The County failed to rezone property designated for multi-family low income housing prior to the deadline. The County says it will be compliant by April.
Recent Comments
 | "Henchman Of Justice… on March against Monsanto this… |
| "Henchman Of Justice… on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Erasmus on March against Monsanto this… |
| Cookie on March against Monsanto this… |
 | suzy blah blah on Priorities |
 | Not A Native on March against Monsanto this… |
| suzy blah blah on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
 | HUUFC on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Eric Kirk on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Just Watchin on March against Monsanto this… |
 | bolithio on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Joe Blow on March against Monsanto this… |
| Erasmus on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Narration on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
 | That Other Anonymous on March against Monsanto this… |
40 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 11, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Anonymous
typical. i wonder if michael richardson or kirk girard would be able to find jobs anywhere other than humco?
February 11, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Anonymous
Girard et al said that in Sept. Wrong. If you believe him now then you need professional help.
Can the man. He is incompetent and can’t tell the truth.
February 12, 2011 at 6:08 am
Plain Jane
All the NIMBY’s, and the developer shills, scream “NOT HERE!” and then turn around and blame Giraud for the failure to identify appropriate sites for low income housing. Absurd!
February 12, 2011 at 6:51 am
Anonymous
It’s worth noting that none of the proposed low income housing is in Bayside. The same Bayside where Ralph Faust, Mark Lovelace, Bruce Emod, Kirk Girard, Mary Gearheart, Carolyn Ruth and Jan Turner all live. I for one am shocked that these cheerleaders and decision makers for rezoning couldn’t find a single unit, not one, that would fit in their neighborhood. THousands in Eureka, thousands in MacKinleyville, even hundreds in Redway but none near Arcata and certainly none in Bayside. Kinda makes ya wonder?
February 12, 2011 at 7:23 am
Anon
Many of the sites identified are not appropriate sites for large apartment buildings which is what will be built. One property in McKinleyville is on Turner Road where the Mill Creeks falls are. Another is TPZ property, but there are many others too. A minimum of 22 units per acre with the ability to double that amount is what is cited. Two workshops were published in a one page ad in the T-S – one is Feb 14 6 to 8 pm at Azalea Hall the other is Feb 15 in Eureka. Where is anything for the Redway/Garberville area which is also on their maps?
February 12, 2011 at 8:14 am
Anonymous
JAne you are so either so predictably uninformed or so predictably shilling the proggie line its totally laughable. Critics on both sides of the isle have been saying Girard and his crew have been screwing the pooch with bogus figures for years and demanding their fake listed sites be validated on the ground. The CDD made the numbers up and its all about bogus grant money. You either don’t have the simple IQ to read and understand this or you don’t care. Doesn’t matter to me girlfriend. I just care about truth and competence.
February 12, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Anonymous
No Jane, they cry “NOT HERE!”, when the sites are not buildable lots, or on ag land, and simply point out the bullshit that Girard puts out there in order to meet deadlines, even though the data is hopelessly flawed.
February 12, 2011 at 1:05 pm
Plain Jane
To quote my good friend, Suzy. “Blah, blah, blah.”
February 12, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Anonymous
Jane. When you type blah blah blah you sound like a six year old throwing a tantrum after being called out on your bull. How juvenile and how totally predictable. Did you close your eyes and plug your ears when you typed it?
February 12, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Anonymous
Jane,
Nice response, when you don’t have one.
February 12, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Anonymous
ohhhh, that makes a lot of sense there, Jane, LMSAO – it illustrates your lack of knowledge perfectly – “blah blah blah”.
You’ve had the facts reasonably laid out, and you stick your hands over your ears and blurt out “blah blah blah”.
Ideologues like you Jane are only interested in facts when it fits your viewpoint; facts that don’t are an inconvenient truth, and met with “blah blah blah”
Priceless. Kind of like the Palin/Beck Az shooting thread where you stated that it didnt matter if the shooter was “to the left of Che”, it still proved your point that Palin influenced the shooter, and those like him.
What.The.F..k. “Blah Blah Blah” indeed!
February 12, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Anonymous
Maybe the county should be like Mckee.
Just build it, then ask for forgiveness.
February 12, 2011 at 8:51 pm
WTF
The Park BOD wants three to five acres of Multi-family housing down at the CP included in their re=zone GPA. With Girard/Richardson whispering in their ear. What has not been talked about, the Park BOD already owns about seven acres of property across the river between Sprowel Creek road and Phelps, that has already been zoned R-1-B-6 by Tooby during the GRBA Community Plan in 87′.
What Richardson said at the Park Scoping meeting, that three to five acres could mean 40 to 60 homes. So I’m sure the Park will get multi-family housing in their re=zone package.
February 12, 2011 at 9:01 pm
Anonymous
Uh. That is how the county does business. That is SoHum. Build it and they will lok the other way. That has been the case for over 30 years. J class housing! M gearhart said it at a hearing…..we will never have them torn down. SO. Guess its just a free for all. And Jane….bite me.
February 12, 2011 at 10:06 pm
Plain Jane
You didn’t lay out anything but the same hysteria we’ve been hearing from primarily McKinleyville residents for a while now. You’re NIMBY’s making silly rationalizations for why you’re not, but still whining about “Why other cities aren’t getting the low income housing” without the realization that CITIES aren’t the county and they have their own requirements for low income housing to accommodate. So blah, blah, blah until you have something new and factual to add.
February 13, 2011 at 6:00 am
Anonymous
The only hysteria Jane is your uninformed rants. Again predictable.
February 13, 2011 at 9:46 am
Dave Kirby
Having served on the planning commission I think I understand some of the problems surrounding “low cost” housing. Back in the early 90′s we were still trying to figure out how we could make zoning changes that would allow small single family units to be built on smaller lots. We looked at “Duet” housing. A concept that would allow almost zero side set backs on one side of the lot where two residences would be separated by a narrow service aisle. We also looked at allowing many more detached “mother in law units”especially on corner lots. At every step we were opposed by the neighborhoods where these proposals were to be put in place. We finally came to the conclusion that multi family dwellings were the only realistic way of providing “affordable” housing. In the four years that I served I never heard one person speak in support of multi family zoning in their neighborhood. Just once I would like to hear someone add something constructive and show us where we could build these badly needed structures. I think most of us believe that every family deserves a roof over their head.
February 13, 2011 at 10:15 am
Anonymous
“Just once I would like to hear someone add something constructive and show us where we could build these badly needed structures.”
How about allowing rural landowners the right to build an extra unit if they record a deed restriction requiring them to limit occupancy of the unit to family members and/or low/moderate income renters for some extended period, say ten years. They (landowners) have the land and many could use the extra income. Units would be permited, inspected, (unlike now) and regulated. Of course we would also have to deal with water storage, build the extra units within the same general “footprint” as the principal residence (meaning NO extra conversion of timber or ag land) and the other legitimate environmental concerns that are now being ignored. Wouldn’t low income folks benefit from a chance at a rural lifestyle?
February 13, 2011 at 10:26 am
Anonymous
You folks miss the mark. You have to have this housing as rentals and most folks don’t want to rent their property any more. One bad renter and you have lost everything. One holdover and its to court with bills. Destroyed units. Pot grows indoor. Evictions. I have a friend who has her house closed down for 3 years. Moved away. Couldn’t sell and won’t rent.
You folks are too one dimensional in your thinking. Very few folks want to build this housing cause folks don’t want to buy and be landlords.
February 13, 2011 at 11:06 am
WTF
Dave K, could you explain the different types of dwellings that could be located and built for multi family housing?
Could you also give us examples, pro’s & con’s, why the owner of a $400K and up single family house would want to have “affordable” multi family housing built next to their house or in the neighborhood?
Is it true that “affordable housing” qualifies for HUD section 8?
Does “affordable house” always stay “affordable”? Even in high deman areas?
Many people and home owners have pre-conceived notions and fears about what “affordable housing” means for their property value. Maybe you could bust some of those myths?
February 13, 2011 at 11:17 am
Anon
Bayside is not a city but they still don’t want anything there. Plenty of large lots and space to put apartments. Of course, Kirk is not going to put it in his backyard. Somehow the consultants just couldn’t find any land there.
February 13, 2011 at 8:08 pm
Anonymous
Seems like there was some exuberant insanity when obscenely big houses were being built with easy money. All those gigantic, bloated houses that have been built instead of reasonable, affordable homes, and the county was NOT mandating inclusionary zoning. And how about all the big grow houses that were just big grow houses? They’ll be empty soon, too. They could be converted to three and four family homes and you would have instant inclusionary zoning. Why not give “breaks” to conversions instead of building more?
And what exactly does “affordable” mean, anyway?
February 13, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Eric Kirk
Wouldn’t low income folks benefit from a chance at a rural lifestyle?
Sure. If they could afford it.
February 13, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Eric Kirk
Bayside is not a city but they still don’t want anything there. Plenty of large lots and space to put apartments. Of course, Kirk is not going to put it in his backyard. Somehow the consultants just couldn’t find any land there.
Actually they did. Danco built some low income apartments just a few blocks from me. There was some opposition, mostly over the process because notice of the project was posted in the Times Standard rather than the local papers and nobody knew about it until it was past time for public input. That generated a lot of bad faith from people who viewed the thing as a fait accompli. As it happened, low income people are very much benefiting from the apartments, including some of my lower income clients who are very grateful for them. And it turns out the predictions of increased traffic on Orchard street and the big intersection were greatly exaggerated and fairly adequately addressed by the change in the structure of the three way intersection (although I still think it’s dangerous).
Anyway, I don’t know if I would have opposed it had I had the opportunity. But I am glad it’s there now.
And what exactly does “affordable” mean, anyway?
I don’t know, but I believe it’s defined in the law.
February 14, 2011 at 8:10 am
Discouraged Democrat
Eric, I think the reference was to Kirk Girard’s supposed NIMBYism, not yours. He (apparently) lives in Bayside.
February 14, 2011 at 8:40 am
Dave Kirby
Affordable is defined by most governmental agencies as no more than 30% of a household’s gross income.
February 14, 2011 at 10:02 am
Eric Kirk
Eric, I think the reference was to Kirk Girard’s supposed NIMBYism, not yours. He (apparently) lives in Bayside.
Oops. The mark of my ego. It’s always about me!
February 14, 2011 at 10:44 am
Plain Jane
Does the county condemn land they rezone so it can only be used for low income housing and force reduction in the price? How can they put “affordable” housing on very expensive land?
February 14, 2011 at 11:40 am
Dave Kirby
I think one of the reasons that folks oppose multi family housing goes to the fact that so many of these dwellings were cheaply built and poorly maintained. We’ve all seen the T 111 apartment houses with landscaping consisting of some white conrock in the planters. If the county decides to rezone lots in neighborhoods to multi family they need to establish some sort of design review panels that include the neighbors up front. In order to do the right thing the cost of building needs to be a cooperative process between the contractor and the governmental agencies. Some of the best examples of this can be found in some of the subsidized senior housing projects around the county. The bottom line is if you try to force substandard housing into a neighborhood people rightly worry that their property’s value will take a hit. It has been my experience that concerns about traffic and safety are usually overstated.
February 14, 2011 at 12:12 pm
WTF
After what Clendenen talked about on KMUD this morning, all proposed Multi Family housing GPU rezoning for SoHum is on the “back burner” for now.
February 14, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Anonymous
That’s good for nimbies. Bad for poor people.
February 14, 2011 at 3:14 pm
olmanriver
Thass right WTF, they are going to try to find the housing sites from Eureka and McKinleyville. Sohum is still “tagged”, but not in the surveyors crosshairs…at this time.
If anyone were to read the CDF report (in the comments section of the GPU?) on water usage from the Southfork they would realized that we are tapped out for water. If this report were widely known, I think fears of developing housing as part of the community park would be found groundless, oops, waterless.
The local NIMBIES have the CDF on their side. Local property owners can breathe a breath of relief. Property values don’t have to plummet by %25… at least not because of low income housing. (These are the figures being circulated amongst the Redway homeowners).
I expect this fresh gossip will be better articulated soon… but this CDF report on water usage out of the Southfork has been around for at least half a year… don’t know why people don’t know about it.
February 14, 2011 at 4:19 pm
WTF
olmanriver, that is a dam good point, thank you and there is more, read this from the Redwood Times:
http://www.redwoodtimes.com/ci_15963318?IADID=Search-www.redwoodtimes.com-www.redwoodtimes.com
I mean to say, DFG tells GSD flat out, the SFER is over allocated, but then after that special meeting on Dec 27 2010, GSD signs yet more agreemnets with River Ranch Homes for new water hook=ups for housing developments right next to the Community Park and the New GSD Water Treatment Plant at the same location.
The sad part about this whole issue? They will be allowed some way, some how to take and divert as much water as they want. As long as GSD can see water in the SFER they will sell it.
The local NIMBIES don’t have anyone on their side, execpt more local NIMBIES. You can’t trust for one minute that agencies can’t change their minds from on day to the next. Just look at a “take permit”. As long as you have a permit to take the life of a ESA species, you can kill it all day long.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m with you, been there, done that.
February 14, 2011 at 4:41 pm
Eric Kirk
Gee Ed. This is the first time I’ve seen anyone proudly embrace the label of “NIMBY.”
I know, I know – you’re not Ed.
February 14, 2011 at 5:24 pm
WTF
You got it baby, I’m not Ed?; I’m whoever you want me to be, best friend, worst nightmare or even scapegoat . It’s amazing how you can find words that don’t even exist in a sentence. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, unless you are Eric Kirk.
Just remember Eric, NIMBY spelled backwards is what ever you want it to be.
February 14, 2011 at 7:45 pm
NIOW
Anyone concerned about WATER in the South Fork Eel River should start attending GSD meetings. One of the few meetings where decisions are made that we can attend. You would be amazed at the plans in the works. Though “conservation” is supposed to “save” water, the truth is that “conservation” (or the promise of it) promotes more consumption. Once the housing or whatever water sucking development is in place, do you think you can deny them water? It is called leapfrog development. The Park has enabled far more speculative development potential than if Tooby Flat had just been left as it was…a municipal size well (put in supposedly for “agricultural use”) that is somehow becoming part of GSD, or the Park Boards own water sucking system? How can we find out?… There is lots more, come to GSD meetings and find out. Meets the fourth Tuesday of the month at 5:oo at the GSD office in Garberville.
February 14, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Stan Dalone
Dear olmanriver, come along to GSD meetings. You will be amazed at what GSD and the land speculators have up their sleeves. Last Tuesday of the Month 5:00 at the GSD office in Garberville.
February 15, 2011 at 9:31 am
olmanriver
I suspect that my comments above were naive and barely “informed”… thanks for the suggestion about the meetings.
February 15, 2011 at 10:36 am
Anonymous
That reminds me of the story in the Redwood-Times, that the new water treatment system that GSD has on the property owned by Sanford Goldeen, if I remember correctly, GSD paid him something like 50Grand for an easement, they are putting in 3 household water lines free of charge for him AND they have to SUPPORT him when he goes to the planning commission to ask for his 3 house permits. Is that bribery? More water suckers, more development, more more more. Supposedly, didn’t WE, as the community who paid for the park, buy it to stop development?
February 16, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Stan Dalone
According to the agreement between Goldeen and GSD, the price for the EASEMENT is $25,000 and three three-quarter inch water meters without cost (or such other size that the County may require for a residential hookup). And something about underground power delivered to its facility and providing conduit and pull box for Goldeen’s use in said trench adjacent to the three meters.
The agreement also says, in part: “Grantee will support: Grantor’s effort to subdivide its 80 acres; Grantor’s effort to obtain approvals for a 3-unit residential PUD on its southerly 60 acres; Grantor’s effort to obtain approval for the Maximum allowable development of its northerly 20 acres;…”
Grantor is Goldeen (granting an easement) Grantee is GSD.
Plus, Goldeen’s property is outside of the water district, but won’t be for long if GSD and the speculators get their way.