A number of organizations and interests have coalesced around an effort to toss all of the work which has been done over the past 10 years into the bin and start over for what they say has been a lack of public input prior to the framework drafts (certainly everyone must agree that there has been an abundance of input since). Heraldo has a post with an extensive thread on tomorrow’s BOS meeting where that proposal will be discussed.
Dennis has covered the issue over the past couple of week’s on KMUD’s Monday Morning Magazine. Last week he had Peter Childs on to discuss the public participation requirements of the old General Plan, which he helped draft. This week he had Healthy Humboldt representatives. Both shows are available online.
I have some thoughts on the issue, which I’ll share tonight. It does appear that the County dropped the ball in failing to create Citizens Advisory Committees early on as required by local law, but I given that the framework for the GPU remains fluid (is constantly being updated) I don’t see any reason to start over, and I don’t think we can wait another ten years as I believe the old plan to be seriously outdated.
The cynical view is that developers want to delay as much as possible to slip through proposals under the old plan, and perhaps to change the make-up of the Board as Clif Clendenen, Jimmy Smith, and Mark Lovelace (all currently perceived by some as beholden to environmental and smart growth advocates – I mean really, Jimmy Smith?) all come up for re-election this next cycle. I doubt Mark and Jimmy are going to be vulnerable, but I am told that a great deal of money is going to be put into defeating Clif. I have heard rumors of three potential challengers, but I don’t expect anyone to formally declare until this summer or fall.
In the last campaign all three candidates ran exceptionally positive campaigns, even if some of the supporters crossed lines here and there. I’m wondering if this race will be as cordial. I will expect a much more detailed debate over the General Plan Update, both in terms of process and substance. I expect the rails-to-trails issue will be big again. Since all three candidates last time around supported the Richardson Grove project, I’m wondering if the opposition group will field its own candidate this time around. And soon the medical marijuana dispensary ordinance will be in place, and depending on the form it could be an issue as well.
More on the GPU issue and tomorrow’s BOS meeting later.
92 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 11, 2011 at 10:59 am
Anonymous
The names I’ve heard are Ken Zanzi, Estelle Fennel, Gary Philp, and of course Johanna Rodoni.
April 11, 2011 at 11:13 am
Heraldo
Scratch Marl, add Clif Clendenen.
April 11, 2011 at 11:57 am
Eric Kirk
But what about Marl?
April 11, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Matt
Yeah the process has taken so long that they want to make it take even longer…
April 11, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Ben Schill
Clif needs to learn not to sit with County staff at planning meetings.
April 11, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Anonymous
Right. Instead he should learn to sit with developers and realtors.
April 11, 2011 at 9:20 pm
tra
The great majority of people are neither County planning staff nor developers or realtors. How about instead of sitting with either of those groups, he actually stands with the rest of us?
I wonder if the best chance of getting a reasonable GPU that a broad majority of Humboldt residents could live with (though few would be thrilled with in its entirety) would be to craft a plan that could win the votes of Clendenen, Smith, and Sundberg, even if it’s not Plan A-leaning enough for Lovelace or Plan C-leaning enough for Bass?
What do folks think about that? Instead of a Lovelace/Clendenen faction battling it out with a Sundberg/Bass faction, and both competing for Smith’s support, how about a “coalition of the reasonable” in the middle?
April 11, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Eric Kirk
But what would that look like?
In the meantime, while I do think that the county was not in 1500 compliance, this GPU probably has had more public input than that for General Plan Updates in all the rest of the rural counties of the state combined. We’ve had 300 meetings over the last 11 years. More than 1,700 individual comment letters. How much more input do we need?
The argument is that had the public been adequately brought in earlier, the framework itself would have been different and we’d be discussing more B, C, and D concepts, with A completely removed from the table. I don’t think so as the A framework has quite a bit of grassroots support, but we’ll never know.
April 11, 2011 at 10:44 pm
tra
But what would that look like?
Yup, that’s the question.
the argument is that had the public been adequately brought in earlier, the framework itself would have been different and we’d be discussing more B, C, and D concepts, with A completely removed from the table. I don’t think so as the A framework has quite a bit of grassroots support, but we’ll never know.
Well that’s one reason some folks want to “hit the reset button” and more or less start over…because then we won’t have to just throw up our hands and say “we’ll never know.”
That’s not to say that I would necessarily advocate starting over from scratch. But I don’t think it would hurt to allow another year or two for CAC’s to be formed and enable public participation that goes beyond the “everyone gets to speak for 3 minutes” variety, which only encourages the kind of sound-bites and bumpersticker sloganeering (on both sides) that is often pointed to as an explanation for why more public participation is supposedly so meaningless.
April 11, 2011 at 11:08 pm
Eric Kirk
And what are we going to hear from the CAC’s that we haven’t heard in 300 meeting and 1700 letters? Another year or two just in case someone might say something new about something?
April 12, 2011 at 12:27 am
tra
And what are we going to hear from the CAC’s that we haven’t heard in 300 meeting and 1700 letters?
Well, you might get something more meaningful than what can be contained in a 3 minute comment, and something that will receive more consideration than just another letter that is just politely ignored (if it doesn’t fit with what planning staff want to see happen) even as that letter is “added to the public record” that is then held up as an example of the GPU process “working beautifully” (to quote county Planning czar Kirk Girard, who was in danger of tearing a ligament as he enthusiastically patted himself on the back in the TS article the other day).
And if the CACs actually included a range of people with some real diversity of views, then having those folks sit down together where they actually have to engage with each other and listen to one another, face to face, person to person, well, that might yield some new ideas, or at least new ways of approaching old ideas, including creative compromises. There are no guarantees, but I think it’s worth a try.
And while there’s a lot of scaremongering about how if we don’t get this GPU done right away (and with lots of new restrictions on rural home-building) we’ll quickly be overrun by massive Santa-Rosa-style suburban development…well, I think somehow we could manage to make it another year or two to try to come to a conclusion that a broad majority of Humboldt residents can live with.
If the choice is “get it done soon, because I’m tired of it and wish it was over with” (and believe me, at times I feel that way too!) or, alternatively, “take a little longer and try to get it done better well, I choose better, or even the chance of better, over sooner and not as good.
Personally, I think a good compromise would be to authorize the creation of the CAC’s, while also adopting a hard deadline for the completion of their work and the finalization of a proposal to go to the Board of Supes.
How would you feel about that idea?
April 12, 2011 at 12:46 am
tra
Ultimately, the root problem is overall population growth, which is really not something the County has any control over. So the argument ends up being over exactly where to “squeeze the balloon,” even as that balloon continues to fill.
It may be true that accomodating more of the population growth within existing urban areas may allow us to continue to kick the population-growth problem down the road for another decade or two with (potentially) less impact on the environment (in some ways, though more impacts in other ways). But it’s also a strategy that enables us to ignore the overall problem, and to go on pretending that we can continue to endlessly increase our population and use of resources, and if only we do it cleverly enough and in a highly-centralized, bureacratically-controlled fashion, then we’ll all someday live in that shiny, happy techo-future of glittering cloud cities and swooshing flying cars.
Bu the cold, hard fact is that no matter how skillfully the balloon is squeezed, if it continues to be inflated at the same time, there’s going to be a problem. In the meantime, the squeezing can lead to problems of its own.
The bottom line is that this is a very challenging problem, and the fundamental solution (decreasing population growth and creating a steady-state economy that does not require pyramid-scheme type dynamics) is not something the County has a lot of control over. So we muddle on.
Want to do something truly meaningful about overpopulation and the inevitable sprawl (smart-sprawl or otherwise) that endless population growth creates? Well, especially if you already have a child or two, go ahead and get a vasectomy or get your tubes tied. Seriously folks, more is not always better.
April 12, 2011 at 6:51 am
Bolithio
To me, when when I read about this issue, it seems like politics is in full swing. Its progressive liberals and their Option A vrs the Developers (da da da!). But is it? In my dealing with rural landowners I have found that the county appears to be doing everything they can to enforce Option A now. Many people have kept ranches intact, with their original patent parcels as their ace in the hole – only to found that their ancestors gift has been stolen by – in their view – a group of people who really does appear hell bent to prevent anything from happening on timberlands or ranchlands.
I admit I dont thoroughly understand all the issues. So I cant speak for or against Option A in all of its elements. But in regards to TPZ, ranchlands, and developing these lands – Option A has been enforced for years. I believe its called ‘Underground Regulation’. On these lands, and Im sure many of the so hum readers who have played in this arena can confirm, is not a battle solely against developers. Unless anyone who ‘develops’ is a developer.
To me, if option A is adopted great. But until then, its unfair for the county planning staff to be playing judge and jury on these issues. Its really breaking the public’s trust. If a big nasty developer subdivides a ranch into its original patent parcels, sells them, and follows all the county and state rules to do so – there should be no shenanigans from the county.
The great irony in this to me is outlaw culture in this county. And when you have perspective on this, you see how out of touch Kirk G and his ship are with reality. In their benevolent quest to protect the environment, limit development, and reduce impacts from pot grows – they are not understanding the volumes of ‘projects’ being done as their fist tightens. All you have to do is talk to your neighbor who tried to “do the right thing”.
You hear the same story, “I tried to go though all the processes. I got this permit, that permit, and they told me to do this. That I they told me to do that. Two years later Im still where I was, minus thousands of dollars. Why?” And you hear the same reply: “Fuck that. Im doing it anyways. Flat, building site, conversion, roads, greenhouses. Bamm. Try to stop me.”
In my view, you set up a clear, concise, and easy to follow frame work for people to be compliant with your counties policy. It is reasonably priced – and is completed in a reasonable timeframe. Then people will actually do it! As long as it takes 2+years to get a lot line adjustment, or a JTMP approved, people are gunna continue be all ‘willy-nilly’ out there.
Which approach fosters the superior environmental impact?
April 12, 2011 at 8:13 am
Anonymous
unfortunately, there are people out here who will be willy-nilly no matter what.it will not matter how reasonable, clear, concise and easy to follow the frame work might be. they just believe that “they” know better, always have, always will.
let’s just get on with this and not have completely wasted all the energy, money, time and everything else that has poured into this effort for the last 10 years.
and no matter how you slice or dice it, mckee did it wrong. follow the sequence of events and contracts signed. you can’t sign a contract in year X,negating all previous contracts,, follow that contract for years, and then say oh no, now it is convenient for me to go with contract A, so THAT is the one i am going to follow. e– as a lawyer you should know this?
April 12, 2011 at 8:43 am
Eric Kirk
Well, you might get something more meaningful than what can be contained in a 3 minute comment, and something that will receive more consideration than just another letter that is just politely ignored (if it doesn’t fit with what planning staff want to see happen) even as that letter is “added to the public record” that is then held up as an example of the GPU process “working beautifully” (to quote county Planning czar Kirk Girard, who was in danger of tearing a ligament as he enthusiastically patted himself on the back in the TS article the other day).
With all due respect TRA, that’s a classic example of defining the adequacy of process by the results, as discussed at Heraldo’s. That someone does not get what he or she wants does not mean he or she has not been heard.
I know Sohum folk like to go on and on, but oral comment is really intended to be a brief summary of what you submit in writing. Three minutes is really more than enough for most of what I’ve heard from any side at these meetings. It’s actually a longer time than it sounds.
Anyone politically active will tell you that a written communication to a political body is much more effective than anything said orally. Almost invariably the people who complain about the time limitations aren’t really concerned about being heard by the body, but rather they are concerned about being seen and heard by the audience.
A writing establishes the record so that you don’t have to worry about what’s in the minutes, and those deliberating will have the opportunity to read it over again if necessary. If you don’t believe that they are listening, then it really doesn’t matter how long you talk to them, does it? But you can feel good when you hear the amens and cheers behind you so you can go to bed with the satisfaction that you spoke truth to power!
There has been plenty of opportunity for that.
No, it’s not just developers who want the entirety of Plan A rejected. And I understand that it’s an uneasy alliance for some of the homesteaders, and less so for others. The grassroots activists who have been pushing for the Plan A reforms are also not “urban boutique environmentalists.” Maybe if some people want to be heard, they should listen as well. The County has to listen to everyone and synthesize something from some very disparate interests and thoughts from across the community. I’m not sure what can be accomplished by further delay, but I’m also not sure that the rivers can wait much longer even with this year’s reprieve thanks to rains. I like Tasha McKee’s proposals, and I think that can be part of the solution. But how do we prevent additional draws? The status quo isn’t gong to do it.
April 12, 2011 at 8:45 am
Eric Kirk
and no matter how you slice or dice it, mckee did it wrong. follow the sequence of events and contracts signed. you can’t sign a contract in year X,negating all previous contracts,, follow that contract for years, and then say oh no, now it is convenient for me to go with contract A, so THAT is the one i am going to follow. e– as a lawyer you should know this?
This is of course a completely different issue, and it’s not what happened anyway. But I’m not going to discuss the case here. If you have questions about the case, and you want to know what actually happened and what the legal issues are, please call me.
April 12, 2011 at 10:33 am
tra
Eric,
re: Your 8:43 comment:
I guess maybe my wisecrack about Girard distracted you from the actual point I was trying to make, sorry about that. Nonetheless, I notice that a comment you posted on Heraldo’s blog this morning more or less echoes the most important part of the comment I left here at 12:27 a.m….
Here’s what I said here last night:
tra says (on this blog) April 12, 2011 at 12:46 am
And if the CACs actually included a range of people with some real diversity of views, then having those folks sit down together where they actually have to engage with each other and listen to one another, face to face, person to person, well, that might yield some new ideas, or at least new ways of approaching old ideas, including creative compromises. There are no guarantees, but I think it’s worth a try.
Here’s what you said this morning on Heraldo’s blog:
Eric Kirk says (on Heraldo’s blog): April 12, 2011 at 11:06 am
One thing the CAC’s would have done was to bring the disparate groups into one room. Certainly each interest group can organize on its own, but this would have forced a process of discussion. Probably would have been lots of yelling, but maybe it would have generated some ideas for compromise.
The only real difference I see between our statements is that you’re framing it in the past tense as something that (regrettably) wasn’t done, and you seem to be taking the position that even though it might have been useful abd should have been done, we shouldn’t bother going back and doing it now, because it’s inconvenient to do so.
I disagree with that part: If it could have been useful and if it should have been done in the first place, then we ought to go ahead and do it now. The fact that some folks think that it’s inconvenient to go back now and do what the rules say we should have done (because the county ignored that part of the law for years) is, in my opinion, not a very strong argument for continuing to ignore that rule.
April 12, 2011 at 11:17 am
Eric Kirk
I don’t think it would be fruitful now. Everybody knows what is on the table. Plan A and Plan C were created based upon wish lists of the conflicting interests, within the framework of new mandates from the state and other changed realities (which is why Plan C is not Plan D). Plan A will not disappear. The same groups are going to push for the same reforms. That’s where Plan A came from. And the developers and homesteaders are going to push for what they want, which is to be left alone to do what they want with their property. With the exception of Tasha McKee’s project, there haven’t been a whole lot of specific proposals, just basically a blanket, “we’re hippies, we’re good for the land by nature,” argument which just isn’t going to sell no matter how many meetings we have an no matter how many times we shuffle the deck. The past couple of years would have been better spent with specific ideas about how to preserve property rights while addressing growth and economic concerns. Instead, at least 90 percent of the effort has been to complain about the process and frame the process as an effort by evil government and boutique environmentalists in Arcata to strip hippies of their land.
The delay which is being asked for would be devastating to the budget, and would slow down permit applications immensely. It’s already hard to get anything done because this thing is taking up so much of the planners’ time. We would probably have the community park zoned by now otherwise, and simple tasks which should take weeks are taking months. That’s a huge blow to the community just to start over as a matter of principle. For me to support the extra millions it will cost I want to know that it will make a substantive difference rather than just buy time for developers to use the Citizens United ruling to change the makeup of the Board to their liking.
April 12, 2011 at 11:24 am
Not A Native
Eric, your comment at 8:43 is factual and objective. But people with a dog in the race don’t want to hear that. It kind of ironic that the exact same people who claim they aren’t being heard are completely deaf to what others are saying.
April 12, 2011 at 12:25 pm
Eric Kirk
Thanks NAN.
For those of you who want to watch the proceedings on video, here’s the link.
http://humboldt.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=2
So I have some Scotch or something around here. I’m going to listen in as long as I can and I’ll take a shot every time I hear a fresh new argument.
Can’t find the Scotch. No worries. I’m sure I can keep my pledge.
April 12, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Eric Kirk
Hank is liveblogging.
http://lostcoastoutpost.com/2011/apr/12/general-plan-hearing-live-blog/#disqus_thread
And Heraldo.
http://humboldtherald.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/gpu-live-blog/
April 12, 2011 at 1:48 pm
Eric Kirk
Virginia – “I’m not interested in stopping the process.”
Based on that and Jimmy’s comments, I don’t think the letters are going to manifest into a motion. Not one that passes anyway.
April 12, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Eric Kirk
Whew! Shane Brinton just spoke about the “unholy alliance” between developers/realtors and marijuana growers to “stonewall” the process.
There you have it.
April 12, 2011 at 3:02 pm
WTF
So Eric,
Do you still characterize this ~“unholy alliance” between developers/realtors and marijuana growers to “stonewall” the process~ as the “cynical view” as you put it in the opening thread post?
April 12, 2011 at 4:00 pm
Eric Kirk
Yes, it’s cynical and an oversimplification. The irony of the alliance isn’t lost on me. I’ve only been writing about it for a couple of years now.
I do think they want to stall, perhaps to drag it out hoping to defeat Clif and/or Jimmy in 2012. But their points are also well-taken. 1500 is pretty clear with regard to the application of CAC’s to the process, though somebody screwed up with “should” rather than “shall.”
April 12, 2011 at 4:42 pm
WTF
Wow, this is all a political scheme? To unseat two Supervisors?
I never saw you as a “conspiracy theorist”, only a cynical blog master who puts them down for being “conspiracy theorist”.
April 12, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, they most certainly want to defeat Clif and Jimmy. But what they would really like is to do it before the GPU is voted on. But I think Clif and Jimmy will be voting on it, whenever the vote is held. Unless they die of old age first.
April 12, 2011 at 5:09 pm
WTF
Who are “THEY”
I would donate all the cash money in my pocket right now, to see your manifesto in the local papers “drag it out hoping to defeat Clif and/or Jimmy in 2012″. I have the cash, do you have the balls to put up or shut up?
April 12, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Eric Kirk
“I don’t think three more years will lead to agreement on fundamental values differences of opinion.”
-Mark Lovelace
I agree.
April 12, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Eric Kirk
Interesting point from Kirk, who is probably frustrated. The Board ultimately makes the decision, so the Board should take in the public input. If the Board is going to rubber stamp the staff recommendations, then don’t blame the staff.
April 12, 2011 at 5:33 pm
Eric Kirk
Jimmy’s caught in the middle. Probably for four years.
April 12, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Anonymous
brinton and “healthy humboldt” continue their shrill out of touch blather that this is all being driven by “developers”. How out of touch they are. They seem to be incapable of any real active listening or dialogue with the REAL people who will be most effected by this newly written GPU, rural dwellers. hh has a very clear point of view, they advocate for PLAN A on Steroids (which will have very detrimental effects for people living in the country). And anyone who speaks out against PLAN A , hh screams at the top of their lungs with fingers pointing DEVELOPER DEVELOPER . The laughable part of that is that many hh people live in subdivisions that have been chopped up into 1/4 acre to 2 acre plots. They should be pointing the fingers at themselves.
April 12, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Eric Kirk
Shane’s a brave young man. He just bucked all of the major economic forces in the county. Even in Arcata, an elected rep is taking chances.
April 12, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Eric Kirk
Approved unanimously – a committee, but no delay. Will everyone be happy? Will anyone be happy?
April 12, 2011 at 7:59 pm
WTF
Anonymous 5:57 pm:
Not ‘accordion’ to the “Grand Poobah” Eric. This is all a grand conspiracy to oust Smith & Clendenen from office.
April 12, 2011 at 8:01 pm
anonymous
The Gpu process is widely perceived by rural folks as coming from the top down. These rural folks are stakeholders who had nothing to do with formulating their ‘choices’ of A, B, or C as presented by the planners. When stakeholders feel disenfrancihsed, there is definitely a problem. The CAC’s may help.
April 12, 2011 at 8:26 pm
tra
I’d be tempted to say that Shane is pandering to his Arcata base…but it’s not really pandering, because he’s a true believer. But brave? Please.
April 12, 2011 at 8:27 pm
tra
Here’s what I wrote at 12:27
Personally, I think a good compromise would be to authorize the creation of the CAC’s, while also adopting a hard deadline for the completion of their work and the finalization of a proposal to go to the Board of Supes.
So, is that the actual compromise that they reached?
April 13, 2011 at 1:11 am
Anonymous
Hank Simms and Heraldo both did great jobs with the play by play!
April 13, 2011 at 7:48 am
Eric Kirk
1:11 – Yes, both of them did an excellent job.
TRA – I’m not exactly clear on that. They were all tired and hungry and waiting for someone to make some kind of move. Clif had made a motion to accept the staff recommendations, but Jimmy didn’t want to second and turned to Ryan for some movement towards compromise because he also doesn’t want to cost the county more time and money in rolling things back (as a semi-joke he noted that lawyers for both sides were taking lots of notes). Then Mark and Clif chimed in with the suggestion that maybe the staff could generate a detailed proposal for the creation of some advisory committees which would address the concerns raised by GPU opponents and the public bodies who had representation there to speak about the lack of communication. I’m not clear on what those committees will do – will they address the problem of communication only, the process, or the actual substance of the GPU proposals? I was busy with kids as that was being thrown together, but eventually Virginia and Ryan chimed in and agreed to the committees which, I guess, would report directly to the Board so as to not slow the process with the Commission.
If I was in HumCPR or HELP I would have a hard time walking away without the impression that they were being handed token crumbs for their effort. But I haven’t heard anything from them yet. Maybe the other blogs have some news on that front.
April 13, 2011 at 7:54 am
Eric Kirk
Okay, Donna Tam at the Times Standard has some details.
The board unanimously voted to direct staff to come back with a plan to implement two outreach programs regarding multifamily rezoning and the general plan update process, as well as a plan to form a citizen advisory committee to ensure the plan incorporates the details of local community plans.
I think the outreach programs had been proposed by the staff, but the Board added the CAC into the mix. Jimmy, the swing vote, is probably most responsible for that and Ryan and Virginia were probably looking for the lifeline he offered.
Ms. Tam obviously was not able to get any comments from the stakeholders afterward, but I’m sure they’ll come soon enough.
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_17833955
April 13, 2011 at 8:26 am
Anonymous
The next big fight will be over who will be on the CAC.
April 13, 2011 at 9:52 am
Eric Kirk
Well, it’s still very quiet. No side is proclaiming victory. No side is screaming bloody murder. I’m wondering if the Board, unanimously, came up with something that nobody loves, but everyone can live with.
I’m getting no emails from the various groups. The blogs are quiet. Very few comments attached to the TS article.
Did the BOS do its job last night? Seems like it did. So far.
If it keeps all the lawyers at bay, I’ll be happy.
April 13, 2011 at 10:28 am
tra
At least at first glance, it seems like a reasonable compromise to me.
While the Board did not agree to a pause in the Planning Commission process, they did heed the input from the municipalities and community services districts about the need for more significant engagement with those entities. According to the staff report, this includes direct engagement with the decision-making bodies of those entities, as well as a series of “town-hall-style meetings” in various parts of the county.
I assume that those who were calling for a delay in the PC process aren’t happy that they didn’t get it, but, at least at first glance, it does look like they won significant additional opportunities for public participation, and participation by the municipalities and CSDs.
Now we’ll see what takes place during those meetings with the municipalities and CSDs, and during the town hall meetings. Will the C/D crowd just use the opportunity to lodge a lot of additional complaints about the process and demands for it to be halted, or will they actually take the opportunity to address the policy issues? And will the A/B+ crowd mobilize their own supporters to attend and engage on the issues, or will they continue to focus their comments on complaining that the additional public participation venues are “dominated by developers.”
And, most importantly, will the Board seriously consider the input that they get during this “parallel process,” or just treat it as window dressing, while pointing to the PC recommendations as containing the only legitimate alternatives for discussion as the Board moves forward.
We’ll see.
April 13, 2011 at 10:53 am
Eric Kirk
tra – as I said at Heraldo’s, I’m assuming that the CAC will contain a balance of interests, or someone is going to be screaming.
Put Estelle, Jen, Scott, and Dennis M. on the committee, with some municipality representation and someone as neutral as possible to chair it.
April 13, 2011 at 11:38 am
tra
Eric,
At 11:38, I was talking about the additional outreach to municipalities and CSDs and the “town hall-style meetings” that were included in the staff recommendations that were approved by the BOS last night.
As far as the CAC, I’m really kinda unclear on what the (as Hank labeled it) “CAC-like thing” is going to look like, but I’m sure you’re right that they will have to take pains to balance the interests represented on the CAC. And probably one or both sides will complain that some important constituency (that just happens to be aligned with their side) has been excluded, or that the overall makeup of the committee is too A/B+ oriented or too C/D oriented. But the Supes will just have to do the best they can.
The staff report included a “CAC alternative,” which the staff recommended against. That alternative assumed that the CAC(s) would take part in the Planning Commission process (therefore delaying that process), but that’s not what the BOS approved last night. They approved a “CAC-like thing” that will take place in a “parallel process” to the PC deliberations, and whose recommendations will be considered by the BOS alongside the PC’s final draft GPU, and along with input from the new outreach to municipalities and CSDs, input from the town hall meetings that will be held around the county, and, I would assume, input from hearings in front of the BOS.
As far as the make-up and process for the CAC-like thing, the staff based it’s opposition to the formation of a CAC on the time and logistical challenges that would be involved in trying to make sure the CAC was, itself, a fair and open process. Of course they were assuming that this time and logistical effort would be causing a delay in the PC deliberations, which under last night’s decision, it will not. Whether it will cause a delay in the BOS process that follows the PC process, remains to be seen.
Still, despite the fact that the “CAC-like thing” will be making its report to the BOS instead of the PC, I suppose the same time-constraint and process challenges related to the CAC will still exist given that the BOS is trying to keep to a schedule that would apparently yield a final vote on the GPU sometime in 2012.
April 13, 2011 at 11:47 am
Eric Kirk
The Board is the body which ultimately makes the decision and this might actually be beneficial to those who don’t like the Commission’s product because the understand, which Kirk established last night, is that it will be altered, to whatever degree, before the Board votes on it. With that expectation, why not go straight to the top?
April 13, 2011 at 11:52 am
tra
Eric,
I agree that Jen Kalt and Scott Gracean (I’m assuming that’s who you were referring to) are likely and reasonable picks to represent the Plan A/+ side, and that Estelle Fennel is a natural pick for the rural property rights side. But Dennis Mayo as the fourth? No thanks (just my opinion, of course).
The real problem they’re going to face is that while Healthy Humboldt other enviro groups, HumCPR, and the realtors and developers have been perhaps the loudest participants in the GPU process, they are hardly the only interested parties.
So the question is, do they put a specific Farm rep on there (would that include all farmers and ranchers, or should there be separate reps for large farmers/ranchers vs. small)? A Timber rep? Someone representing Commercial interests and someone representing Manufacturing and other Industry? Someone representing Tourism? What about Fisheries? Recreation? And so on…
They’ll have to draw the line somewhere, because if the committee gets to large it will likely be slow and ponderous. But I suspect that whereever they draw that line, there will be some on the other side of that line who will be none too happy about being excluded. Hopefully they’ll be able to include a good number of voices beyond the “usual suspects” of Healthy Humboldt, HumCPR, organized enviro groups and realtors/developers, but not so many participants as to bog the committee down.
April 13, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Eric Kirk
I agree. But if the people who yell the loudest aren’t on there, well, they’ll be yelling loudly no matter what balance you have.
I would say a good number would be 9. Two partisans from each side of B and four reps from specific stakeholders, and one neutral person to chair. I don’t have any names to toss out for the chair position, but he or she would have quite a burden.
April 13, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Eric Kirk
By the way, the four I named I did so because while they have very partisan positions on the issue, they are also very reasonable in meetings. Estelle and Jen participated in an effort at bipartisan thought generation some months back, along with other partisans, and while there were tense moments, everyone acted professionally and productively.
April 13, 2011 at 12:12 pm
WTF
“Put Estelle, Jen, Scott, and Dennis M. on the committee, with some municipality representation and someone as neutral as possible to chair it”
Could we get some last names to your list? Whom do you feel is the “neutral as possible” person to chair it? I know your not talking about the 900 lbs Gorilla in the room.
There is no need for any kind of CAC or New Committee. Include the 1500 section and be done with it, keep the GPU on track and on its current speed. Don’t let up.
The only groups that want the current GPU slowed down or stopped are the same groups that have irons in the fire for projects including development and rezoning under the old 1984 GP.
For example, if you are someone that, let say, has already applied for a GPA rezoning project under the 1984 GP, you want that GPA rezone approved under the old 1984 GP, not carried over into the new GPU. If that GPA is not approved before hand, the new GPU will dictate the viability of that GPA’s projects. And that’s even not including if that same old 1984 GP GPA has the EIR monkey on its back.
So why call it the cynical point of view, when the facts speak for themselves’s.
April 13, 2011 at 12:21 pm
tra
The Board is the body which ultimately makes the decision and this might actually be beneficial to those who don’t like the Commission’s product because the understand, which Kirk established last night, is that it will be altered, to whatever degree, before the Board votes on it. With that expectation, why not go straight to the top?
Well I think most people have understood all along that the BOS can alter the PC’s recommended GPU in whatever ways they want, that the BOS would have their own hearings, and that the BOS gets the final vote. But I agree that it’s helpful that they made it very clear that the input received through the Board’s own public participation process (outlined, in part, lst night) will be considered, along with the PC’s recommendations, and that the PC’s recommendations will likely be altered (perhaps significantly) before a final BOS vote.
[Personally, I still think it would be better if there was a referendum (even an advisory referendum) on the Board's final product -- but that's a whole other debate, which I believe we've already had in the past in some detail and basically had to agree to disagree about that. And I really haven't heard even the HumCPR folks pushing for a referendum lately (perhaps they aren't quite so interested in that idea anymore, since the center of gravity on the BOS shifted so much with Neeley's defeat, such that there doesn't appear to be enough votes on the BOS for a GPU that leans stongly toward Option A).]
At any rate, I’m O.K. with the “CAC-like-thing,” the additional meetings with the decision-making bodies in the municipalities and CSDs, and the series of “town-hall-style meetings” being part of the Board’s input process rather than the PC process — as long as the Board does take these things seriously and not ignore them and only consider what is forwarded by the PC.
And no, by “take seriously” and “consider” I don’t mean to imply that if they don’t reach a conclusion I’m happy with that this will necessarily be evidence of that the process was flawed.
But I do agree with your comment that the process approved last night may be to the benefit of those who feel (justifiably or otherwise) that their input was not given real consideration by the Planning Commission process. I think we all know that (again, justifiably or not) many folks do perceive the PC process as being too much of a staff-driven process, and that those staff, and Kirk Girard in particular, are seen (need I say it again: justifiably or not) as having their own policy preferences which ended up having too much weight in the PC process.
So, yes, I do think those who are not happy with the PC process and product ought to view the Board of Supervisors’ own public participation processes, as outlined last night, as an important opportunity to engage and have their voices heard by the decision-makers.
April 13, 2011 at 12:36 pm
tra
I would say a good number would be 9. Two partisans from each side of B and four reps from specific stakeholders, and one neutral person to chair.
That sounds about right to me. Still, picking those 4 “stakeholder” reps (and therefore excluding others) will be the tough part. I guess the best they can do is making sure that those 4 positions aren’t slanted toward stakeholders who are (or are perceived to be) too much on one side or the other of the general A/B+ or C/D split.
I don’t have any names to toss out for the chair position, but he or she would have quite a burden.
Indeed.
April 13, 2011 at 1:02 pm
tra
Eric,
I agree with you that the four folks you mentioned are all capable of sitting down and having a grown-up converstation. I’m just not a huge fan of Dennis Mayo. I think he’s a good guy and everything, but I’m not sure that he’s necessarily going to be seen by the realtor/builder/developer faction as being as good a representative for their faction as, say, Jen Kalt is for the HH faction.
Not sure who else I would suggest, though. But presumably the realtors, builders and developers might have a suggestion or two of their own. Is the Board going to look to each of the interest groups (and/or the public at large) for nominations, or will they just make the picks on their own? I guess I would assume the former, since there’s no point to trying to appoint people who aren’t interested in serving, or who aren’t going to be accepted as good representatives by the groups they are supposed to be representing.
Anyway, I am hopeful that the CAC, because it will involve some of the main stakeholders and interest groups sitting down and talking with one another (rather than past one another to the PC and to their own supporters), may yield some useful results. That’s what I was getting at 10:33 am yesterday, when I commented that:
…if the CACs actually included a range of people with some real diversity of views, then having those folks sit down together where they actually have to engage with each other and listen to one another, face to face, person to person, well, that might yield some new ideas, or at least new ways of approaching old ideas, including creative compromises. There are no guarantees, but I think it’s worth a try.
And it’s why I took issue with the somewhat-cynical-seeming summary of the potential for the CAC that you expressed on Heraldo’s blog last night when you said:
…a committee will be formed of disparate interests to yell at each other and come up with something to read to the Board before they vote.
As I said in reply on Heraldo’s thread last night,
…you may be right, and in the end this additional venue for public participation will amount to nothing but more of the same — people just talking past each other, preaching to their own choirs, and so on.
On the other hand, it’s been my experience that when people sit down together and talk face to face, they are actually less prone to “yell at each other,” — and therefore more able to find actual solutions to problems.
It sounds to me like this morning you’re maybe feeling a little more optimistic that the CAC process might be a useful one, even at this late date. If so, I hope our shared optimism is proved right as the process unfolds.
April 13, 2011 at 1:03 pm
tra
By the way, thanks for the thoughtful discussion and commentary. In addition to your commentary on this thread here on Sohum Parlance, I found your comments on Heraldo’s liveblog last night to be a great addition to his excellent blow-by-blow report of the public comments and board debate.
I especially appreciated your comments on the CAC issue, and that even though you didn’t want to see the PC process brought to a grinding halt (which I think is understandable) you nonetheless acknowldeged that the CAC process really should have been adhered to earlier, and that the staff’s interpretation of the 1500 requirements, and justification for not forming the CACs much earlier in the process, were kinds skating at the edge of thin ice. (Hopefully I’m summarizing your position correctly, if not please feel free to correct me.)
April 13, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Mitch
Do you folks realize that the GPU is responsible for more than 2% of Humboldt’s energy use and is therefore a major contributor to local warming?
If there were a way of capturing and re-using the hot air, or at least allowing the process to take place outdoors — without the need for carbon-expensive indoor lighting — the GPU could proceed with its impact somewhat mitigated.
Move it outdoors, folks. Recycle your old press releases. The redwoods will thank you.
April 13, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Eric Kirk
[Personally, I still think it would be better if there was a referendum (even an advisory referendum) on the Board's final product -- but that's a whole other debate, which I believe we've already had in the past in some detail and basically had to agree to disagree about that. And I really haven't heard even the HumCPR folks pushing for a referendum lately (perhaps they aren't quite so interested in that idea anymore, since the center of gravity on the BOS shifted so much with Neeley's defeat, such that there doesn't appear to be enough votes on the BOS for a GPU that leans stongly toward Option A).]
And expect that even one tenth of the population would even find the time or desire to read and understand it? Quite frankly, I’ve come to the conclusion that ballot initiatives should only be allowed if the proposed law can fit onto one page. I don’t think the general public in an election is a good way to write laws, and California as a whole is suffering because our Constitution has become a morass of contradictory special interest-induced crap passed by an electorate scared into one position or another. I think a referendum would be a disaster to the benefit of whichever crowd comes up with the best milibites and fear tactics.
And no, by “take seriously” and “consider” I don’t mean to imply that if they don’t reach a conclusion I’m happy with that this will necessarily be evidence of that the process was flawed.
Well, this is where I’ve told Clif and other Board members about how they need to handle input from committees the Board appoints, such as the Code Enforcement Task Force where they just shelved the report for months. If they don’t agree with the findings and suggestions, they need to respond and explain why they are rejecting it. People will still complaint, but when it’s about substance rather than process, the rest of the electorate looks at it differently. I’m an example. I do think that “should” means “shall” unless you have a compelling policy issue which explains the omission, and therefor the decision not to employ CAC’s should have been explained early on with time to argue the matter before the Board. I don’t agree that the 1500 policies were implemented in form nor in spirit. I don’t believe it was a deliberate effort to try to slide policy changes through without controversy, but I can understand why people see it that way. And as you know, I’m an A-/B+ kind of guy.
Could we get some last names to your list? Whom do you feel is the “neutral as possible” person to chair it? I know your not talking about the 900 lbs Gorilla in the room.
Estelle Fennel, Scott Creacin, Jen Kalt, and Dennis Mayo – but these are just suggestions of people whom I believe would work well in the group. There are plenty of others.
I don’t know who would be a good neutral person. Jimmy Smith was great last night in pulling the others together, but he can’t do it.
And I have no idea whom your gorilla is.
There is no need for any kind of CAC or New Committee. Include the 1500 section and be done with it, keep the GPU on track and on its current speed. Don’t let up.
Except that 1500 calls for a CAC. In any case, that’s what the Board passed last night.
The only groups that want the current GPU slowed down or stopped are the same groups that have irons in the fire for projects including development and rezoning under the old 1984 GP.
For example, if you are someone that, let say, has already applied for a GPA rezoning project under the 1984 GP, you want that GPA rezone approved under the old 1984 GP, not carried over into the new GPU. If that GPA is not approved before hand, the new GPU will dictate the viability of that GPA’s projects. And that’s even not including if that same old 1984 GP GPA has the EIR monkey on its back.
Well I sure don’t want it slowed down, and if you’re referring to the Park Board we have mixed opinions about these issues. As far as the park application is concerned, it won’t have any bearing. The rezoning application will stand no matter which Plan is in effect, though it would have been nice to have simply been included in the GPU. Nice for us anyway, not necessarily the planners already overloaded with GPU work.
April 13, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Eric Kirk
I especially appreciated your comments on the CAC issue, and that even though you didn’t want to see the PC process brought to a grinding halt (which I think is understandable) you nonetheless acknowldeged that the CAC process really should have been adhered to earlier, and that the staff’s interpretation of the 1500 requirements, and justification for not forming the CACs much earlier in the process, were kinds skating at the edge of thin ice. (Hopefully I’m summarizing your position correctly, if not please feel free to correct me.)
Yeah, that’s pretty accurate. Where I differ from the HumCPR folk is that I think the planners were just trying to save themselves work, not operating out of some secret socialist agenda to deprive people of property rights. That doesn’t mitigate much, but if they really were substance motivated rather than work-saving motivated, they would have simply formed the CAC, taken the input, and said “thank you” and done their thing anyway, as the issue is about procedural due process rather than substantive due process – the law does not say they had to accept the committee’s findings or abide by any of its recommendations.
This was the effect of the landmark Supreme Court case of Goldberg v. Kelly, in which they determined that anyone facing a cessation of welfare payments was entitled to a hearing with a written record. The criticism was that it didn’t really state any criteria on which decisions should be made, so the due process rights were merely procedural and thus limited. It does provide some protection as those in charge don’t want to appear to be too arbitrary on a written public record, but the protection is really minimal.
Thanks for the compliments. I’ve appreciated your input as well.
April 13, 2011 at 2:25 pm
tra
The issue of procedural due process in the absence of substantive due process reminds me a little of the controversy over the evacuation plan for nukes, in particular the Seabrook nuke in New Hampshire.
There was (and I assume still is) a law requiring that nuke plants have an evacuation plan for a radius of ‘x’ miles around the plant. The owner of the nuke plant developed and submitted such a plan as part of the process of applying for a license to operate the plant. The evacuation plan was approved by the appropriate agencies, but then challenged in court by the plant’s opponents due to one small flaw: it would never have worked in practice.
As I recall the nuke plant’s owners couldn’t seem to come up with any emergency management experts who were willing to on the record saying that there was any sort of chance that this evacuation plan would actually work — while there were plenty of experts happy to go on the record attesting to the fact that the plan was totally inadequate and unworkable, and would most surely fail in the event of an actual meltdown.
Attorneys for the nuke plant’s owners simply argued that while the law said there had to be a plan, it didn’t have to actually work. The court looked at the law and agreed that the law said that there had to be an evacuation plan, but the law didn’t specify that the evacuation plan had to be feasible.
It’s outcomes like that which fulfill the promise of the phrase “…the law is an ass.” Or it might be more accurate to say that we the people are asses when we allow such laws to persist.
April 13, 2011 at 2:29 pm
tra
At any rate, back on the subject of the GPU, I agree with you that the decision-makers, both on the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, should provide substantive responses to all public comment that they receive, both written and oral. Doing so not only reassures the commenters that their ideas have at least been considered, it also has the potential to make the decision-makers consider the comments and recommendations they receive from the public more carefully.
It’s one thing to hear someone say something at a hearing, or to read their written comments, but a whole other level of intellectual engagement when you have to actually respond to their points. In some cases it might result in the decision-maker coming to agree with part of an argument that they originally set out to refute. Furthermore, unless you’re at the very end of the process, getting a reply back fromt he county would allow the people who offered the input to read the response, and refine their comments or or arguments or recommendations in light of the response they received from the elected or appointed decision-makers.
I’m sure that one of the main reason they don’t do more of that as a matter of course, is that it’s potentially a whole lot of work. But…that’s representative democracy for ya. Nobody ever said it’d be easy…or cheap…or quick.
April 13, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Anonymous
All hippies are not created equal. Some Hippies think it is okay to cut Redwoods and strip their own land of trees, or grade mountains to plant marijuana, but all Hell breaks loose if someone who is not a “hippie” does it. Hippies are just as hypocritical as politicians.
Even if everything the PC and the board of Supes put out was a perfect GPU,and I mean perfect….. the hippies, and I am including Estelle, will still be yelling and screaming bloody murder because “they are being told” what to do, whether it is right or not.
I just don’t know if what you are saying about substance or process is the bottom line.
They will be not be happy, no matter what.
April 13, 2011 at 3:17 pm
tra
Sorry, I think I mis-characterized your position on county decision-makers responding to public input. It looks like you were referring specifically to them responding to the product of committees or commissions that they appoint, such as the Code Enforcement Tak Force, or this new GPU Citizen’s Advisory Committee thingamabob.
Anyway, I certainly agree with you that they should not have, essentially, just shelved and (seemingly) ignored the CETF’s recommendations, they should have at the very least responded to them point-by-point. Personally I feel that they should have implemented many of those recommendations, but again that part of the issue is about product, not process — and at least if they had responded in a substantive way, that would have been viewed as a more legitiamte outcome of the process.
Hopefully whatever the CAC comes up with will get a more meanigful response…or at least some kind of response, from the Board of Supervisors. I do think they owe at least that much to those who they appoint to these sorts committees..
April 13, 2011 at 7:01 pm
WTF
Eric 1:12pm;
“Well I sure don’t want it slowed down, and if you’re referring to the Park Board we have mixed opinions about these issues. As far as the park application is concerned, it won’t have any bearing. The rezoning application will stand no matter which Plan is in effect, though it would have been nice to have simply been included in the GPU. Nice for us anyway, not necessarily the planners already overloaded with GPU work”
I had not thought about the CP rezone, but since you bring it up…..
The Park Board only wants a zoning and land use change to become a Park. The Park rezone has nothing to do with development. I think there is a big difference. But what do you mean by; “we have mixed opinions about these issues”
And do you mean Scott Greacen? And Why?
April 13, 2011 at 10:53 pm
tra
Anon 3:14,
It seems to me that what you are saying boils down to “no matter what you do, you can’t please everyone.” Without a doubt, that is true. I would just add that “hippies” are in no way unique in this regard.
So expect to hear plenty of complaints from all sides (hippies and otherwise) when this process is eventually completed and the new GPU takes effect. We will hear plenty of folks complaining that one policy or another “goes to far,” and plenty of others complain that the same policy “doesn’t go far enough.”
That’s just the nature of compromise, and of a democratic process in the absence of a full consensus (which is normal, as a full consensus is quite rare on most issues). But this doesn’t mean that the decision-makers should give up in trying to create a plan that the great majority of people can live with, even if many of them are not 100% satisfied with it.
April 14, 2011 at 8:16 am
Anonymous
The real show on Tuesday was outside the chamber during the break when someone started screaming at Shane for his comments and had to be pulled away. I did not catch the name of the person yelling.
April 14, 2011 at 9:23 am
Eric Kirk
I heard something about that last night, and I actually do have a name. But I think everyone involved is probably content just to cool down and move on at this point. Tensions were as high as the stakes.
April 14, 2011 at 9:49 am
Eric Kirk
Richard Marks has a post-game analysis.
http://samoasoftball.blogspot.com/2011/04/who-won-gpu-war-round-and-round.html
And so does the Humboldt Mirror.
http://humboldtmirror.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/community-development-has-done-plenty-of-communicating-about-the-general-plan-update-thank-you-which-is-why-they-now-have-to-do-a-shit-ton-more-of-it/
April 14, 2011 at 10:38 am
Anonymous
Tensions are high.
Estelle is not neutral.
Until she and her ilk have it their way,
expect more of the same.
April 14, 2011 at 11:11 am
tra
Shouting at the messenger does nothing to refute the message. To the contrary it tends ot destroy the credibility of the shouter. Whoever did this behaved in an idiotic and self-defeating manner. But that’s just one person, and should not be taken as representative of all (or even most) people who disagree with Shane’s assessment or the policy prescriptions that he advocates.
Similarly, accusing Estelle Fennel of representing “a troupe of power-hungey developers” (as one commenter on Heraldo’s blog did a couple of days ago) does nothing to address the legitimate concerns of the individual rural residents and rural property owners who form the grassroots base of HumCPR. Nor does it do anything to encourage these folks to recognize that their interests are somewhat different than the interests of the realtor/builder/developer lobby. To the contrary, it just encourages them to circle the wagons with those who aren’t attacking them in that way.
But again, not everyone who disagrees with the analysis offered by Fennel or HumCPR takes such a counterproductive approach. Unfortunately, I do think in this case that this kind of framing is much more widespread than the one commenter on Heraldo’s blog.
April 14, 2011 at 11:19 am
Eric Kirk
Whoever did this behaved in an idiotic and self-defeating manner. But that’s just one person, and should not be taken as representative of all (or even most) people who disagree with Shane’s assessment or the policy prescriptions that he advocates.
Shane’s a young man, and a lot of people, including me, winced when he said it. Not arguing it as mitigation, but there had been a number of personal attacks on staff leading up to that point, and Shane I think calculated that he could safely provide catharsis a framing that others could not afford to do. But he clearly overdid it.
I didn’t see the incident out in the hallway, but my understanding is that those involved have made their amends and there’s no reason for the rest of us to carry on about it. But yes, it was also a mistake.
Kudos to Virginia for taking on the people perceived to be on “her side” as well.
My biggest concern right now is trying to figure out exactly what was passed Tuesday night in terms of the “CAC like committee(s).” From my conversations with people on all sides of the issues, there’s a bit of confusion.
April 14, 2011 at 11:37 am
WTF
tra, April 13, 2011 at 10:53 pm
“compromise”? Wnat compromise?
There is NO compromise. The public is left out in the cold once again. Here is my example:
So the Garberville-Redway Chamber writes a letter, and who elected them to represent the public, did they ask anyone? Who do they represent?
Garberville Sanitary District writes a letter, did GSD ask or solicit the sewer and water rate payers or put a notice in the paper to kick this around at their next meeting? NO! GSD is not even elected, they have always been appointed by the County Board of Superviors for the last 20 years or maybe more. Hell GSD is not even a Community Services Disrtict.
There is no compromise here! It’s called control and power, you know, a dictatorship. This is far from being called democratic.
April 14, 2011 at 12:46 pm
tra
WTF,
Our system is far from perfect, but it’s certainly not a dictatorship. If it was, can you name who the dictator is? Of course you can’t because there isn’t one. Which means, by definition, it’s not a dictatorship.
I would argue that what we actually have in this country is a deeply flawed (pseudo)democracy, which is nonetheless better than many other forms of government around the world, but which certainly falls far short of its potential, and could certainly stand a lot of improvement.
I actually think that the condition our our representative democracy is in better shape at the local level than at the state or national levels, though, again, it could certainly stand a lot of improvement.
April 14, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Anonymous
the legitimate concerns of the individual rural residents and rural property owners who form the grassroots base of HumCPR.
Nor does it do anything to encourage these folks to recognize that their interests are somewhat different than the interests of the realtor/builder/developer lobby.
please PASTE THIS ON ESTELLES FORHEAD.
April 14, 2011 at 2:25 pm
WTF
tra 12:46,
ANSWER the question, what “compromise”?
And you are wrong, the Humboldt County Community Development Services Department is the dictatorship. Their job for the most part is to represent private interest and argue against public comment, but thanks for asking and answering your own question for yourself.
Why is it nobody knows what the BOS voted on or what shall be the next step? “My biggest concern right now is trying to figure out exactly what was passed Tuesday night in terms of the “CAC like committee(s).” From my conversations with people on all sides of the issues, there’s a bit of confusion”
And, does the Garberville/Redway Chamber represent the Citizens of Garberville/Redway or even the public in SoHum?
April 14, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Not A Native
I’ll not put keystrokes on WTF’s computer, but I think (s)he’s more accurately intended a plutocracy not dictatorship.
And the plutocrats definitely do have names. Hank Sims enumerated the most notable ones in a Journal column some months back about patterns of political contributions in HumCo.
April 14, 2011 at 4:18 pm
WTF
Not A Native, Thank you but NOPE!
I am talking dictatorship, that is “government without people’s consent” or “When governments’ power does not come from the people, their power is not limited and tend to expand their scope of power to control every aspect of people’s life”
I have heard Supervisor Clendenen state: “you can get more done with a dictatorship than in a democracy”.
In both cases, Clendenen was responding to questions raised about NPO Boards in SoHum consisting of self-appointments, Board appointed Directors and non-membership.
April 15, 2011 at 9:51 am
Anonymous
aaahhhhh.
So the Southern Humboldt Corporate Park
is a dictatorship.
Now I understand.
April 15, 2011 at 2:55 pm
tra
WTF said: ” ..the Humboldt County Community Development Services Department is the dictatorship.”
That’s not how anybody else uses the word “dictatorship.” So carry on speaking in your own private language if you like, but you’re not going to have much luck actually communicating anything meaningful that way.
April 15, 2011 at 9:23 pm
WTF
To each there own tra la la, to each there own. How very arrogant of you to be the one in charge. I am so happy you can’t or will not understand people like myself, it’s what keeps me going. Get it?
And yes, in their own little world here in Humboldt County the Planning Department is a dictatorship. What other BOS appointed position in Humboldt County has more power, open your eyes, look around. Who do you think tells the Planning Commission which direction to take……..
April 16, 2011 at 10:40 am
tra
Actually, I tend to agree that county planning staff, and in particular Mr. Girard, wield too much influence in this county. I just don’t think the term “dictatorship” is the right one to describe the situation.
April 16, 2011 at 12:02 pm
WTF
OK? Do you want to buy a vowel?
“I just don’t think the term “dictatorship” is the right one to describe the situation”
OK? What would best descibes the situation ending in “ism”:
A. Authoritarianism
B. Bureaucratism
C. Totalitarianism
D. All the above
April 16, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Anonymous
Dictatorship-a government or country in which absolute power is held by a dictator or a small clique.(Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
Substitute SoHum Corp. Park,, they have absolutely no one they are beholden too. They have closed meetings, no disclosures, no elected officials,have their own agendas. Need one go on?
And nothing is going to change the kind of people that run the corporate park. Arrogance, ego and power they will not give up, just like a dictator.
Now repeat this same thought, only substitute Kirk Girard et al.
April 16, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Eric Kirk
A “dictatorship” in most discourse is pretty much when any object of authority makes a decision someone doesn’t like.
April 16, 2011 at 8:13 pm
tra
WTF,
“B”
April 16, 2011 at 8:30 pm
tra
Anonymous 1:44,
A self-perpetuating volunteer Board of Directors is actually the most common form of non-profit structure in the U.S. A bit less common are those which have an official membership roll, and a member-elected Board.
Having had a fair amount of experience with both types of organizations, I would say that each structure has its plusses and minuses. Frankly, a lot of the ones with member-elected Boards are just as cliqueish and insider-dominated as those with self-perpetuating Boards, and sometimes even more so (given all the politicking required to maintain control of the Board). Whether a membership structure is actually beneficial or not depends on how meaningful the member involvement is and how many of those members are actively engaged enough to take part in the governance of the organization.
Achieving truly meaningful member involvement in non-profit governance is a lot of work, which, depending on the organization’s mission, can either add to, or detract from, the actual work the organization is trying to accomplish.
Anyway, if you want to argue that the Sohum Community Park should be governed by a member-elected board, and that they should change their bylaws and entire governance system to accomodate that, you are free to make that argument. Just be aware that (1) This will not necessarily ensure better governance, or more accountability to the community (it might, but there’s certainly no guarantee of that), and (2) Referring to the current system as a “dictatorship” will only undermine your credibility, given that most people will view that claim as mostly exaggeration and hyperbole, given that SoHum Community Park is not a “government or country.”
April 17, 2011 at 7:11 pm
WTF
tra 8:30 pm,
Yes, I could agree to a point, those NPO’s that hold much less in total assets or receive less than $25K in donations per year, I could understand that. But because of the holdings and assets of the CP and the development plans in the works with-in the CP and surrounding it, does it not seen fair and ethical, just plain old common sense that the Park Board allow the community to know what is going on and to ask these questions at a Board meeting? I mean come one, sometimes these CP Board members act like they donated all the time AND MONEY it took to but the CP.
You do believe in Bylaws? Should the CP Board follow their own Bylaws?Here is what the CP Bylaws state:
SECTION 5. TERMS OF OFFICE
Each director shall hold office for a term of three (3) years. The terms of the directors shall be staggered so that no more than one-third (1/3) of the directors are elected in any one year. No director shall be eligible to serve more than three (3) consecutive three (3) year terms. A director who has served (3) full terms is, after an absence of one year, again eligible to be appointed to the Board of Directors.
http://www.sohumpark.org/pdfs/SHCP-Bylaws-2002-03-28.pdf
Now how far do you go? We as a community do not know what is going on. Three of the current CP Board have now exceeded three (3) consecutive three (3) year terms and need to step down, that is one-half (1/2) not one-third (1/3) of the Park Board.
FYI, they need to amend the Bylaws on the web site, there is nothing about the “Director Emeritus” they have now established already.
April 23, 2011 at 5:13 pm
WTF
Helloooooooo, tra, cat got your tung. I want to know your view from above. Should the CP Board follow their Bylaws?
Then you can explain how the CP’s Executive Director (that is compensated) also a Board member (Director not compensated). Nothing in the CP Bylaws talks about an Executive Directors position and if they can vote or their duties or how much they get paid. How can you separate the duties between a paid E.D. and a BOD that is one in the same person? Buy one get one free?
April 24, 2011 at 11:32 am
Anonymous
Pro-development Estelle and e, rumor has it that McKee is trying to change the zoning on the Tooby Ranch from Ag to R. That sucks.
April 24, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Anon
what’s ironic is that Peter Childs’ first and only comment to the GPU was on 12-09-10, Comments on the GPU process and a call to start over.
Well, perhaps he commented before 2007. The online comments are only 2007-2008:
http://co.humboldt.ca.us/gpu/documentsdraft1publiccomments.aspx
and 2009-present:
http://co.humboldt.ca.us/gpu/documentsdraftplanpc.aspx
April 24, 2011 at 9:44 pm
WTF
Anonymous 11:32 am,
yeah, most don’t have water on that property. They get their water from a fire hydrant in Garberville via truck delivery, just like every where else outside the Garberville SD district boundary, including points east and west in a completely different watershed area, why is that?
I guess this rain catchment tank or winter water storage doesn’t seem to work as well as the people selling the idea would like you to know, now does it?
April 25, 2011 at 8:15 am
Anonymous
Wait, you mean MOST of those people don’t have water on their own property? McKee said he did not sell property that didn’t have water. Heard him say that on KMUD and read it in the paper. McKee sells these water tanks.$$$$$$$$$$
April 26, 2011 at 5:26 pm
WTF
Anonymous, April 25, 2011 at 8:15 am:
No, most don’t have a running creeks or wells, they have tanks, filled from that fire hydrant in Garberville. GSD sells that treated South Fork Eel River water that comes from that hydrant, that water delivery company takes and delivers to homes outside the GSD district boundary. There are many homes outside the South Fork Eel River watershed that buy their water from a water delivery service, that was purchased from GSD, via GSD’s water treatment plant, via the South Fork Eel River.
You see. GSD thinks they are off the hook because the water was sold within the district boundary (fire hydrant) and it was the water delivery company that sold it outside the district. And it is no way called a Water Grab!
Its also like when GSD sells hookups for water outside the district boundary, as long as the meter is within the district, they can pipe the water to your home miles away. Slick yeah……..