I have been invited to join Lee Ulansey on the HumCPR Show tomorrow night on KMUD at 7:00 for a philosophical discussion about the balance between individual/property rights and community interests. When does one trump the other and to what extent? What are the criteria for justifying community/government intervention with regard to individually-owned property? Is it hypocritical for someone who has chained himself/herself to trees in the past to be allied with HumCPR in the General Plan Update controversy? Is it appropriate for “urban” residents to be involved in discussions about regulating rural properties (and vice-versa)? When does one individuals property rights impair another’s?
I’m sure we’ll move into specific issues, but we will try to keep a general philosophical focus.
104 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 8, 2012 at 4:43 pm
anonomous
Listen to Planning commissioners Ralph Faust (lovelace’s pick)and Mel Kreb(clendenen’s pick) on the radio and you will hear for yourselves that it is no exageration that they do not want us living rurally, that they want to expand HC urbanization big time, and the rest of the land outside of the urban zones,make into a gigantic preservation zone.
February 8, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Dave Kirby
I think economic restraints will have more to do with restricting land use and the future of general development than any plan handed down from the county. The pot boom is winding down. I don’t see a lot of increase in the density of population in the various neighborhoods in the hills. I think developers don’t quite understand the implications of the current economy . As long as banks are players in the real estate market thru foreclosures it’s a matter of who can afford the homes you want to build.
February 8, 2012 at 7:07 pm
grouchy
I agree with Dave, but I also think that SoHum CPR supporters don’t understand what it is they are really supporting. Over the past four decades, although hostility toward “hippies” has greatly diminished, county government’s understanding of SoHum has been dim at best, and has only really started to improve in the past few years when a (yes!) more progressive board was placed in office (less progressive since 2010). But even so the county has fumbled a number of opportunities to really engage with SoHum in the areas of restoration and the realities of rural life. THEN came the code enforcement raid of 2008 — curiously (probably coincidentally, right?) just as some SoHum folks and some county officials were just beginning to get together on issues involving land use and its effects on water, habitat, etc. — for many people all trust was destroyed. In rode HumCPR on its big white horsie to save the small rural landowner — in spite of the fact that a few months earlier they were cheering planning commissioner Bruce Emad when he called for stricter code enforcement and penalties with real teeth rather than building restrictions on TPZ (in fact, it was the idea of restricting building on TPZ that got CPR started — and let’s not forget TPZ is primarily a tax benefit program, but I don’t want to digress too much here). My sense is that small rural landowners were just happy to have an existing organization with money and clout paying positive attention to them, and so to this day they’re lapping up all the Kool-Aid CPR, the Realtors, and the HELP group are pouring out along with cookies of praise and appreciation for all the fine restoration work folks in the hills are doing, etc. But what CPR is really doing, in my observation, is co-opting the small landowners so they can brag that they have 4000 members who are all giving their pennies and nickels to keep HumCPR going. In actual fact, the core group are large industrial and old family landowners like the Barnums, the Russes, Green Diamond, etc. who want to carve up their resource lands now that they’ve logged/ranched them out, profits are in the cellar, and they’re ready to retire. Of course Realtors, developers, and the Homebuilders support them! What will happen if HumCPR gets what it wants? Our watersheds will be chopped up and those people Mr. Grover has referred to as “yuppies from LA (or SF)” — the only people who can afford to do so — except maybe industrial-type pot operations — will move in all over. Storage, conservation, and water recharge can only do so much — ultimately all watersheds have a limit. We should be assessing what is sustainable — best case and worst case scenarios — and do our planning around that, not allow ourselves to be flattered and lathered into becoming the minions of Humboldt’s one percent. Let me add that there’s nothing wrong with organizing to protect your interest, as the originators of CPR have done — what’s wrong is being dishonest about it.
February 8, 2012 at 7:36 pm
Anonymous
Grouchy, As with many misconceptions yours starts with a grain of truth. Unquestionably HumCPR has the support of realtors and timber but did you really expect those folks to support Lovelace and the urban environmentalists? HumCPR represents their only port in the storm not a preferred champion. Over and over again Ulansey and HumCPR have stood by the small landowners and homesteaders sometimes even against the interests of the corporate magnates. Do you really suppose that industrial timber cares about code enforcement, improving water storage techniques, or indoor cannabis? These are simply not issues on their radar screen and certainly not one on which they would expend resources. These large companies abhor anything they can’t control and they certainly can’t control Ulansey (nor can anyone for that matter). By and large while there is an uneasy alliance HumCPR has proven again and again that they are exactly what they represent.
February 8, 2012 at 7:59 pm
anon
I and 4 other members of my family are part of the 4,ooo members of HumCpr. We have lived on our land for the last 18 years and before that on my mother’s and her family’s land that they have had in their family for 60 years. My mother and her whole family are members of HumCpr. Our quality of life is totally wrapped up in living in the country and all of the beautiful things that comes with living in nature. We are not dupes and totally are behind what HumCpr is about and the work they have engaged in on behalf of HC landowners.
We are environmentalists and good stewards of our land and we take offense at being demonized by urban environmentalists. We deserve to have a voice at the county level regarding land use regs that are going to directly affect us and our families and HumCpr has been the only organization that gets that. It appears that the ones that don’t get that are the pro Plan A proponents who really don’t believe that we should be “allowed” to live on rural land and that we should be shepherded back into towns with urban infrastructure. It is the pro plan A people that need to be honest about what they are trying to do to rural people.
February 8, 2012 at 10:05 pm
Anonymous
“Over and over again Ulansey and HumCPR have stood by the small landowners and homesteaders sometimes even against the interests of the corporate magnates.”
Give the “over and over again” examples.
February 9, 2012 at 8:28 pm
Ben Schill
Somehow, this string, on a really important issue, has died after six posts… Maybe the show tonight will revive it.
My problem with HUM CPR is that they seem to me to gain members by demonizing the agendas of the County and the Plan A types. No current landowner is going to lose their right to their property. Code Enforcement has been rather low profile and I know folks who have built on TPZ without problems. I am old enough to know the smell of politics of fear and I have come to dislike it.
February 9, 2012 at 10:01 pm
713
What if you own adjacent timber parcels? Merger. I call that a loss.
February 10, 2012 at 8:22 am
Dave Kirby
I agree Ben. The question as to whether or not a parcel can support a residence should be based on the infrastructure available to the site. Water and sewage disposal being paramount. When I was selling real estate I saw a number of very marginal parcels represented as “homesteads” by large land owners who had subdivided in hopes of making a killing selling crappy land to unsuspecting buyers. That being said the majority of land in TPZ will never produce enough timber to be economically harvested under current regulation and management scenarios. In many cases the TPZ designation needs to go away. It is a tax dodge pure and simple.
February 10, 2012 at 9:11 am
Anonymous
Dave says-
“……. I saw a number of very marginal parcels represented as “homesteads” by large land owners who had subdivided in hopes of making a killing selling crappy land to unsuspecting buyers.”
Again, sounds like you are talking about McKee.
I can not tell you how many places I have been too, that were sold by McKee, that have no water source. Many of them in the Perry Meadow subdivision.
February 10, 2012 at 10:18 am
humboldturtle
Zone it ag-exclusive.
February 10, 2012 at 10:50 am
edsvoice
Dave, what needs to be asked is IF the watershed and river basin can support growth?
Look at what Garberville Sanitary District is proposing right now. An Annexation application to Humboldt LAFCo, to include and expand over 700 acres into their Distirct service area boundary for sewer and water. GSD is at 70% of their water right to the SFER right now.
Of these 700 plus acres, over 500 acres would become new connections for water and sewer infrastructure from GSD, which gives a green light to the County under the Housing Opportunity Zones for the Garberville, Redway, Benbow, Alderpoint Community Plan. Which as you know includes Increased density bonuses and allowances for PUD’s and Multi-Family Housing.
How can you account for new growth, knowing the river can’t support any part of it? You can’t propose new growth and more connection only when the river has flow!
.
February 10, 2012 at 12:29 pm
edsvoice
I thought the show last night was as Ben Schill described this thread.
I did not hear anyone one last night either asking or answering the questions you posed for this tread Eric:
When does one trump the other and to what extent?
What are the criteria for justifying community/government intervention with regard to individually-owned property?
Is it hypocritical for someone who has chained himself/herself to trees in the past to be allied with HumCPR in the General Plan Update controversy?
Is it appropriate for “urban” residents to be involved in discussions about regulating rural properties (and vice-versa)?
When does one individuals property rights impair another’s?
February 11, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Anon
Do the Clendenan supporters really think that continuing to attack Bob McKee is going to be a good strategy for re electing Clif?
February 11, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Eric Kirk
They aren’t Clendenen supporters Anon. They’re Community Park detractors in their usual scorched-earth rants. Many Clendenen supporters are strong McKee supporters.
February 11, 2012 at 5:51 pm
Anonymous
what on earth does talking about mckees record of environmental destruction have to do with clif? mckee ain’t the environmental god that you all seem to think he is. everything he does is for $$$, fame, legacy, etc.
ever wonder why it took everyone in this community so long to get upset about diesel grows? has nothing to do with them becoming so caring for the environment, if that was the case, you all would have been upset years ago. but no one bitched a fit until it hit you in the $$ pocket.
seems like a lot of convenient environmentalists. and forgetful. how many pieces of waterless land do you all think mckee has sold over the last 30 years? how many miles of roads that silt in to creeks and rivers?
February 11, 2012 at 6:46 pm
S
Sez the man who runs flak for the land exploitation developer responsible for the major portion of homesteader eco-damage to SoHum samonide spawning grounds and wildlife habitats through massive invasion of environmentally ignorant city-folks looking to escape city life insanity by making wildlife pay for it with their lives. Sez the man who runs flak for the land developer and homestead supplies millionaire, both using the CP as cover for still more exploitation of locals. Oh yes, we are opposed to rip off artists exploiting the community and their paid flunkies.
February 12, 2012 at 8:32 am
Dave Kirby
Just for the record I was not talking about McKee when I mentioned “marginal parcels”. He may have created some
but the ones I saw were created by Mr. Barnum and other
timber operators. And some in the Benbow subdivision.
February 12, 2012 at 10:01 am
Anon
Dave Kirby said: the ones I saw were created by Mr. Barnum and other
timber operators.
There are several key people in our “environmental community” that bought and homesteaded land that they bought directly from Barnum.
February 12, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Ben Dover
Well…lets talk about this: Is it right for “urban” residents to be involved in discussions about regulating “rural” properties and vice versa?
This seems to me an intriguing and important question pertaining to the General Plan Update.
February 12, 2012 at 1:13 pm
edsvoice
“When does one individuals property rights impair another’s?”
This was one example given for this tread and the radio show, it was one reason I listened to the radio show, These issues effect everyone. So can we get back on topic?
February 12, 2012 at 9:25 pm
Ben Schill
Every land subdivision in So Hum had parcels with marginal water. Some gave water rights to the nearest creek to “fix” this problem. In the late 70s, the County demanded proven water in subdivisions and developers began drilling wells on their parcels. Real Estate agents would point out “watergrass” (rush) or a pepperwood tree and assure the city folks that water was right below the surface. I knew folks who owned Salmon
Creek 40s and were not old enough to drink. Waterless 40s sold for $5-6,000. Those parcels are now worth (in Salmon Creek) about $400,000. Somehow, they got water. Town folks said: “Those Hippies will be gone in a couple years… nobody ever made a living on that land.” Well, we showed ‘em…
February 13, 2012 at 7:21 am
humboldturtle
Ben D: The answer is “yes”.
February 13, 2012 at 9:22 am
Anonymous
Funny how people in SoHum want to be able to regulate what goes on in the northern part of the county, but don’t want it the other way ’round.
February 13, 2012 at 9:24 am
Eric Kirk
Funny how people in SoHum want to be able to regulate what goes on in the northern part of the county, but don’t want it the other way ’round.
A criticism I’ve had for awhile, but I wonder if the whole GPU experience hasn’t rendered some of the old tree huggers around here more conservative in general. Whenever I ask the question, I don’t get a straight answer.
February 13, 2012 at 9:58 am
Seymore Butts
“I wonder if the whole GPU experience hasn’t rendered some of the old tree huggers around here more conservative”
What is your definition of “old tree huggers” Eric and how was it used in the conversation?
In most cases and from what you just stated “old tree huggers” is a derogatory slur. Your lucky you only came away without a straight answer!
Just because you want to save “old growth Redwoods” doesn’t mean you want to be known as “old tree huggers” It’s all about cause and effect, including cumulative impacts.
February 13, 2012 at 11:42 am
Not A Native
Its amusing how Ben Schill’s 9:25 prideful posting inadvertently perfectly illustrates and validates the points Eric made here.
Ben proudly cites that $6,000 remote small holdings of 30 years ago now have $400,000 market value. And obviously, any buyer today must be much more relatively wealthy than the buyer 30 years ago. But of course, that was the objective. The properties have been ‘gentrified’ and now unaffordable to today’s people of modest means. So, those people today, seeking to duplicate the ‘success’ of their 1970′s predessors, look to remote small holding that are more remote, pushing residential land conversion ever further outward.
And more telling, Ben’s narrative is framed in a culture war language of hippies triumphing over rural conservates, proving their intellectual and moral superiority by employing novel methods to extract previously undisturbed survival resources from the land. But ironically, that’s exactly the same ethos of rural conservatives(doing God’s work by making every place suitable for human habitation). IMO, a genuine cultural hippie would be ashamed to transform land that people of modest means can afford to become available only to affluent people.
I think the reason Eric can’t get a straight answer to his question isn’t because the GPU process has made people more conservative. Its because the GPU process has starkly revealed how conservative those people already are. Whatever self label they claim by manner of dress, cuisine, entertainment, and speech, they don’t have the values and philosophy that the hippie movement’s founders espoused. As Eric’s friend wisely said, “Hippies move to rural places and become rednecks”.
February 13, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Anonymous
Straight from one pigeonhole to another. How convenient.
February 13, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Anonymous
“Is it hypocritical for someone who has chained himself/herself to trees in the past to be allied with HumCPR in the General Plan Update controversy?”
This line of reasoning reminds me of the morons who argue that if you drive a car then you’re a hypocrite if you oppose the Keystone XL pipeline.
February 13, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Anonymous
Yes. Reminds me of listening to Tanner on Thank Jah one time, talking about how proud he was that he cut all the trees to build his house off the land. A place where a house had never been before. I wonder how many times this scenario has been repeated over the last 20 years? How many trees cut? How many homes on land that never had one on it before?
February 13, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Eric Kirk
As an unreconstructed “tree hugger” myself, I don’t really see it as a slur. Perhaps it’s been used that way, but it’s power in that respect is long lost.
How about former EarthFirst! activists who now sound like Federalist Society members? Is that derogatory?
It’s really a simple question. Has your involvement in GPU politics made you more conservative? Or is your opposition to Plan A just a singular anomoly due to the very particular nuances of the situation? There should be no shame either way, but the question apparently makes some feel very uncomfortable.
February 13, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Anonymous
“How many homes on land that never had one on it before?”
And how many homesteads that had a house on them 50 or 100 years ago and no longer do? I’ll bet it’s quite a few.
February 13, 2012 at 2:17 pm
anon says
Asshat said: Reminds me of listening to Tanner on Thank Jah one time, talking about how proud he was that he cut all the trees to build his house off the land. A place where a house had never been before. I wonder how many times this scenario has been repeated over the last 20 years? How many trees cut? How many homes on land that never had one on it before?
wtf?? oh that’s right, people shouldn’t be allowed to live…..period! by all means, make all people take cyanide…. problem solved!
except you asshat, right?
February 13, 2012 at 2:37 pm
tra
I think the GPU politics, the code enforcement abuses, and the attempt to extend the TPZ building moratorium beyond it’s stated original purpose of “sending a message” to the MAXXAM/PL bankruptcy judge and instead attempting to apply a moratorium (de jure or de facto) to all TPZ parcels, have all had the effect of triggering libertarian-type reactions. So in that sense, yes, I think there has been some effect. For that you can thank the misbehavior of the code enforcers (and the negligence of those who were supposed to be overseeing and supervising them), as well as (what I see as) the overreaching of the TPZ-moratorium enthusiasts and Plan A devotees. And I think it’s safe to say that the tree-fort condemning staff at the Planning Department aren’t exactly helping either.
But has any of this led SoHummers to become more anti-abortion, or pro-corporate, or anti-taxes-on-the-rich, or pro-war, or any of the other positions that define so-called “conservatives” today? My guess is probably not.
February 13, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Not A Native
There’s no doubt that the tenor in SoHum is anti-gubmint and that includes paying taxes. Its duplicitious to excuse your own non-tax paying attitudes by pointing at someone else who’s “rich”. IMO, thats just plain old sneaky competition. Trying to distract attention from yourself while trying to beat out everyone else.
Fact is, people who have plenty of amenities and luxuries in their lives, including prodigious consumption of (corporate)motor fuel, (corporate)high tech manufactured goods, and (corporate)air travel vacations are relatively quite ‘well off’. Especially compared to the workers who assemble their toys. The self proclaimed progressives believe as an article of faith that “I pay too much(taxes) and don’t get much back”. Thats right up Republicanism.
And is a lie to equate being conservative with being in the Christian Right. That’s a red herring, intended again to mask the genuinely conservative worldview prevalent in SoHum.
February 13, 2012 at 4:00 pm
tra
Well I’m sure there are a fair number of SoHummers who fit that description, but plenty more who don’t. I think you’d find more SoHummers who object to military overspending and corporate subsidies than object to spending on foodstamps and public education, and healthcare for the poor, and so on. If that’s “conservatism” it’s of a very different type than the sort that most American “conservatives” would subscribe to.
February 13, 2012 at 4:01 pm
Anonymous
Sohum=hippiecrites
February 13, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Eric Kirk
But has any of this led SoHummers to become more anti-abortion, or pro-corporate, or anti-taxes-on-the-rich, or pro-war, or any of the other positions that define so-called “conservatives” today? My guess is probably not.
No, but have they become more sympathetic to logging companies? Developers like Rob Arkley? More receptive to perspectives held by the Cato Institute or Reason Magazine?
February 13, 2012 at 4:15 pm
Eric Kirk
There are plenty of Sohummers who oppose public education, but it’s on a different level than the traditional right wing opposition, even if they are in coalition with right wingers when it comes to home schooling. That’s a different issue. I’m more focused on right/left views of property and community interests.
February 13, 2012 at 5:11 pm
tra
” No, but have they become more sympathetic to logging companies?
Possibly, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. There may indeed be some folks out there who previously held the view that all logging is evil and therefore any regulations that reduce logging must be good. And if some of these folks may be beginning to develop a more nuanced view along the lines that some logging is acceptable and that regulations are good when they encourage less frequent, more selective harvesting and counterproductive when they do the opposite, then I think that’s a helpful development. Are there a lot of folks out there who, due to the GPU politics, have reversed their positions entirely and now favor heavy, unregulated logging? I doubt it.
“have they become more sympathetic to …Developers like Rob Arkley?”
Maybe, but not that I have run across.
“More receptive to perspectives held by the Cato Institute or Reason Magazine?”
Possibly, but again, in my view that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The libertarian perspective on issues is often a useful one to consider, though of course it doesn’t make sense to be dogmatic or totalistic about it, any more than it makes sense to be dogmatically or totalistic in support of a statist perspective. If some folks are learning to be more thoughtful in terms of considering issues in context, recognizing nuance and taking an approach where ideology is tempered by pragmatism, well, so much the better.
In my opinion, the broader question raised by the rural community’s reaction to the TPZ moratorium and Code Enforcement fiascos and the push for a Plan-A-type GPU is: “Does overreach lead to backlash?” The answer is: Very often, yes. And the more overreach, the more backlash. Again, from my point of view, a good deal of the blame lies with the overreachers.
Personally I don’t see any sign that the community as a whole is riding the pendulum all the way over into right-wing Tea Party territory. Of course if your position is that if you oppose Plan A then by definition you’re a right-wing Tea Partier, then I suppose your answer is going to be different.
February 13, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Not A Native
Eric you’re more naive than I thought if you think anyone in your vicinity will tell you the truth about their cognitive dissonance due to activities they are really engaged in. That’s suicidal in a culture where backgrounds are hidden and secrecy and clandestine behavior are considered normal, proper, and essential.
Its like asking a CIA agent how they set and accomplish tasks.
February 13, 2012 at 5:58 pm
Anonymous
What evil lurks in the minds of rural residents? Only the ShadowNAN knows!
February 13, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Eric Kirk
Good answer TRA, along the lines of what I’ve been looking for. And I think it’s safe to say that the crowd who moved to the country during the “back-to-the-land” movement might even have been selecting for individuals who are more open, or at least less blocked, to libertarian views than the SDS types who stayed in the city to organize and all. There were tensions as well as overlap between counter-culture and new left from the beginning, or at least as far back as the Haight-Ashbury.
But it also lends credence, and I’m not making a moral case on it, to the old Marxist critique of petit-bourgeois politics where he urged alliances between worker organizations and small land owners, but cautioned them as to the limitations of the coalitions. You can argue that the tension there turned very bloody during the forced-collectivizations in the Soviet Union of the late 20s and 30s – comparisons which have been drawn to Plan A which I think you’ll agree is rather melodramatic. But putting aside the oversimplifications and obvious hyperbole, there is something to be said for the similarities in the issues – the Kulaks had vested interests, however limited, and wanted to be left alone. Stalin wanted them integrate into the system as a whole. Well, actually he wanted them dead, but he said he wanted them integrated. But the Kulaks didn’t need integration. They were stewards of the land, and knew what was best for the land. There is a parrallel.
Now watch on the blogs from here on in I’ll hear, “even Eric Kirk compares Plan A supporters to Stalin.” Ah well.
Lastly, I don’t know if there was anyone except a handful who believed that all logging is evil, but I’m wondering if there are those who say, “you know, I used to oppose logging, but after my dealings with government, I don’t think it’s any of my business if they log on their own land however they want so long as it doesn’t affect my land.” I wonder if the tree sitters would receive as positive a reception from Sohum if they were initiated today.
On the other hand, it’s easy to say, “that’s them and we are us.” I’m actually wondering about the demographic breakdown in comparing support for the HumCPR position and the opposition to the Richardson Grove upgrade proposal. Both of our candidates are on record as supporting the proposal because it’s important to small businesses, so it’s probably a wash as a political issue. But where do the SohumCPR activists stand on the issue? Probably a mixed bag like everything else Humboldt.
February 13, 2012 at 6:01 pm
Eric Kirk
NAN – but even the CIA has its Philp Agee’s and John Stockwells.
February 13, 2012 at 6:13 pm
Anonymous
“Now watch on the blogs from here on in I’ll hear, ‘even Eric Kirk compares Plan A supporters to Stalin.’ Ah well.”
LOL !
February 13, 2012 at 6:43 pm
Ben Dover
Doesn’t matter what category people fit into.Who cares? Although I must say I am surprised that Eric sees himself as an “unreconstructed tree hugger.”
What does matter is that where we live should determine how we live if we want to live someplace that is alive.
Availability of abundant water should determine development density. I am not talking about destroying or “sacrificing” one watershed to save another, which is what the plan is in Southern Humboldt. Water infrastructure, whether it’s tanks or water treatment plants and pipes does not equal water. But there is not one person making the decisions here that acknowledges that fact of nature.
February 13, 2012 at 6:57 pm
anon4cec
tra @ 5:11 and Eric @ 5:59,
These are perhaps the most insightful and articulate comments I have heard on this subject and I agree with your interpretations completely. Moreover, I think it would be worthwhile if we could build on the bridges that have built on the GPU wars to forge common ground alliances on other issues as well. There was an earlier comment on a possible right/left home schooling coalition. I would suggest that this would be a huge and positive move forward. I we can communicate positively on issues where we agree there is a greater likelihood of civil discourse between these same parties on the topics on which they disagree. Who knows there might even exist a common ground in virtually every conflict and if we do not demonize our opponents we might even find it.
February 13, 2012 at 7:30 pm
anon
How many trees cut? How many homes on land that never had one on it before?
Are you talking about the old growth Forest that used to live/stand right where Arcata is? and btw, how many trees used to stand where you call home?
February 13, 2012 at 7:47 pm
Not A Native
Yeah Eric, my point was that you can’t seriously expect an answer to your question. The content of Ben Schill’s post, shows why, the values espoused aren’t the values that are actually prized and observed. And I’d never expect anyone to refute my dissection/explication of his post.
February 13, 2012 at 10:20 pm
Seymore Butts
“I’m more focused on right/left views of property and community interests”
Eric? Maybe you can explain to us what you mean by this? Whom are the people in a community that make up “community interests”?
I noticed in the opening thread, you said:
“a philosophical discussion about the balance between individual/property rights and community interests”
I don’t understand what “individual/property rights and community interests” have in common?
February 14, 2012 at 6:56 am
humboldturtle
Hey, Seymour – aren’t you the guy who wrote Under the Grandstand?
February 14, 2012 at 8:31 am
anon
“Hey, Seymour – aren’t you the guy who wrote Under the Grandstand?”
Yeah, and his brother Peter Draggin, is famous for his best seller
“Trails in the Sand”
February 14, 2012 at 8:34 am
anon
Don’t forget, Seymore ‘s sister, Seemore Hare, who is REALLY famous for her best seller: Open Kimono
February 14, 2012 at 8:35 am
Seymore Butts
Not Grandstands, Bleathers, it was: under the Bleachers, OMG…………
February 14, 2012 at 9:26 am
Anonymous
Most people in SoHum DO NOT PRACTICE what they preach.
Go any a “land steward’s” “homestead”, and you will find homes, decks, picnic tables, etc. made of Redwood. You will find lush, green lawns being watered summer and fall. You will see cut down trees that are “in the way”. The list goes on, and on and on. You will find find hippies taking advantage of every single government program they can, while not paying into the system themselves.
One of the funniest things I have ever seen in my life, was a hippie driving a BIG extra cab, 4-wheel drive diesel Ford pickup.
February 14, 2012 at 9:34 am
Anonymous
“Water infrastructure, whether it’s tanks or water treatment plants and pipes does not equal water. But there is not one person making the decisions here that acknowledges that fact of nature.”
Ben Dover said this, and it need repeating. I think that most people in SoHum really don’t give a rats ass about nature.
February 14, 2012 at 10:34 am
Anonymous
can somebody school me on some basics? opinion allowed, of course…
9:26, I agree with most of what you wrote @ 9:26. I don’t appreciate that you don’t acknowledge the real back-to-the-landers who are out of the limelight, or the comment about about people not “paying back into the system”…another topic altogether. But yeah the brand new redwood deck “hippies” who clearcut their views to the valley make me sick as well. What’s your take on the GPU? I can’t get my anon’s straight, are you for option A or do you advocate another or what’s your take?
This is confusing. I’m all for declaring the remainder of humboldt’s open space a “gigantic preservation zone” as the first anon says, but there are people who want this as well who do NOT want urban infrastructure to grow exponentially either, I am one of them. Is anybody advocating this?
I don’t understand. I don”t think any outspoken preservationists are also advocating ZERO GROWTH in this county, not anybody in a political seat anyway. It’s twelve years after the great, magical, conclusive turning point that was the year 2000, and where are we? Bu$ine$$ a$ u$ual.
February 14, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Anonymous 9:26
Unfortunately i know too many “real” back-to-the-landers(your term), who are out of the limelight, who have turned into Redwood deck hippies. They think because it’s them, it’s somehow different and okay.
My take on the GPU is I would love to see all the remainder of open space left as open space.I would love to see zero growth in what wild land we have left. Just because a piece of land CAN be developed, doesn’t mean that it SHOULD be developed. Look at the development that has happened in the last 10-15 yrs. I know a family that had 6 children, now grown, who all have a “homestead” on land that has been in the family. Now those 6 children have children,some with children already. Everyone of them wants their own “homestead”. I think you get my point. And the developers want to entice others to move here. We will be Santa Rosa/Petaluma before long.
Some things just need to be left untouched by humans.
Not every “hippie” tithes to local institutions, or anything else for that matter.
February 14, 2012 at 1:32 pm
Anonymous
I can’t say I disagree with your 1:04 at all. Yes, it’s insanity, why a couple would have more than a couple children to begin with, and those children are all born into the computer-hugging status quo and the cycle repeats itself ad infinitum. INSANITY.
It has to be acknowledged that there are far more people who don’t go around “pretending to be hippies” in the first place, who simply don’t care. “Mainstream” you could call them. Fully brainwashed drones who don’t give a rats ass. Worse are the ones who actually make it their mission to berate the idea that less is more. Even further, one has to acknowledge the poor and uneducated, who have little to no choice, let alone life-gearing, to direct them any other way. Everybody’s the star of their own life movie…
Did I already say INSANITY? Mother nature is going to kick everybody’s ass real soon. Humboldt “politics” NEEDS to acknowledge this.
February 14, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Anonymous
I have to add, mother nature is going to kick everybody’s ass, and that’s because the logging companies and the constructoin companies and the department of transportation and the real estate industry have torn the planet apart beyond repair. The damage has been done, and what’s worse is still being done. We are smarter than this, but “profit motive” is a disease, and among those who have happily surrendered to the status quo.
“We” can maintain our meager jobs and lifestyles, but “we” have to slam on the brakes. And if you look at the situation very literally, it’s not “we” anybody is talking about, but “them”…the heads of the logging companies and their bankrolled posse. The real estate moguls and their banrolled posse. Etc etc etc.
February 14, 2012 at 1:48 pm
tra
Anon 9:26, 1:04,
Thank you for so clearly revealing just how ill-founded and extremist the beliefs of some Plan A fanatics are. Your hallucinatory visions of hills crowded with hippies tending golf-course lawns, your horror at the prospect of a deck or building made with redwood, and your prediction that Humboldt is on track to become Santa Rosa / Petaluma “before long,” each of these gave me a good laugh.
Either you’re engaged in a very clever satire of the most ridiculous sort of Plan A zealot, or you’ve unknowlingly produced an unintentionally hilarious self-charicature. I’m rooting for the former, but I wouldn’t count out the latter.
February 14, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Anonymous
tra, I don’t even know what “plan a” is. I don’t know anything about the GPU but that there’s these alphanumeric “options”. That’s why I’m inquiring. Thank YOU, however, for demonstrating eactly what kind of ignorant, shortsighted blogbrain YOU are.
February 14, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Not A Native
Good non-answer tra. Simply ridicule the post saying its not true, nyah nyah, I can’t hear you. But never, never, never, actually address the facts and count the noses(and hoses).
I’ve done some counting and so have the disappearing fish in the Eel and Mattole. You just flip off even the latest public “shock’ at the amount of documented needless habitat destruction taking place in the hills, with prime intent to convert $6,000 land logged every 80 years into parcels occupied by daily 4X4 commuters and having the “marketability” to eventually sell for $400,000. Thats the actual purpose of homestead stewardship.
February 14, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Anonymous
“I’ve done some counting and so have the disappearing fish in the Eel”.
Nan, why are you always spouting this crap? Last year was a record run of Chinook and Steelhead in the Eel main tributaries, and this year even surpassed last. Where the heck are you “a native” anyway China?
I’m dead set against stream polution and environment degradation, but to use lies to end your means does not help anything.
February 14, 2012 at 4:04 pm
tra
If either Anon 9:26 or yourself actually wrote anything substantive, I’d be happy to respond in kind. But when what’s being offered is composed mainly of sweeping generalizations, hallucinatory visions, rank prejudice, laughable charicatures, vague claims, scaremongering apocalyptic prophecies, and cynical assumptions about the intentions and actions of those you disagree with…there’s just not much to respond to there, other than with amusement and/or pity.
One of the few straightforward, quantifiable claims in 9:26′s comment was that Humboldt is on track to become Santa Rosa / Petaluma “before long.”
So, since you like to “count noses,” I invite you to look up the population of Santa Rosa and Petaluma, look up the population of Humboldt, look up the current rate of growth of the population of Humboldt, and calculate approximately how long it would actually take for Humboldt to “become” Santa Rosa or Petaluma (and this is all assuming that somehow, magically, the economic opportunities are here to support that growth…a pretty generous assumption).
People who make ridiculous claims invite ridicule. Out of politeness, I try to resist giving it to them, but every once in a while I just can’t resist.
February 14, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Ernie's Place
NAN said: “I’ve done some counting and so have the disappearing fish in the Eel”
NAN, why do you continue to spout crap. Last year, the Chinook and Steelhead runs of the Eel River tributaries were the biggest since the 1980’s! This year the Chinook and Steelhead runs surpassed even the record runs of last year. The thought that the fish are in decline is FALSE. Where are you “A native”. Not from around here, that’s for sure. To us “Natives” the fish returns are some pretty exciting stuff, and a big reward for everybodies hard work in restoring fish runs the the north coast native streams.
If you want to complain about pollution or stream degradation that is fine and honorable, but use facts. It does our cause no good to spread lies.
February 14, 2012 at 4:23 pm
Anonymous
“The thought that the fish are in decline is FALSE.”
I know several people who work the fisheries every year. You, sir, are completely wrong. In all fact, you couldn’t be more wrong. Those are VERY regulated populations, there were carefully restricted takes years prior because of the painfully obvious decline in population. This is all due to the permanent loss of their natural breeding environments.
Compute that last sentence for awhile, ernie, you sound like a knowitall shmuck with what you just wrote.
February 14, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Not A Native
Ernie, you don’t know what you’re writing about.. Read Pat Higgin’s report, if you’re able to read big words. He explains why those counts don’t indicate a healthy fish habitat.
But sincerely, all you know is what you see today, you haven’t the intellectual capacity to actually understand how to take and analyse data. Instead you claim that having hung around here your whole life makes you wise, while the truth is you were too dumb to get out and make it in the larger world out of HumCo, like the smarter ones did.
February 14, 2012 at 8:17 pm
Ernie's place
You were talking about FISH COUNT. That’s up! Are you now crawfishing?
I don’t have much respect for anons that use everybody else names without putting theirs at stake.
I already conceded that there is pollution and stream degradation. Why does that make me a “knowitall schmuck”. A lot of the stream degradation was caused by the “Not A Natives” and other newcomer do-gooders that took the log jams out of the creeks, against the very loud screams of “don’t do it!” by us natives. In hindsight most of the people that “saved us” now admit that removing the log jams was a mistake. The log jams provided shade and protection from overhead predators and protection from otters and other underwater predators. Fish need places to hide and escape. Those places are mostly gone thanks to know-nothing peeps that won’t listen to the native hicks.
What is it that you non-native experts know now that we real natives don’t know? I’m sure that none of the real habitat “experts” would disagree with anything that I have said.
Next?
February 14, 2012 at 8:35 pm
Ernie's place
The algae in the river is going to be a major problem. Any solutions? Low stream flows is going to be a problem. But, so far the Chinook and steelhead are happy. Give us some joy for that little bit of hope.
February 14, 2012 at 8:42 pm
humboldturtle
They mined the creek beds, too Ernie.
Imagine water
splashing over huge boulders
under willows in the shadow of the redwoods
Humboldt County, when? 1970? Now it’s gravel.
February 14, 2012 at 8:48 pm
Ernie's place
Turtle
Yes, modern man has done much to degrade the fish habitat. The problem that I have is the people that think that they “know what’s best for us” then shove it down our throats, when most often they are wrong.
February 14, 2012 at 9:20 pm
Ernie's place
Turtle
You should have seen the river before the 1955 flood. Large boulders, sandy beaches, deep water holes with mucky bottoms filled with bullheads. Gravel in the riffles. The gravel bars had large hard rocks, like you see the old fireplaces down here are made of.
But, then with a name like Turtle you probably did see that.
The main stream of the Eel, and to a lesser extent the South Fork of the Eel had very deep cold water pools. The army corps of engineers considered dredging the Eel after the floods. It would be interesting to know what our river would be like today if they had taken away that gravel that the river is choked with. The old river bed and large boulders are still down there. Maybe in a thousand or so years the holes will be back, and we will have sandy beaches and muck bottomed holes, and magnificent salmon runs.
February 14, 2012 at 9:30 pm
Anonymous
Ernie, you are an idiot. Plain and simple. A blogbrained idiot. The breeding grounds are destroyed. The fish count was up because of very strict regulatoin prior, it was pretty big news. If you knew your ass from a hole in the ground you’d know that the heads of the fishing industry are very concerned about the future. And your bullshit about logjams is just that. A three year old can look at the breeding grounds for these fish and know, logjams or not, they’re ruined. Too much pollution, not enough water. No place to breed, no fish. Very very simple. Go burp your baloney about something you really know about.
February 14, 2012 at 9:33 pm
Anonymous
My name, by the way, is Erol Davis and I live in McKinleyville. Have fun with that, ernie whoever the hell you are, nobody cares.
February 15, 2012 at 6:22 am
Esteban
It’s a enviro no-no to consider dredging but that is about the only way to remove the impediment for river and creek waters to be able to wash away accumulated sand and gravel. How much sand, gravel and silt has now clogged up the ocean outlets of the Mattole, Eel, and Mad rivers since we Europeans have moved in here? All that accumulated sand and gravel at the mouths of rivers removes the assistance of gravity to build up stream force that is able to move that sand and gravel out to the ocean. Dredge the Bay, now there’s a thought that will strike fear into our beloved enviros but how else to get the our rivers and creeks to remove the yearly build up of material blocking river flows that in the old days prior to logging and homestead kept the rivers deep as Ernie remembers.
February 15, 2012 at 6:57 am
humboldturtle
If you want to know more about Ernie, click on his name. Doh.
February 15, 2012 at 8:12 am
Bolithio
Why doesn’t anyone ever talk about commercial fishing? It is all well understood that 60 years ago fish habitat was devastated by in-stream yarding practices, mining, and of course the 55′ and 64′ flood. Last I checked, with the exceptions of floods – we dont do those things any more. Except commercial fishing, where boats still routinely net up entire schools of salmon at sea – never to return.
Obviously there was adverse harm to the environment during our pioneer period – which lasted for how may hundred years? It is amazing in many ways how rapidly we have changed in this county and State and the amount of restoration that has occurred.
The sky is falling narrative is old, out-dated, and no longer a reflection of reality.
–
The fact that fish populations ebb and flow is out of the hands of the habitat which has no doubt improved in the last 50 years. All across the board, from sediment sources, mass wasting, and roads to riparian canopy and shade – the forest conditions have improved.
Dams and commercial fishing remain the two GIANT problems effecting any recovery of the species.
February 15, 2012 at 9:14 am
Anonymous 9:26
“It is amazing in many ways how rapidly we have changed in this county and State….”
Being raised in the Sacramento area, Rio Linda, the changes in the last 20 years are overwhelming. The drive from Sac to Tahoe, that used to be more open space than buildings, is now all buildings. Sacramento seems to run right up to Placerville. There is no open space. Same in Rio Linda. Used to be all farm land. Now it is suburbia. No farm land. No one ever thought either of these things would happen.
February 15, 2012 at 10:38 am
Ernie's Place
Erol, thank-you for the name. If you always used your name, I wouldn’t confuse you with the thousands of other people that simply sign “Anonymous”. It’s rude and lazy. You don’t have to use your real name, just one that will make your thoughts consistent with your other postings. Most people would agree with that hypothesis
Call me a Pollyanna, but I see the river as “half-full”. you see it as empty. I believe that there is hope, but it will take people like you and I to get along and agree that the fish habitat is more important that our differing opinions. You see the problem…
As Bolithio can clearly see, we need to use forest products. Trees grow on sunshine soil and moisture. When trees are cut into lumber it sequesters CO2. I can’t see why there is such a clamor against logging. Using timber is one of the few things that still make sense in this failing world. I might agree with bolitio about using timber, but I get a little nervous about even stand clear cuts. They are good for some critters, but bad for others. Deer and squirrels like to eat the fresh green vegetation. But critters like owls and Flying Squirrels have to move out. However, we need people like Bolitio to make sure that the environment and the fish habitat are protected.
I don’t find the name Erol Davis as having done anything to help save the forest and fish. I can only assume that you have done all your great works anonymously and humbly. Thank you.
February 15, 2012 at 10:54 am
Anonymous
“The sky is falling narrative is old, out-dated, and no longer a reflection of reality.”
If you were a fish, the sky is falling. The water level’s in their breeding environments continue to fall. The waters are so polluted, it’s almost frightening to think about. You are just plain wrong.
February 15, 2012 at 11:43 am
Seymore Butts
Maybe you guys should ask Supervisor Clendenen, he always talks about saving our rivers and the fish, in fact, he said that is one of the reasons he ran for Supervisor!
He has a very clear record of saving all the rivers in Humboldt County, including the Van Duzen, Eel and South Fork Eel, just look at them, they have all improved since 2008.
From Clif’s web page:
“I will support efforts to see that the Eel River, which geographically defines the 2nd District, is restored. The river is our area’s life’s blood, and I want to see salmon and steelhead habitat revitalized and restoration of our traditional water flows. My vision for the Eel is to have clean industry, recreation and tourism flourish and prosper”
I guess people will say any thing to get re-elected?
February 15, 2012 at 11:57 am
Anonymous
Ernie, my name isn’t erol davis, but think about how easily satisfied it made you to think it is. I do have public rercords of service, but I don’t care to be identified online as I’m definitely not politically affiliated with anybody I work for or with, and I have to keep in mind my current and future employment. For all I will ever know, your name isn’t ernie either, we’ll never meet and I read your words just the same. Respect is mutual, communication is a two way street, don’t shoot the messenger.
February 15, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Anonymous
anonymous 926, you couldn’t be more correct @ 914. I made the drive from the east bay to tahoe seasonally since the late 80′s (before I could even drive). As I’m sure you know all too well as well, the change you describe spans much further east and especially south. Grading hills for massive subdivisions, tract home hellhouses, multi-story plex facilities, and big box hellzones. Concrete jungle, massive heat capacitors. The summer temps in the east bay have shot up so much, it’s scary. Used to be big news when it breached 100, now temps surpass 110 every year. The freeways have added lanes but are still gridlocked daily, worse than ever. Having been politically involved in the 90′s and early 0′s, the roster of political shills who preached “community” and “jobs” and “economy” are to this day all the wealthier, their heels firmly dug into the framework of the area’s future, while every word of their opposition’s warnings have come to fruition. Protected environments were razed and graded without regard because the penalties were, and still are, far less than the profits. It’s so disgusting it used to infuriate me to have to work in the area.
The native amercans knew their way of life was doomed, despite the assurances of the government. Environmentalists screamed about the climate and damage to the rivers just as logging was beginning. People warned that santa rosa would become santa rosa before it was the sprawled out nozone it now is. You can watch movies shot in the bay area during the 70′s that prove all this. The whole scam couldn’t be more obvious, and it’s happening right here in humboldt.
February 15, 2012 at 12:40 pm
Ernie's Place
Although I have disagreed with Clendenen on many things, like giving Garberville’s street paving money to fix the highway between Eureka and Arcata, I have to say that I believe that he is very sincere about the Eel River and that his thoughts on that should transcend politics.
February 15, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Seymore Butts
Ernie, you use words like “sincere” and “thoughts” and Clif uses words like “I will support efforts” You know, the river doesn’t get better with sincere thoughts of efforts, it gets better with actions and doing something about it. Which in most cases works if you stop taking from it and let nature take its course.
Transcend politics? He is using it to get re-elected, what has he done as Supervisor? Please name one thing Clif has done as Supervisor to protect the rivers in Humboldt County?
February 15, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Anonymous 9:26
What has estelle done? She uses words like “I will fight for our rivers”. She must be trying to get elected.
February 15, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Willy Makit
Check out the National Marine Fisheries Services recent document for southern Oregon and Northern California. It’s online.
Please pay attention to the Garberville Sanitary District’s annexation request to add 700 acres to their district, water and sewer. Then check out the county General Plan Update Housing Opportunity Zones(they are the services districts) and read about increased bonus densities and relaxed regulations. Then take a look at the county allowing the subdivision of land in the Mattole watershed – if you just add a tank now you can call it water for developmen.The county has already allowed it. If the tank runs dry, there are plenty of private water companies that fill trucks up with South Fork Eel River water to sell outside the watershed.
Then make a comment on the National Marine Fisheries Service’s survey regarding the South Fork Eel River and their efforts to save it. The comment period may be until March 5, or it may have been extended.
What happened in the past is nothing to what is going to happen next. An environmental attorney told me that this is what land speculators do when the economy is down, get everything all lined up, then they wait.
February 15, 2012 at 10:05 pm
Willy Makit
Oh, by the way. GSD says that most of those parcels are either “already served,” (but outside the district boundaries,) or else “undevelopable.”
But the “undevelopable” ones are only considered undevelopable because they don’t have water.
February 16, 2012 at 12:55 pm
Seymore Butts
“What has estelle done? She uses words like “I will fight for our rivers”. She must be trying to get elected”
Hello, that is my point. People running for office will say anything, just like when the Park Board says they have the total support of the community, or the community park is a community benefit and assest, yep!
It goes to the questions raised in this thread, that Eric will not answer, i.e how does private property become a community benefit and public assest?
February 16, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Eric Kirk
It goes to the questions raised in this thread, that Eric will not answer, i.e how does private property become a community benefit and public assest?
Well, Seymore, watch and see it happen.
February 16, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Seymore Butts
What does that mean Eric?
I am not alone here Eric. When does one individuals property rights impair another’s? Answer the question, you proposed it.
February 16, 2012 at 3:52 pm
tra
Seymore,
Are you expecting someone to list every scenario in which one individuals’ property rights impair another’s? Or perhaps you are looking for a simple, one-size-fits-all rule that can be applied in every case? The former would be a long list, while the latter would be a challenge to boil down to one simple rule. That’s why we have various statutes and volumes of case law.
I assume that Eric posted the question to prompt a discussion, not to imply that he has a simple answer. If you have a more specific question, you might be able to get a more meaningful answer.
February 16, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Seymore Butts
Is it normal for tra to back up and try to defend Eric? Eric should know better, you don’t ask a question without knowing the answer. And his answer was crap, what the hell is your excuse tra? Under what rock do you call home?
February 16, 2012 at 5:04 pm
Anonymous 9:26
How weird. I accidently hit Seymore Butts, and was taken to the Southern Humboldt C. Park website.
February 16, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Eric Kirk
Eric should know better, you don’t ask a question without knowing the answer.
Huh????
February 16, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Eric Kirk
Oh. Seymore is Ed. That explains it.
February 16, 2012 at 6:20 pm
Ben Dover
Seymore: “It goes to the questions raised in this thread, that Eric will not answer, i.e how does private property become a community benefit and public assest?”
Eric Kirk: Well, Seymore, watch and see it happen.
What we really need to watch is how all public assets are being hoovered up to be privatized. All those state parks are prime real estate that used to belong to the people of California and are being turned over to corporations and non-profits, in other words, privatized.
We are still waiting to see private property become public here locally.
As the guy who privatized a school district in southern Calif. said “The great thing about being a non-profit is can’t nobody tell you what to do.”
Watch and see it happen.
February 16, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Seymore Butts
“Huh????”, its the first thing they teach you in law school. Ed who? I am not “Ed”! What is it with you and “Ed”? If I don’t agree with this blog, I’m “Ed”?
February 16, 2012 at 8:11 pm
Eric Kirk
its the first thing they teach you in law school.
No it’s not, unless you spend your life cross-examining people.
Ed who? I am not “Ed”! What is it with you and “Ed”? If I don’t agree with this blog, I’m “Ed”?
Uh huh.
February 16, 2012 at 8:14 pm
Eric Kirk
What we really need to watch is how all public assets are being hoovered up to be privatized. All those state parks are prime real estate that used to belong to the people of California and are being turned over to corporations and non-profits, in other words, privatized.
The thing about the Community Park is that it began private. It can’t get more private. It can only get more public.
February 16, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Anonymous 9:26
Eric, please explain how Ed has access to be posting from the Park website? My partner and I were so curious about the names, we put the cursor over Ernie and we went to his website, your name says “no URL available”. It seems like Seymore would have to be a park board person.
February 16, 2012 at 9:01 pm
Ben Dover
Public property, you mean?
When is that going to be?
What is your definition of public property?
February 17, 2012 at 9:09 am
Eric Kirk
9:26 – you can attach any web address to your WordPress account.