Everything Southern Humboldt and more
This year. Hot off of Heraldo’s press, who is presumably watching the BOS meeting in progress. Heraldo has a jpg of the schedule up.
Just in time for the election. It does mean, assuming they hold to schedule, that any change in the balance of power between the liberals and conservatives won’t impact the GPU.
 | Anonymous on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Cookie on March against Monsanto this… |
 | bolithio on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Forest Queen on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Mitch on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
 | moviedad on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| Mitch on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
 | "Henchman Of Justice… on March against Monsanto this… |
| moviedad on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
 | That Other Anonymous on March against Monsanto this… |
| Forest Queen on March against Monsanto this… |
| moviedad on March against Monsanto this… |
| Cookie on March against Monsanto this… |
| "Henchman Of Justice… on March against Monsanto this… |
| "Henchman Of Justice… on March against Monsanto this… |
22 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 25, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Anonymous
What a relief that politics won’t influence a controversial process!
May 25, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Anonymous
For discussions sake, assume that the voters do elect new leadership based at least in part on a disagreement on the direction of the General Plan. What do you think about the current Supes forcing the time schedule and voting on a plan that goes against the electorates wishes? Seems to be a bit of an ethical dilemma
All this of course realizing that the election has not been held and as such the peoples will unknown.
May 25, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Eric Kirk
Anon 1:25 – Well, “the electorate” isn’t necessarily chiming in. Only two districts are up for election, and quite frankly I don’t think the GPU is the primary issue on the minds of voters in the 4th District.
But it is interesting that people who have been slamming the county for the time the process has taken are now saying “slow down.” But I think there’s been plenty of input at this time. They’ve heard what people have to say. Time to make decisions and let the political chips fall where they may.
May 25, 2010 at 2:05 pm
the reasonable anonymous
As slow as the GPU process has been, I don’t support any attempt to try to get a final vote by the Supes before any new supervisors are seated. If they vote on this right before the election (or as lame ducks), that’s going to look as if they want to thwart the will of the voters.
But the truth is, I doubt the composition of the Board of Supes is going to change in an anti-GPU direction as a result of this election. I predict that Bonnie will win in the 4th, and in the 5th district either things will stay about the same with Sundberg or else Higgins or Cleary will move the Board more in the Direction of Option A.
By the way, I don’t support Option A “discretionary permit”-type restrictions on our right to build a single house on a TPZ or agricultural parcel, and in general I think that the GPU update is too anti-rural-living and too pro-big-developer-centralized-subdivisions (like Forster-Gill’s 1,400+ suburban subdivision in Cutten/Ridgewood). But I don’t think the Board of Supes is going to get any better on these issues after November.
If I had my druthers, there would be a county-wide referendum on the GPU. Ideally, the voters should be able to weigh in on this directly, at least an up or down vote on whatever the Supes come up with.
If there is no legal way to hold a binding referendum, we should, at the very least, have an advisory referendum so that we can see, once and for all, how Humboldt residents come down on the issue.
May 25, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Anonymous
Not exactly an answer to the question that was posed. I guess we will just see what happens. If the Board makeup does profoundly change I guess they can they can just do a huge General Plan Amendment and “let the political chips fall where they may”. Interestingly, I don’t think anyone on either side has truly asked the public what they want. Nothing but spin as far as one can see and no end in sight. Too bad.
May 25, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Eric Kirk
If I had my druthers, there would be a county-wide referendum on the GPU. Ideally, the voters should be able to weigh in on this directly, at least an up or down vote on whatever the Supes come up with.
I actually think that would be a very bad idea. But then, I’m not even keen on the initiative process these days, as I think the electorate has a hard time with even the most basic of laws. There’s been so much misinformation around the GPU and what the provisions mean, and I don’t think most people speaking on the matter really know what they’re talking about.
And in fact, I think it would be a mistake to turn the process over to fresh members of the Board who have not been involved in the process. Either we’d have to give them a year to catch up, or they’d have to vote on something they’re very unfamiliar with. As I said, all of the input has been made, over and over again. The supervisors and PC know what the various interest groups want. It’s been almost a decade already. Put it to rest.
May 25, 2010 at 3:51 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Well, the public has been asked what they want, and many members of the public have weighed in over the last few years.
The problem is that there is a lot of disagreement rather than some clear consensus on “what the public wants.”
Hence the desirability of a referendum, so that we can really see what at least a *majority* of the public wants.
May 25, 2010 at 3:56 pm
the reasonable anonymous
I know your feelings on the referendum issue, Eric, as we’ve discussed it before. I must respectfully disagree.
In your model, we all knew enough about the GPU to have that sentiment reflected in our choice of Supervisors, yet we don’t know enough about it to vote up or down on their final choice. I find that argument unpersuasive, for reasons that should be pretty obvious.
May 25, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Eric Kirk
The point is that you elect a supervisor who generally represents your values and priorities. Then you let them do the nitty gritty job of legislating. If you don’t like what they did, then you vote them out the next time around. But having the electorate attempt to reach some sort of consensus on something as intricate and complex as a general plan, well, if that was effective we wouldn’t need representatives at all. We should all just vote on everything. Do you have the time for that? Because I sure don’t.
May 25, 2010 at 4:24 pm
the reasonable anonymous
“The supervisors and PC know what the various interest groups want.”
But they don’t know what the majority of Humboldt voters want. Meaningful democracy is more than a collection of interest groups. Hence the desirability of some kind of referendum, even if it’s just an advisory referendum. Let the Supervisors vote on a proposal, then put it to the voters for an up-or-down vote. If it’s only an advisory question, then the Supes could choose to ignore the will of the people, but at least that would be out in the open for all to see. Where’s the harm in that?
By the way, those interest group positions have been clear for a long time now. So imagine if the Board tried to jam a GPU Option C or D through right before the last Supes election, while Rodoni was still the 2nd district rep, before Clendenan came on board. Would you still have said that they should hurry up and push it through, or would you have felt it was more fair to let the latest election’s effects be felt? It’s an honest question, I’m not attacking your integrity, I’m just wondering if you’ve thought of how it would seem if the shoe was on the other foot.
Remember, as I said, I don’t think the actual composition of the Board is going to change much after this election, and if anything, it is probably more likely to go further in the direction of Option A, which I don’t favor. Hey, that’s life. I just don’t think it looks good to jam it through right before the election, or to have lame-duck supes voting on such an important item.
And unless Bonnie loses (which I very much doubt at this point) I don’t really see what the Option A favoring crowd really has to gain by pushing the GPU through right now as opposed to say next year. So from that point of view, I don’t think it’s some machiavellian plot by pro-Option-A folks to pass it before they lose their majority. I just think its a bad move.
Anyway, if we can’t have a binding referendum on the GPU (which I still think would be best), here’s what I would support:
(1) Current board votes to recommend a preferred GPU option, either one of the three options that has been discussed or more likely a hybrid of those options, and places this recommendation on the ballot as an advisory question.
(2) Voters weigh in, up or down, on the Supes’ proposed GPU.
(3) If voters approve the Supes’ proposed GPU, naturally the Supes would most likely go ahead and pass it without further ado. If a majority of voters disapprove of the Supes’ proposal, they could choose to pass it anyway (and risk “the chips falling where they may”) or they could choose to revisit the proposal and try again.
Sounds like democracy to me.
May 25, 2010 at 4:43 pm
the reasonable anonymous
“But having the electorate attempt to reach some sort of consensus on something as intricate and complex as a general plan, well, if that was effective we wouldn’t need representatives at all. We should all just vote on everything. Do you have the time for that? Because I sure don’t.”
Please. Give it a rest with the false dichotomy of either we have to vote on every little item, or we can’t vote on anything, even the most important decisions. That’s a ridiculously false choice, and frankly I’ve come to expect better reasoning from you.
I’m not talking about everyone reaching “consensus” on every little issue. That’s impossible, of course. I’m talking about voters at least getting a simple up-or-down majority vote on an extremely important document that will shape development in the county for decades to come.
Yes, I have time to vote Yes or No on what the supervisors recommend as a General Plan Update. You don’t?
May 25, 2010 at 4:45 pm
longwind
The problem with the speeded-up schedule is that it reflects political, not popular desires. The Plan A push was not created by public discussion, not designed by the GPU.
It’s part of the brokered deal between Bonnie (who had nothing to do with environmentalism), enviros who had nothing to do with Bonnie, and Blue Lake Casino money, which bought Bonnie and the enviros newbie Clif, the apple-cheeked innocent who promised to work with everybody, and turns out to represent no one but his brokers. A public process would have been a great alternative to this back-room scheme.
The GPU process threw out its entire public-participation model, which had composed the original GP without controversy. Democracy works. We should try it again.
May 25, 2010 at 5:39 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Again, I don’t see how it is particularly to the benefit of Option A proponents to hurry it through at this point. I don’t see it as very likely that the new Board of Supes will be any less favorable to Option A-type policies than the existing board. If Bonnie holds her seat and Higgins or Cleary wins the 5th, it seems to me that the Option A folks will have an even stronger majority. So I find the whole “conspiracy to ram it through before they lose their majority” argument rather unconvincing.
That said, I’m still all for waiting until after this election cycle. Of course I’m even more in favor of us voters getting a chance to weigh in more directly, as I’ve outlined above.
May 25, 2010 at 5:52 pm
the reasonable anonymous
One of the great ironies coming out of the most recent Second District supervisor’s election was that the “word on the street” in Sohum (or at least the word in the hills) was that Estelle Fennell was going to be a pushover for her Arcata-based Option-A-loving liberal supporters. And by remaining vague, Estelle allowed that perception to exist.
Apparently she (and/or her advisors) hoped to take both the pro-Option-A voters AND those in her Sohum base who were most opposed to Option A. As often is the case when politicians try to have it both ways, she don’t get enough of either group to get her across the finish line.
It would be interesting to see how Sohum, and Second District voters in general, would line up in a one-on-one re-match of Clendenan vs. Fennell, now that Estelle has been spearheading the opposition to Option A -type restrictions on rural living. If a re-match were to happen, I think Clif would be wishing for a third candidate to split the property rights voters. Of course maybe Johanna will grant that wish.
May 25, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Eric Kirk
RA – actually, the vote will come after the election. According to the schedule, it’ll be on Nov. 18. So the Supes will be apprised of the will of the voters of the 4th and 5th Districts, although I think the 4th District race will be fueled by Balloon Track politics than GPU.
If the Supes had voted for the GPU prior to Clif’s election, it still would have been about three or four years too late. I probably would have disagreed with the Smith/Rodoni/Duffy vote, but it’d be over and I and others would be pushing for smart growth ordinances regardless.
I agree that there should have been citizens advisory committees from the beginning, but it’s too late for that now. It’s time to put this thing to bed, and if not in November, then in January when the conservatives might have regained their majority, although I think that Bonnie’s probably going to win and Smith isn’t even actually a guaranteed conservative vote.
But the process has to end. We have endless public meetings where the same players show up and say the same things over and over again.
A non-binding initiative would be fine with me. I’d sign a petition to put it on the November ballot if it was put in front of me. Although I’m not quite sure what they’d be voting on. All of each plan, or would the voters be allowed to pick and choose from each the way the PC and BOS are doing? Let’s have everybody build their own plan.
May 25, 2010 at 6:42 pm
the reasonable anonymous
“A non-binding initiative would be fine with me”
Good, I’m glad to hear it. I hope that will happen, though I doubt it will, because some of the Supes may not want to face the reality that some of their positions may not be able to win majority support.
As far as what to vote on, it would probably be simplest if it was a straight Yes or No vote on whatever final package of changes the majority of the Supes plans to pass. In other words:
(1) The Planning Commission forwards its recommendations to the Board of Supes.
(2) The Board debates the issues and makes any changes that the majority of the board supports and finalizes a proposal to put to the voters,
(3) The voters have their say, yes or no to the Supes’ proposal, and then
(4) Supes take a final vote.
I could live with that.
Of course there is a possibility that the voters might soundly defeat theh Supes’ proposal in the advisory referendum, which ideally would lead to further changes in the proposal by the Supes, and then another attempt to get voter approval, all of which will take more time. But if a large majority of voters aren’t happy with the final product, then maybe taking the time to at least get to majority support isn’t such a poor use of time.
I understand the desire to “get it done,” but if they end up passing something that a sizeable majority of County residents are unhappy with, we’ll just end up with a General Plan that will continuously be a matter of controversy as the majority seeks to make it’s will felt by amending the Plan in the coming years. If that’s how it goes, it may end up taking even more time to sort out in the long run.
May 25, 2010 at 7:29 pm
the reasonable anonymous
In other words, in the game of democracy and governance, it doesn’t pay for representatives to stray too far from the will of the majority of voters.
If the Board was to pass a GPU that a sizeable majority opposes, the issue won’t be over, it won’t go away, it will just keep resurfacing in new ways. Lots of wrangling over zoning, lots of requests for variances and exceptions, lots of litigation and lots of attemtps to amend the new General Plan. If that’s how it all goes down, then I don’t think there would be any time savings by rushing something through that most people don’t support. A referendum is the best way to ensure that we don’t go down that road.
May 25, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, I don’t think a referendum will clear anything up. I actually think between anything like an option A and option C would be roughly evenly divided between the people who have put a lot of thought into it – and a larger mass of people who are torn between the respective concerns. Ultimately, the demographics of Humboldt County favor smart growth policies, especially given the experiences over the rest of the state. I think it would be like last June’s PC meeting at CR – fairly evenly divided.
I think the call for stalling may be just as political – all about jockeying, hoping to get some sort of political edge. Maybe the C/D side of the debate shouldn’t have made such an issue about how long it’s taking.
In the meantime, everything else happening at the Planning Department is delayed because so many resources are being put into this thing. I think they’d like to see this done before the next fiscal year.
May 25, 2010 at 9:09 pm
the reasonable anonymous
“Well, I don’t think a referendum will clear anything up. ”
Well, Eric, the one thing that a simple Yes or No referendum could EASILY clear up would be whether the majority of residents would accept or reject the GPU that the majority of supervisors plan to pass.
Again, just have the majority on the Supes come up with their best plan — exactly as they already plan to do — then put THAT plan to the voters for a simple Yes or No vote at whatever is the next regularly scheduled election. Then the Supes make a final vote on their plan if they want to… or if it gets a “No” vote from the voters in the referendum, the Supes may want to reconsider and modify the plan.
I’m not sure why you don’t seem to want to acknowledge that an advisory referendum could be that simple: Supes final proposal… Yes or No.
Of course if the Option A faction proposes something pretty close to Option A, and then a large majority of county voters vote NO on that proposal, that would be kind of awkward for those who have been pushing for the GPU to be Option A oriented. (Perhaps that’s why some folks don’t want a referendum, even an advisory one. They may be afraid to see how the majority of Humboldt voters will actually vote on an Option A oriented GPU. That’s certainly an understandable and well-founded fear on their part. )
May 25, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Eric Kirk
I’m fine with it. Just saying, I don’t think the Plan C/D crowd has the numbers they think they have.
But again, the Supervisors won’t know what their final plan is until October at least, and maybe not until November. The ballots will be printed by then. So when would we have this initiative?
May 25, 2010 at 9:30 pm
the reasonable anonymous
I agree that many of the objections to suddenly speeding the process up are probably all about political jockeying for position, just as lots of the complaints about how long it was taking (from commentators on both sides, mind you) were also all about politics as well.
And again, I don’t at all buy into the idea that the pro-Option A crowd is worried about losing their majority on the board and that is the reason for the speed-up. It just doesn’t make sense to me, as I can’t see how the makeup of the Board on this issue is really going to change in a pro C or D direction as a result of this election.
I think the push to “get it done” is largely about being sick of talking about it, being sick of the process dragging on so long, and I can certainly understand how the commissioners and supervisors feel…lots of residents feel the same way. But I still think its a mistake to pass this before the newly elected 4th and 5th district supes take office. If it were to pass with a deciding vote cast by a lame duck Supe, that will not look good at all. And I still think the voters should get a chance to weigh in on the final plan that the supes propose to pass.
Let the Supes put together their best plan, then let us have an advisory referendum, Yes or No on their plan, then they can have a final vote and “let the chips fall where they may.” If it takes until next spring or summer to get it done right, with clear majority support from the voters, so be it. The referendum itself wouldn’t really add to the delay, assuming the Supes can put together a plan that the majority of county voters will support. If they can’t put together such a plan on their first try, then additional time is appropriate, and well-justified by the desire to have clear majority support for a document that is going to serve as the blueprint for development over the next couple of decades.
Democracy…it ain’t easy, but hey, it’s worth a try.
May 25, 2010 at 9:52 pm
the reasonable anonymous
“When would we have this initiative?”
Next regularly scheduled election, whenever that is. Or, they could speed up their schedule so that their proposal is ready in time for November. But I have my doubts about them sticking to the existing schedule, so I am even more doubtful of them speeding it up to accomodate a November advisory referendum (that no one but me seems to be talking about anyway!). We’ll see, I guess.
You may well be right about the C/D folks not having the numbers they think they have. But of course this all depends on what the actual proposal from the Supes ends up looking like. If its more or less B with the right elements from A & C, I think a majority could well vote for it, myself possibly among them.
On the other hand, if it’s pretty much straight-up Option A language, then you’re not talking about the broad middle plus the hard-core A supporters against just the hard-core C and D supporters — in that case you’d have just hard-core Option A supporters against everyone else. In that case, I think the Option A folks would almost certainly lose.
But I think that having an advisory referendum hanging over their heads might lead the Supes to do a better job of crafting their actual proposal in such a way that it would have a good chance of passing with majority public support. That’s the best case scenario, from my point of view.