Faust wants a deadline of 2012!
Recent Comments
 | Narration on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
 | Forest Queen on Priorities |
| Narration on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| Narration on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| Narration on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| Forest Queen on Priorities |
 | Miss Criyant on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
 | suzy blah blah on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| suzy blah blah on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| Miss Criyant on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| Miss Criyant on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| Miss Criyant on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| suzy blah blah on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| Narration on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| suzy blah blah on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 28, 2010 at 11:14 am
the reasonable anonymous
Yeah, like I said in the previous GPU thread, I had real doubts that they could really wrap it all up by November. Now apparently the lanning commissioners have said that won’t be happening. Thank goodness, because we surely don’t want any lame-duck supervisors voting on something this important or long-lasting right before they leave office.
What really needs to happen is:
the planning commission should try to complete its recommendations by early next year,
the Board of Supes (including any new members) should consider those recommendations and make their own final proposal,
and then, MOST IMPORTANTLY, the Supes should put their proposal to Humboldt County voters in the form of a referendum — a simple Up or Down vote by the voters on the proposal favored by the Supes would satisfy me.
If the Supes CAN come up with a compromise position that the majority of Humboldt residents approve of in a referendum, then this could be all settled once and for all. On the other hand, if their proposal CAN’T get majority approval by voters, then they have no business passing it in that form — now, next year, or whenever.
Let the people make the final choice. After all, we’re all going to have to live with the new General Plan, whatever shape it eventually takes.
May 29, 2010 at 10:59 am
Eric Kirk
I’m not against a ballot measure, but I disagree that a General Plan necessarily should be approved by the majority. We are a quasi-democracy, but something like the General Plan should be guided by hours and hours of analysis of the data and conflicting policy interests. That’s not something most voters have the time to do, let alone the inclination. It’s one of those things we elect people to do for us. If we don’t like their decisions, we vote them out next time around.
I certainly don’t believe a constitution should be passed by a majority vote. Everybody keeps comparing the GP to a constitution.
May 29, 2010 at 10:32 pm
the reasonable anonymous
“It’s one of the things we elect people to do for us.”
Yes, we elect them to do all that work, but on the most important, far-reaching, fundamental documents (such as the state Constitution and the county General Plan, for example), we the people can and should be asked to weigh in on the final product.
Let the elected officials, experts, policy wonks, special interests, and involved citizens do research, draft proposals, and boil it down to the best policy they can come up with, AND THEN WORK TO CONVINCE THE VOTERS that the proposal they came up with is better than the status quo.
If you can’t convince more than half the voters that the final product is worthwhile, then it shouldn’t be enacted. That’s why we call it “the consent of the governed.”
Sure, it would be unreasonable to expect the county to have every single resident involved in the minutae of every single aspect of the general plan…that would obviously be completely impractical. But it is not at all unreasonable to ask that we be given an opportunity to consent, or not consent, to the new plan.
“I certainly don’t believe a Constitution should be passed by a majority vote.”
Please clarify…do you mean that you think it should be passed by a super-majority vote as opposed to a simple 50% plus majority?
Or do you mean that it should not be passed by popular vote at all.?
If the latter, what would you suggest? Because popular vote is exactly how we DO amend the state Constitution.
If the former (supermajority), then would you also argue that we should only pass the General Plan Update with a supermajority? Cuz I’d be fine with that!
“If we don’t like their decisions we vote them out next time around.”
Not if they are already a lame duck. In that case there is zero accountability. Plus, “voting them out the next time around” is not much good when the damage is already done and a General Plan supported only by a minority of residents is put into place for 20 years.
May 29, 2010 at 10:38 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Just to be clear, I’m not claiming to know that the final GPU proposal would only be supported by a minority of residents…heck, we don’t even know what the final proposed GPU will look like.
If it’s a reasonable compromise plan, I think it could draw some support from both sides as well as those in the middle, and could indeed be passed with a respectable majority. But unless we put it to the voters, we’ll never know…and apparently some folks would like to keep it that way.
May 30, 2010 at 7:42 am
moviedad
Just to be clear, I did not consent to be governed by the Greedy-Elites of Madison Avenue. I will tolerate a government of my peers, barely. Better dead, than bled…er, to death. Ok, I’m still working on my sloganism.
When you see how much power they have over your own property, it becomes clear that they (the city-state) own the land. My friend’s lot in bayside will probably never get developed. He didn’t realize he’d need a million dollars just to start.