As does the Times Standard.
Recent Comments
 | moviedad on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
 | That Other Anonymous on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Forest Queen on March against Monsanto this… |
 | 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… |
12 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 3, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Bodie
Sweet! It’s only 20 years late.
September 4, 2010 at 12:48 am
Anonymous
At least it’s done.
September 4, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Eric Kirk
This bodes well for putting the whole thing to rest soon.
September 4, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Heraldo
Unless Arkley sues.
September 4, 2010 at 10:35 pm
mresquan
“Unless Arkley sues.”
Likely to happen soon….and Rose will be mad about it as she hates predatory litigious organizations and individuals.
September 5, 2010 at 9:46 am
Eric Kirk
Does anybody know what the rules of standing are with regard to a GPU? I would assume, to prevent “floodgates” of litigation, that a plaintiff would have to show an adverse impact on him personally, which means I would think that he would have to be denied a permit under the new GP guidelines.
Has anybody read up on past GPU lawsuits in other counties?
September 5, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Anonymous
I believe that all that would have to be shown is damages of some sort for the filing of an individual suit or as a class. Clearly there would be a massive loss in property value if entitlements that were represented by the County to exist for an entire class of landowners were summarily eliminated. This loss could be proven easily by a number of methods other than the denial of a permit. All owners who could show reliance by virtue of the amounts paid for their land, their mortgages, an appraisal, or a dozen other ways. Might also take a look at the possibility of puni’s if certain other elements could be proven. Amazing what happens when someone steals a few billion from the people. On the other hand, I guess Bush got away with it so why not Mark and Bonnie. But for now all they approved was the Housing Element not the GPU. Still might be a suit or three but nothing compared to GPU.
September 5, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Eric Kirk
You can’t get punitive damages against public entities for one thing, and if the mere reduction of property values opened a public entity up to a liability then it would apply to every zoning and regulation, and no government would ever pass anything which restricts property use. So no, I don’t think it’s enough.
But for the sake of discussion, how does the housing element reduce property values?
September 5, 2010 at 8:20 pm
Anonymous
There are notable exceptions to the general rule regarding damages and public entities and officials. There was no assertion made with respect to the Housing Element and property values; moreover, that’s not the question you asked. Nonetheless, there are probably a few isolated instances of properties whose value either increases or decreases due to provisions in the element. I strongly doubt that this would be the basis for a Housing Element suit. There are lots of better reasons. Mostly, I don’t really know who cares enough to file.
September 5, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, I was basing my response on this sentence.
Clearly there would be a massive loss in property value if entitlements that were represented by the County to exist for an entire class of landowners were summarily eliminated.
I believe that Arkley was going to file on the basis that the state mandates a certain amount of growth in housing availability and therefore zoning and regs should be loosened up to allow him to deliver it. Or something like that.
And I guess in theory property values could be reduced if development options were limited or made more problematic. But I was wondering if there were more specific claims about the housing element.
September 6, 2010 at 6:50 am
moviedad
Two things: Eminent Domain (E.d), and “..she had previously tried to sub-divide her property.”
In reading the article in the Sunday Times Standard regarding the woman who owns the property with the road, it’s clear that it is who you know, and not how good your case might be.
That one line about “tried” to sub-divide, shows that she wasn’t able to do that. Five acres was probably not considered large enough. If only she had tried to put thousands of buildings on just a little bit more.
I’m sorry, but this is BS. There’s a county official saying that eminent domain would be used if other methods didn’t work out. What the…? So now the ugly truth about E.d and its ties to corrupt politics rears its head. Remember a few years ago the courts decided that putting a WalMart on someone’s property who didn’t want to sell, in a neighborhood which didn’t want the store; constituted a “Public Need.” so they stole (legally) the person’s property and put up a WalMart, and now the developers are off to their next conquest and the other stores in the town are probably all gone.
I hope there is resistance. Can someone from out of the area help? How dare they!
I usually stay out of Eureka/Arcata politics, being an out-of-towner, an all. But, this is bigger than just Eureka. this is the state being the goon for developers and stealing from private citizens. I’m sorry, but if she doesn’t want to sell, that’s the end of it. Find another spot.
If we are going to say there is something called: “The right to private property.” then it has to apply to the small individual land owner; just as it does to the billionaire developers.
September 6, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Eric Kirk
moviedad – I think you posted that in the wrong thread.