Press release from the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE April 13, 2011
Whereas, further residential development in timber and agricultural land disrupts wildlife habitat, contributes to global warming, and reduces acreage available for resource production;
And, whereas, such conversion of resource land to residential use raises its value as real estate making it more costly for productive use;
And, whereas, ongoing urban sprawl onto productive resource land requires the extension of roads, drainage, fire, police and other public services paid for by the general public;
And, whereas, a General Plan Update that actually protects resource land and economizes public services while infilling established urban areas that can efficiently be served by public services has been developed through an orderly process of representative government with expert preparation by planning staff and open public hearings by the Planning Commission, both under the direction of the elected Board of Supervisors, for over a dozen years;
Therefore, be it resolved, that the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee strongly urges the timely adoption by the Board of Supervisors of a version of the General Plan Update that most effectively restrains further residential development of prime resource land and promotes efficient infill of urban areas for the benefit of the entire community now and in the future.
35 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 16, 2011 at 10:59 pm
Anonymous
Therefore, be it resolved, that the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee strongly urges the timely adoption by the Board of Supervisors of a version of the General Plan Update that most effectively restrains further residential development of prime resource land and promotes efficient infill of urban areas for the benefit of the entire community now and in the future.
So when are they going to announce their opposition to the Forster-Gill project, which involves conversion of prime resource lands into new suburban housing 10 miles outside of Eureka?
Or did Forster-Gill’s massive donation to Bonnie Neeley’s campaign buy them a free pass from the HCDC?
April 17, 2011 at 8:04 am
Anonymous
Estelle
and Mckee
ain’t gonna like this.
April 17, 2011 at 11:13 am
Eric Kirk
I believe Estelle is on the committee, so whether she voted for the resolution she already knows about it.
April 17, 2011 at 12:06 pm
tra
As with most such press releases, this one is full of mushy feel-good language that implies much, but actually says very little. Of course to some degree that’s an unavoidable side effect of “writing by committee.”
For example, if you were to take this press release literally, you’d have to conclude the the HCDC would have no problem with residential development on much of SoHum’s rural landscape, because much of that landscape is not, by any reasonable definition, “prime resource land” — which is why it has ended up in the hands of so many individual back-to-the-landers, homesteaders, and other small owners in the first place.
April 17, 2011 at 12:31 pm
tra
Whereas, further residential development in timber and agricultural land disrupts wildlife habitat, contributes to global warming, and reduces acreage available for resource production;
A prime example of the mushy feel-good language that is rendered more or less meaningless by a lack of detail.
It all depends on what kind of residential development we’re talking about. Yes, building thousands of suburban housing units in one place, completely obliterating a piece highly productive timberland (like Forster-Gill’s proposed mega-development project in Ridgewood) will both destroy habitat and eliminate any use of that property for “resource production.”
On the other hand, keeping many of our small TPZ landholdings in the hands of small, local landowners by allowing a house and a few outbuildings on a TPZ parcel so that the owner can live on (and care for) their land, may in fact result in better wildlife habitat outcomes than if those parcels are bought up by Big Timber. Meanwhile, allowing the home and homesite does nothing to prevent the rest of the parcel from continuing to produce timber, though these parcels might not look as “productive” in the short-term as they would if they were clear-cut every “x” number of years by Big Timber.
April 17, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Eric Kirk
It’s the same discussion over and over again TRA. I think what the Democrats are saying in effect is that everyone has had their say and it’s time to wrap it up. Probably doesn’t sit well if you lean against the Option A measures and you believe the county is leaning towards them.
I know that some of the C/D crowd feel they were defeated Tuesday night, but I think Jimmy did send a signal that at least some of the A language would have to be moderated a bit before he could sign off on the GPU. Probably we’ll have 160 acre minimums instead of 600 (last I looked the 160 was in Plan B anyway), and hopefully we’ll have a ministerial process for construction on TPZ where you know ahead of time what criteria you have to meet and if you can meet it your permit is guaranteed, though the criteria will undoubtedly be a little more rigorous than it has been in the past (which is to say they pretty much looked the other way). According to someone in the know, if you limited the bulk of your regulations to holdings over 600 acres you’re talking about the vast majority of the land anyway, and I think, contrary to the advice at the time of the PALCO bankruptcy moratorium, that such a policy could survive an equal protections clause claim by the larger landholders (since there is clearly a “rational basis” for the discrimination).
The other night I had a conversation with someone who lamented the fact that her kids cannot live here anymore, in response to my proposal for a moratorium on further ranch subdivisions until further notice. But the fact of the matter is that we don’t have the moratorium in place, and they still can’t live here because prices of land are simply too steep.
And what to do about the people who never really had much money, but saved up until they could buy a piece of land, but really can’t afford to build and maintain more than a rustic shack on their land – I don’t know what we can come up with. I really don’t have an answer for that. But to continue the county’s traditional policy of non-enforcement of codes is simply n an option today, for a number of reasons. Ironically, it’s precisely those people, who don’t grow marijuana, who are going to be hurt the most despite the rhetoric of “unholy alliances.”
It would be nice if there was some grant money out there to help rural landowners comply with codes and keep their land. Maybe some of the wealthier members of the community can establish a fund. That combined with a five year grace period might make some huge differences in peoples’ lives.
April 17, 2011 at 1:06 pm
Anonymous
TRA, your comments reflect good sense!
You know, this mushy feel-good language bothers me in the way it is so coordinated and value loaded. A is excellent, B is good, C is average, and D is poor. Everyone knows that, and yet the different options presented by the planning department were designated ABC and D.
Healthy Humboldt favors plan A (excellent) and B (good), with the obvious implication that unhealthy Humboldters would support plan C and D (poor).
It seems this GPU ‘update’ has been extremely value driven and coordinated from the very beginning by ‘experts’ and it did not arise at all from the majority of residents.
This is a fundamental problem that a million public hearing would not remedy.
April 17, 2011 at 1:24 pm
gpf
tra, your comments make very good sense.
With regards to the ‘mushy feel-good language’, this GPU update has been value driven by a few experts from the start, and couched in prejudicial language. Everyone knows that A is excellent, B is good, C is average and D is poor. There are many ways the plan options could be designated, yet the experts pushing for A chose this one.
Healthy Humboldt is in favor of A and B (excellent and good), with the implication that the unhealthy in Humboldt favor plan C and D (poor).
The four options presented did not arise from comments of the residents, and one million public hearings on the GPU update will not change that.
April 17, 2011 at 1:57 pm
gpf
Sorry about the double posting!
As evidence for the transposition of the ABCD designations to grading systems, I believe Eric said earlier he was an option A-/B+ kind of guy.
To continue my rant, to label option A Smart Growth is to suggest option D is stupid growth.
The experts who put this update together are urban planners who show obvious contempt for rural people.
April 17, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, I don’t believe that the existing general plan is adequate to planning future growth in Humboldt County. I don’t know if that makes plan D “stupid,” but just not as “smart” as it needs to be.
The same experts also put the Plan C framework together, and elements from there will hopefully find their way into the final product as well.
But where I think you will lose people gpf is in your assumptions about the motivations of people advocating plan A as “urban planners who show obvious contempt for rural people.” It’s not true, and it’s just as divisive as Shane’s unfortunate comments about the “unholy alliance.” The community is clearly divided on where to move with growth policy and land use regulation. Every hearing has revealed that much. The County has to put together something which at least attempts to address the diversity of community opinion, and despite all the screaming and yelling I think they’re actually doing a pretty good job of compromise in Plan B. They’ve made some big mistakes, including the omission of CAC’s very early in the process. But the time now should really be spent on problem solving, and rather than assign motives to people with whom you disagree, maybe your energy is better spent outlining precisely what you do not like in Plan A, and maybe come up with some ideas as to how you will address the problems those provisions were intended to address. That’s what the County needs right now.
April 17, 2011 at 3:08 pm
gpf
Eric: “The community is clearly divided on where to move with growth policy and land use regulation. Every hearing has revealed that much.”
Even one dissenter in the community who speaks out makes your above statement true.
In this instance I suspect there are far more people in Humboldt who would favor plan D over plan A, and this ‘smart’ agenda, that is backed by prejudicial language, and process flaws, would not stand a chance if there were a referendum.
Your ‘smart’ is not wisdom…it is arrogance.
April 17, 2011 at 4:08 pm
tra
…hopefully we’ll have a ministerial process for construction on TPZ where you know ahead of time what criteria you have to meet and if you can meet it your permit is guaranteed…
The TPZ permit process only became a hot-button issue in the first place because the hard-line Option A crowd has obstinately insisted that the ministerial process must be discarded and replaced by a discretionary process, thereby putting more power in the hands of county planners and more uncertainly and expense onto the shoulders of rural landowners. Too bad so much time and effort has had to be wasted fighting against an ill-conceived, overreaching and, if your prediction is correct, doomed policy change. Not to mention the divisiveness of the issue.
…if you limited the bulk of your regulations to holdings over 600 acres you’re talking about the vast majority of the land anyway, and I think, contrary to the advice at the time of the PALCO bankruptcy moratorium, that such a policy could survive an equal protections clause claim by the larger landholders (since there is clearly a “rational basis” for the discrimination).
I agree.
Again this raises the issue of why some folks were, and some still are, so insistent about the need to apply the more burdensome regulations onto even the much smaller landowners? I am still amazed by the way that those proposing to make fundamental changes in the property rights of thousands of rural Humboldt residents, all too often seem prepared to do so either not thinking through the effects on real people, or just not caring about those effects — and at the same time not thinking through the potential unintended (?) consequences to rural landownership patterns.
Given your statement that applying the stricter rules to only the much larger ownerships would encompass most of the land anyway, I have to wonder why some insisted (and continue to insist) on a “total victory” for their side where even small TPZ owners would be subjected to the discretionary permit process. Is this due to simple arrogance and ignorance? Ambition and hubris? Is it due to the desire to use the small landowners rights as bargaining chips to acheive more in the overall final compromise? Some of each? All of the above?
April 17, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Bolithio
Another thing it will do (600 TPZ min) will limit the field of people who can afford TPZ, and make it a more exclusive club. Less poor people and the problems they bring with them. The standard will be much larger homes on said lands when built. Hopefully planning staff will stop at nothing to make it extremely difficult for people with legal smaller parcels, essentially locking up people who wish to utilize their historic patents. In that way they can stretch the policy beyond existing 600s to any TPZ parcel.
Slam Dunk!??
April 17, 2011 at 7:14 pm
tra
I think Shane’s arrogant and self-serving framing of the issue as White Hat environmentalists and upstanding citizens on one side versus an “unholy alliance” of Black Hat developers and pot-growers on the other side is precisely the kind of thing that reinforces the image of Option A supporters as “urban planners who show obvious contempt for rural people,” the majoroty of whom are left out of Shane’s equation entirely, except as dupes or accomplices of the unholy Black Hat Gang.
April 17, 2011 at 7:28 pm
tra
But, Shane’s “unfortunate comment” notwithstanding, I don’t think most Option A supporters really show actual hatred or contempt for rural residents. However, I think it’s fair to say that many Option A supporters have shown a callous disregard for the way their proposed policy changes could negatively impact rural residents.
Several Option A supporters have suggested that I shouldn’t worry about Healthy Humboldt’s continued insistence on a discretionary permit process even for smaller TPZ landowners, since, according to these HH supporters, this would be, in the end, just a “bargaining chip” to be used in the negotiations when the issue finally lands with the Board of Supervisors. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but if so, I think that would be a pretty clear example of arrogance toward, and callous disregard of the small landowners whose property rights would be used as “bargaining chips” in this way.
April 17, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Anonymous
Well maybe the rest of us worry about the callous disregard for the environment exhibited by people who collect a tax break for their property but can’t be bothered to give something back for it by at least preserving the resources their tax breaks were meant to protect.
April 17, 2011 at 9:22 pm
Eric Kirk
In this instance I suspect there are far more people in Humboldt who would favor plan D over plan A,
Possibly, but I doubt it’s the case between D and B.
And again, assigning bad intentions or callousness to your political opponents may have had some utility a year ago in terms of political posturing, guilting, and whatnot, but we’re really beyond that right now. At this point you should assume, whether it’s the case or not, that your opponent is guided by what he/she believes is best for the community, and that there is rationality to their position. The charge that these “urban,” “boutique,” environmentalists are “callous” or cavalier about your rights is really not accurate, and in any case counterproductive. Plan “D” is premised on the notion that nothing has changed since 1984, and we all know that’s not true. And we’ve seen havoc wreaked across the state due to the lack of development plans, in urban, suburban, and rural areas. If your intention is to lock in a plan and policies which were based upon the knowledge available and prevailing realities of the old plan, then yes, you are going to be disappointed in the result.
Is the discretionary permit process for small holding TPZ in Plan B? Yes, I know it’s in Plan A, but that doesn’t mean anything. What matters is what is in Plan B, because that represents the current staff recomendation.
April 17, 2011 at 9:51 pm
tra
What matters is what is in Plan B, because that represents the current staff recomendation.
The staff recommendations matter, but they are certainly not the only thing that matters. The planning commissioners’ recommendations matter, but even those are not the only thing that matters. As you know, in the end the only thing that will really matter is the final language as adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
It’s true that the Option A folks basically lost the battle to get a discretionary permit requirement for TPZ residences into the Planning Commission’s recommendations. That doesn’t mean that the danger has passed: Clearly the HH faction hasn’t given up on their obsession with stripping rights from small TZ owners; their recommendations to the PC as recently as last Sept. contained that same old demand for discretionary permits.
So if your advice is that folks like myself should stop opposing a policy that we think is bad, while others continue to advocate for that policy, and before the policy decision is actually finalized — well, thanks but no thanks. Until the Supervisors go ahead and take that option off the table entirely, people are going to keep discussing it, pro and con.
Now if HH and their allies were to change their position and drop their demand for discretionary permits on TPZ parcels, that would certainly help to alleviate the concerns of small rural landowners and help to move the focus of the discussion on to other matters.
(Of course if they did that, then they would not be able to use the fate of thousands of small rural landowners as a “bargaining chip” as the process moves towards its conclusion.)
April 17, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Eric Kirk
I didn’t say anything about a cessation of opposition. But if you want to minimize the danger that it could work its way back into the realm of possibility, offer up an alternative which takes your opponents at their word that they aren’t just trying to cause trouble for small TPZ holding owners.
Advocacy groups often demand the world and compromise in the end. That they are talking “bargaining chips” (and I don’t know how representative that is anyway – you quote one person) is probably good news. You can continue to complain that they won’t change their position, or you can find a reason for them to do so. Probably the negotiation is in the level of rigorousness in the requirements for a permit.
Quite frankly I think the environmentalists and resource preservation crowd are acting imprudently in pushing for discretion. If a property rights majority regains a majority and replaces Kirk with someone in their camp, who then starts replacing planners with like-minded folk, then those planners will have the discretion to give out permits like candy. They shouldn’t assume that environmentalist-friendly planners will always be there.
The problem is that the difference between ministerial and discretionary can be shallow. If, for instance, you have a rule that the proposed development must not be contrary to the policy of preserving resources, such that you want some kind of return for the tax breaks, somebody is still making a call on something difficult to quantify.
Another possibility is to make permits discretionary in part with some objective guidelines in five years, and allow for the small holding owners to roll out of TPZ in that time – everything under 600 acres.
April 18, 2011 at 12:01 am
tra
That they are talking “bargaining chips” …is probably good news.
While I do understand the reasoning there, I hope that for your part you can understand that those for whom the viability of their homes and properties and life plans have been thrown into question during these years of being used as “bargaining chips,” well they may not view the situation with such sunny optimism.
Another possibility is to make permits discretionary in part with some objective guidelines in five years, and allow for the small holding owners to roll out of TPZ in that time – everything under 600 acres.
Okay, but the potential risk there would be that hundreds, maybe thousands of properties would indeed “roll out” of TPZ zoning, presumably into rural residential, potentially leading to even more residential development on those lands (and of course due to the higher taxes, more “trophy homes”), and, of course less timber production, than under the current system. It seems to me like that would be counterproductive to the stated goals of the Option A crowd.
Hopefully they’d consider the possible unintended consequences of such a policy before advocating for it…but given how little consideration seems to have been given to the possible consequences of the discretionary permit requirement being applied to small TPZ ownerships, well, I’m not impressed by the willingness (or ability?) of the average Option A proponent to think through any possibilities beyond “we pass the strict rules we want, everybody complies or is quickly forced to comply, the environment is saved from the evildoers, and nothing else important changes.”
I consider this sort of wishful thinking as an example of the “magic wand school of policy analysis,” where good intentions and shiny new rules are automatically assumed to solve the problems that their proponents want to solve, with few or no complications. Sadly, I have found that a lot of the Healthy Humboldt followers seem to be (unwitting) followers of this school of thought. I applaud their idealism, but fear the results of their apparent lack of capacity for critical thinking.
Quite frankly I think the environmentalists and resource preservation crowd are acting imprudently in pushing for discretion. If a property rights majority regains a majority and replaces Kirk with someone in their camp, who then starts replacing planners with like-minded folk, then those planners will have the discretion to give out permits like candy. They shouldn’t assume that environmentalist-friendly planners will always be there.
That’s a very interesting point. I think it speaks to, again, the issue of arrogance and hubris on the part of the Option A crowd, which may have assumed (at least until the last election) that their electoral fortunes were ascendant and that they’d always be able to count on the county planning staff to make discretionary decisions that will minimize development.
I know I spend a lot of time criticizing the Option A crowd, but I’ll just end by noting that these days I’m perceiving quite a bit of arrogance/hubris on the part of the C/D crowd as well. Now they seem to think that their electoral and political fortunes are ascendant, and as a result, they seem just as determined to seek “total victory” as the A crowd does.
I do think that most county residents are not hard-line supporters of either camp, and are open to reasonable compromise. Unfortunately, most of the money and organizing is focused out at the poles, not in the center. On the other hand, the lack of a clear majority on the Board of Supes that could bring about “total victory” for either side, does seem to make a compromise of some kind the likely outcome.
(Poor Jimmy-in-the-middle, I have a feeling he’s going to end up with a lot of people unhappy with him from both sides).
April 18, 2011 at 7:25 am
Bolithio
I dont understand how Option A people think that a TPZ ownership is somehow converted to non-timber use by the development of a residence. I mean there is a 1 to 3 acre footprint for a dwelling, max. So how does that detract from 160 acres of forest? Even 40 acres, in the smallest case?
April 18, 2011 at 7:26 am
Bolithio
And regarding continual forest management, is it not better to have one living on a small forested parcel? In that way they are there to thin, prune, and maintain roads.
April 18, 2011 at 11:14 am
Eric Kirk
Okay, but the potential risk there would be that hundreds, maybe thousands of properties would indeed “roll out” of TPZ zoning, presumably into rural residential, potentially leading to even more residential development on those lands (and of course due to the higher taxes, more “trophy homes”), and, of course less timber production, than under the current system. It seems to me like that would be counterproductive to the stated goals of the Option A crowd.
Well that’s the risk right now and if “Plan D” is selected. But we’re talking about a small amount of the land in question. Remember, this whole thing came about when PALCO started talking about breaking it’s land apart into “kingdoms.” Making it discretionary immediately for all holdings over 600 acres would alleviate that concern, but the County is spooked over equal protections liability – which is why the moratorium was universal.
I dont understand how Option A people think that a TPZ ownership is somehow converted to non-timber use by the development of a residence. I mean there is a 1 to 3 acre footprint for a dwelling, max. So how does that detract from 160 acres of forest? Even 40 acres, in the smallest case?
Your missing the point. The concern is that the TPZ will become de facto rural residential (with the tax break) as has happned with TPZ has in other places like Carmel, Siskyou, etc. and with ag all throughout the valley where developers have big law firms calling planners daily to pressure them for variances, and where “property rights” boards of supervisors have taken huge tracts of land out of ag to conform to what someone referred to as “the realities on the ground.” At some point in the future, someone will lobby county government saying, “there hasn’t been a harvest in this area in decades. Why maintain the fiction? Convert it to rural residential so that these poor landowners don’t have to suffer under the Planning Department dictatorship.”
And so on.
I have been in conversation with “D” option advocates who literally grimaced and sneered when I brought up up the land being lost for agriculture to tract housing sprawl outside of Sacramento. Their feeling is that when you buy property it’s yours to do with what you want, and if we lose the entire central valley’s agriculture for development, it’s nobody’s business but the landowners. And because of the anticipated law on patent parcels, they view the right as a law. Literally, this person, who is prominent in the D croawd (even “C” is “too socialist”), would like to see the end of all zoning restrictions whatsoever. But he spoke much more moderately last Tuesday.
This is what the county is dealing with. I’m not saying they’re handling matters the right way, but I can understand why they view the CAC’s as a waste of time.
April 18, 2011 at 12:02 pm
tra
Eric,
At the end of your last commetn, you you cite a conversation with one person with extreme views, and then conclude that “that is what the county is dealing with.” Well, I could cite the guy who spoke at one of the planning commission meetings and said that absolutely no new development should be allowed except in existing downtowns (I happen to know that, ironically, this fellow operates a sizeable indoor residential cannabis grow in Arcata and is therefore one of those people who are increasing the demand for additional residential units, by occupying a whole house with his grow). Those kinds of extreme (and in this case hypocritical) demands are also part of “what the county is dealing with.” But really not all that important a part, as the vast majority of residents fall somewhere much closer to the middle.
Meanwhile, Estelle’s interview on KMUD this morning seemed to show a willingness on the part of HumCPR to adopt a compromise along the lines of what you have outlined in some of your comments on this thread: Retain the ministerial permit process,instead of insisting on a discretionary process, and concentrate on the rules that underlie that process (for example “define how far out from streams houses can be built” as Heraldo quoted Estelle as saying this morning).
So, what I’m seeing there is a willingness on the part of the HumCPR faction to agree to rules that deal with water quality and other important issues, as long as those rules are reasonable, clearly defined, and not subject to (potentially arbitrary, or potentially favoritism-based) discretionary decisions by the planning department. Meanwhile, I have yet to hear that the Healthy Humboldt faction is willing to budge on their demand for the imposition of a discretionary process.
So at least on those issues, it looks like your position is closer to the pragmatic approach articulated by Estelle, than the dogmatic position that Healthy Humboldt is clinging to.
So if you want to see a compromise along the lines that you outlined above (which sounds strikingly similar to what Estelle seemed to be calling for), perhaps you ought to focus your efforts on encouraging some movement on the Healthy Humboldt side.
April 18, 2011 at 12:05 pm
tra
But be careful as you address the sacred demand for a discretionary permit process…lest you be labeled as part of the “unholy alliance!”
April 18, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Not A Native
Eric you’ve made some very good observations here that debunk the myth that residential TPZ isn’t just future subdivisions whose carrying costs are subsidized by the public. Its hypocritical that the people who most loudly proclaim they don’t want to see HumCo become like Siskyou and the valley are promoting policy that would enable exactly that to happen.
Problem is, folks who wrap themselves in the virtue of ‘just being small people’ usually have private dreams of someday achieving the grandeur of big people. Even if they don’t, their inheritors do. Since the cheapest land is always undeveloped, there is constant pressure for subdivision from the ‘small people’ who expect to eventually sell for much more than ‘small people’ can afford , either by selling to ‘rich people’ or subdividing to many more ‘small people’, as the market will bear.
I’m all in favor of people having housing choices but not in favor of housing being a subterfuge for land speculation, especially when there’s a public tax subsidy intended to prevent speculation..
April 18, 2011 at 4:49 pm
tra
…the people who most loudly proclaim they don’t want to see HumCo become like Siskyou and the valley…
Siskyou? Really? Perhaps you mean a different county? Siskyou is pretty rural, at least from what I’ve seen.
April 18, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Plain Jane
Maybe Shasta?
April 18, 2011 at 5:52 pm
tra
That would make more sense…the Redding area is pretty sprawly, and there’s many a McMansion among the hills as you come into Redding from the west on 299.
April 18, 2011 at 5:58 pm
Plain Jane
They’re all around Redding, Tra. Ranches turning into sprawl.
April 18, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Not A Native
tra, can’t read very carefully, can you? Quick scan, you captured it all, knee jerk a response, react to the next one. ADHD is a real zinger, more ‘medication’ for you.
April 18, 2011 at 7:58 pm
tra
Apparently I read more carefully than you write — unless you really are worried about Humboldt becoming “more like Siskyou.”
April 18, 2011 at 8:04 pm
Eric Kirk
Siskyou hasn’t become urban or even suburban. But large tracts of productive land have been converted to residential. And ski resorts.
Thing is, in that same county, the rules say that you can’t build on TPZ land until you file a timber management plan. Don’t know what that entails.
April 19, 2011 at 12:15 pm
tra
But [in Sisyou] large tracts of productive land have been converted to residential. …Thing is, in that same county, the rules say that you can’t build on TPZ land until you file a timber management plan.
And of course, the requirement for a timber management is one of the things that the Healthy Humboldt / Option A faction has been demanding here in Humboldt, yet you seem to be saying that that approach hasn’t seemed to help in Siskyou. Go figure.
On the other hand, I have to wonder, given that you concede that there hasn’t been an onslaught of urban or suburban-style growth on those lands, whether all the land you are referring to as “converted to residential” is truly no longer productive in terms of timber (and for that matter habitat).
At the risk of repeating (what should be) the obvious: Dedicating a couple of acres out of a 160 acre TPZ parcel to residential use and/or homestead-scale farming does not somehow magically stop the trees from growing on the other 157 acres.
In fact, with small-scale owner-occupancy, and the incentives for good stewardship that this can create, while the land may not be as productive in the sense of short-term timber company profits, it may in fact be more productive over the long-term, in terms of both forest restoration, deferred harvest and ecosystem benefits in the meantime.
April 19, 2011 at 7:18 pm
gpf
Also, small timberland parcels with residences spend their money locally when they log. Large parcels are corporate owned, and the profits from logging leave the area.