personally, if the contractors find a building department easy to get along with, you really should worry. It generally means that the codes aren’t being enforced. Stuff would get built, but then people would get hurt.
As for the pot growers being armed, it’s really overblown. Many of the people living in the hills have guns, whether they grow or not. But by all accounts, most of them have been responsible about it, and I really doubt that that even the rowdiest of pot growers is going to shoot a government agent over a permit violation.
There have not been “many murders” in the hills. I can count them with my fingers. And to my knowledge, no government officer has been attacked on private lands around here. I’m not saying it’s never happened. I just haven’t heard about it.
Still, there is a lot of tough talk, and with some of the grows a lot of money involved and some hard core criminal elements. We’ve lost kids to them. And there is also a severe meth problem, just as there is in Eureka and even Fortuna.
So we need protocols. How does the CEU determine whether there is danger, and what are the steps which will mitigate the situation? We don’t want a repeat of Yee Haw and Elk Ridge, where there was no danger which justified anything law enforcement did. I believe it was somewhat addressed by the task force, and probably needs more attention.
December 16, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Anonymous
huh.
December 17, 2009 at 12:34 pm
suzy blah blah
Now only the bad guys are allowed to carry weapons?
i think this issue could be mitigated by an ordinance allowing for the bad guys to wear only black hats and the good guys only white.
December 18, 2009 at 7:24 am
"HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
Rose,
Thanks for the FYI about this on this blog. I would agree armed pot growers CAN be a problem. It depends however on identification of the “hot spots”, sts. To label “Pot Growers” as all inclusively armed and dangerous is simply not 100% accurate, not even close. The real problem seems to be over-emotionalized myths + current cartel-like operations that equate to “The Real Problem” – large, organized grows by whoever. Yet, why again is code enforcement involving itself with Pot Grows when “Pot Grows” don’t appear to be the reason for the CEU’s involvement as indicated by the historical evidence used to attain past warrants for entering upon properties for which was given in presentation form to the Board of Supervisors?
As far as building, how long have people been saying what you just said? The reality is that nothing is broke, it is manipulation and circumvention of the rules too by those who are on the “public employee” side of the counter AND those who oversee them like the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors who have abjured away from enforcing Respondet Superior! It is about a uniform and specific “Due Process” for applicants that is supposed to be carried out without favortisms and political trickeries and abuses. These are not things that need fixing – these are things that are related to “actions that need to STOP!”
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
December 18, 2009 at 7:27 am
"HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
CEU Process – it does not matter if it is one committee or another with another name. In the end, creating committee after committee just means that the results of the previous committee did not meet the “design criteria” that backdoor politics had choregraphed for a pre-ordained result, which btw, is oligarchial in nature.
Rose’s statement here,
At Eric’s blog, that issue about the tax assessor and the legality of the buildings is a REALLY big one – and the one that is going to bring about really, truly unintended consequences that CLMP and co. is NOT going to be happy about.
Person after person got up and spoke angrily about paying taxes on their house and equating that with legality, claiming that the County was not playing fair. This lack of appreciation for and recognition of the situation is going to hurt you now.
That is a big mistake, because now, the County will rectify the situation and the various County agencies will begin sharing information which was previously kept separate.
Yes, you may have been paying taxes for structures on your property, but the assessor did not turn you in to the Building Dept. and no one came after you for violations.
Now they will. I am sure everyone will thank CLMP.
Making government more efficient is NOT conducive to that free and happy lifestyle the back-to-the-landers want.
is somewhat valid on a non-defined political surface, but, maybe not really in that it is a situation that can be played at least from 2-3 different political vantage points:
#1. How does an assessor or other dept. find out? – Realtor advertisements and their county lists of comparable properties and neighborhoods, satellite (Google), neighbor (you made her made), PGE (you have an account), phone (you like internet and talikng), cable (you like the boob tube), other service or 3rd party who comes out to property (including another govt. dept. or agency by land, sea or water), etc… theoretically, all of these and more examples are PROBABILITIES NOT LESS THAN ZERO.
#2. The assessor knows that the list of probables (in #1 above) is large enough that diclosing something illegal is part of their job requirement, so, they report it, even though they can claim they did not – how are you gonna prove it?
#3. The assessor simply puts a value on the book and it just so happens that the CDS Dept. (or any other dept., agency, person, group, etc…) randomly has people go in and look at Parcel Map Books and legal tax information from multiple “local sources” to “spread about” public and private information.
#4. At the beginning of each “New Year” anyhow, everyone’s house is illegal and not conforming to all the codes. So, the real conundrum becomes evident with the sinisterisms of County & State Government pertaining to “The Housing Market” in that:
A. The housing industry was a creationist manifestation to make housing a major part of the “American Economy”. Now, how would it look if the departments sent out letters to a bunch of property owners creating a process which would affect the money rolling in when the good times were rockin’ or no one was really saying anything! Rather, wait until crapola hits the shrouds that will be optioned to the community. Now, make money in the good times and beat it out of ‘em in the bad.
B. If the departments were enforcing what they already knew for years, then guess what, Real Estate “market values” would be much lower and the government departments would not have been taking in as high a return in taxes, service fees, etc… based on valuations which were propagated through manipulated market data and appraisal practices. Afterall, who wants to buy a piece of property with a “cloud attached to it”! – HOUSING STOCK / INVENTORY GOES DOWN!
C. Now, it comes down to the government not wanting to be “shown up” by the people who have lived in “supposed” non-compliance for years, but only after Humboldt and California approve of money in the form of taxes, while creating fees and charges ORIGINATING FROM HIGHER VALUES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE LOWER if the jurisdiction had enforced it’s own rules originally when the non-compliance was borne.
In the end – Greed seems to run government too!
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
December 18, 2009 at 7:40 am
"HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
Ah, a question that centers around “The loopholes” of consumer protections within Prop. 13′s procedures for which “public officials” abuse ever so often and try to hide it away through political shenanigans. The County Assessor’s Office has some dark and dirty operation methodologies that will surely make men cry.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
December 18, 2009 at 8:23 am
anymoose
I have built houses in Humboldt and Sonoma counties and I can tell you that Humboldt county is much less helpful than Sonoma this is not to say that they ignored building codes but that they worked WITH us to solve problems rather than being obstructive and hard to get solutions to problems or grey areas in the code. It was much easier to build a timber framed house in Sonoma than to get Humboldt to work with us . They would just say you can’t do that and then not have any idea as to how to change the plans to suit them. “Just have your architect revise the plans and then we’ll see”
We went around and around having plans denied without much explanation and then revised and denied again in Humboldt. In Sonoma the building dept. suggested some changes to the lead contractor and were satisfied with the changes that he made.
Assistive and Cooperative do not equal allowing dangerous practices.