Join Supervisor Clif Clendenen and friends on Friday, May 13 at the Fortuna Veterans Hall to celebrate spring and plant the seeds for Clif’s successful re-election as our 2nd District Supervisor. Enjoy a local foods dinner prepared by Dorris & Daughter Catering. The Tesla Trio will play folk and fiddle music from around the globe with Susan Anderson, and Stephen & Lorna Brown. Doors open at 6 pm, dinner will be served at 7, and there will be a silent auction featuring great getaways, outings, and services as well as fine arts.
Contact me to purchase advance tickets, or get your tickets at the door for a suggested donation of $15 to $75. Click on the notice to enlarge.
While this may seem early, Clif has already been informed by certain powers that be that they will be dedicating their resources to his defeat, although there are only rumors of potential candidates at this time.
As always, this blog is an equal opportunity campaign event notice site. I will post any campaign notices I receive regardless of my personal endorsements.
75 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 1, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Jim Ferguson
Somebody is scared to death.
I mean, in the 20+ years I’ve been up here and been involved in politics, I have NEVER heard of someone kicking off a re-election campaign this early, no matter how tough the potential competition.
Yes, Clif has been a big disappointment and failure is a word that best describes his time in office. I expect the Primary to be brutal. What will be indicative to me is how successful this fundraiser turns out to be, how many attend. I really hope somebody drives by and counts the crowd.
Needless to say, I won’t be going and will be supporting someone else.
May 1, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Bien Padre
Trippy design.
May 1, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Rose
Nice fonts.
May 1, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Eric Kirk
Somebody is scared to death.
I don’t know about “scared to death,” but he knows that a lot of developer money will be spent against him and he saw how last Fall’s election went. Clif was always well behind the other candidates in fund raising the last time around, and took flack for receiving money from Native Americans. He’s taking a more pro-active approach this time around.
My wife and I will be there. I don’t agree with all of his votes, but I’ve never seen a supervisor spend so much time in Sohum, where he did not receive the bulk of the support in the last election. He has never been two-faced about his stands. He will hear you and then tell you where he can support your position and where he can’t. He will not ignore you because you are not in his constituency. And he has served through one of the most difficult and trying periods of time in recent history in terms of budget shortfalls and the all-consuming GPU.
I am very proud to support his reelection campaign.
But I’ll be very curious to see who runs against him who can cut into the Fortuna vote. Ken Zanzi is the name I keep hearing. But can Zanzi draw many Sohum votes? I think between those two Clif will easily win Sohum. Can Estelle or another Sohum candidate (Charlie Custer perhaps?) draw Fortuna votes if there is no conservative northern district portion candidate?
May 1, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Anonymous
“Developer money spent against him”? Not down here. Is he not so supportive of development in Eureka or something?
May 1, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Anonymous
Clendenen is facing an unholy alliance between developers and marijuana growers. Good luck Clif.
May 1, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Eric Kirk
8:28 – that’s a swipe at Shane?
May 1, 2011 at 8:58 pm
WTF
“but I’ve never seen a supervisor spend so much time in Sohum” It shows how long you have been in SoHum Eric. Sure, Supervisor Clendenen has spent more time in Garberville/Redway than Rodoni, but most of his visits have been attending SHCP meetings. And Prichard or Heider spent more time in SoHum than Clendenen could in 20 years.
May 1, 2011 at 9:13 pm
Eric Kirk
WTF – I suspect you don’t live in Sohum, or you wouldn’t know how silly that post is. He has attended enough community meetings and events down here that with going gasoline prices it’s probably cut way into his budget.
May 1, 2011 at 9:19 pm
Jim Ferguson
Yes, Clif has shown up at a lot of meetings but name me one thing he has actually done? Seriously. What has he accomplished in the last two plus years?
May 1, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, he, and the rest of the Board, managed to maintain services with drastic reductions in revenue. That alone was a pretty amazing accomplishment, as other counties and municipalities under similar pressures are on the verge of bankruptcy. And that’s his primary job.
Humboldt County is in better shape than Mendocino or Del Norte, and much better than Eureka.
Of course, this is a particular interest to me, but he has also been instrumental in preserving and advancing the Community Park.
May 1, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Anonymous
Isn’t our former Sheriff running?
May 1, 2011 at 9:40 pm
Jim Ferguson
For the last few years, the BOS has been doing nothing more than putting a bandage on a sucking chest wound, hope against hope that things will turn around before the patient dies.
This is not the first Board that has faced this sort of problem. I remember hearing the same sad stories 20 years ago, I remember having the HCSO here only during business hours, I remember having a break in and being told to send in a postcard as they had no one they could send out to investigate.
Look at the proposed cutbacks just announced. They knew this sort of thing was coming and did nothing to prepare. Just rearranged the deck chairs.
May 1, 2011 at 9:48 pm
Eric Kirk
How do they prepare for it? The point is, they aren’t on the verge of bankruptcy, like the surrounding counties and conservative-run Eureka.
I understand that they’ve been applying for grant monies, and will actually be in a position to hire two planners this summer – not a moment too soon, and probably inadequate due to the enormous pressures from many different sectors of the county which are preventing them from wrapping up the GPU. We have easily the most polarized rural county climate, and yet the government and services are coming out of it in better shape than neighbors with far fewer hindrances.
Again, it’s how you look at it.
May 2, 2011 at 6:59 am
Anonymous
Clearly a preemptive strike.
May 2, 2011 at 7:38 am
Anonymous
Cliff won’t even return a call from his constituents. He hasn’t done shit and he won’t get my vote or my money. Get out your wallet Eric cause he is only going to get your money.
May 2, 2011 at 7:53 am
Eric Kirk
Some months ago Clif held a meeting of supporters in Redway where his failure to return telephone calls was cited as a problem, and that will probably be part of the mantra used against him in Sohum. However, his wife chimed in that he is up until midnight just about every night returning calls and she often goes to bed while he’s still talking. With the multiple community pressures, particularly around the GPU which has led to an unprecedented level of “community input,” it’s a never-ending job 24/7. He walked into a crisis, which was compounded by economic crisis, and he’s handled it extremely well. He doesn’t have a staff like a legislator or executive officer would have. And he is there nearly every Thursday in his Garberville office, available for visits. Whether you agree with his policies, nobody with any real facts can question that he has put his heart and soul into his office. Your anonymous attack, without specifics, is part of what anyone faces who actually steps up to do anything for the community. There are always people obsessed with their narrow little agendas to tear you down because you can’t make everyone happy every minute of the time.
My endorsement was secured when I heard about the meeting in his office where he was essentially threatened for taking a stand of conscience with regard to the future development of this county. If the voters want lax growth policies, then so be it. But if they want someone with character and honesty, and they support smart growth and environmental preservation, they will vote for Clif.
May 2, 2011 at 9:13 am
tra
You mean if they support so-called smart growth, and if they assume that approach will lead to more environmental protection.
May 2, 2011 at 9:20 am
Eric Kirk
Yes tra, if they assume. And so called.
May 2, 2011 at 9:22 am
tra
How do they prepare for it?
I know this is old-fashioned, but I always liked the idea of saving money during the good times, so that you have the ability to spend that money in the hard times.
Instead, what tends to happen is that government (at all levels) tends to expand to absorb any extra revenues during the good times, necessitating drastic cuts (and/or deficit spending and/or tax increases) during the hard times.
Of course it would be silly to fault Clif for the fact that Humboldt County didn’t put aside as much as much reserve as perhaps we should have. After all, he’s only been in office for a couple of years.
May 2, 2011 at 9:25 am
WTF
You think “smart growth” = environmental preservation?
You need to look up “preservation” Eric!
May 2, 2011 at 9:26 am
Bolithio
If the voters want lax growth policies, then so be it. But if they want someone with character and honesty, and they support smart growth and environmental preservation, they will vote for Clif.
Right because if you are not a Option A supporter you must be devoid of character and dishonest.
May 2, 2011 at 9:28 am
tra
Yes tra, if they assume. And so called.
Just pointing out that your framing of the choices isn’t the only one. Many folks — and not just “developers” — may disagree that what’s being labeled as “smart growth” is in fact smart, and may disagree that those policies will in fact lead to a healthier environment.
May 2, 2011 at 9:35 am
tra
Bolithio,
The quoted sentence didn’t really say that. It left open the possibility that you might want a candidate with character and honesty, but not support “smart growth” and “environmental preservation,” and might therefore vote against Clif.
So the error is in the very last phrase, with the assumption that the proposed “smart growth” policies are in fact smart in the context of rural Humboldt County, and the assumption that those policies would result in a healthier environment than we could achieve with a different approach.
May 2, 2011 at 9:36 am
Eric Kirk
I understand. I was speaking in objective terms. If you want smart growth and environmental preservation, vote for Clif. If you don’t believe his policies will preserve the environment, then we have a year and a half to convince you.
Right because if you are not a Option A supporter you must be devoid of character and dishonest.
What is an “Option A supporter?” For that matter, what is Option A?
May 2, 2011 at 9:44 am
Eric Kirk
So the error is in the very last phrase, with the assumption that the proposed “smart growth” policies are in fact smart in the context of rural Humboldt
Well, and as hard as it may for some down here to believe, it’s not all about rural Humboldt, however defined. Unfortunately, it will come down to a choice in any case, because I’m not sure we are going to get a viable candidate who supports smart growth policies in the cluster/”urban” areas, and opposes them in the rural areas. I think what we have in Clif is someone with a nuanced view of all of them, hence his A-/B+ view, which he articulated in the last election. A and B have changed since then of course, but what we need rather than a straight up and down as to Plan A vs. Plan B vs. Plan C, is a detailed discussion about each of the provisions in each. Clif is ready to discuss the issue at that level.
We do need some additional regulatory policies and guidelines in place for rural development, now that everyone is up to speed. Unfortunately, we’re bogged down in debates about the procedure.
I’ve blocked a post already. Please do not try to post derogatory remarks. They will not be tolerated here.
May 2, 2011 at 9:46 am
Eric Kirk
You think “smart growth” = environmental preservation?
You need to look up “preservation” Eric!
And you need to learn to read, because I did not say that. On the other hand, the two are integrally related.
May 2, 2011 at 10:12 am
tra
If you don’t believe his policies will preserve the environment, then we have a year and a half to convince you.
And you will do so by attempting to label anyone who disagrees as a “developer” or a “tool of developers,” or part of an “unholy alliance?” Cuz yeah, that strategy has worked out so well so far…
May 2, 2011 at 10:19 am
Eric Kirk
I have never used the phrase “unholy alliance” to describe anything other than to quote someone else. But the alliance, holy or otherwise, is there nevertheless, and developer money will be spent against Clif’s reelection. I understand the mitigation arguments, but that is a fact of the coming campaign. They will help you though they don’t give a damn about composting toilets or water tanks.
But I guess we have to account for being alligned with some of those “soulless bureaucrats” in government, so we all have our crosses to bear.
May 2, 2011 at 10:30 am
Anonymous
Clif is NOT going to get my vote because of his advocating for the Southern Humboldt Corporate Park, and the vision/DEVELOPMENT that the corporate park board is shoving down our throats as “we are trying to build(DEVELOPMENT) what the community wants”. Completely ignoring the fact that MOST of the community does not want to see the park turned into a large and loud concert tourism venue and DEVELOPMENT, nor a housing DEVELOPMENT.
May 2, 2011 at 10:31 am
tra
…what we need rather than a straight up and down as to Plan A vs. Plan B vs. Plan C, is a detailed discussion about each of the provisions in each. Clif is ready to discuss the issue at that level.
What’s he waiting for?
Or did I miss something? Has Clif, for example, publicly stated his position on whether the county should begin requiring a discretionary permit process and/or new permit requirements for building a house on an existing TPZ parcel?
May 2, 2011 at 10:34 am
tra
…developer money will be spent against Clif’s reelection.
I wonder if some “developer money” may also be spent in favor of Clif’s re-election. Foster-Gill, the huge out-of-area developer who wants to build 1,400 “smart-sprawl” units in Ridgewood, gave a large donation (I think it was $10,000) to Bonnie Neeley…not that it did her any good.
May 2, 2011 at 11:11 am
Dave Kirby
I think we need to understand that big box issues and development in general are separate subjects. The constraints on residential development are already severe due to a frosty real estate market, the end of no “doc”loans and an economy that is flat at best. Regardless of who sits in the chair runaway development is a pipe dream.
I will say that Clif was responsive to input from down here on the hospital board issues and that he and Jimmy Smith both answered my email promptly. I do think Estelle would take some of the hill folks vote that went to Clif if she ran. But the fact remains that whoever runs he or she will have to take some precincts in the Fortuna area as that is where the majority of the votes come from.
May 2, 2011 at 11:54 am
Jim Ferguson
If will be interesting to see if Johanna Rodoni runs again. So far she’s spent over $200,000 on two failed campaigns. I wonder if the conservatives will fund her again or go for someone new.
May 2, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Merry Meddler
“Somebody is scared to death. I mean, in the 20+ years I’ve been up here and been involved in politics, I have NEVER heard of someone kicking off a re-election campaign this early, no matter how tough the potential competition.”
I just received an invitation to a fundraiser for Congressman Mike Thompson, put on by the Mike Thompson for Congress committee. This strikes me as pretty common practice, and I don’t think Mike Thompson’s “scared to death.”
May 2, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Jim Ferguson
Merry: Just shows how clueless you are comparing apples and oranges like that and just how out of touch you are with the local political scene.
May 2, 2011 at 9:08 pm
Not A Native
Dunno Jim, I’d say you’re confusing Clif’s apples with your sour grapes. Clendenen’s apples have been around alot longer than you. And yeah, Clif is getting out early to stop a few bad apples from spoiling the whole barrel.
May 2, 2011 at 10:11 pm
WTF
Eric, you said it twice:
At 7:53 am: “But if they want someone with character and honesty, and they support smart growth and environmental preservation, they will vote for Clif”
And at 9:36 am: “If you want smart growth and environmental preservation, vote for Clif. If you don’t believe his policies will preserve the environment, then we have a year and a half to convince you”
How do you figure “Smart Growth” will preserve the environment? That is an oxymoron! Put another way, conservation sought to regulate human use while preservation sought to eliminate human impact altogether.
And as for “Smart Growth” which study or model are you using for Clif?
May 2, 2011 at 11:26 pm
Eric Kirk
Yeah see, in both of those sentences, I said “smart growth and environmental preservation.” So, if I thought they were the same thing, I wouldn’t have included both of them and inserted the conjunction “and.” That would be redundant, and grammatically errant.
Now your next question makes more sense. You backed off the false claim that I said that smart growth equals environmental preservation. But you are correct in that smart growth, as opposed to unplanned and unregulated growth, preserves the environment. You see, smart growth, by definition, regulates human use. That’s what smart growth is – regulated and planned growth, with an emphasis on the preservation of open space.
I don’t know what you mean by “as for smart growth which model or study are you using for Clif?” The sentence doesn’t even make sense. I really think you should have paid more attention to 9th grade grammar. It would help you to understand my sentences, and construct your own.
May 3, 2011 at 1:51 am
Jim Ferguson
NAN: Bananas, Kiwi, Grapefruit. What other fruits can be bring into the discussion.
May 3, 2011 at 6:25 am
Anonymous
For what its worth I am from the 2nd District and he won’t get my vote. He’s an idiot.
May 3, 2011 at 7:14 am
WTF
Now your talking like a lawyer, or should I say Clif’s SoHum campaign Mgr?
First off, I never got to the 9th grade. Second, I will never vote for Clif after a comment like that. See Eric, you can’t judge a book by its cover or a person by their education, you can only use the trailer park analogy.
Sooooooooooooooooooooo the “smart growth plan” you have chosen for Clif is the one intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by curbing urban sprawl and cutting back the time people have to spend in their cars, am I right?
That same “smart growth plan” will relax various environmental rules and regs to allow “infill” and higher-density land use in or near cities and towns, including mandating”Multi Family Housing”?
Then you my man are talking about SB 375 for AB 32, that “smart growth plan”?
May 3, 2011 at 7:46 am
WTF
May 3, 2011 at 9:32 am
Samoasoftball
Jim: Just curious, who are you going to back in this race?
May 3, 2011 at 11:55 am
Anonymous
WTF, Mr. or Ms. WTF?
Because Eric made a remark you found offensive and Eric supports Clif, you “will never vote for Clif after a comment like that”? I suspect you’re going to have a hard time finding a candidate whose every supporter’s every comment, whether endorsed by or even ever heard by the candidate or not, suits your fancy.
May 3, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Jim Ferguson
Richard (samoasoftball):
Since the field won’t come into focus for six to nine months, its too early to tell. I’ve put my energies into “potential” candidates in the past and been disappointed when they didn’t run. At this point, I’m just enjoying the fine spring weather.
Remember, right now, people are throwing names of potential challengers out left and right and if past is prologue, only one or two of them will actually file paperwork. Currently, I know of only one person who is almost (90+%) certain to run. If they do, however, they do stand a good chance of winning. Clif will have a fight on his hands, of that there is no doubt.
May 3, 2011 at 4:03 pm
WTF
Anonymous 11:55 am,
Look anonymous, its not a name, it stands for Willits Track & Field. And yes, you’re correct. If Eric wants to campaign for people running for elected office, he needs to watch how he talks down to people, because he could lose more votes for that candidate. You think Eric is only supporting Clif, he’s on the Park Board for darn sakes, Eric is living the meet and greet dream, “Livin’ la Vida Loca”.
I guess we shall see who else comes out from under that woodpile and runs against Clif, yeah baby?
May 3, 2011 at 9:18 pm
RiverLover
Clif supports lots more gravel mining as the future major profit center for Humboldt County. It’s so sadly third world. The incessant necessity under modern subsidized capitalism to churn, to turn the environment into dollars is what many supervisors believe in. Cash only economies destroy sustainable lifestyles and the intelligent frugality that brings us into balance with nature. I would like to see people run for office who love our County enough to promote Nature getting legal standing which was just done in Bolivia.
May 4, 2011 at 7:28 am
gpf
Really. This is a local election for county supervisor, and Clif is asking for people to choose right now….months before any other candidate would normally announce their intention to run. Where’s the choice? Shrewd?
Feels slimy to me.
May 4, 2011 at 7:49 am
Anonymous
the southern humboldt corporate park board would not like nature getting a legal standing.
May 4, 2011 at 1:20 pm
gpf
It is a bit irrational to ask people to support Clif’s election now, 1/2 year early at least before all the candidates can be known.
Just watching his performance and listening to the the words he speaks makes it clear he is incompetent for this job, at least as a true professional representative of people living in his district.
Individuals who support Clif at this time feel that they own Clif, and they do. And those that choose to wait can have PC gossip and feel good words dumped on them until they capitulate.
Most voters, if given a choice of candidates from which to PICK a supervisor would prefer to have a thinking professional for their supervisor.
May 4, 2011 at 5:51 pm
WTF
If you count them all up, BOS Clendenen has appeared at more Park Board meetings and fundraisers than all of his visits combined in SoHum since 2008.
Then you have SoHum Parlance II supporting BOS Clendenen (Blog Master Eric Kirk, SHCP Director)
Then you have BOS Clendenen’s weekly KMUD spot on Monday Morning Magazine (Talk show host Dennis Huber, SHCP Director)
Since the Park Board doesn’t care to be transparent nor accountable to the public or community concerning their operation, oversight and fiscal responsibility for rezoning and development for both Parks (that in fact has been purchased with over $750,000.00 in community & public donations), and now knowing 600 people have publicly said NO to the Park Board in writing! I wonder if incumbent Clendenen can keep ignoring that many registered voters in the 2nd District, that keep growing in numbers? I mean think about that for a minute, 600 people and maybe more all want the same thing, that is a big deal for SoHum.
May 4, 2011 at 9:16 pm
Anonymous
i know one thing for sure, i’m sure as hell not going to allow barbara truit to talk me into to voting for cliff again…….i should have voted for estelle fennell and I will vote for her if she runs again.
May 4, 2011 at 9:52 pm
Anonymous
Hey thank you WTF! I was probably going to vote for Clendenen anyway, but if he is so engaged with creating a park for Southern Humboldt I’m definitely going to vote for him. Thank you for pointing out his commitment!
May 5, 2011 at 12:24 am
WTF
Any time Anonymous 9:52 pm!
BTW, its not a Park for Southern Humboldt BOS Clendenen “is so engaged with creating”, we already have a Park, its rezoning the Park for housing, so the Park Board can sell it off to a local developer. Same goes for the Commercial Concert & Festival venue rezoning, the Campground and Parking lots (I guess this is what Eric is talking about, “smarth growth & environemtal preservation”).
Yeah, we already have a fantastic park, thats what you and BOS Clendenen needs to think about, I mean not that you will, think about it. No, that would be too easy………
May 5, 2011 at 7:23 am
Eric Kirk
Well, we have the park for now, by special permission from the county. However, ag exclusive does not provide for public trails. If we do not get the general plan amendment there are no guarantees for the future. And even if the county will extend the current arrangement indefinitely, it will be moot because we will not be able to fund the park, especially if park opponents continue to oppose every effort to obtain grants.
Fortunately we are well on track with the GPA.
If you count them all up, BOS Clendenen has appeared at more Park Board meetings and fundraisers than all of his visits combined in SoHum since 2008.
You must realize this after reading it again that this this is a mathematical impossibility, unless we held meetings and fundraisers outside of Sohum. But if your point is that most of his trips down here have been park related, that’s not even close to true. Yes, he is a great park supporter and has done very well by it. But he has been to community fundraisers and meetings throughout Sohum. I don’t think you quite understand the scale of his commitment to Sohum – despite having received a minority of the votes here, which is not likely to change no matter how much he does for Sohum. The Fortuna-Sohum divide runs deep and wide, unfortunately.
May 5, 2011 at 7:44 am
CampaignFinanceReform
Clif loves being a politician. I don’t think he’s committed to “creating a park” but rather to support well-to-do park investors who paid for his first campaign. He barely squeaked by on that one so he’s got to start real early this time.
Nature created the park. Deconstructing it, courtesy of the Park board, with high-impact commercial use, with amplified events, housing, with astro-turf blanketed soccer fields on top of a wet drainage is creating a Park? Sounds like another nonprofit “profit-center” to me.
May 5, 2011 at 7:59 am
Eric Kirk
Well, that’s not only cynical, but rather silly. And of course you have no evidence of significant donations from anyone who could be lableed a “well-to-do park investor,” whatever that is.
And he didn’t “barely squeak by.” He was 8 points in front of his nearest opponent, which is quite significant in electoral terms, considered a blowout on the national scale.
I do have to correct an earlier statement however. While Clif lagged behind in fund raising for much of the 08 campaign, he did pull ahead in the final stretch, as I actually reported my self.
http://kunsoo1024.wordpress.com/2008/10/24/clendenen-now-ahead-in-fund-raising/
He had trailed both Roger and Estelle in the spring campaign, but when he came in second he was no longer seen as the spoiler for fall.
http://kunsoo1024.wordpress.com/2008/08/02/roger-rodoni-still-ahead-in-fundraising/
May 5, 2011 at 8:43 am
Anonymous
clif will not be getting my or my partners vote this time because of his involvement and willingness to turn our community park into the corporate concert tourism housing development that the corporate park board is shoving down our throats.
May 5, 2011 at 4:07 pm
Not A Native
Eric wrote:
“And even if the county will extend the current arrangement indefinitely, it will be moot because we will not be able to fund the park, especially if park opponents continue to oppose every effort to obtain grants.”
Funding will be a lot easier if smaller projects are undertaken, requiring less funding and less ongoing overhead expenses. Especially if the SHCP Inc. has the support of the entire community of good local volunteers and civic organizations. I think the county would kick in some support too, for noncontroversial projects. Including finding a way to permit trails on ag land.
And why shouldn’t the SHCP board expect opposition to grant requests for unwanted so-called improvements? First get agreement through a public process, then pursue grants. Oh yeah, when you already know what it has to be, you don’t need to take direction from anyone else. Otherwise, you won’t ‘git ‘er done’. Arkley knows all about that.
May 5, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Eric Kirk
You don’t understand NAN. We applied for a grant for trail improvement. A few of the opponents, who say they don’t oppose trails, contacted the potential donor to try to convince them to deny our application. Other grants for small projects, non-development oriented, have been opposed. None of the grants we have applied for have been for construction improvements – we don’t have the zoning. It’s all been about restoration, trail maintenance – maybe park benches and playground equipment. And each time, the potential donor organization is inundated with phone calls and emails from two or three people. In fact, anyone or any organization which pledges support for the park in anyway is inundated. At last count it was something like 85 organizations. It’s probably closer to a hundred now.
We are talking about people who call the Sheriff every time there is a slash burn on the property. There are some who despite their words to the contrary, act like they simply don’t want a park there.
And we have been told that on Ag Exclusive, which is the current zoning (with the possibility of breaking the land up into 15 acre parcels, which had some people salivating over it who were later pissed that it became a park), public trails are not compatible. Without some change in zoning or a perpetual renewal of the existing permissive agreement (which may not be possible) the trails will probably be closed. We cannot have weddings currently. We cannot allow picnics. We cannot allow a Frisbee golf tournament. We cannot have an egg hunt, except on Tooby Park. The zoning is extremely restrictive.
And by the way, nobody is even guaranteeing Tooby in the long run. A great deal hinges on the GPA. Possibly everything.
May 5, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Anonymous
Eric,
clif got 37% of the vote, that is NOT a blowout since 63% voted Against him.
May 5, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Eric Kirk
First of all, Clif got between 39 and 40 percent of the vote. Secondly, 63 percent did not vote against him, they voted for other candidates. There were two other candidates, and the closest was 8 points below him, and that’s not close. Obama was only 7 points ahead of his opponent, and they called that a blow out.
Or we can compare the percentages who by your definition voted “against” the other candidates. 69 percent voted “against” the second place finisher, and something like 73 percent “against” the the third place finisher. Clif only had 61 percent vote “against” him.
And to the anonymous poster whom I’ve blocked – I do not have information to confirm your assertion, and I have not had the opportunity to obtain it, and I will not post it without verification. If you have a source to refer me to, I will be happy to let it through. Your posts also contain a falsehood, but I will be happy to refute that once I am in a position to confirm or deny your primary assertion.
May 5, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Not A Native
Eric, I just don’t buy your scare tactics, and neither do many others in the community. If SHCP Inc. conducts a public process that includes democratic decision of how to proceed lawfully, I believe the rest will follow easily. As it is, the zoning change is becoming an adversarial process, not best for the community both socially and financially. Good for lawyers, though.
I don’t agree with your assertion that some people don’t want a park at all. Tooby park never created the degree of controversy that SHCP has. The issue has been the ‘expanded park vision’ that has many features that aren’t ‘parklike’. So use plain terminology, call the vision a recreation center or country club. Thats what it is.
BTW, Did SHCP seek grants to maintain unlawful trails without having county forebearance? If so, I would certainly hope the grantor was informed, else it could be fradulent. Is one of the expenses of SHCP insurance to indemnify board members from their individual decision? If so, there are ways to reduce insurance costs and SHCP’s overhead.
May 5, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Eric Kirk
But you’re changing the subject NAN. Your assertion was that if we only asked for grants which don’t involve development, then nobody would oppose them. None of the grants we have sought were about development, but all of them were opposed by a few people who harassed the grantors.
The GPA will be granted, that’s pretty much a given. The only question is the scope, and the real community discussions will begin when we know it.
Your accusation of fraud is just silly. The grantors have known everything about our status. Nothing is kept from them.
And as to what we call it, well, is Golden Gate Park a park? Central Park? Sequoia Park? Rohner Park? Every park I know of has facilities, many of them much more extensive than anything we’re planning. In fact, I know of no park anywhere for which amplified music is banned. Some parks even have, yes, housing. Nearly all parks have sports facilities.
Fortunately, the community has shown extensive support in terms of monetary donations over the past year, or we would be under by now.
But as I said, if you don’t like the way we’re running the park, then don’t donate and better yet, buy your own property and do it your way.
As to my “scare tactics,” contact Michael Richardson or Kirk Girard and ask them if they can guarantee keeping any of the park open to the public without the GPA. Including Tooby.
May 5, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Anonymous
you are such an arrogant SOB e. if we don’t like the way you are running the park, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE YOU OUT. ALL OF YOU. but you m.f. have made it so that WE THE COMMUNITY can not do that. if you are so god damned sure that the community supports all the shit you want, open up the board to elections, and put your $$ where your mouth is. this board won’t do that because you are scared shit-less of the truth.
May 5, 2011 at 8:28 pm
scoliopus
Yeah, the county can’t stop the private landowner board from shutting down the “park” if they don’t get their way.
Course, the private landowner can allow trails, too. Or not, at their whim.
Passive recreation is permitted on AE zoned land, at the discretion of the Land Owner.
May 5, 2011 at 8:36 pm
scoliopus
The park board has already done it once, including closing Tooby Memorial Park, and blamed the opponents they created, and the county.
May 5, 2011 at 9:25 pm
WTF
Eric said @ 7:23 am – “Well, we have the park for now, by special permission from the county. However, ag exclusive does not provide for public trails. If we do not get the general plan amendment there are no guarantees for the future. And even if the county will extend the current arrangement indefinitely, it will be moot because we will not be able to fund the park, especially if park opponents continue to oppose every effort to obtain grants”
The term “we” should be replaced by “community” and you don’t have “special permission”, the Park Board has a compliance agreement with planning director Kirk Girard only to use the Park for low impact activities and NO commercial amplified music or public gatherings without permission. And the reason was because the Park Board could not be trusted from past years of illegal & unpermitted concerts, after being told in writing to stop. AE zoning is not public lands, the Park is private property and yes you can have trails for the general public to use with the permission of the property owners, just not any public gatherings or commercial events. And when it comes to the Park Board’s “effort to obtain grants”? You are talking about State grants, not private grants, so yeah, the people have a right to question where their tax dollars are given and make public comments to a State grant application. It goes both ways Eric.
BTW, the Park Board could have all these events and fundraisers on AE zoning, as long as you obtain a CUP from the County, per event. There is no other real reason for the Park Boards GPA/Rezone.
Eric said @ 7:59 am – “And of course you have no evidence of significant donations from anyone who could be lableed a “well-to-do park investor,” whatever that is”
Buck Mountain Ranch LP donated $80,000.00 to the Park (it was in the newspaper with a picture of the very large $80K check). Turned out to be a great investment, given the facts Buck Mountain Ranch LP retained 81 acres in the Park Boards Lot Line Adjustment without paying for it.
FYI, you forget the Park Boards “River Parkways” Grant application was made public last year (Neighbors website), and yes, there was a lot of development included in all of the State grant applications. In fact a major part of both State Grant application was to pay for the cost of the Park Boards GPA EIR for re-zoning the Parks, remember?
May 5, 2011 at 9:34 pm
Not A Native
Better yet, why not a public park that the public administers(through elected representatives), owns, and supports with funds the public levys on itself as it decides is appropriate? Why does a publically funded healthcare system seem so progressively right to you but publically funded open space seems so retrograde?
The recourse for not liking how your neighbor is impacting your environment isn’t limited to the choices of not donating or moving. HumCo has other traditional solutions for dealing with that situation.
May 6, 2011 at 6:31 am
WTF
Eric,
You have not posted my last 3 post’s? What’s Up?
May 6, 2011 at 8:50 am
Eric Kirk
Sorry WTF. I have a life. Wife. Kids. Job. Sleep.
And I was speaking about donations to Clif, not to the park. Your implication was that he was supporting the park to draw campaign donations from “well to do investors.”
NAN – We could turn the whole thing into a pig farm and there would be no recourse. Believe it or not, there are private property rights. You have to be accountable to your neighbors, but you don’t have to cave to unreasonable demands which limit your ability to use the property as you want. We have had numerous meetings and communications, but there remains a small group who will simply never be happy no matter how many concessions we make.
AE zoning is not public lands, the Park is private property and yes you can have trails for the general public to use with the permission of the property owners,
No. That is false. And anyone out there who doubts this or doubts the stakes of the GPA, well, as I suggested earlier, call the Planning Department and ask for yourself.
May 6, 2011 at 9:32 am
tra
Believe it or not, there are private property rights. You have to be accountable to your neighbors, but you don’t have to cave to unreasonable demands which limit your ability to use the property as you want.
Careful now — with statements like that you may be labeled as part of an “unholy alliance.”
May 6, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Eric Kirk
You know, I just got home and found a string of would-be posts which incorporate childish personal attacks and I’m just not in the mood to let them through. Some of us work for a living, and the people you are attacking don’t deserve the worthless crap you’re posting. I had previously banned discussions about the community park here for this very reason – there are one or two people who just don’t have the emotional maturity to discuss it in a civil manner. I feel like Charlie Brown with Lucy and the football. Each time I think you’re ready to discuss the issues. Each time you make me regret it. Shutting it down again. If you don’t like it, start your own blog and post your crap there.
May 7, 2011 at 8:07 am
Jim Ferguson
I’m always amazed how off topic blogs posts can get. Unfortunately, one or two people can keep a diversion going for days. I agree with you on the point of them starting their own blog. It’s easy enough to do but they know if they do, no one would read it.
Eric, personally I have not followed and have no opinion on the SHCP and how it is run and have no intention of getting dragged into that discussion, but I will say that I admire your continuing community involvement especially in what has turned out to be a contentious issue. Most of the people who complain NEVER get off their ass and serve on anything but view their opinion as important as those who do.
My advice to them is to run for a community board, volunteer for a community organization, see what it’s like to be on the other side of the table trying to accomplish something in spite of the constant carping, otherwise just shut the f*** up.