Again, there are at least half a dozen ways to cheat on these polls, and even if nobody cheats or rallies to “freep” them, the polls are only an indication of the sentiments of those who read blogs and respond to polls – which may not be anywhere close to representative of voters as a whole. Moreover, I have no way of limiting the responses to the districts in question or even the county. To quote Brit Hume, these polls may be “indicative of something.” If that. I post them out of pure curiosity, and for discussion purposes.
Recent Comments
 | "Henchman Of Justice… on March against Monsanto this… |
 | moviedad on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
 | That Other Anonymous on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Forest Queen on March against Monsanto this… |
| moviedad on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Cookie on March against Monsanto this… |
| "Henchman Of Justice… on March against Monsanto this… |
| "Henchman Of Justice… on March against Monsanto this… |
| Erasmus on March against Monsanto this… |
| Cookie on March against Monsanto this… |
 | suzy blah blah on Priorities |
 | Not A Native on March against Monsanto this… |
| suzy blah blah on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
 | HUUFC on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Eric Kirk on March against Monsanto this… |
154 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 25, 2012 at 12:00 pm
S
Someone phoned me up wanting me to take a poll of those running for Supervisor offices. This is what guys like you do, Eric, in place of community building. It’s another arena for political combat and community needs? Who needs them? Not when one can WIN in elections by catering to the lowest common denominator which is what these polls seek to find. It’s politics as usual and of course as usual, our community suffers from the visionless leadership selected by popularity contests for who can bend over and please the most voters.
March 25, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Forest Queen
‘poll’ – poll tax. Those who ‘vote’ are agreeing to continue down the same factually inaccurate doctrine of continuing wrong theory. It ain’t working, so lets keep doing it? Voting is like trying to teach pigs how to dance. The only way I’d even remotely consider voting “granting authority’ (not power), to another one of us, would be for any imposter/know-nots, criminal thieves career criminal racketeers would be for them to perform an IQ test. Anything under 130 – zero, wouldn’t get my vote. BTW, officers, agents, gov’t employees (who produce nothing), do not get hired if their IQ is over 123. A ‘vote’ by applause, yeah, I’d do that. A ‘vote’ made by Affidavit, yeah I’d do (and have) done that.
My same question still remains…if we can’t self-govern, then why are we here? Until enough of us (3%) wakes up, at least to the fact that we can do a better job…then slaves we will remain, without reason to complain.
‘politician’ – n (1589) a person (singular, not w(holy) primarily interested in political office from selfish or other narrow short-run interests.
Self-centered, short-sighted, profit motivated; no matter what the cost. Uh huh, just what I want the future to hold for us…NOT!
March 25, 2012 at 5:58 pm
Anonymous
Getting back to the real world, I wonder how many Estelle supporters would vote for Mark Lovelace. Do they know that he wants them moved off their land?
March 25, 2012 at 6:45 pm
Thorstein Veblen
Any way to add ‘write-ins’?
March 25, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Mark Lovelace
Hi Anonymous. Where do you get your information? I am unaware of ever having said anything even remotely similar to what you assert.
March 25, 2012 at 7:15 pm
Eric Kirk
Mark – it was right before you advocated crucifying kittens on church doors.
I do note that there are eight (as of this posting) “neithers” in your poll. That might be accounted for in what I’ve been referring to as “HumCPR Left,” being those who support HumCPR but are otherwise fairly progressive and probably not bound to vote for a candidate who has identified with the Tea Party.
Earlier in the week, somebody posted an interesting comment in another thread which went something like “a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by Plan A.” The last time I looked, nobody had responded to it. Fascinating politics these days.
March 25, 2012 at 7:22 pm
Eric Kirk
Thorstein – Without an active write-in campaign registered with the elections office, write-in votes are not counted and therefore “neither” would be the correct choice. In any case, there’s no way to put the option on one of these polls. The thing to do would be to choose “neither” and tell us in the thread for whom you would vote. Maybe it will encourage the person to run.
March 25, 2012 at 9:31 pm
anon4cec
“Hi Anonymous. Where do you get your information? I am unaware of ever having said anything even remotely similar to what you assert.”
With Mark you have to be really carefull how you word things, he is a master of spin and semantics to hide his real agenda. Shoulda asked if he thinks you should be able to live on land that you bought in good faith with a reasonable (by normal people standards) permit process. He tries to say that he doesn’t want to move people off their land if they are already there unless you count special fees for fire protection/insurance, property taxes, and a myriad of other “special” fees designed to make so difficult to live on your land that YOU decide to leave cuz your so fed up you have no choice. He never says anything about how impossible he want to make it to be able to build your family a home.
At least Estelle is clear with her positions which is refreshing for a change. Clif is silent and Mark deliberately misleads his unpopular positions.
March 25, 2012 at 9:57 pm
Labtech
Anon4cec:
How about asking the man a direct question? That would be a lot better than trying to involve him in your paranoid conspiracy theories.
March 25, 2012 at 10:51 pm
Anonymous
At least Estelle is clear with her positions which is refreshing for a change.
Is she really clear on her positions? Maybe you can explain them to us.
March 26, 2012 at 8:09 am
anon
Our rural 2nd district is quite different than Arcata. Clendenan doesn’t seem to understand this, and having one of his campaign manager’s, Plan A advocate Elizabeth Connors, be from Arcata advising him on the “issues”, only confirms it.
March 26, 2012 at 8:44 am
Anonnymoose
Estelle’s positions will be whatever she is paid to have by the developer’s and real estate agencies that are funding her campaign.
March 26, 2012 at 11:11 am
Ernie's Place
Eric
Your poll is about like what I expected. Cheryl Seidner’s last minute dive into the first district race has been a real wild card.
I have been walking door to door with Estelle in Fortuna, and she is being amazingly well received. The same people that closed their doors during the last campaign are now asking her in for tea and conversation. During the last election the ghost of Roger Rodoni was still very much present. Indeed, his name was still on the ballot. It is very difficult to run against a ghost. Estelle has really honed her platform and is not shy about sharing her ideas.
It is apparent that Clenden lost a ton of his support when he gave the 2nd district county pavement funding to improve the road between Eureka and Arcata. There is a ton of infrastructure funding coming down from the Feds to do state road projects and a good case can be made to use the Fed funding for that purpose. Many county roads are in terrible disrepair from lack of funding. A lot of people are outraged over the fact that Clendenen cast the deciding vote to give that money away. I think that your poll is starting to reflect that.
March 26, 2012 at 11:50 am
Eric Kirk
It may be so Ernie, though my blog tends to be read more by Sohum folk than Fortuna folk. In fact, very few people in Fortuna even know about my blog. The interesting thing is that the poll was virtually tied last night. There was a run of about 20 votes for Estelle this morning. Same thing happened to one of my polls in 2008 only the run favored Johanna Rodoni. It happened over a lunch break twice, each time giving Johannna just over 50 percent. I’m not saying that’s what happened here, but when I went to bed last night it was something like 25 votes for Estelle and 22 for Clif. I would also note that the numbers of total participants for all three polls was roughly equal – off by less than five. Basically, if legit, 20 people showed up to vote in the Second Dist poll and only that one at some point this morning.
Could be legit. But suspect.
As for the road funds, Clif will be submitting a My Word piece which should clear up some misunderstandings about the funds, and his vote.
March 26, 2012 at 12:04 pm
Eric Kirk
Found the old thread from 2008.
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28762316&postID=2388530215094116199
Of course it showed Roger (not yet Johanna) with a huge lead weeks away from the June election, and there are some very comical posts arguing that the poll was legit and that Roger (who had passed away) had it in the bag.
Brings back some memories.
March 26, 2012 at 12:30 pm
tra
I bet many people gave their opinions on all three races, even though (hopefully) no one will be voting in more than one of those races during the actual election.
For example, I notice that (as of right now) Seidner has 27 “votes” in the 1st district “poll” and Cliff has 28 in the 2nd district “poll.” I wouldn’t be surprised if most of those “votes” were from the same 20-some-odd people. That’s just an example, the same could be true, at least to some degree, for some of the other candidates.
March 26, 2012 at 12:33 pm
ANON
Eric said: “As for the road funds, Clif will be submitting a My Word piece which should clear up some misunderstandings about the funds, and his vote.”
Really?? Eric the lengths you go to to try and make excuses or come up with “refined” explanations about some bad vote clif took against us is really amazing. The facts are the facts, clif was the swing vote that gave our county road money away to the Arcata 101 Caltrans project and locked up our county road money till 2020. There is no misunderstanding about that.
March 26, 2012 at 12:41 pm
Eric Kirk
It’s not that simple ANON. But he will make his case. You will make yours. And the voters will decide.
March 26, 2012 at 12:48 pm
tra
Complete speculation here, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the results we’re seeing here resulted in part from “slate voting,” where perhaps:
(a) about 20 people (or a lesser number, voting more than once) voted for all three of the following candidates: Bohn, Fennell, and either Brooks or Neither,
(b) about 20 people (or a lesser number, voting more than once) voted for all three of the following candidates: Seidner, Clendenen, and Lovelace,
(c) most of the candidates each got a few (more genuine) votes from people who didn’t vote more than once for any candidate or vote for their preferred “slate” by voting in all three “polls,” and
(d) Fennell got a number of additional votes, though of course we have no way of knowing whether that actually represents more real-life supporters.
March 26, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Eric Kirk
tra – I’m pretty certain that a number of the 20 votes for Estelle which came in this morning aren’t real, precisely because nearly everyone who voted before that had voted in all three polls. Of the 50 or so who voted yesterday, there wasn’t more than a five vote difference. I don’t believe that 150 different participants limited themselves to one poll.
It’s possible that a slew of Sohum voters got to work and voted as soon as they turned on their computers to check email, etc. But I think that most participants are tempted to vote in all three. Again, Clif and Estelle were neck in neck when I went to bed last night. So I suspect someone ran up the score on his/her own – possibly the same person who did it in 2008.
Read that old thread. It’s pretty entertaining actually.
March 26, 2012 at 1:14 pm
tra
Eric,
Do you know if Clif has ever given a straight answer on the question of whether he thinks that TPZ owners should be required to go through a new, lengthy and potentially expensive “discretionary permit” process in order to build a single house on their TPZ parcel — as Healthy Humboldt has advocated and as was included in Plan A?
As I recall it was about a year that I was asking about this, and you said he favored some kind of compromise that rural residents would be “pleasantly surprised” by, and that we would all be hearing about it very soon. Well, if he ever did come out with any kind of clear position on that issue, I must have missed it. If so, I’d appreciate if you could point me to any publication or public statement or document that outlines his position on that issue.
And yes, this is just one issue out of many issues in the GPU, and the GPU is just one of the issues in the election (though a pretty significant one, I’d guess). But this issue of whether an owner can live on their TPZ parcel seems to me to be kind of emblematic of the discussion of the GPU and how it may impact rural residents and landowners. And it’s an issue where I believe Estelle has long since made her views known: No to a new “discretionary” permit process (where the Planning Dept. can still decline to give you a permit even if you meet all the normal conditions), and yes to keeping it as a “ministerial” permit process (if you meet the conditions, you get the permit). And from my recollection Estelle also made it clear that she was open to making some changes to the underlying conditions that determine whether the permit will be issued or not (to deal with water supply issues, for example). I’m basing this on a KMUD interview from sometime last year.
We discussed this in a previous thread at that time, which is when you indicated that we would all “soon” hear about Clif’s proposed compromise that rural folks were supposedly going to be “pleasantly surprised” by.
So, any update on that?
And on a closely related note, care to make any predictions about whether they’re still going to try to take a final vote on the GPU before the upcoming election?
March 26, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Eric Kirk
The problem is process tra. The GPU is still with the Planning Commission awaiting finalization of the EIR, and it’s not really appropriate for him to angle for what he wants or doesn’t want ahead of time. You’ll note that none of the Supervisors is commenting on the details because it isn’t before them yet. Not Virginia. Not Ryan. Not Mark. And not Clif. In fact, I don’t even see any details on Estelle’s web site as I just went to check. Since she’s declared her candidacy, has she stated how she would vote? Not what she said in her role as advocate for HumCPR, but as candidate. Will she lock herself in? If Estelle wins, her constituency will be much larger than HumCPR, and she understands the process as well as Clif.
However, watch for Clif’s statements as the campaign evolves. I’m going to let him speak for himself.
March 26, 2012 at 1:36 pm
Ernie's Place
Eric
I would be the first to agree that your poll is just that, a poll, and it can be manipulated in many ways. I confess that I did vote my preference in all three races, I didn’t realize that I wasn’t suposed to. Even someone from New York could vote for Estelle in your poll, so it isn’t accurate by any means, and should probably be disregarded. But my footsteps door-to-door led me to the same conclusions that your poll did. So, from that standpoint it seems fairly accurate.
March 26, 2012 at 2:02 pm
anon says
“Our rural 2nd district is quite different than Arcata. Clendenan doesn’t seem to understand this, and having one of his campaign manager’s, Plan A advocate Elizabeth Connors, be from Arcata advising him on the “issues”, only confirms it.”
This is probably why Clif voted to give away our County Road money to 101 Caltrans, because the Plan A devotees advocate taking $ that is supposed to be for our rural infrastructure and spending it ALL on their urban area infrastructure. This is completely unfair and out of touch with our district.
March 26, 2012 at 2:06 pm
tra
Eric,
That seems like a pretty lame excuse. Our County Supervisors are the legistators for this county, and since when are legislators not supposed to “angle for” the outcome they want? They should let us know exactly what they’re “angling for” and we, the voters, can decide if we want to re-elect them to continue that path, or whether we’s like someone to “angle” in a somewhat different direction.
As a practical matter, if the sitting supervisors “aren’t supposed to” tell voters where they stand on such an important issue, and do so well before the election (which is only a couple of months away), then how are voters supposed to make up their minds whether to support that candidate or not?
In any event, if Clif thinks he’s going to be able to continue being vague and noncommittal right up through the election, and not have that hurt his chances significantly (and rightly so), he’s kidding himself. One could hardly blame a voter for interpreting his continuing lack of clarity on this point — after what, three years in office? — as an example of deliberate obfuscation and stalling, kicking the can down the road (quite possibly right past the next election, I notice you declined to make a prediction about that) while just making vague statements designed to mollify the poorly informed, and keeping the voters in the dark as to what he actually plans to do when re-elected.
March 26, 2012 at 2:33 pm
Eric Kirk
tra – the GPU isn’t legislation. There is a process, which ALL of the supervisors are respecting. And no, they shouldn’t be angling. Not in a complex process like this one. This isn’t Congress. The role of a Supervisor is different, especially in this process.
I’ll be curious to see how firm Estelle’s positions are going to be in comparison to previous statements now that she’s a candidate for office rather than an advocate. I suspect she will show similar respect for the process. That’s not a criticism.
But she will describe the philosophical framework from which she will approach the process. Clif will do the same, and I think most homesteaders will be “pleasantly surprised.”
And if you still believe he’s being “vague and noncommittal,” I hope you will demand the same from Estelle, not to mention the other Supervisors and candidates.
March 26, 2012 at 2:35 pm
tra
At any rate, if you really believe it would be “inappropriate” for the sitting supervisors to inform the public of their position before the election, that would seem to add weight to the idea that it would only be appropriate to have a referendum (even if it’s only an “advisory” referendum) so that the voters could weigh in directly and their preferences could be compared to how the supervisors actually vote when the issue is before them.
I haven’t heard anything lately, from either side, about the idea of a referendum on the GPU. At one time, HumCPR and others concerned with this issue were advocating for a referendum (but perhaps for now those folks are willing to pin their hopes on making gains in the upcoming elections).
As I recall, your response to the referendum idea was that there was no need for one, as voters had the opportunity to make their preferences known through their vote for supervisor. But if the supervisors won’t (or “can’t”) make their positions known, it seems like that argument doesn’t really hold much water.
And I’m still not clear (maybe no one is) whether the final vote on the GPU will take place before the June election, between the June election and the November election, after the November election but during the “lame duck” period, or after the new supervisors have taken office. Do you know if there are solid plans on that one way or the other?
Time’s running short for getting it done before the June election, and if they pass it with the votes of supervisors who are leaving office either from retirement (Smith) and/or supervisors who aren’t re-elected (possibly Clendenen) that’s not going to go over too well. On the other hand, if they wait until the new Board takes its seats next year, that’s quite a ways off already, plus presumably the new Supes might want some time to get “up to speed” and consider the options. Any thoughts on how the timing of all this might play out?
March 26, 2012 at 2:40 pm
tra
The General Plan isn’t a piece of legislation? Hmmm. It gets voted on by our elected representatives and has the force of law, right? Sure sounds like a piece of legislation.
March 26, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Anonymous
tra, You are of course correct it is absurd to think that because the issue may come before the board that they can’t comment or otherwise give their opinion. that would be akin to Obama refusing to give his opinion on womens choice, health care, or his plans for continuing (or not) the war. Most people would consider these perspectives to be an integral part of their platforms. The only reason for not expressing an opinion is knowing that it would be unpopular and not wanting to face an educated electorate and at least in regards to the general plan that sure looks like Clifs motivation. If not someone should point out the statute that requires a candidate to be a mute. Virtually all of them pull this crap and it stinks. To be fair, while Estelle is more open than most and particularly so with respect to her stance on rural housing there are undoubtedly positions on other issues that she keeps to herself. If someone asks she should be held to the same standard and give her opinion there too.
March 26, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Eric Kirk
Given the misunderstanding people have about initiatives which are only a page long, I think it’s putting an enormous burden on voters to vote on a plan which takes an hour to read and an enormous time to understand. People would simply vote based on someone else’s characterization of the proposal.
I’m actually kind of soured on the initiative process in general. The fact that we need only a 50 percent vote to change our state constitution has generated the basket case political situation we live in. Personally, I think the state of California should call a constitutional convention and start from scratch, and bar constitutional amendments by ballot, or at least require a 2/3 vote. People working 9 to 5 jobs don’t have time to deliberate over the complexities of constitutional changes. That’s why we elect legislators.
And when we elect legislators, we judge them by their core philosophy and ability. Most of us don’t have a laundry list of votes we expect to be taken a certain way.
I’m pretty savvy I think, and I’ve read the general plan proposals, sometimes more than once. I’ve spent a little bit of time with them. I don’t get all that I’m reading, and I don’t have the time to research it. I would not feel qualified to vote on all of the issues of the GPU unless I had time to sit down with it, digest it, and hear from all of the stake holder interests. I wouldn’t even bother trying to digest it until I knew what was actually being proposed. If the general plan were put onto a ballot initiative, I would probably skip that vote unless I had a lot of time and access to all of the information which will be provided to the Supervisors. I would want to know the rationale behind each proposal, rather than the hysterical partial-truths coming from all sides at the public hearings and on the blogs. I would want to ask questions. I would want to know what I’m talking about.
Unfortunately, I work overtime, I have kids, and I like to eat and sleep every once in a while.
March 26, 2012 at 2:48 pm
tra
But she will describe the philosophical framework from which she will approach the process. Clif will do the same, and I think most homesteaders will be “pleasantly surprised.
Okay, but that brings us right back to “what has he been waiting for?” One theory I’ve heard floating around is that Clif’s advisors decided that he needs to remain as vague as possible about this for as long as possible, because otherwise if he indicates a willingness to diverge at all from the Healthy Humboldt / Plan A approach which is aimed at severely restricting TPZ owners from living on their land, then he risks losing financial and volunteer support from Plan A enthusiasts who believe they are fighting the good fight against “greedy developers” and their “Unholy Alliance” (TM). On the other hand, if his “compromise” is too close to the Plan A approach, that will drive rural voters towards Estelle’s camp.
March 26, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, I think it’s safe to say that the majority of rural voters are already in Estelle’s camp, at least in Sohum. But most people don’t even know what “Plan A” is. Not even many people who have been screaming the loudest about it.
Of course, if you want to know how Clif feels about these issues, you could ask him personally. He’s not a milibite kind of person.
March 26, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Anonymous
So which of the candidates will vote to save Richardson Grove?
March 26, 2012 at 2:55 pm
tra
Eric,
I’m talking about a simple up-or-down vote on whatever final version of the GPU the supervisors come up with. If people aren’t informed enough to make that vote, how are they supposedly informed enough to have a position on the GPU plus a position on the candidates’ positions on the GPU?
If the idea is that people are just too stupid, busy, or unmotivated to make informed political choices, then you might as well just give up on democracy altogether, and go with some kind of bureaucratic technocracy. Which sometimes seems to be where we’re headed…but I’m not willing to throw in the towel just yet, and neither are a lot of other people.
March 26, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Eric Kirk
Eric
I would be the first to agree that your poll is just that, a poll, and it can be manipulated in many ways. I confess that I did vote my preference in all three races, I didn’t realize that I wasn’t suposed to. Even someone from New York could vote for Estelle in your poll, so it isn’t accurate by any means, and should probably be disregarded. But my footsteps door-to-door led me to the same conclusions that your poll did. So, from that standpoint it seems fairly accurate.
And may very well be Ernie. But she walked Fortuna the last time around and also felt very confident. I’m sure Clif feels confident in his campaigning, as well as his phone-bankers. But it all comes down to what the voters do on June 3, not how polite they are when they answer their doors.
March 26, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Eric Kirk
tra – I have a much different view of democracy, which isn’t that the voters micromanage the legislators, particularly not with regard to complex legislation, or Constitutional law. I don’t think most people really have and informed opinion on the GPU. I don’t think they have the time. They can pull a few issues out, and they voice their concerns about that. But the Supervisors have to look at the whole thing in the context of comprehensive policy. They are paid to do that.
I’m certain that Estelle is going to limit her promises on the issue, because she can’t make up her mind before she’s even heard the rationale behind the proposals. And quite frankly, I think she will be acting responsibly. She can state general principles from which she will operate, and maybe she’ll even pledge to oppose overly discretionary permit processes (even this is really an oversimplification as there is always some discretion in interpretation of the law or rule as it applies to a particular situation) – we’ll see. And maybe that will be enough for some. But I really doubt she’s going to say that she opposes everything in Plan A. In fact, I know she won’t. I doubt she’s going to map out a GPU plan of her own.
Again I ask, has she made any specific pledges since she declared? Has she pledged to oppose any discretion in the TPZ permit process? Not in her role as HumCPR advocate. As a candidate. Please show me where, because I don’t find it on her website. Has she said anything about it in her speeches?
It’s not the same as pledging re issues of choice, etc. There is a process.
March 26, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Eric Kirk
So which of the candidates will vote to save Richardson Grove?
I believe that both candidates are on record as supporting widening in some form. At least they were four years ago.
March 26, 2012 at 3:09 pm
Eric Kirk
I have to get back to work here, but I note that the incremental changes in the poll of the Second District race since the Estelle jump this morning have been even. In fact, I think Clif picked up one or two more votes than Estelle. I’m almost certain somebody pulled a prank.
March 26, 2012 at 3:15 pm
tra
“Of course, if you want to know how Clif feels about these issues, you could ask him personally.”
I’m far less interested in what a politician will tell me one-on-one, off the record, than what he’s willing to say publicly and can therefore be held accountable for. As you know, politicians of all stripes are famous for tailoring their off-the-record statements in such a way as to try to please (or at least mollify) the person doing the asking. In fact, that’s probably just basic human nature at work, though a bit more pronounced in the case of politicians. But when the politician makes a statement publicly, while they could still renege, at least their original position is on the record and they know they will either have to live up to it, or else take the consequences.
By the way, I’m feeling a strong sense of deja vu. I think we’ve already had this discussion before, maybe more than once. But here we are again, a year later, because Clif has not, to my knowledge, made his position on this issue (or even a coherent “philosophical framework from which he will approach the process) clear. And so here we are again, with more “don’t worry, you’ll find out soon, and rural residents will be “pleasantly surprised.” Well maybe they will, and maybe they won’t, but the fact that Clif has chosen to remain so vague for so long means that there may not be a lot of folks left who were willing to wait for him to finally make his position at least somewhat clear. And if it only comes shortly before the election, when he happens to be facing a tough re-election challenge, it may be seen as compromising for political gain, rather than because he feels the compromise is actually the right policy for the county. Now that may not be the case, but if that’s the conclusion that some people draw, then in my view Clif only has himself to blame.
You may recall that my advice last year was that if he really did have a good, well-thought-out compromise in mind, something that his more Plan A-oriented supporters could live with, but would also “pleasantly surprise” rural folks, then he should hurry up and get it out there into the public discourse. At this point it may already be too late for many voters to take it seriously, and both sides have had more time to dig their heels in even further.
March 26, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Ernie's Place
Eric
I agree, and politics can be very dynamic. Wild swings in popularity can happen overnight, as the Republican primary has recently proven. Politics is like a cross between a can of worms and flypaper. Once opened it is hard to keep the worms in the can, and once you touch flypaper, it’s hard to let go of.
Both Estelle and Clif are getting more support this election because the Rodoni factor is missing. About a third of the people that voted in the last election are now chosing between Estelle and Clif. I’m sure that both sides are seeing that gain in support.
March 26, 2012 at 3:41 pm
tra
An up-or-down vote on whatever version of the GPU the Supervisors come up with doesn’t seem like “micromanaging” to me. Quite the opposite. If the current Board of Supervisors can’t come up with a GPU that at least 50%+1 of the county’s voters support, then the incoming Board should take it off their hands and try again.
This seems especially appropriate in a context where we’re now being told that we might have to vote for Supervisors without having a clear idea where they stand on some of the important issues the GPU addresses. And especially when it seems possible that it might be passed by a lame-duck session of the Board.
As far as Estelle’s positions, I’ll happily concede that don’t know whether she’s taken a clear, public position on the issue of a dscretionary process vs. a ministerial process since she announced for office. And one of my main criticisms of her first campaign was that she was, if anything, even more vague than Clif or Johanna on these issue, a vagueness I attributed (wrongly or rightly) to her desire to hold onto both rural voters AND urban-oriented enviro and left activists — in other words essentially the same conundrum that I think Clif finds himself in now.
In the KMUD interview last year, Estelle’s postion seemed quite clear, and from my recollection she actually stated that she was speaking for herself, not for HumCPR, on the point about being open to changes in the underlying conditions that the landowner would have to meet in order to get their (ministerial) permit. But it’s been a while since I heard that interview, so it’s possible that I’m misremembering it. In any event, it was a public statement and if it’s still int eh KMUD archives then it could be checked if someone had the time and motivation to do so. Whereas a second-hand report, through you, about Clif’s supposedly well-thought-out, “pleasantly surprising” compromise plan, which apparently has been shared with at least one SoHum supporter (you), unfortunately cannot be verified or documented by anyone because it has not been announced publicly.
But your point is certainly well-taken in that all the candidates should be held to the same standard. The reason that I’m asking about Clif’s position here on this blog thread is that he’s been in office for 3 years now, you’re obviously a strong supporter of his, and for at least the last year you’ve been telling your readers that “soon” his position on this issue would be clarified, that it would be a good compromise and that rural residents would be “pleasantly surprised.” Well, I think most of us like pleasant surprises. But promises about pleasant surprises that fail to materialize for years at a time? Not so much.
March 26, 2012 at 3:43 pm
tra
I guess the concern is that Clif’s “secret plan” for resolving the TPZ issue might be like Nixon’s “secret plan” for ending the Vietnam War. Well it turns out Nixon did have a plan…but it sure wasn’t pretty.
March 26, 2012 at 4:04 pm
Eric Kirk
He doesn’t have a “plan” for resolving the TPZ issue. He understands in fact that a discretionary process could cut both ways and leave too much power in the hands of staff. That’s not the problem. The problem is that the issue itself has been defined in terms of milibites. What might be helpful is to find the provision itself which is designated “discretionary,” but I’ve actually never seen it and couldn’t find it that last time I looked at the HumCPR site.
March 26, 2012 at 4:19 pm
Eric Kirk
By the way, I just found something very misleading on the HumCPR site.
They say this:
In a letter to an applicant dated November, 2005, the Planning Department states (emphasis added):
The subject property is zoned Timberland Production Zone (TPZ). A residence necessary for timber production is a compatible use on lands zoned TPZ; two (2) residences may be permitted with a Use Permit if the parcel is 40 acres or greater in size.
The Zoning Code actually says:
Under PRINCIPALLY PERMITTED USES COMPATIBLE WITH TIMBER PRODUCTION:
One-family dwelling or manufactured home and normal accessory uses and structures for owner or caretaker subject to the special restrictions of the following subsection, Special Restrictions Regarding Residences.
Section 7.4.1.6 defines special restrictions regarding residences:
7.4.1.6 Special Restrictions Regarding Residences.
7.4.1.6.1 The total residential density shall not exceed one (1) dwelling unit per twenty (20) acres. (Former Section INL#314-12(f)(1))
7.4.1.6.2 Parcels smaller than forty (40) acres shall not have second or secondary dwelling units. (Former Section INL#314-12(f)(2))
7.4.1.6.3 Residences and the associated accessory structures and uses shall not exceed two (2) acres per parcel. (Former Section INL#314-12(f)(3))
NOTHING IN THE EXISTING CODE SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT A RESIDENCE BEING “NECESSARY” FOR TIMBER PRODUCTION OR THAT A USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR A SECOND OR SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT.
In January, 2008, in response to a residential building permit within TPZ – more than a MONTH AFTER the Board of Supervisors directed all consideration of the new TPZ ordinance to immediately STOP, Planning staff informed an applicant that a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WAS REQUIRED for a residential building permit within lands zoned TPZ.
And of course it’s true that the local ordinance doesn’t say anything about “necessary.” However, the state statute, defining “compatible uses,” does.
CAL. GOV. CODE § 51104 :
As used in this chapter, unless otherwise apparent from the context:
(a)”Board” means the board of supervisors of a county or city and county, whether general law or chartered, which establishes or proposes to establish a timberland production zone pursuant to this chapter.
(b)”Contiguous” means two or more parcels of land that are adjoining or neighboring or are sufficiently near to each other, as determined by the board or council, that they are manageable as a single forest unit.
(c)”Council” means the city council of a city, whether general law or chartered, which establishes or proposes to establish a timberland production zone pursuant to this chapter.
(d)”County” or “city” means the county or city having jurisdiction over the land.
(e)”Timber” means trees of any species maintained for eventual harvest for forest products purposes, whether planted or of natural growth, standing or down, on privately or publicly owned land, including Christmas trees, but does not mean nursery stock.
(f)”Timberland” means privately owned land, or land acquired for state forest purposes, which is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses, and which is capable of growing an average annual volume of wood fiber of at least 15 cubic feet per acre.
(g)”Timberland production zone” or “TPZ” means an area which has been zoned pursuant to Section 51112 or 51113 and is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses, as defined in subdivision (h).
With respect to the general plans of cities and counties, “timberland preserve zone” means “timberland production zone.”
(h)”Compatible use” is any use which does not significantly detract from the use of the property for, or inhibit, growing and harvesting timber, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the following, unless in a specific instance such a use would be contrary to the preceding definition of compatible use:
(1)Management for watershed.
(2)Management for fish and wildlife habitat or hunting and fishing.
(3)A use integrally related to the growing, harvesting and processing of forest products, including but not limited to roads, log landings, and log storage areas.
(4)The erection, construction, alteration, or maintenance of gas, electric, water, or communication transmission facilities.
(5)Grazing.
(6)A residence or other structure necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production.
(i)”Parcel” means that portion of an assessor’s parcel that is timberland, as defined.
(j)”Anniversary date” means the anniversary of the date on which zoning is established pursuant to Section 51112 or 51113 takes effect.
(k)”Tax rate area” means a geographical area in which there is a unique combination of tax levies.
(l)”Nonconforming use” means any use within a TPZ which lawfully existed on the effective date of zoning established pursuant to Sections 51112 and 51113, and continuing since that time, which is not a compatible use.
I’ll give HumCPR the benefit of the doubt that they mistakenly assumed that the zoning ordinance represented the totality of the code on the subject, and I’m happy to discuss the possibility of flexibility in interpreting the phrase “necessary for the management,” but they really ought to post a correction and an apology for the accusation that the Planning Department was misleading the public, since the “zoning code” is in fact governed by the state law. And unfortunately, the phrase “unless in a specific instance such a use would be contrary to the preceding definition of compatible use” can be interpreted as mandating a certain amount of discretion.
You can find the portions I pasted at the bottom of the page where HumCPR is defending the PALCO Reorganization Plan. If you remember, HumCPR began in response not to the GPU, but in response to the 45 day moratorium the Supervisors passed in order to get the Bankruptcy Court’s attention in response to PALCO plans to sell portions of TPZ off as residential “kingdoms” for high end purchasers. To be fair, that was before Estelle’s involvement, and I suspect that had she been involved from the beginning, everything would have been done differently. Probably she would not have wanted anything on the site which could be perceived as defending PALCO.
http://humcpr.org/history/#section6
March 26, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Anonymous
I believe that both candidates are on record as supporting widening in some form. At least they were four years ago.
Then count me as a “neither.”
March 26, 2012 at 5:47 pm
tra
Eric,
Are you claiming that the law allows a residence on a TPZ parcel without a special Use Permit ONLY if the residence is “necessary” for the management of the TPZ parcel? If so, re-read the paragraph on “compatible uses,” which includes the phrase “shall include, but not be limited to…” before the list of items that includes the language on “necessary to…”
As I recall, the Planning Commission looked at that in detail, and in the end they voted to continue to allow a house to be a prinicipally permitted use on a TPZ parcel, whether or not it was “necessary” to the management of the timber.
My understanding is that they concluded that the meaning of the statute was that, yes, if you can show the structure is “necessary” for the management of the timber, then you’re good to go, but even if it isn’t “necessary” that doesn’t mean that it’s automatically disallowed or that it requires a special permit, it’s still allowed as a “principally permitted use” as long as it’s “compatible” with timber management, even if it’s not actually “necessary” for timber management.
At any rate, I suppose it was technically accurate to state that…
“A residence necessary for timber production is a compatible use on lands zoned TPZ.”
The dispute seems to be whether a residence that is not “necessary” for timber production can still be a “compatible” use, and therefore not require a special Use Permit. That’s the way the law has always been interpreted in Humboldt up to this point, and last I heard the Planning Commission had concluded that this was the proper interpretation and that the policy should continue as it had been in the past, with a single home on a TPZ parcel being considered a “prinicipally permitted use” as long as it was “compatible” with timber management — that it didn’t have to be “necessary” for timber production.
So the italicized statement, while technically true, is misleading to the extent that it seems to imply that ONLY a residence that is “necessary” for timber harvesting can be considered “compatible.”
Perhaps that wasn’t the intent of whichever Planning Depatrment staffperson wrote that letter, or perhaps it was their intent to mislead, I don’t know. But given the context at the time, where there had just been an attempt to take the temporary Maxxam-inspired TPZ building moratorium (which covered ALL TPZ and not just MAxxam) and just make it permanent — justified by exactly the same novel (mis)reading of the law — I think it’s understandable that whoever received that letter took it as an attempt to lead the landowner to believe that the interpretation that the Planning Department had tried (and failed) to get the Planning Commission to buy into was in fact operational, even though it wasn’t. Sure, it might be just another case of Planning Department incompetence, rather than actual malfeasance, but given the timing I would hardly blame the landowner for being suspicious.
March 26, 2012 at 5:49 pm
Anonymous
Sounds good 4:43, we’ll also count you as part of the vocal minority as well.
March 26, 2012 at 6:21 pm
Eric Kirk
TRA – I’m saying that, under the wording, you can only avoid a discretionary process for a residence permit if it is necessary for the management of the land. Ministerial if it is deemed necessary. Discretionary if it is not. Somebody has to make the call as to whether some other use of the land is “compatible.” Apparently you only have safe harbor if your proposed residence is “necessary,” and even that has to be determined. As I said, no matter what, there is always some level of discretion involved, and it may be that the County has no choice in the matter. HumCPR should then lobby for a change in Sacramento.
But my point is that HumCPR, in its defense of the PALCO Reorganization Plan, misrepresented, perhaps inadvertantly, the law. The Planning Department had stated in its letter that a residence necessary for timber production is a compatible use. And in fact it is – specifically listed. Again, HumCPR owes the Planning Department an apology. Perhaps they’ve already made it, but it’s still presented in false light on the HumCPR website.
Perhaps a residence not necessary is also compatible, but it sounds like the state is mandating that the Planning Department or whatever regulatory authority make that call. It may be that Clif or Estelle, or three or more Supervisors vote for a “ministerial” process, and that a conservationist group sues and the provision is struck down – assuming that the state approves a ministerial process in the first place. Generally speaking a local government cannot override a state regulation by loosening it up.
I had seen this wording before, but had not looked at it quite so closely.
As for whether the Planning Department misled, I don’t see anything in the sentence by itself which is misleading. Perhaps HumCPR should have posted the entire letter so that we have context which might render it misleading. But if the implication was that the County could determine that the “kingdom” construction would not be compatible, the implication was in fact accurate. And HumCPR was wrong, because they were looking at the wrong code.
March 26, 2012 at 6:30 pm
anonomous
When you look at Estelle’s very lengthy Endorsement list, it’s pretty broad based. I see a lot of names on there that were Clif and Johanna supporters last time around but are now endorsing Estelle 4 years later.
March 26, 2012 at 6:34 pm
Eric Kirk
Can you name the former Clif supporters on the list? I didn’t see any, but then I confess that I don’t know all the names of his supporters from 2008.
At Clif’s fundraiser I did meet three former Estelle supporters, including one former HumCPR member. I suspect that there are going to be some coming the other way as well, I just haven’t met anyone yet.
March 26, 2012 at 6:36 pm
Bolithio
I still do not understand what the issue is! If you have a 160 acre ‘kingdom’, complete with a million dollar house, you will be taxed on your house – just like any other zone. You will also be taxed on your timber when you harvest it, or your kids, or their kids, or the next owner who decides to harvest.
The point of TPZ was to ensure that timberland was not chopped up and developed. A reasonable parcel size, and some reasonable compatible uses – one of which a single residence. 90% of the non-industrial landowners I prepare THPs for also live on their land. Most of the parcels are 40-160 acres.
Is it necessary for the management of the land? Well, if your land management goal is to live there too, then yes. Furthermore, when you live in the woods, you maintain culverts year round, dig water-bars, clear fallen trees, maintain gates and fences, gather firewood, and on and on. You can almost say that living in the woods requires management. It certainly doesnt inhibit it.
And if someone doesn’t log for 100 years, thats a management decision. The forest it self provides many benefits until harvesting occurs to the State. Another benefit of the zone.
And dont forget, if you attempt to reduce the parcel size below the 160 acres (40 acres is the minimum), you will have to ensure that management is not hindered by the change in parcel size. Mostly, this means creating road easements that are shared in adjoining parcels.
An easy solution is the requirement for all new permanent structures constructed on TPZ, you must have an RPF certify that the new development does not hinder present or future management. In my opinion, this planning should occur with the placements of power lines and gas lines too.
Still, is it really broken the way it is? I dont think its that bad!
March 26, 2012 at 6:45 pm
Eric Kirk
Bolithio – If any house is “necessary” then that would render the addition to the list of compatible uses as meaningless. Laws are interpreted by courts in such a way as to render meaning and purpose. And the policy issue for “compatible” is whether the usage will in effect result in removing the land from resource usage, especially if it becomes a rural Tiburon or Pacific Heights.
Basically, the appropriate authority deemed the kingdoms not compatible, and under a reasonable interpretation of the statute, the County had that authority.
The Bankruptcy Judge in Texas certainly thought so.
And I don’t think the statute would allow the Planning Department to delegate the authority to an RPF.
March 26, 2012 at 6:53 pm
Eric Kirk
You know, Clif has probably been talking to County Counsel about it, and a compromise that I can see coming out of it is that some advisory criteria be incorporated into the language while the ultimate power of discretion is retained according to state law. Perhaps a localized working definition of “necessary for the management” which isn’t so loose as to render the statutory language meaningless, but flexible enough to incorporate most residences on small holdings – while retaining discretion for the subdivision of larger holdings.
It would be helpful to have the actual language proposed in Plan A, Plan B, and Plan C. Probably Plan D is silent on the matter, or HumCPR would have championed it a long time ago.
March 26, 2012 at 7:58 pm
tra
“I’m saying that, under the wording, you can only avoid a discretionary process for a residence permit if it is necessary for the management of the land. Ministerial if it is deemed necessary.”
Eric,
I don’t get where you’re coming up with that interpretation, based on the text of the law that you’ve included above. It seems to me that you’re reading something into it that’s not there.
What I see is a definition of “compatible use” that is consistent with a residence, and then appended to that definition is a series of items that are specific examples of a compatible use — but what connects the general definition to that list of specific examples is the phrase …shall include, but is not limited to…
I don’t see where you’re getting from that language to your claim that the law “requires” a discretionary permit unless the house is “necessary” for timber harvesting.
I believe that the Planning Commisssion heard competing arguments on exactly this point back when the Healthy Humboldt crowd was making their ill-fated attempt to make the TPZ moratorium permanent, and I believe that after hearing the competing arguments, the Planning Commission concluded that the restrictive interpretation that you’re promoting here was erroneous — or at least that the competing interpretation was at least equally valid, and that therefore the existing interpretation could be maintained.
And more recently, I believe that the Planning Commission again afirmed this interpretation when they rejected the Plan A / Healthy Humboldt demand that the new GPU include a provision requiring discretionary permits for TPZ homes. The Healthy Humboldt faction was pushing hard for the type of restrictive interpretation that you are advocating, arguing that the County had to do this because it was already the existing law — and I believe there were even some not-too-veiled threats of a lawsuit (which, tellingly, have not materialized) — and I’m pretty sure that at that time the County Counsel was asked to weigh in, and seems to have been satisfied that their interpretation — the same interpretation that has stood for all these decades — was consistent with the letter of the law.
If it really looked like it would be that easy for the Healthy Humboldt crowd to win on the issue of requiring discretionary permits for TPZ homes, based on an unassailable interpretation of the existing state law, then I suspect they would have already taken it to court long ago, rather than waging the protracted (and so far, losing) battle that they have waged trying to get the TPZ moratorium made permanent, and then when that failed, trying to get their preferred discretionary-permit-requiring language into the General Plan, a move that was rejected by the Planning Commission, but which the HH crowd apparently still hopes to insert back into the plan when it reaches the Board of Supervisors.
Which brings us full circle right back to where we started — why it’s important for Clif to figure out where he stands on this issue (if he hasn’t already), and share that with the voting public. If his position turns out to be based on a novel and highly questionable interpretation of the law, one that has been rejected at least twice in recent years by the Planning Commission after hearing the competing arguments, well I doubt that too many rural residents will find that to be “pleasantly surprising.”
Yeah, I know, these are just your own thoughts and not necessarily Clif’s, but given that you are a strong public supporter of his, and one who has written repeatedly that rural residents would be “pleasantly surprised” by Clif’s eventual choices (if he’s even still in office if/when the vote actually happens) it might have been wiser to check into this a bit further before advocating for this new interpretation of the law.
Just sayin…you’re not exactly helping your candidate dispel concerns that he might be looking for some way to justify siding with his Healthy Humboldt type supporters, claiming to “have no other choice” based on some novel/creative “new interpretation” of the law.
March 26, 2012 at 8:03 pm
Eric Kirk
It’s simple TRA, and it’s not novel. It’s very basic reading of law. “shall include, but is not limited to…” is a classic safe harbor language. If you meet one of the stated criteria for compatible uses, you have safe harbor. If you don’t, the authority has to be convinced that it’s not going to interfere with the resource value of the land. That’s discretionary.
It’s not complicated TRA, and I suspect this is why HumCPR may have avoided inclusion of the law on its website. I don’t know how Clif is reading it, but if the Planning Department’s authority to determine whether a particular use, which is not on the list, is compatible is frustrated, I am certain the GPU provision will be defeated in court. It won’t matter who’s in office.
and I believe there were even some not-too-veiled threats of a lawsuit (which, tellingly, have not materialized)
It’s not ripe yet. It won’t be until the GPU is approved. You can’t file a lawsuit based upon language which might end up in the General Plan.
and I’m pretty sure that at that time the County Counsel was asked to weigh in, and seems to have been satisfied that their interpretation — the same interpretation that has stood for all these decades — was consistent with the letter of the law.
Well, no, there hasn’t been any “interpretation.” There’s only been lack of enforcement. Other counties however, such as Siskyou, have interpreted it pretty rigidly, so that you have to file a timber management plan before getting any kind of construction permit.
March 26, 2012 at 8:12 pm
Eric Kirk
See, again, I don’t know what you mean by “discretionary permits for TPZ homes.” Are we talking about something designated within the list of compatible uses, or something outside in the “not limited to” realm?
It would help to have the actual language. But it’s nowhere on the HumCPR site, and I can’t find anything that says that in the General Plan Update drafts themselves. It seems that there’s been a debate for several years now where everybody is talking out of his or her ass.
Put the provision up that’s in question, and let’s see where it fits into the statutory scheme. But if HumCPR is demanding something which removes the authority to determine whether a residence is compatible with timber management, then it will fail – again – no matter who’s in office.
So I guess I have to ask again – what wording precisely is HumCPR asking for? Which provision specifically do they oppose? You’re the one calling for informed democracy here. Let’s have full disclosure as to what we’re talking about?
March 26, 2012 at 9:03 pm
tra
Maybe as a lawyer you have a different definition of the term “novel,” but I was just using it to mean “new and different.” Clearly this would be a new and different interpretation of the law here in Humboldt County.
If it’s so simple and clear that the existing interpretation is so obviously wrong and illegal, why has this interpretation stood for so many decades, including recent years in which there have been plenty of lawyer-heavy environmental groups handy who could supposedly have challenged it very easily, since it’s all so simple and clear and since you’re obviously so completely and unquestionably right in your interpretation?
And if it’s so simple and clear that the existing interpretation is so obviously wrong and illegal, why did the Planning Commission reject this new interpretation twice, after hearing the same arguments you’re making, as well as opposing arguments. Yes, I understand that the Planning Commission is not a court of law, but they certainly had the advice of their own counsel to look to, yet they don’t seem to have agreed that your interpretation is the only possible valid interpretation, or even the best of several potential interpretations. Do you have any explanation for that, other than you’re just a whole lot smarter and a better reader than everyone else?
“It’s not ripe yet.”
Why not? If I’m understanding the situation correctly, the Planning Department currently hands out ministerial permits for single homes on TPZ parcels, even those that have not been determined to be “necessary” for timber management (which I would assume none of them have) and has been doing so for decades. If it’s so obviously illegal for them to do that, then how is it “not ripe yet?”
Have you considered the possibility that maybe you might want to see what another attorney — one who is well-informed and competent, but who takes the opposite view — before so quickly and confidently concluding that it’s such an open-and-shut case? It seems like that might be a good idea.
I’m not an attorney, so I’m not in a position to argue important points like why “novel” doesn’t mean “new and different” or why long-existing policies that are being carried out today and are allegedly obviously illegal are just not “ripe” for a lawsuit yet. But I do remember hearing the other side of the argument, as well as this one, and like the Planning Commission I was not convinced that your side of the argument is the more valid one, and certainly wasn’t convinced that your side of the argument was the only vaild one.
In addition to hearing the arguments from both sides when this issue was before the Planning Commission, I do remember pretty much this same argument going on between you and (I think it was) Bill Barnum on Heraldo’s blog a year or two ago. At the time, you made pretty much the same argument you’re making here, and Bill made counterarguments. It got down into some brass tacks about the way laws are written, and how the grammer and punctuation hinted one way or the other about how it should be interpreted. You both made convincing-sounding arguments, but I think in the end you begged off, saying you’d have to look into it some more. I guess now you have, and I’d be interested in seeing how that argument would play out today.
I wish we had Bill Barnum or some other attorney who has a detailed knowledge of TPZ law and is aware of this dispute to comment on this thread. Because for all I know, you’re dead-on in your legal analysis and this really is the kind of open-and-shut case that you seem to saying it is. But I get the distinct feeling that I’m only getting one side of the story, and based on a rather cursory examination of the issue. For example, is there any case law relevant to this question? If so, what did those decisions say and how are the situations in those cases similar to or different than what’s being discussed here?
I guess the bottom line is that as a non-attorney, I don’t feel qualified to argue the legal details, but as an (at least somewhat) careful observer of the way this TPZ issue has unfolded over the last few years, I recall hearing this debate before, and it was not at all clear to me that one side or the other had a slam-dunk argument. So I’d like to hear the other side from someone well-qualified to make that argument. And better yet, I’d like to see some back and forth discussion between you (or someone else taking the position you’re taking) and a well-informed attorney who takes the opposite point of view. After all, I’m sure it’s pretty easy to argue law with a non-lawyer like me, but if this thing ever goes to court, that’s obviously not going to be the situation.
March 26, 2012 at 9:48 pm
Guest
Here’s my take: Eric is right in his interpretation of the planning language. “Shall include, but is not limited to…” does indeed mean that If you meet one of the stated criteria for compatible uses, you have no problem. But if you don’t, the proposed use becomes discretionary.
But historically, TRA is correct in that planning staff has allowed residences without forcing applicants to jump thru any special hoops. To traditionally allow houses to be built, then change tune, is not fair to future applicants.
Thus lies the problem. A very common problem in many planning departments, not just Humboldt.
March 26, 2012 at 9:48 pm
Anonymous
But Eric’s primary question is unanswered. What is HumCPR proposing?
March 26, 2012 at 10:05 pm
Eric Kirk
TRA – sorry, my point wasn’t to sound too much like a lawyer. i do remember the conversation with Bill, but I believe it was focused more on the broader policy issues of the statute. I hadn’t homed in on the discretionary vs. ministerial language issue. And all of the sudden I realized in this thread that I had never reviewed the language in question, and I’m still not sure that we’re talking about compliance with this statute or something else.
Can the county come up with criteria to determine whether the construction of a residence is compatible objectively to bypass the discretion? I think the most it can do is come up with guidelines, but maybe I’m wrong and maybe there’s a precedent for creating a new criteria in which at the local level we add items to the statutorily designated list of items so that decisions aren’t completely arbitrary.
I don’t know the answer to the question. What I do know is that if the county restricts permits to the list, it would be rigid, but it would be “ministerial.” I can’t help wondering if the discretionary aspect was actually intended to be in the land owner’s favor so that the “not limited to” realm would be explored.
What we’ve had is just lazy enforcement, but now that the state is pushing for more enforcement all of the sudden the lax parent is turning into the stern parent, and it’s really hard on the kids.
Again, I just really want to know what the language is. Maybe someone well versed in the plan can answer that. If not, I’ll make some calls.
Bill, are you out there?
March 26, 2012 at 10:07 pm
tra
I think you’ve got it backwards in terms of who is demanding that the existing policy must be changed. Here is what Healthy Humboldt said in their comments on the GPU:
“For the past thirty years or so the County has allowed the construction of a residence with a minsterial permit on TPZ parcels …Healthy Humboldt believes that a conditional use permit should be required for a residence on TPZ…”
http://www.healthyhumboldt.org/docs/HHC%20comments%20on%20TPZ_residential%208_10.pdf
There is a lot more to read there, and basically their analysis mirrorsthe argument that you are making here. I would quote their comments more completely, but unfortunately it’s in a PDF format that doesn’t seem to allow for cutting and pasting, so you’ll have to go take a lookf for yourself.
You keep asking what HumCPR wants. I am not part of HumCPR and don’t speak for them, but it is my understanding that they are just advocating that the current policy not be changed. And apparently, the Planning Commissioners agreed with that position. Here’s a good article from Daniel Mint of The Independent, which I found simply by googling “Healthy Humboldt TPZ.”
“Homebuilding on Timber Production Zone (TPZ) parcels is one of the most argued-about aspects of the General Plan Update (GPU) and a majority of the county’s Planning Commission supports allowing one residence per parcel as an unconditional right.
The Commission reviewed the policies of the draft GPU’s Forest Resources chapter and debated whether allowing a residence on a TPZ parcel should be based on a connection to logging operations. Four of the five commissioners at the meeting said they think a single TPZ residence should be allowed through a ministerial permit – one that doesn’t require conditions – and that second units should be similarly allowed on parcels bigger than 160 acres…. ”
The argument about grammer in legal text and the proper interpretation of the intent of the law based on that grammer is even mentioned:
“The debate boiled down to the use of a small word in state law. State statute says that compatible uses in TPZ include “a residence or other structure necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production.” Eureka Attorney Bill Barnum told commissioners that the use of the word “or” is disjunctive and the timber management requirement refers to the “other structure,” not the residence.
Barnum said that if a staff recommendation to require residences to be related to timber management is adopted, it will contradict state law and the county will be sued…”
http://humcpr.org/2010/04/planning-commissioners-support-one-house-per-tpz-parcel/
So from what I read in the Healthy Humboldt comments, and what I read in this piece from the Independent (which is archived on the HumCPR website), Healthy Humboldt is claiming that the existing policy of granting ministerial permits based on the assumption that a house is a “compatible use” is contrary to state law, but Barnum and others are arguing he opposite — that the existing policy is consistent with state law and that the policy being proposed by Healthy Humbolt would be illegal and the county would be sued if it adopted this policy. So the way I read that is that the Planning Commission received an implied threat of a lawsuit from one side, and an overt threat of a lawsuit from the other side. They heard both sets of arguments, and 4 out of 5 commissioners came down on the side of maintaining the current “ministerial” permit process.
Reading this article refreshed my memory about your online discussion with Bill Barnum on Heraldo’s blog a year or so ago, where I think in the end, it also came down to this issue of the “disjunctive ‘or.’” Bill insisted that it was well-established that the placement of the “or” meant that the reference to “necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production” applied to the phrase “other structures” but not to the word “residence” (assuming I’m understanding the argument correctly). I believe it was at that point that you begged off, saying you’d have to look into it…and that was where it ended. Did you ever end up looking up this issue of the disjunctive “or” in legal language? If so, did what you found support your interpretation, or Bill’s, or is it just not that clear?
I certainly recognize that Bill Barnum is not exactly a neutral observer of this stuff, given his family’s large timber holdings, and you’re obviously not a neutral observer either, given your stated ideological preferences on this issue, as well as your desire to defend your chosen candidate. But that doesn’t mean that one of you might not have the correct interpretation.
Anyway, I am finding this to be an interesting discussion, if not an easy one to sort through. But correct me if I’m wrong, it seems like the bottom line is that Healthy Humboldt is the entity that is claiming that the County’s existing policy is illegal and demanding that it must be changed to include a new “conditional use permit” process involving various studies and certifications that the landowner would have to complete before (maybe) getting their permit, whereas TPZ owners and their allies in the real estate business are supporting the continuation of the existing policy of essentially assuming that a house does not significantly detract from the ability to harvest timber on the remainder of the parcel, and therefore just issuing a “ministerial permit” for those houses. Both sides are claiming that the other side is misinterpreting the law, and warning that the county will be sued if things don’t go their way.
I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that, at least to some degree, both sides are, as you put it, “talking out of their asses.” But somewhere amongst all this politico-legal flatulence, there’s bound to be at least a whiff of truth. Or is there?
March 26, 2012 at 11:16 pm
tra
While I have no idea what the usual rules for legal language are in terms of whether this particular “or” joins or severs the word “residence” from the rest of that sentence, I have to say that as just someone reading it as a layman, I find Bill’s reading of it to be rather awkward. If their intent was to list “a residence” as one of those items within that “safe harbor” list (and not requiring it to be “necessary” for timber management), why wouldn’t they have just listed item (6) as simply “a residence” and then made a separate item (7) that said “other structure necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production.”
[Yeah, I realize that this works against my own preference in this matter. But believe it or not I am able to maintain at least enough objectivity to notice that, at least from a layman's perspective, the "disjunctive 'or'" reading comes off as a bit strained. But as I recall Bill was quite insistent that this would technically be the correct interpretation, and for all I know that's true.]
On the other hand, I’m not sure why they’d bother to include a “residence…necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production” in the “safe harbor” list in the first place, since I doubt that you could ever make a convincing argument that ANY timberland actually “requires” a residence for its management (maybe “useful to” or “compatible with” but surely not “required”). And it seems to me that this goes to the issue of expecting the language to have some kind of meaning and purpose. I can see why “residence” on it’s own, and not requiring a connection to the phrase “necessary for the management of…” would be included in the “safe harbor” list, since it’s a common use and obviously one people might wonder about.
I can certainly understand why the language about “other structures” would be linked to the phrase “required for the managements of…” But to make a special point of saying that a residence would be allowed as a principle permitted use only if it was “required” for timber management just doesn’t make any sense to me, because it seems like going to a lot of trouble to give a clear instruction about a situation that probably never arises in modern forestry. So in my opinion that aspect lends some credence to Bill’s “disjunctive ‘or’” argument, despite the way it comes off as a bit clunky (at least to my non-lawyer ears) when you try to read it aloud that way.
On the other, other hand, the “disjunctive ‘or’” interpretation would seem to lead to a situation where you could build your actual house with just a ministerial permit, but you’d need a conditional use permit to build a barn or other outbuilding unless that building could be shown to be “necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production,” which seems kinda weird, right?
None of the interpretations seem exactly water-tight to me. It seems to me that whoever wrote this law could have been a bit clearer on this point. Of course this kind of lack of clarity is one reason that you never really hear about unemployed lawyers.
March 26, 2012 at 11:41 pm
tra
Beyond the legal technicalities, I think that the bottom line is that there would be few, if any, cases where a single residential site on a 160 acre parcel would be “incompatible” with timber harvesting on the rest of the parcel, and therefore it seems silly to make each landowner go through an expensive and complicated process to “prove” that it wouldn’t. Which lends credence to the belief that the real goal of Healthy Humboldt is just to make the process expensive, time-consuming, and lawyer-heavy enough to act as a kind of “de-facto moratium” on TPZ owner-occupancy. In other words, can you have a house on a TPZ parcel? Sure if you’re rich enough to go through the expensive, time-wasting process of “proving” what we all already know — that it’s a compatible use, if not a “necessary” one. Which leads to a situation where TPZ would be the domain of either absentee owners (probably large timeber companies) or wealthy people who want a vacation house or retirement house.
If that’s what we want rural Humboldt to be all about — where the land is either owned by Big Timber or rich vacationers/retirees — then, sure, Healthy Humboldt’s proposal makes sense. But if we prefer a situation where people of more modest means can own a piece of timberland, live on it, take care of it, and either harvest it eventually themselves or let the forest continue to grow (to potentially be harvested by some future owner) then the existing process makes a lot more sense.
March 27, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Not A Native
Compatible use is defined very precisely:
“..any use which does not significantly detract from the use of the property for, or inhibit, growing and harvesting timber”
It is a statistical fact that properties with residences experience a significantly reduced amount of timber harvesting compared to properties without residences. Especially the smaller parcels.
And as far as the tax valuation of smaller TPZ properties with residences, I’d be willing to be that the sales prices for those properties always exceed the value of the timber plus the appraised residence value. The difference is the perceived value of a treed park surrounding. i.e. park trees are much more valuable than timber trees. Increased value was the very reason PALCO proposed residences on its land. Why would that be true for PALCO but not for another holder of TPZ property?
March 27, 2012 at 12:31 pm
Eric Kirk
You keep asking what HumCPR wants. I am not part of HumCPR and don’t speak for them, but it is my understanding that they are just advocating that the current policy not be changed.
I’m not sure what the “current policy” is. I don’t think there is a current policy. But in any case, how should it be worded?
The Commission reviewed the policies of the draft GPU’s Forest Resources chapter and debated whether allowing a residence on a TPZ parcel should be based on a connection to logging operations. Four of the five commissioners at the meeting said they think a single TPZ residence should be allowed through a ministerial permit – one that doesn’t require conditions – and that second units should be similarly allowed on parcels bigger than 160 acres….
Well that doesn’t make any sense. Even a ministerial permit requires conditions.
As for the dysjunctive “or” argument, I just don’t think that works with the flow of the sentence, and it is certainly not always dysjunctive. In fact, the use of the word “other” would seem to negate the dysjunctive interpretation – the sentence should read “…residences or structures necessary to…”
But in deference to Bill who was making the argument I did pledge to look into other laws using “or.” Alas, I never did.
Beyond the legal technicalities, I think that the bottom line is that there would be few, if any, cases where a single residential site on a 160 acre parcel would be “incompatible” with timber harvesting on the rest of the parcel,
Unfortunately I have to disagree, and this is the crux of the issue. I suspect that once an area of properties becomes primarily residential in use, the chances of the properties being harvested in the future become greatly reduced. People like the trees. That’s why they move there.
March 27, 2012 at 1:07 pm
tra
“I suspect that once an area of properties becomes primarily residential in use, the chances of the properties being harvested in the future become greatly reduced.”
How do you explain the fact that heavy logging in has continued in places like Fickle Hill, despite lots of residences in that area? Meanwhile most of the anti-logging protests involved places far from any residences, like Headwaters Forest, and Rainbow Ridge in the Mattole?
In most cases, opposition to logging around here is not a NIMBY issue. And the current downturn in the local timber economy is mostly due to market conditions: the prices for logs and lumber are low, therefore mills close and loggers are out of work. It’s not a supply problem being caused by rural residents opposing logging. Surely you know this.
March 27, 2012 at 2:01 pm
tra
“I’m not sure what the “current policy” is. I don’t think there is a current policy.”
I believe the current policy, in other words what they actually do now, is that when someone with a TPZ parcel approaches the Planning Department about a building permit for a residence on that parcel, they are given an application for a building permit, they go through all the normal procedures of paying their fee, submitting their plans, perc tests, etc., they are visited by the building inspectors, and someone to inspect their septic system and so on, and as long as they follow all the usual building codes and the building inspector signs off on everything when the building is completed, then they are all set. In other words, the same process as building a house on any other parcel where building a house is considered a “principally permitted use.”
I believe what is being proposed by Healthy Humbolt is that, for TPZ parcels, the owner would have to go through an initial process to determine if the home qualifies as a “compatible use” or not and then if they’re allowed to proceed at all, additional “discretionary” conditions, beyond the normal conditions applied to residential buildings, may be required. I’ve heard many different suggestions from the Healthy Humboldt / Plan A crowd on what that process should be and what those additional conditions should be, including that the landowner should be required to get various studies done to document the fact that their two-acre homesite won’t somehow magically foreclose the possibility that timber could be harvested at some point in the future on the other 158 acres, and/or they should be required to prepare a timber management plan for the property, or something along those lines, and in the end it would then be up to the “discretion” of the Planning Department staff and/or the Planning Commission to decide whether the permit is ever issued or not.
But I agree with you that it would be nice to see the actual, concrete proposals compared side-by-side: How the current process works if you walk in the door of the Planning Department today and tell them that you have a 160 acre TPZ parcel and would like to build a single residence on it, and how that process and the conditions that apply would differ under the Healthy Humboldt / Plan A approach.
I suspect that, aside from the details, the outcome under the Healthy Humboldt approach would be that anyone who has lots of money will still be able to build a house on just about any TPZ parcel, they’ll just have to jump through more hoops, pay for some studies and a lawyer, and so on. But to the extent that many people can’t afford those things, and that reduces the number of houses that get built on TPZ parcels, I guess that somewhat fewer residences, with more of them being owed by wealthy people, would be considered a “win” by Healthy Humbolt.
Of course the new rules would have no immediate effect on those people who weren’t planning to get a permit anyway, but it will probably add to more people to that category — people who would have applied for a permit if the process remained as it is now, but will be dissuaded from seeking any permit due to the new requirements. So it will probably increase the number of “illegal” homes, never visited by a building inpector before or during construction, and where, at least in theory, it will then become the job of the county to send in the code enforcement squads to remove these “illegal” families from their homes and to condemn those unpermitted structures. And we know how much fun that will be.
March 27, 2012 at 2:51 pm
gpf
It is a statistical fact that properties with residences experience a significantly reduced amount of timber harvesting compared to properties without residences. Especially the smaller parcels.
Geez NAN, go outside to fart!
March 27, 2012 at 3:49 pm
tra
“It is a statistical fact that properties with residences experience a significantly reduced amount of timber harvesting compared to properties without residences.”
Oh no, those awful homesteaders aren’t cutting down enough trees fast enough! Shame on them!
March 27, 2012 at 3:59 pm
anon4cec
“It is a statistical fact that properties with residences experience a significantly reduced amount of timber harvesting compared to properties without residences.”
How quickly everyone forgets the discussion and possible ordinance in the City of Eureka when redwood prices soared and home owners were cutting down landscape trees in town because it was so proffitable. The city was in a tizzy that were going to be no redwwods left in Eureka and looked into a special permitting process that would have disallowed the commercial sale of logs from within city limits. It is a statistcal fact that barring a conservation easement or legal restriction virtually all timber eventually gets cut. It is only the time frame that varies somewhat due to the type of ownership.
March 27, 2012 at 8:19 pm
Eric Kirk
I believe the current policy, in other words what they actually do now, is that when someone with a TPZ parcel approaches the Planning Department about a building permit for a residence on that parcel, they are given an application for a building permit, they go through all the normal procedures of paying their fee, submitting their plans, perc tests, etc., they are visited by the building inspectors, and someone to inspect their septic system and so on, and as long as they follow all the usual building codes and the building inspector signs off on everything when the building is completed, then they are all set. In other words, the same process as building a house on any other parcel where building a house is considered a “principally permitted use.”
Yeah, and that’s a problem, because TPZ is supposed to be treated differently than rural residential. The policy up to now is basically renders Section 51104 meaningless. The policy should have been implemented decades ago, and if the county refused to implement it, the state should have intervened. But conservationism and environmentalism have always been rearguard fights.
If this is really popular will, then we should just dump 51104 and TPZ zoning and let the developers do what they want with the land. Because to the local logic on this issue, conservation measures should apply to everyone except locals. So let’s just scrap the whole thing and party on until there’s nothing left.
Oh, and let’s keep the tax break because we’re special anyway. We’re stewards of the land. You should pay us to live our lives the way we want!
I’m sorry, but that’s how I’m reading this after taking your links in one of the posts above. Of course HumCPR isn’t going to propose any wording. They don’t want anything changed. That’s what “property rights” are all about.
Yeah, let’s take a couple of hundred grand from developers and Realtors and spend it to defeat the first bona fide environmentalist to be elected in the Second District. Let’s put someone in who is useful to take out Clif, but who will get the same treatment in four years if she doesn’t tow the line – when someone like Ken Zanzi or some other ultra-conservative supporting her now can take her out of office easily. All because we don’t want to have to make even a minimum showing of compatibility with TPZ policy, because we moved here to be left alone and we don’t trust government.
Hat’s off to the county’s conservatives trying desperately to hold onto power they’ve been losing over the last decade. They found the right formula.
And let’s not pretend that this is about compromise or discussion. The reason HumCPR want to “start over” is because it wants no, change or they would have proposed some wording – something to ensure that housing development remains compatible with TPZ policy. But they aren’t about that. Like another group, they’re “just asking questions.” I mean seriously, have they proposed anything other than spending millions of dollars to start over so they can try to stack CAGs to nix proper regulation from consideration?
And I’d really like to see the specific wording to which they object, not just the Healthy Humboldt proposals.
I guess public comment is long over for the Planning Commission, but I think it’s about time I wrote something up now that I kind of know where this “ministeral/discretionary” meme is coming from.
And yeah, it does appear that there will be lawsuits – no matter how it turns out, because resource conservationists can’t afford to let this slide.
It’s a shame, because I think there are reasonable approaches to this. But from the readings and the political reality on the ground, it’s apparent that we’re well beyond that.
March 27, 2012 at 8:55 pm
Eric Kirk
Hmmmm. That was more cranky than I intended it to be.
Anyway, I am supporting Clif because he is the conservationist and environmentalist in the race. Sorry, but while I hope Estelle burns them in the long run if she wins, all that money isn’t intended to be free. And she will pay the price four years from now if she does, and the Second District will be left with someone more conservative ideologically than Roger Rodoni.
March 27, 2012 at 8:56 pm
Bolithio
And I don’t think the statute would allow the Planning Department to delegate the authority to an RPF.
I agree with your thought. Its just that State law requires forestry to be practiced by RPFs only. To do otherwise is a violation of the professional forestry law.
Thats part of the rub. The county is trying to prevent something else from occurring other than non-compatible uses. Call it like it is. The fact that PALCO was liquidating, how popular this was with the public, let alone the hard feelings after the last 20 years of MAXXAM, the county appears to have done their part to prevent further damage. Yet the issue was misconstrued. Do people really prefer aggressive industrial management over very light non-industrial management? No! They chose TPZ as the issue – but really county could have claimed discretion in many elements to prevent it.
Why are we lumping a rural land owner in with MAXXAM? Right after that, county went on their famous rampage through timberland’s trying to claim there was all this degradation to the resource. Well, there really wasn’t. Ill tell you this as forester; the degradation occurred from the timber companies of the past. But that isn’t what this is about. The issue real is pot, not houses. No doubt, cultivation is the principle land use out side of towns and industrial ownerships. And TPZ (or zone) does not address it. I meet with Kirk once and he told me more or less directly that their [planning management's] data suggested that the demographic of people buying land had no intention of logging, and that this was not in the spirit of the zone. As such, they were going to stack up hoops for you (the project applicant) to jump through. It was clear to me that the intent was to discourage and slow down projects.
Our county government should not be in the role of playing judge and jury over what they perceive to good or bad. I believe it is wrong for the Director to be placing judgement on buyers of property. And if Supervisors support this behavior, that is also wrong. Its OK to advocate for policy, but until it is, you cant foster an environment that prevents the current policy from being implemented.
I cant speak for most elements of the plan and how they are implemented. But for land use, especially timberland and ag lands; their has been an awful amount of ‘underground regulation’ required, as well as strange discretionary requirements for projects.
I hope future Supervisor’s appoint people who do not take politics into the meta behind government.
March 27, 2012 at 9:10 pm
Bolithio
I suspect that once an area of properties becomes primarily residential in use, the chances of the properties being harvested in the future become greatly reduced. People like the trees. That’s why they move there.
Eric, while respecting your view, try to see it this way: Forestry is long term. A traditional rotation is 80-200 years. While industrial forestry pushes this envelope, non-mill owning timberland owners will always be operating on different time scales. Unless the land is placed in some permanently recorded easement, on the deed itself, that prevents harvesting – you are really fooling your yourself is you believe it wont be logged because someone on it currently likes the trees.
And believe me, I have done many a THP for hippies who “would have never logged 30 years ago…but would really like some sun again…”.
If the land goes into a conservation easement, or a state park then yes, the zone should change. Until then, its always potentially available. There are thousands of acres across our county where TPZ parcels with residences have approved NTMPs and can harvest sustainable amounts in perpetuity. The amount harvested has been down for over 10 years for two reasons; 1) the markets have been low, 2) the previous entries logged the crap out of everywhere! Its not because of the houses!!!
=
March 27, 2012 at 9:17 pm
anon4cec
Eric, I have no intention of directly responding to the points raised in your rant. You might reread it yourself, we all lose our temper from time to time and should be entitled to do so. In the end, you know better than to buy into much of the party line. The truth is rarely so black and white and honorable people can disagree. Get a good nights sleep, remember whats important and give your kids a hug goodnight.
March 27, 2012 at 9:20 pm
Eric Kirk
Apparently what we really need is a study comparing the productivity over the past 30 years between lands which have become residences principally and those which haven’t.
It’s certainly not the case with agriculture. Ask anyone who was living in Carmel Valley 30 years ago. I wonder how much of that land was TPZ. There’s been no logging in Carmel Valley in recent decades. There is one logging company left in that area, and they sell firewood chiefly.
March 27, 2012 at 9:43 pm
tra
Eric,
Your last comment with it’s scaremongering “let the developers do what they want with the land…party until there’s nothing left” is just chock-full of over-the-top hyperbole, bordering on full-blown hysteria. And seems especially silly when the other main complaint about the status quo is that TPZ owner-occupants are a problem because they aren’t cutting down enough trees fast enough.
Take a step back and look at the actual situation. TPZ residences are not resulting in wholesale liquidation of our forest lands, and no one is suggesting that developers should be allowed to just “do whatever they want with the land…until there’s nothing left.”
That just doesn’t resemble anything like the situation that we’re actually in, considering the amount of land available, how slowly our population is actually growing, the tiny percentage of TPZ parcels that people are actually trying to build on and the tiny fraction of these parcels that are actually used for their homesites. It seems like a clear case of Boy Who Cries Wolf combined with a healthy dose of The Sky is Falling.
March 27, 2012 at 9:50 pm
tra
Meanwhile, as Healthy Humboldt continues to obsess about TPZ lands, most actual development, loss of habitat, and sprawl is in happening not out in the hills on 160s, but in the suburban areas at the edges of McKinleyville, Fortuna, Arcata, and Eureka. And some Healthy Humboldters (including Plan A champion and former Healthy Humboldt staffer Supervisor Mark Lovelace) have actually applauded and expressed their enthusiastic support for Foster-Gill’s massive corporate SmartSprawl (TM) development, which would replace hundreds of acres of productive timberland in Ridgewood with thousands of new suburban homes packed into little cul-de-sacs, plus commercial square footage that adds up to several times the size of the new WalMart.
Unlike Foster-Gill, which is trying to get the county to change the law to allow them to build twice as many units as they normally would be allowed, just to yield many millions in additional profits for this out-of-area developer, our local TPZ owners are simply seeking to retain the same rights that TPZ owners have had for decades, to build a single house on an existing TPZ parcel, which they then pay full taxes on, just like everyone else. Meanwhile the rest of their property continues to be taxed the same way as any other TPZ land — taxed if/when harvested, taxes deferred when not harvested, which benefits the public both by building up the inventory of standing timber that will be available in the future, and by providing ecosystem benefits in the meantime.
How any of this adds up to “you should pay us to live our lives the way we want” is a mystery to me. This seems like either just a completely irrational, emotional-appeal argument, or else a cynical attempt to generate resentment toward TPZ owners who in my view aren’t doing anything wrong, much less anything illegal.
You’re getting all worked up about a situation that may be an ideological problem for some folks, but as a practical matter, is essentially a non-problem at the moment. And then you’re getting even more upset about people organizing in opposition to proposals that would make them jump through a bunch of new regulatory hoops in order to solve the non-problem with TPZ that you and the Healthy Humboldt true believers have got yourselves so worked up about about.
March 27, 2012 at 10:36 pm
Eric Kirk
Excuse me TRA, but this all began when Palco proposed to sell off large holdings as “kingdoms,” and the fact is that in California the development value of property exceeds most resource extraction value.
But if I’m wrong, why are these developer interests writing Estelle $1000.00 checks in bunches?
And I’m not up on the Forster-Gill development proposal details, but I do know that the primary opposition is coming from more conventional developers and Cutten NIMBY’s (Cutten is referred to by some Eurekans as “White Flight Corridor”). The claim is that some of the opposition is to the precedent the project would set for compliance with smart growth policies. I don’t know if that’s true, but it is interesting that liberals (except in Sohum – HumCPR left) tend to support that project while conservatives oppose it.
As to whether the issue is a problem “at the moment,” – that phrase can probably serve as the epitaph for smart growth around the state. It doesn’t usually happen until it happens, and there is great power to precedent. We are only talking about small holdings now, but when the County considered limiting the anti-PALCO plan moratorium to larger holdings, there were threats of an equal protections clause lawsuit, which is why the moratorium had to be imposed across the board.
I mean, do you really think this money is being given because these developers care about composting toilets?
March 27, 2012 at 10:37 pm
tra
I get that you’re disappointed with how this might work out (or not work out) politically for those who have embraced the Healthy Humboldt dogma, but in my view they only have themselves to blame for cozying up to what I think is a loud, but ultimately fairly small Healthy Humboldt clique — and in so doing, quite likely alienating more people than they were winning over.
One Healthy Humbolt supporter told me back at the time of the TPZ moratorium — quite smugly and confidently — that all this rural rights backlash would soon blow over, and wouldn’t matter anyway since something like 90% of the county’s voters live within about 20 miles of Humboldt Bay, so what are a bunch of ignorant, lazy, stupid, pot-addled hillbillies really gonna do about it? (Okay, I’m paraphrasing, but that really was the gist of it: smug, disrespectful, stereotyping, and dismissive).
Well, apparently when the Healthy Humboldt clique was placing the wedges for this attempt at clever wedge politics, they miscalculated significantly — it turns out that while rural residents are indeed only a minority, when you add in their friends and relatives who live in the more densely-populated areas, and other folks sympathetic to their concerns, these issues turn out to be important to a significant number of voters. It seems silly to get mad at those rural residents and rural landowners who were written off as irrelevant / expendable for then having the audacity to not just crawl away and give up, but instead to actually stand up and fight back.
It seems pretty clear to me that as a result of overestimating their existing support and the potential appeal of their demands, the Healthy Humboldt clique overreached significantly, and this approach has backfired to a significant degree, fueling a backlash that now seems increasingly likely to result in them winning far less of what they want than they might have won had they taken a less extreme, less dogmatic approach. But of course it’s always easier to blame political setbacks on devious and powerful opponents, rather than engaging in introspection. This appears to be just as true at the local level (and on both “sides” of this issue I might add) as it is on the national level.
As far as Estelle getting elected but then being easy to take out in the next election if she doesn’t “toe the developer line,” that just doesn’t make any sense to me. I don’t see any reason to believe that she’d be any more vulnerable than Clif, and every reason to believe that between her reputation as someone genuinely concerned with and kowledgeable about environmental issues, and the credibility she’s built up on the issue of rural property rights with her tenure at HumCPR, she could be the ideal person to broker productive and pragmatic compromises where appropriate.
March 27, 2012 at 10:38 pm
Eric Kirk
I would note, for what it’s worth, that since that 20 vote jump for Estelle yesterday morning, Clif has kept pace with Estelle. As far as the blog readers are concerned – this is a close race.
March 27, 2012 at 10:42 pm
Eric Kirk
TRA – bottom line is that if Estelle wins, and Rex, there will be a 4 to 1 conservative majority on the issues which count. Unless Estelle is willing to burn them. If she was going to broker anything, HumCPR ought to have made some proposals, but what they want is the status quo – same as the developers, except that they want environmentalists pushed out of the Planning Department.
Clif by the way, is less vulnerable than Estelle will be, because her primary base of support in Fortuna comes from the right wing business interests. Clif is popular with the rest of the town, but it’s the right wingers who want him out. The other voters are willing to vote for Clif despite his moderate to liberal politics because of who he is and his relationship to the community. Estelle would have no such base in 2016. This is why many of us backed Clif to beat Roger in 2008. If Estelle steps on their toes in any way, she will fare just as well as any of the previous Sohum hippie candidates come the next election. They support her because they need a big Sohum win, hoping to collect maybe 40 percent of Fortuna, to defeat Clif.
And because Estelle is, I believe, a progressive at heart, it’s very likely that she will find herself in that position – unless she buries her politics completely.
But maybe I’m wrong. I disagree with Clif’s vote today with regard to the Courthouse protests. Let’s see how strong Estelle comes out against the vote. I really doubt she’s in favor of it personally.
March 27, 2012 at 11:04 pm
tra
Funny how Estelle is now labeled a “conservative” because she doesn’t buy into the Healthy Humbolt dogma lock, stock and barrel. Decades of involvement in progressive issues and sympathy for environmental concerns are apparently all washed away, and now she’s Rush Limbaugh on steroids in the view of the HH true believers.
And funny too how you fail to recognize that forcing rural residents, TPZ landowners and other rural landowners to fight a rear-guard action against Healthy Humbolt’s overreaching demands has created the very dynamics that you are now wringing your hands about.
I very much doubt that the funding from real estate and developer interests will play anywhere near as important a role in how rural residents and landowners and their friends and families will vote as the kind of hyperbolic scaremongering, cynical assumption of greedy motives and generally smug, self-righteous and disrespectful attitudes contained in some of your comments on this thread. If in the end Clif ends up losing a close race and the margin of victory is provided by rural residents and landowners and their friends and families, then I think the kind of attitudes you’ve expressed in some of of your comments tonight will be a large part of the reason for that.
But by all means, keep on digging that hole deeper.
March 27, 2012 at 11:06 pm
Eric Kirk
Funny how Estelle is now labeled a “conservative” because she doesn’t buy into the Healthy Humbolt dogma lock, stock and barrel. Decades of involvement in progressive issues and sympathy for environmental concerns are apparently all washed away, and now she’s Rush Limbaugh on steroids in the view of the HH true believers.
You were talking about hyperbole? I never said she was Rush Limbaugh on steroids, and you keep bringing up Healthy Humboldt, not me.
But I do think there are people out there, even many homesteaders, who agree that TPZ should not be treated as rural residential zoned properties – per what you call the “current policy.” There’s a reason for that zoning. Differences in zoning usually means differences in regulation. I think that once people start learning about the issues independent of certain framing, common sense will set in.
March 27, 2012 at 11:28 pm
tra
While I think the “polls” above are basically totally meaningless, I do think it will be a close race. Clif has the advantage of incumbency, hometown advantage in the most populous area of the district, and strong support from the professional environmentalist / institutional “progressive” crowds. I think most people in the district, even if they disagree with him on some issues, see him as a nice guy, well-meaning, hardworking and intelligent. I have seen no indication that he’s either grossly incompetent, or corrupt or anything like that.
So given all of that, and the fact that he’s the incumbent, if I had to guess, I’d probably still give Clif at least a 50/50 shot of winning re-election, and maybe even more like a slight favorite. Of course I haven’t seen any polling, so I have no idea where things really stand in terms of the horse-race. But I have heard that folks have been getting polled on all the Supervisor races (by whom, I don’t know) so presumably some folks out there have a better idea how it’s actually shaping up.
However, I do recall how not that long ago you were confidently predicting that if Estelle was his only opponent, he’d be pretty much guaranteed to win re-election easily (your claim at that time was that he’d only really be vulnerable to a challenge from a Fortuna-based conservative). It sounds like you’re no longer quite so swmugly confident of that any more, at least that’s how I’m interpreting the bitter tone of some of your comments, and the casting about for excuses to point to in he event of a possible defeat by Estelle. Frankly I think you’re sounding a bit more negative and desperate than Clif’s situation actually warrants. Whichever way it goes, I think it’s likely to be fairly close. Which is all the more reason that having a prominent SoHum supprter like yourself lashing out in the cranky, cynical, and dismissive way that you have been doing in these comments, is probably not real helpful to his cause. But that’s your prerogative, of course.
March 27, 2012 at 11:45 pm
tra
Hyperbole does tend to attract hyperbole, and I accept my portion of blame in that.
But the fact is that you clearly labeled Estelle a “consevative,” which when you think about it is really pretty laughable given what that label usually means in the context of American politics. I stand by my statement that her lifetime of progressivity is being treated as if it had never happened, all because she has dared to dissent on one plank in the local “progressive” platform. I would note that this seems to be occuring on both sides. I suspect that “progressive”-minded folks will be pleasantly surprised if she wins, and some of the true dyed-in-the-wool conservatives will be less than totally pleased. But frankly I don’t think anyone should be surprised when it turns out that Estelle is still the basically liberal / progressive person that she’s always been. And they certainly shouldn’t be surprised to find out that she’ll be open to opposing points of view, will consider all the arguments, and then try to do what she thinks is best for the district and the County, regardless of people’s expectations, favorable or unfavorable. Despite all your predictions of doom and gloom tonight, I suspect that if she wins election, she’ll turn out to be a fairly moderate, independent, and effective representative for the district. A few more TPZ owners may end up living on their and and failing harvest as much in the short-term as the big industrial logging outfits do, but somehow we’ll survive that hardship too.
March 27, 2012 at 11:59 pm
tra
“TRA – bottom line is that if Estelle wins, and Rex, there will be a 4 to 1 conservative majority on the issues which count.”
Only if you think the GPU and land use issues are the only “issues that count.” If on the other hand, you consider the full range of issues that the Supervisors have to grapple with — everything from health and human services to economic development to budgetary matters, to environmental, social, law enforcement and civil liberties issues — then your 4-1 “conservative majority” scare scenario seems a bit two-dimensional.
March 28, 2012 at 5:12 am
S
It’s really bothersome to have these “regulars” like tra, Ken Miller, Richard Salzman, who knows, posting here under hidden aliases because he’s also posting regularly on Heraldo, the home of more of these cowardly political manipulators. Because these people get arrested for identity fraud and are taken “seriously” by fellow Prog promoters to be used as foils for promoting Prog agendas, even ones pitting Prog against Prog like the current Fennel/Clendenen contest where the real losers are the working class in the 2nd District who have no one in the race representing job creation, the fundamental need in the 2nd District, including SoHum where pot growing is going to pot and alternative industry is the only answer.
March 28, 2012 at 7:33 am
Dave Kirby
Estelle is not a “conservative” by any stretch. I do think she is more pragmatic than many of the lefties who populate these blogs. I too think this will be a close election. Estelle does have support among some of the players up north that supported Rodoni. A large segment of her northern “sponsors” are involved with various aspects of real estate development which is due to her advocacy on behalf of CPR with regards to county land use issues. The problem it seems to me is that some of her northern sponsors are not really popular with the everyday voter.
In the four years that I sat on the county planning commission I don’t recall a single instance where a property owner in a neighborhood targeted for development came forth in support of the project. Hundreds came forth to oppose these projects for obvious reasons. It will be interesting to see how the ‘house on a lot” folks and renters perceive this election. I doubt a majority even know or care what CPR is all about.
March 28, 2012 at 9:46 am
Bolithio
and the fact is that in California the development value of property exceeds most resource extraction value.
When I think of “development”, I think of 40 lots on 10 acres. When I think of a house on a TPZ parcel (which is always at least 40 acres, generally much more), I think of an improvement.
How much ‘development’ value is there really in a 40 acre or more parcel located behind a rough dirt road at least one hour from essential services?
And the resource extraction value is a moving target. When redwood was $1800/MBF, a modest selection harvest could net a 160 acre ownership (with a house) over 1 million dollars. Thats why there were over 300 THPs in Humboldt in 1999. There were only 140 last year. If you manage your property right, you could do that 3 times over a 100 years. Markets have traditionally spiked once a decade.
Forestry requires a long term perspective. Just because the markets have been down for a few years people suddenly think the timber is worthless. People that is, who do not know what to do with it…
Eric you say:
But I do think there are people out there, even many homesteaders, who agree that TPZ should not be treated as rural residential zoned properties – per what you call the “current policy.” There’s a reason for that zoning. Differences in zoning usually means differences in regulation. I think that once people start learning about the issues independent of certain framing, common sense will set in.
Lets assume the worst case scenario, or at least the smallest TPZ parcel. So we have 40 acres. Then, we have a house footprint of 3 acres. What happens to the other 37 acres? How do those acres suddenly become “treated as residential” because of the presence of a house?
I agree with the first part of your claim. I don’t want TPZ to be treated as residential. If it was, the parcel size would be much less than 40 acres! In-fact residential zones are what, 1/16th acre minimums?
March 28, 2012 at 11:07 am
Anonymous
Bolithi said: Let’s assume the worst case scenario, or at least the smallest TPZ parcel. So we have 40 acres. Then, we have a house footprint of 3 acres. What happens to the other 37 acres? How do those acres suddenly become “treated as residential” because of the presence of a house.
How? Well, if you’re a Plan A propagandist, all you have to do is just take the total number of TPZ parcels that have had a home built on them in the last 10 years, and add up not just the 3 acres for each homesite, but the entire acreage of all these TPZ parcels. Now simply declare that all of these x,000 acres of timberland have been “converted to residential” in the last 10 years. Then just cross your fingers and hope that enough people are poorly informed enough and lacking in critical thinking skills enough to accept the claim at face value.
March 28, 2012 at 11:17 am
Eric Kirk
Well I’m sorry if my tone offended you or anyone else, but I think this is the first time I’ve seen the HumCPR gamesmanship on this issue. The misrepresentation, either deliberate or inadvertant, of the Planning Department legal position, and the apparent intransigence on any development oriented regulatory differentiation between TPZ and rural residential (accounting for the lack of suggestions from HumCPR on GPU language- have they proposed anything but the lackadaisical status quo?), and the failure to specifically designate the Plan A wording pertaining to ministerial vs. discretionary processes for readers of their website to decide – combined with the irrational opposition to anything even being stated as a possibility in Plan A (when Plan B will actually be the staff proposal) – I’m beginning to understand the frustration expressed by those “urban environmentalist elitists.”
But I should give the HumCPR folk I know a chance to explain themselves, and I will do just that before commenting further on the issue.
On the issue of whether Estelle’s positions on land use are more conservative – the classic … not “a classic,” but “the classic”… differentiation between left and right dating all the way back to the origin of the terms “left” and “right” in which socialists of the French Third Republic were in the left wing seats of Parliament, and conservatives were in the right wing seats, with liberals in the middle. In the political tensions between property rights and community or social interests, conservatism has always been affiliated with the property rights cause and liberalism and/or socialism with the community/social interests cause. That’s actually what defines those terms, although social and other issues have subsequently been introduced largely due to the cultural and policy differences traditionally accompanying the property rights/social interests conflicts.
Estelle opposes the wars, supports liberal social causes, and culturally identifies with liberalism/leftism in all the general respects. But local governments deal with property rights and social interests on a different level, and in Santa Cruz, my former professor Michael Roetkin, who teaches a popular survey class entitled “Introduction to Marxism,” is a former SDS member and currently a member of Democratic Socialists of America, is very much pro-development when he’s periodically elected to the Santa Cruz city council, and is opposed by controlled growth advocates. He is a leftist, but on the issues which matter for those positions, he is conservative, and receives conservative backing. They found the right formula there as well, although more recently they’ve been stymied a bit.
Locally, on either my blog or on Heraldo’s, upon Estelle’s hiring to head up HumCPR, Rose Welch welcomed Estelle to the fight against socialism. I believe I argued with her at the time. But Rose was right and I was wrong. On the General Plan Update and local property rights issues, she is opposed to socialism. I’m sure she supports socialism for health care reform and other matters. I’m sure she supports progressive taxation, national welfare programs, and perhaps even public housing (though the last time around she opposed inclusionary zoning).
Bolithio – Rural residential can be zoned for less than 40 acres, but most of them are 20 acres and above – some significantly above. So you’re right, TPZ can’t be subdivided as easily. Not yet anyway.
March 28, 2012 at 11:21 am
tra
I posted a comment a few of minutes ago, but I hit return after putting in my e-mail address, but before putting “tra” in the name box.
So if an Anonymous comment shows up shortly after Bolithio’s 9:46, with a (tongue in cheek) answer to his question “How do those acres suddenly become “treated as residential…?” well, that one’s from me.
March 28, 2012 at 11:32 am
Dave Kirby
I don’t think zoning alone is always helpful in deciding what is the appropriate use of a parcel. The problem in many watersheds around here is the lack of infrastructure to support the existing density . Road maintenance, sewage disposal and water supply are a few of the considerations to be looked at before O..K ing a building permit. I doubt the folks who fought for “owner builder codes” would support development that has to be subsidized with trucked in water.
March 28, 2012 at 11:47 am
pointarenabasin
S:
“…working class in the 2nd District who have no one in the race representing job creation.”
The first point on Estelle’s campaign brochure – “Promote Economic Growth by adopting an open door policy to new, well paying job opportunities.”
March 28, 2012 at 11:58 am
tra
Okay, there it is — the 11:07 “Anonymous” comment is actually from me.
Portraying a 3 acre homesite on a 160 acre parcel as converting 160 acres to residential is the Big Lie underlying the hysteria about TPZ residences.
As Bolithio noted, the value of the timber at any given time depends on the current market value, which is currently low, but extremely unlikely to remain that way indefinitely. Meanwhile, when harvesting is deferred, the volume of timber can continue to grow, meaning that the total value when harvested later will greater (as well as greater still if harvested when the market price of that timber is higher).
If the price of ganja continues to drop, and the market value of the timber rises, then somewhere down the line we are likely to end up being very glad that we hadn’t depleted the volume of timber available on these (relatively) small, owner-occupied TPZ parcels.
Being able to tap into some of that stored, growing weath come in very handy in that situation, both in terms of money that will flow into the county coffers in the form of the taxes that will be paid at the time of the harvest, and in terms of the overall revenues that will flow into the economy with the timber industry jobs that will be supported.
And, yes, there will still be some TPZ owner-occupiers who still won’t choose to harvest even when the market for timber is booming (those owners who TPZ critics complain have “no intention of ever harvesting”), and the wildlife and ecosystem will be better off because those people.
I’m just not seeing where there are really any major problems with the way the TPZ program is playing out right now, under the current system. Most of the “problems” that TPZ critics are all wound up about seem to be the result of either false assumptions or unfounded predictions, or both.
March 28, 2012 at 12:46 pm
tra
“On the General Plan Update and local property rights issues, she [Estelle] is opposed to socialism. I’m sure she supports socialism for health care reform and other matters. I’m sure she supports progressive taxation, national welfare programs, and perhaps even public housing…”
That all sounds good to me!
But, wait, when it comes to the General Plan Update and local property issues, isn’t Clif “opposed to socialism” too?
But seriously, obviously neither candidate is for a strictly socialist approach to land use, nor is either candidate for a strictly laissez-faire, no-rules-whatsoever approach to land use. I guess you could say one candidate is a bit closer to one pole and the other candidate is closer to the other pole, but from my point of view they are still much closer to each other than to either of those poles. I suppose electoral politics is largely about highlighting differences, but complaing that Estelle is “opposed to socialism” in relation to the GPU and land use issues, and that this means that she should therefore be labeled a “conservative” just seems a bit silly. I would propose that being “opposed to socialism” on that issue might simply qualify her as a “moderate” on that issue. Of course this stuff is all relative, so “more conservative than her opponent on that one issue” would be a fair description.
March 28, 2012 at 12:48 pm
S
Lipservice, out-of-area opinion point arena person. A Supe’s got to more than say “I stand for job creation”. Where’s any proof of this? Estelle was always on the side of anti-2nd District timber job enviros as news manager for KMUD. I know this for a fact as she “edited” news I reported to fit the KMUD pro-enviro anti-Palco stance. Now she’s cozying up to the other side like a good politician calculating the political winds. But where is there any Estelle record of real visionary leadership? If you want job created you have to work for it by actually working for it, not just giving lip service to win votes in an election campaign.
March 28, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Eric Kirk
But, wait, when it comes to the General Plan Update and local property issues, isn’t Clif “opposed to socialism” too?
Not according to Rose.
March 28, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Bolithio
OK guys; can we find the common ground between David’s 1132 post and TRA’s 1158 post?
Lets ask ourselves why we even care about this issue? I am a forester who helps people manage their timberland, with or without residences, grows, or whatever. I dont own any TPZ, so I have nothing personal at stake beyond vision.
I dont really join political clubs so I know little about these groups you all talk about. My problem is how my experience with county is how they act schizophrenically during the course of various timberland related projects. I believe we can have a reasonable permitting process that doesn’t give developers carte-blanche and likewise does not obstruct economic development.
March 28, 2012 at 1:39 pm
tra
Eric,
So according to you, Rose welcomed Estelle to “the fight against socialism.” That’s not surprising, as way-over-the-top hyperbole is her stock in trade. What I’m finding puzzling is that your previous post seems to indicate that you agree with her.
“Rose Welch welcomed Estelle to the fight against socialism. I believe I argued with her at the time. But Rose was right and I was wrong.”
So I ask you, if Estelle is “fighting against socialism,” does that mean Clif is “fighting in support of socialism?”
Frankly I think both of those statements are equally silly.
March 28, 2012 at 5:46 pm
Not A Native
Eric being cranky becomes you. And BTW, the executive director of the Northcoast Regional Land Trust(a person born and raised in HumCo, depriving local xenophobes of one criticism) has the study that shows reduced rates of timber harvesting for smaller parcels. I haven’t seen the details, just the result.
Now I read the fingerpointers here who say “look at this one that was harvested”, claiming a counterexample is sufficient to change the overall pattern. Well, this isn’t about laws of physics that are never violated. Its about statistical behavior. And to those who say “we’ve got to get 100 years of data before making any conclusion”, you’re in good company with the climate change deniers who use the same deceptive tactic and for the same reason: to continue a status quo because it benefits their personal interests at everyone else’s expense.
March 28, 2012 at 6:09 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, by this definition, yes.
http://kunsoo1024.wordpress.com/2010/11/20/lawrence-odonnell-we-are-all-socialists/
March 28, 2012 at 7:39 pm
pointarenabasin
S:
I thought that was you Stephen. FYI, I am a local.
March 28, 2012 at 8:31 pm
tra
“reduced rates of timber harvesting for smaller parcels.”
And why exactly is that supposed to be a bad thing?
March 29, 2012 at 6:37 am
Bolithio
Oh NAN, always got it all figured out. This is the same study Kirk Gerard referenced when we spoke.
Define “smaller” parcel. And what is a reduced rate? Could it be because selection harvests occur 99% of the time on “smaller” parcels? As Eric said, people who live in the woods like trees, so their harvests tend to be selective. Further, if selective harvested are viewed as more sustainable, whats wrong with these reduced rates? Its not about amount harvested, guys.
Further more, people don’t seem to realize that the majority of timbered parcels that have been sold and improved (house) in the past 20 years where slammed by the previous owners. The timber companies who broke up their holdings; Champion, Eel River, LP, Barnum, and on and on sold their lands after harvesting the trees. Therefore those parcels have not had any volume available for harvesting. The Trust’s study is flawed because they didn’t use forestry to form their conclusions. They started with a hypothesis and found information to support their claim. (While ignoring other important facts. Talk about denying climate change!)
The harvest rates are down on those parcels because the trees are only 10-30 years old! The parcels with available volume are waiting for the right conditions: a landowners desire to sell logs and a decent market.
For some of us, its not about development. Its about having sustainable non-industrial ownerships. And we know a house doesn’t prevent that from occurring. The shift in culture means more selection based systems, and less harvesting at one time. Big news flash, but most people don’t manage their property like green diamond.
March 29, 2012 at 1:12 pm
Not A Native
Well tra its a bad thing for the mills and timber workers and HumCo economy, isn’t it? But your comment shows how insincere you really are when you claim that smaller properties are worhty of TPZ deferrals since they don’t log at lower rates. But now you imply that if they do, its a good thing. Well which is it tra? My guess is the only thing you sincerely like is perpetual tax deferrals for those who aren’t devoted to harvesting timber.
Fact is you’re a supporter of continually having cheap raw land available as a subsidy to reduce economic differences among people. But the ‘funder” of your plan is the environment, which pays the subsidy. Since the environment isn’t unlimited, ultimately the cost of environmental degredation is paid by future people in the form a degraded envoronment and the costs of reclaiming it(if its even possible). But your real deception is that your ideas don’t create more economic justice. Because the subsidized individual convert environmental capital into their personal property(becoming among the wealthy), greedily refusing to pass on their subsidy to others.
And Bolothio, if you know all about the study, then you should also know how ‘smaller parcels’ were defined in it. Actually, you know nothing and as a result just invoke the “Great Satan” Girard to smear the data. Fact is people segment their life activities and don’t dedicate their backyards and frontyards to logging as TPZ mandates. Given a choice, they don’t like living in an industrial forest any more than sleeping in the kitchen.
March 29, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Bolithio
NAN: I don’t invoke KG to smear the data, I was referencing an earlier part of this discussion you butted into. I actually like Kirk, though I disagree with some of his policies. But your not even really reading the conversation are you? “Fact is” the study remains flawed because it is narrow in scope, just like your views on TPZ.
If those parcels did not have homes, guess what, the harvest rate would be identical because there are currently no fucking commercial trees!! Get it?
March 29, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Not A Native
Boithio you just assume those parcels wouldn’t have been logged. You don’t know, you’re just blowing smoke out your ass.
You claim to be a forester. Any competant forester wouldn’t make any asessment of parcels they haven’t surveyed. Clearly, surveying is optional in your style of ‘forestry’. From what I know, the study that found lower logging rates made adjustments for the time of last harvest.
March 29, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Bolithio
No on the contrary NAN, I assume they will be logged. I also know that the parcels which were sold by the timber co. were logged extensively between 1960 and 1980. The recent ones on the 90s. And I dont know what “surveying” you are talking about, but yes I know about the history of logging and have observed most of the counties historic photos from 1940 to present. Non to mention the thousands of acres I have walked on personally. Whats the basis for your claims again?
March 29, 2012 at 4:55 pm
gpf
NAN your ignorance should embarrass you. “…logging as TPZ mandates.”
There is no mandate in the TPZ that timber must be logged, nor should there be. Logging must be planned, not mandated. What is not logged now is left for the future.
I am amused by Eric’s rants. The only difference is, Eric knows he is on shaky ground, but persists in regurgitating Healthy Humboldt ignorance. He’s a professional, and once he has a “client” he’ll stick with him to the bitter end.
You NAN, in my opinion, are simply ignorant.
March 29, 2012 at 5:56 pm
gpf
I re-read and yes, I’m harsh.
I am ignorant too. I would be exposing my ignorance of 17th century English literature if I lectured you on Jonathan Swift and the role of satire.
TPZ is a progressive solution the previous annual taxation on valuable property that may make money over a period of 35 to 75 years. This was a very real financial burden every year, and generally was paid by re-logging every few years just to pay the taxes. This was terrible. The TPZ was a godsend that allowed the woods to be managed properly.
In the meantime, California Division of Forestry and Fish and Game rules (good rules to guide Timber Harvest Plan) have become strict, the whole process expensive, and would forbid going back in to log every coulpe of years. Without the TPZ, the timber would once again be taxed every year, with no way to pay the taxes.
March 30, 2012 at 11:45 am
Dave Kirby
Whichever position one takes in this debate about building on TPZs the time has come for the county to step up to the plate and “get her done”. Ever since the board decided to change the rules to get into the Maxam ranchette controversy property owners and potential buyers have been wandering around in limbo unsure of what is allowed on a parcel. As soon as this election is over they need to make a decision and get clear on this issue. Oh …and as to job creation by the board of supervisors. I,ve been hearing this B.S. for thirtysome years. Every election the candidates mouth platitudes in answer to this problem when in fact there is very little the board can do in this area. If you take lawyers and consultants out of the equation their actions have created zero jobs in the private sector. As virtually all agricultural production, legal and otherwise is regulated by the state and feds the county is about day to day services… pot holes, police and social services should be the focus.
March 31, 2012 at 9:10 am
Anonymous
Funny how Estelle is now labeled a “conservative” because she doesn’t buy into the Healthy Humbolt dogma lock, stock and barrel. Decades of involvement in progressive issues and sympathy for environmental concerns are apparently all washed away, and now she’s Rush Limbaugh on steroids in the view of the HH true believers.
Why did Fennell vote to endorse Allison Jackson over Gallegos when she was on the Democratic Central Committee?
March 31, 2012 at 9:32 am
Forest Queen
114 comments about criminal parasites. How many more weeks is this waste of energy going to go on? ONLY THE NAMES CHANGE, nothing more. In my Humboldt opinion, I’d think we should be a bit more concerned that the present Supes. deleted parts of the California Government Code in their agenda item just before (and after hours of public input) their vote to impose an illegal/unlawful ‘Interim Emergency (whatever that is) Ordinance.’ Or perhaps that we have an unconstitutional Sheriff, i.e. NOT an Oath Keeper. Or perhaps that Eureka is poised to hire a new Chief of Police next week…via the City Manager! Read the colorful pamphlet application. The City Manager, a desk job, pencil pusher will be in charge of Eureka’s Police Dept!!! Meaning that this new Chief will be chosen from the pool of the good ol boy’s club.
March 31, 2012 at 10:37 am
Bill Barnum
Apologies to you Eric, and tra, for not spotting this thread earlier. I am happy to weigh in (belatedly) on the topic above re 51104(h)(6).
The definition of “compatible uses” in TPZ includes, per se, a residence. This is stated simply and directly in that subsection. Then the legislature included another category of use in TPZ, separated from the per se approved use of a residence, that is: “or other structure necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production.” I assume this means something like an equipment storage shop, or the like.
I am not at my office as I write, so I do not have the case citation for you, but the rule of statutory construction respecting the word “or” is simple enough: the words to the left of the “or” stand alone, as the disjunctive is meant to apply only to the words which follow the “or.” Thus, the word “necessary” qualifies the term “other structure,” but not the prior word, “residence.”
This makes common sense, too. A residence is NEVER necessary to the management of timberland. Convenient? Yes. Desirable? Of course. But necessary? Never. All decisions about the management of timberland can be made by owners and managers when they are off the property. Take, for example, the life work of a Registered Professional Forester. They are consultants to timberland owners. Yes, they do go to the properties to assess site conditions, but they are capable of making their forestry recommendations to the owner away from the property. Then the owner can decide management choices. All that discernment and deciding can, and is usually, made off the site. Thus, logically, one never needs to reside on the TPZ property to “manage” it. It is NEVER necessary to the management of TPZ to reside on it.
Another point. What if a TPZ owner has 10 parcels of timberland. Is it your thought, Eric, that such owner can only have a residence on one of the 10 parcels? What if that owner has a parcel in Humboldt, another in Shasta and still another in El Dorado County near Tahoe. Could that owner have a residence on each parcel? Of course they could.
I am astounded that you are still stuck on this issue, Eric. Next week, please call me at my office so I can share that case citation with you. This is not complicated. It is a simple issue of construction of the statute.
Tra, I cannot understand why you think this is strained reasoning. Your suggestion that the legislature could have avoided this issue by separating the word “residence” from the rest of the subsection(h)(6) only makes sense if we ignore the legal meaning of the word “or.”
If the law had the conjunction “and” in the place of the word “or,” it would have read “A residence AND other structure necessary …” The word “necessary” would then apply to the word “residence.” Such an edit would not end the dispute, however, because of the indisputable fact that a residence is NEVER necessary to the management of timberland.
I will say it again, 5 years after this was first debated, if Humboldt County regulates the construction of a residence in TPZ contrary to the clear and simple reading of 51104(h)(6), it will be sued. I seriously doubt a trial court will ignore the long-standing rule of statutory construction of the word “or” to satisfy the desires of a a few North Coast progressives.
Moreover, removing the right to build a residence as a principally permitted use on TPZ will reduce the desirability of owning TPZ lands, making such lands less desirable as long term investments. Lands will become cheaper, less desirable, and easier for governmental agencies and land trusts to acquire and take out of production. What? Hey, maybe the goal of the progressives has come clear? Drive down the value of TPZ, acquire it, and end the timber industry. Hmm.
March 31, 2012 at 10:55 am
Anonymous
Forest Queen, you may not view elections as important but obviously some of us do. Maybe you should ask Eric to start another discussion more to your liking.
March 31, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Forest Queen
You are correct Anonymous. Eric, please start another thread.
March 31, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Eric Kirk
Thanks Bill, and no apologies necessary. I will definitely call you, because we have other business to catch up on anyway. But I will be starting the sixth week of a trial – hopefully ending by Monday, but I’ve had similar hopes in previous weeks where the initial estimate had been two weeks. I would very much like to discuss this further.
I wouldn’t say that I am “stuck” on the issue. I simply read the statute, and common sense differently.
The last time we discussed the issue, I wanted to check as to whether the word “or” is always used in the form you suggest, and I really doubt that there’s a general rule of law which displaces basic grammar universally, regardless of the structure of the sentence, not to mention the concept.
The sentence:
(6)A residence or other structure necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production.
If the sentence read, “A residence or structure necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production. Unfortunately, the “other” presents a problem for your interpretation. It would basically allow for residences which aren’t necessary, and “other structures, which are – excluding the residences which are deemed necessary. And of course that would make no sense. Where “or” might have severed the concepts, “other” conjoins them.
And I don’t see why the legislature, if they intended to regard all residences as compatible – inconceivable to my point of view – then they ought to have separated it out into a separate sentence and category altogether.
I don’t agree that a residence is never “necessary” to the management of the resources unless “necessasry” is interpreted in the extreme – namely that it’s impossible to manage in its absence. I don’t believe that any structure is absolutely necessary. There are residences (for a caretaker or owner) and other structures which are extremely useful and convenient, and therefor “necessary.”
And it’s even more about common sense when you consider that this list isn’t exclusive, but only that it constitutes what is compatible per se – safe harbor if you meet the criteria. Otherwise, you have to make a showing that your proposed usage would not be incompatible. By your reading, there’s nothing (legally) to prevent someone from buying the land and covering it with tract housing, since all residences are deemed “compatible.”
“And” wouldn’t make sense. That would require a residence AND another structure – and only one of either would not be compatible per se.
And Bill, your last sentence is the most troublesome, because it confirms the concerns I’ve raised about the relative value of the land pursuant to each usage. If indeed the residential development of the land is the most valuable usage, and unfortunately in many cases it is, and you need that development potential as an incentive for investment in timber lands, then maybe timber is already dead as an industry, and maybe the TPZ zoning is outdated and we should pull the plug on it entirely. But then let’s make that a conscious decision, eliminate the tax deferment for timber inventory, and let them make the maximum economic usage for the short tterm and worry about the county’s economic base later, if ever. But once those “kingdoms” are built, it’s over for timber production on those pieces – assuming they manage to sell them.
There’s going to be a lawsuit either way.
Siskyou County requires a timber management plan before any residence can be built on TPZ land. That’s not a very progressive county, not even with the hippies taking over the town of Shasta since the Harmonic Convergence. I have no idea what is supposed to go into the plans that get filed, but I suspect the ordinance was passed simply to remind buyers that they aren’t purchasing residential country property. Unfortunately, this county never bothered to send any such signals, and everybody from the Realtors to the Title Companies, and perhaps even some attorneys, dropped the ball in failing to warn people that TPZ is not rural residential. Prices should have reflected the potential risk for those who were purchasing the property to homestead, or to invest and subdivide.
In the meantime, a precedent establishing that all residences, no matter what, are inherently compatible, would pretty much nullify section 51104 and related codes, because in California huge swathes of resource and ag land are being covered up by housing. No, it hasn’t happened here yet. But what I’ve seen in Carmel Valley, South Lake Tahoe, and much of the 1-5 corridor, is scary. At least in Sonoma County, which built at a pace much faster than sustainable, you have vineyard usage value competing with development value, but I’m concerned that the dumps of Australian and Chilean wines into the domestic market will change that verdict as well.
March 31, 2012 at 3:58 pm
Eric Kirk
FQ – Sure. What are you looking for in a discussion?
March 31, 2012 at 4:19 pm
Eric Kirk
But Bill, I forgot the real point of asking you here. Is this where the debate about “discretionary” vs. “ministerial” permits is hinging, or is it in addition to or a separate issue altogether (with a dysjunctive “or”)? Do you know the precise language?
March 31, 2012 at 4:34 pm
tra
“California huge swathes of resource and ag land are being covered up by housing.”
One residence on a 160 acre TPZ parcel isn’t going to consume “huge swathes” of resource land. As you well know, subdivision is a separate issue, and you can’t just subdivide that 160 down into 1/4 acre lots without permission.
Conflating one residence on a 160 acre parcel with the kind of residential subdivisions that “cover up” resource lands is ridiculous — and when done by someone who should obviously know better, it seems rather disingenuous, to say the least.
March 31, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Bill Barnum
Thanks Eric,
I look forward to your call.
Our differences are obvious. I come to the issue with the understanding that one’s ability to live on an owned parcel would never have been questioned in the common law. The bundle of rights theory, and so forth. I think of land rights in a traditional sense.
You seem to come from the progressive point of view that land rights are socially determined. You seem to disregard the fundamental rights concept that all uses are allowed unless specifically disallowed. You also have some fear-based concerns that are to me, nonsensical.
No, I do not want to see tract housing in TPZ. Really? You were not serious about that point, were you? I subscribe to the existing General Plan-approved density of 1 residence per 160 unless a timber management plan is approved, in which case 1 residence per 40 makes sense. As in Siskiyou County, where, by the way, the timberland productivity is much less per acre, it somehow made sense to the people there to tie to proof of an intention to manage for timber production. Humboldt County timberlands are among the most productive on the planet for growing timber per acre per year.
Not all timbered acres are covered in timber. Most Humboldt County timberlands are diversely covered with conifer and hardwoods, with some meadow acres inter-mixed. One can usually site a residence in TPZ without impacting timber growth, and even the removal of up to 3 acres out of 160 can be reasonably regarded as a de minimis effect.
Your point of view that it is “inconceivable” that the legislature intended that all (any) residences would be principally permitted, per se, as compatible, reflects your fear, explained later in your post, that the hills will become “covered up by housing.” Humboldt County’s traditional view allowing residences in TPZ has not resulted in that feared result. And it will not. SIte suitability standards still apply, as does common sense. When we asked how many building permits had been let in TPZ in the last decade, I recall the number was in the neighborhood of 35 or less.
To me, this debate is much ado about not much. The de minimis impact of permitted housing in TPZ is not a real issue. It is, like zoning itself, man-made.
Your comment that the word “other” somehow conjoins “residence” with “structure,” is mind-numbing. The word “other” falls after the word “or.” It qualifies the next word, “structure,” not the initial term of the sentence, “residence.” I read the words “other structure” to simply mean a structure that is not a residence (eg, a shop building that the owner finds necessary to the management of the lands for timberland production). That the word “other” is a limiting expression should be obvious. It does not conjoin.
Lastly, I would ask you to consider the question, “Why would the legislature intend that an owner of land could not reside on it?” What compelling social good flows from telling a landowner they cannot live on their land, assuming site suitability is shown?
Looking forward to your thoughts and call this week.
March 31, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Forest Queen
Our present situation. Perhaps I should include something for us to ‘chew’ on: We do not have a Sheriff who is an Oath Keeper, and I’ve approached him several times about this, one on record at a Supes. meeting. Eight counties around us have Sheriffs who are Oath Keepers: Del Norte Trinity, Siskiyou, Plumas, Tehama, Lassen, Modoc and Shasta. In other words, to command the deputies to respond to an unlawful command, such as swooping down on the Occupiers, violates the Constitution for peaceful assemblage. ‘Occupying’ is world-wide. The deputies who choose to follow an unlawful command are also breaching their oath contract. ‘Duty’ has two meanings, and the choice is individual. It can be a moral decision, or a ‘legal’ obligation.
CA INC’S ‘Codes’ are copyright owned by the BAR -British Accreditation Registry, domiciled within an area called THE CITY in London, England, and doing business as a foreign based S-Corp through the State of Illinois, and all its publishing houses in America. Thousands are ‘cited’ and/or imprisoned in a ‘Correctional Facility’ merely because they have offended a privately copyrighted California Code! Nothing to do with ‘law.’
It gets worse…since 1993 ‘judges’ issue an ‘Abstract of judgment’ a form ‘adopted’ by the CA Judicial Council. As set forth in Payne v Madigan (1960) CA 9 Cal and affirmed in 1961 “judgment of conviction is one signed by the judge.” An ‘Abstract of judgment’ form provides no signature line for the judge or the court clerk. An ‘Abstract’ is a bond. It’s all an ACT, an Illusion.
To date I have received no copies of requested Certified Oaths (from the Supes., or the clerk/recorder Carolyn Crvnch), refused recording documents (a counter clerk told me, and I had witness/friends with me, that no one in the recorder’s office has taken an oath!), and barred from justice in meeting with a Magistrate last Wednesday (28th), as their are deputies posted outside the doors to the courtrooms. I, along with two friends, were threatened with arrest if we entered a courtroom!
How important is an Oath? Well, Stanley Kubrick was murdered before he finished filming ‘Eyes Wide Shut’ for not upholding his Oath.
We are behind the Redwood Curtain, and seemingly can’t be seen or heard.
March 31, 2012 at 7:03 pm
Bolithio
Eric says: “And I don’t see why the legislature, if they intended to regard all residences as compatible – inconceivable to my point of view – then they ought to have separated it out into a separate sentence and category altogether.”
I keep seeing two key terms pop up in this discussion. Compatible and Necessary For. As a forester, I have been trained to differentiate these two terms. Compatible: to exist in harmony. If a use does not obstruct or prevent timber management from occurring, than the intent of the zone is being met. Why is is inconceivable that the legislature intended to cite a house as compatible?
Lets look at another example from the legislature. That is the Exemption section of the Forest Practice Act. In this provision, a timberland owner is aloud to file for a one time exemption on a parcel where an area up to a maximum of 2.9 acres can be converted to a non-forest use; primarily used for a house. In my mind, this provision further demonstrates the intent of allowing for a residence on a TPZ parcel. Now this provision applies to all timberland not just TPZ, but this also shows how a county can regulate the taxation of a parcel by assessing the converted areas differently – which they do. The provision also includes the need to consult with the county to comply with their open space elements and what not.
I think there is a fair argument that the legislator was not considering substandard TPZ parcels, that is ones less than 160 acres. These parcels are allowed under the current rules to a minimum of 40 acres with a JTMP. While most of the time this document serves to ensure ongoing and future management is still feasible do the reduced size; it doesn’t due much to ensure a future residence will not end up in a unfavorable place on the land. In this case, I believe some form of additional evaluation – one by an RPF in corporation with the County – would make sense.
State my assumptions:
160 TPZ parcel or larger; a single residence is 99.9% compatible with the intent of the Zone.
A sub-standard parcel; 40-159 acres, some additional planning and evaluation may be warranted to ensure the residence is compatible. Some are, some aren’t.
And Eric, can we recognize that with parcels of this size, we wont see the development you see cite in other parts of the State. Those places changed their zoneing, i assume, to make way for housing developments. That is different than a single residence/cabin/off the grid house we see on our lands.
March 31, 2012 at 7:18 pm
Bill Barnum
Excellent points, Bolithio.
And it reminds me that at 1 residence per 160 acre TPZ parcel we are talking about 4 homes in a square mile. At 1 residence per 40 acre parcel we are talking about 16 homes per square mile.
Contrast that to tract developments, with a home on each 10,000 square feet, counting roadways, and you have 640 homes per square mile.
At currently permitted densities, principally permitted homes in TPZ are contrasted at a rate of 4 homes per square mile to 640 homes per square mile for tract densities.
Eric, you have nothing to fear with the current state of the law.
March 31, 2012 at 7:55 pm
Ben Dover
Dave mentioned owner building that is subsidized by trucked in water… you must know that’s the plan, don’t you? The county has already given it’s blessing to subdivisions in the Mattole watershed as long as landowners get big tanks and say it’s water. Then they can buy water from the South Fork to fill up their big tanks.
And, too, the county has decided in the general plan update to concentrate development in the areas where services are.Urban growth densities. So, pretty much all of southern humboldt is up for grabs.
GSD is annexing or adding over a thousand acres to their district, which can then be developed at urban densities, and massively increasing their water treatment capacity to the tune of six million dollars funded by CDPH, but claiming that there is no need for an EIR because it won’t induce growth!
March 31, 2012 at 9:34 pm
Ben Dover
Actually, up for grabs is not the right, upon reflection. Screwed is more like it, unless you’re one of the big landowners salivating over speculation in plunder.
April 1, 2012 at 7:34 am
gpf
Eric: “There’s going to be a lawsuit either way.” Really? On what grounds?
April 1, 2012 at 8:38 am
Eric Kirk
On the grounds of non-compliance with Government Code section 51104(h)(6).
April 1, 2012 at 11:16 am
erniebranscomb
Why do I always have to see things differently? The major concern over people building in the backwoods and forest land is that it is close to impossible to provide fire protection to those structures. There has been some talk about minimum standards for road widths and turn around spaces, water supplies and emergency vehicle traffic. However, wider roads are highly destructive to the environment. Most stable roads are barely wide enough to pass one vehicle.
I don’t agree with big wide roads that could pass multiple large vehicles. What I think would be a more prudent approach to back-woods housing would be to provide a rural landowners test proving that a person understands the liability and drawbacks of building a structure in such places, and that they could provide an adequate margin of safety for themselves and their family. If they pass the test, they should be allowed to build.
People should be allowed to live in a forest setting on land that they own as long as they are not unreasonably infringing on other people.
April 1, 2012 at 11:16 am
erniebranscomb
Why do I always have to see things differently? The major concern over people building in the backwoods and forest land is that it is close to impossible to provide fire protection to those structures. There has been some talk about minimum standards for road widths and turn around spaces, water supplies and emergency vehicle traffic. However, wider roads are highly destructive to the environment. Most stable roads are barely wide enough to pass one vehicle.
I don’t agree with big wide roads that could pass multiple large vehicles. What I think would be a more prudent approach to back-woods housing would be to provide a rural landowners test proving that a person understands the liability and drawbacks of building a structure in such places, and that they could provide an adequate margin of safety for themselves and their family. If they pass the test, they should be allowed to build.
People should be allowed to live in a forest setting on land that they own as long as they are not unreasonably infringing on other people.
April 1, 2012 at 11:17 am
erniebranscomb
Why do I always have to see things differently? The major concern over people building in the backwoods and forest land is that it is close to impossible to provide fire protection to those structures. There has been some talk about minimum standards for road widths and turn around spaces, water supplies and emergency vehicle traffic. Wider roads are highly destructive to the environment. Most stable roads are barely wide enough to pass one vehicle.
I don’t agree with big wide roads that could pass multiple large vehicles. What I think would be a more prudent approach to back-woods housing would be to provide a rural landowners test proving that a person understands the liability and drawbacks of building a structure in such places, and that they could provide an adequate margin of safety for themselves and their family. If they pass the test, they should be allowed to build.
People should be allowed to live in a forest setting on land that they own as long as they are not unreasonably infringing on other people.
April 1, 2012 at 12:57 pm
pathetic actually
wow! triplicate ernie.
April 1, 2012 at 1:15 pm
humboldturtle
Ernie, Ernie, Ernie. What is “reasonable infringing”?
April 1, 2012 at 2:42 pm
erniebranscomb
Hi Turltle
“What is “reasonable infringing”?”
Breathing the same air.
To a lesser degree, drinking the same water.
To a lesser degree yet, living on the same land.
And, to an even lesser degree, apparently, living in the same forest.
April 1, 2012 at 2:47 pm
erniebranscomb
Unresonable infringing would be impatiently posting three times while awaiting moderation…
April 1, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Not A Native
Bill Barnum writes:
“(Eric) You also have some fear-based concerns that are to me, nonsensical.”
And he also wirtes:
Lands will become cheaper, less desirable, and easier for governmental agencies and land trusts to acquire and take out of production. What? Hey, maybe the goal of the progressives has come clear? Drive down the value of TPZ, acquire it, and end the timber industry.
Clearly, its Barnum who is driven by ‘fear-based” nonsensical concerns. And he projects that attitude onto Eric. That demonsgtrates to me he has no perspective about himself or he’s duplicitous. But Eric isn’t fearful, he’s watchful. Of what iis actually happening here and has happened elsewhere.
Its no secret that Barnum is principally motivated by the prospect of increasing his TPZ land values. One certain way he can do that is by having it available for rural residential use. And while he’s waiting for motivated buyers with rural residential cash to show up, he can continue to defer taxes on the land as TPZ. And sure, he cuts some timber for ‘walking around money’, but the real payoff will come from ‘landscape’ trees not ‘timber’ trees.
April 1, 2012 at 7:12 pm
Anonymous
Here are Clendenen’s endorsements. Mike Thompson? Indeed! But is that a good thing?
Congressman Mike Thompson
Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro
Supervisor Jimmy Smith
Mike & Lisa Losey
Julie Woodall
Bud Leonard
Sally Tanner
Allan Katz
Jacque Smith
Mike & Debra Lake
John Rice
Mel & Holly Kreb
Kent & Teri Bradshaw
Jon Sapper
Mickey Barsanti
Greg & Sandy Dale
Erin Wall
Elvis & Linda Bartleson
Harley & Barbara Baumgart
Jan & Vern Belisle
Connie Berti
Donald & Donna Berti
Rob & Phil Berti
Mary & Bob Besanceney
Pat Blair
Lynde & Greg Perry
Hernan Medina
James & Cathy Bragg
Jeff & Brenda Brazil
Melanie & Kevin Cunningham
Blair Brenda
Clarissa Brogoitti
Don Brown
Leroy Partridge
Craig & René Brown
Steve & Michelle Brown
Scott Brown
Barbara Browning
Jay Byker
Maggie Carey
Lester Drew
Rick & Jo Anne Center
Walter & Christie Chalton
Mike & Cheryl Wells
Dana & Art Christen
Charles Clem
Carol Clendenen
Laurie Clendenen
Drew Clendenen
Sandra & Wally Close
Dan & Susie Coleman
Jeremy Shaw
Mark Condes
Carrie Conine
Virginia Graziani
Rita Rundell
Susan & Christopher Cooper
John W. Corbett
Gary & Nancie Courtemanche
Kris & Edna Kitna
Don & Mercedes Crispin
Bonnie Mathes
Marge Custis
Toni & Steve Scolari
Connie Davies
Mark Davis
Ruth & Larry Dekat
Karen Del Angelo
Jorge del Rio
David & Patty Demant
Cindy Denbo
Barbara Domanchuk
Terry & Emma Donovan
Mark Drake
Tom Sutherland
Jere & Carole Cox
Anna Hamilton
Vern & Andria Eldridge
Barney & Joan Elking
Bert & Velma Embree
Gene & Vicki Fairchild
Laurel Farnham
Pam Halstead
Maile & Neal, MD Feuerman
Alan Fox
Nel Fregoso
Alan & JoAnn French, OD
Bob & Barbara Froehlich
Lisa Fryrear
Carl Fullbright, MD
Nelly Galeana
Mary Gearheart
Bruce Gehrke
Chris Weston
Dean Glaser
Mark & Carol Bryant
Gloria Gold
Joe Collins
Mary Goodale
Loene Gossett
Ted Ostrow
John Griffin
Joanne Grundhofer
Phil & Diane Grunert
Chauncey Wilburn
Kendra & André Guimaraes
Gary Gundlach
David & Susan Hagemann
Anne Nicksic
Benjamin Payne
Sherry Hanson
Rio Anderson
David & Ilene Harris
Jennifer & Jacob Hayes
Sal & Naomi Steinberg
Harmon Hebert
Lori Hendrick
John & Jacqueline Henry
Bill & Martha Hoffmann
Bill & Colleen Hole
Paul & Carol Holzberger
Renee Hopper
Wendy & Dave Hornsby
Sallie & Bill Houston
Dennis & Ellie Huber
Chuck & Sally Dwelley
David V. Hull
Hal Hummel
Albert & Betty Hunt
Michael & Jerry Hurst
Liz Murgia
Robin & Enoch Ibarra
William & Debbie Jeffries
Scott Jewell
Mark & Linda Mowrey
Howard Penn
Maria & Ken Jorgenson
Jim Lamport
J’Anne & Rod Kausen
Greg & Carol Conners
Pete & Nina Kayes
Ron Kelly
David Reed
Eric V. Kirk
Jana Kirk-Levine
Karen & Stephen Underwood
Sally Klinetobe
Mike Gibbs
Hal & Ellen Krohn
Peter & Cheryl Krueger
Harold & Barbara Johnson
Isaac & Heather Lake
Nancy & Jerry Wilson
Gloria Launer
Ted Vivatson
Alan & Teresa Lewis
Bob Satterlee
Fred Long
Robert Long
Corinne Losey
Russ Brown
Kale Low
Lynn Marchand
Rodney Marchetti
Erika Lesku
Deanna Lesku
Dean & Tami Martin
Diane Martin-Kelly
Rueben & Susan Rios
Michael May
Sharon McCarrell
Dan McClelland
Deryl McClenagan
Bernice McWhorter
John & Sallie Robey
Carol Merrill
Merritt Minnick
Jack & Jonelle Monschke
Alan Wigman
Andrew & Rosie Morris
Greg Morse
Orlando Payne
Becky Murphy
Holly & Joe Myler
Lane Simmons
William Nash
Eric Nelson
Paul Nelson
Corinne Fearrien
Judy & Denver Nelson, MD
Harold & Olga Neufeld
Alan Wigman
Tami & Jeff Northern
Phil Olkin, MD.
Ellen Osten
Barbara & Jim Truitt
John Palmer
Karen Parlato
Duane & Diana Plant
Joe Barrote
Sue & Cyrus Patterson
Orville & Jo Anne Smith
William Thorington
Pat & Jim Pedrotti
Bill Pence
Joe Toroni
Tony & Elena Perez
Laurel Nelson
John Peterson
Dennis & Sherry Hazelton
Bet & Ken Pinkerton
Adam & Mandy Pinkerton
Bradley & Jennifer Pitek
Jim & Linda Barsanti
John & Margie Plant
Jackson Pollock
Kim & Leah Price
Dennis Rael
Pete Dulick
Carlos & Jana Reveles
Dan & Louise Waters
Bob & Dottie Riffenburg
Chuck & Faye Riley
Ron Alexander
Jim & Francene Rizza
MaryJo Casasanta
Erika Rosenberg, MD
Greg Rumney
James Anderson, MD
Helen & John Rust
Rick Ruud
Joseph & Colleen Sagaser
Mike Wilson
JoAnn Sapper
Bob Harris
Sharyn & Gene Lodes
Elizabeth Conner
Marvin Schwartz
John Woolley
Ron Sharp
Pete West
Odell Shelton
Phil Shultis
Michael Guerriero
Emily Sinkhorn
Todd & Jennifer Golder
Rosina & Ed Lewis
Stan Smith
Donald Baird M.D.
Jim & Corinne Stanfield
Louise Starrett
Paul Welsand
Elaine Cacci
Sheryl Stevens
Amy Stewart
Jennifer Kayes
Allen & Melinda Swank
Curley Tait
Dona Blakely
Kermit & Marshelle Thobaben
Arnie & Kathleen Kemp
Wilma & Jack Thompson
Michael Hughes
David Thomson
David & Janet Walling
Vicki Brazil
Patrice Trevoledes
Laszlo Lesku
Ted & Jo Trichilo
Don & Sherry Jewett
Rick & Signora Pierceall
Rosemarye Valentine
Jim & Roberta Verbich
Tina Helton
Sharon Vinum
Jimmie Ballinger
Jack Wahlls
Kevin Barnhart
Mike & Nancy Thompson
Elizabeth Wardell
Jean & John Montgomery, MD
Gary & Lynn Baker, MD
Jerome Simone
George & Peggy Patmore
(partial list)
April 2, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Anonymous
If John and Theresa Porter are so solidly behind estelle, why did they give Clif $300? Does not sound like they are completely solid to me.
April 2, 2012 at 6:41 pm
pointarenabasin
Because they gave Estelle over $2,635.00 in donations.
April 2, 2012 at 7:36 pm
Anonymous
Hmmm. The TS article says the Benbow Inn gave a non-monetary donation of $1306. Did estelle and her campaign file this $2,635 in donations? I don’t see this filing? Can you tell me where it is?
April 2, 2012 at 8:35 pm
Eric Kirk
Oops. Ernie, I didn’t read your three posts. How did you end up in moderation anyway?
Bill – fear based? Fear of what? I’m just asking for a policy differentiation between TPZ zoning and rural residential – even if it’s a minor one just to remind buyers that it is designated resource land so that there’s no shock if and when rules change. It really isn’t too much to ask.
It can even be a “ministerial” process. You meet the criteria, you have safe harbor. Minimal discretion, if any.
April 2, 2012 at 8:37 pm
pointarenabasin
Must I do all your work?
April 3, 2012 at 8:30 am
Anonymous
Please, yes? Or are you shucking and jiving me with your number$?
AS far as TPZ, what about all those marijuana growers who have purchased smaller TPZ parcles, never intending to “log” their land, take advantage of the TPZ tax breaks, grow pot, build a house, still take advantage of the TPZ tax break, cut down some trees to grow more pot, have water trucks deliver their water, diesel trucks deliver their diesel,flatten hill sides to grow more pot, etc.
Then we have people like Bill B. and Bob McKee, who take advantage of the TPZ or Williamson Act tax break,log the land, sell it to an un-suspecting buyer, who has to deal with the mess.
April 3, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Anonomous
No wonder Celendens people are attacking Fennell, look at the support she’s getting.
Business Owners Endorse Estelle Fennell
Dr. Roy Baker & Janice Parakilas – Optometry
Allan Baird – Baird Engineering
Ernie & Janis Branscomb – Branscomb Center
David & Karyn Thomas – Signature Coffee
Ray and Terri Maher – Maher Mountain Shires
Teresa & John Porter – Benbow Inn
Bob McKee – Whitethorn Construction
Harold & Donna Mendes – Mendes Storage
Gary Futrell – The Cuttings
Craig Lehman – Redwood Properties
Peg Andersen & Yashi Hoffman – Chautauqua Natural Foods
Beth Bennett – Amillia’s Gourmet Food
Kristina Brooks – Partners in Grime
Debbie Brooks – Who’s Your Barber
Keith Bowman – Grandfather Tree
Sylvia Brodersen – Yours & Mine
Peter Connolly – Calico’s Restaurant
Elk Prairie Vineyards
Whitethorn Winery
Michael Caldwell – Inn of the Lost Coast
Jack Sanford – Shelter Cove Deli & Campground
Moses Danzer – BBQ to You
Bear Gratzel – Boot Leg
Nicole Wick - Yours & Mine
Brian Harper – Specialized Woodworks
Mark Hilovsky & Rod Silva – Rain Catchers
Kim Phelps & Rob Gellman – New Harris Store
David Katz – Alternative Energy
T & Anita Wright – Wrights Backhoe
Autumn Hargrave – Fish Tank Restaurant
Jim Johnson – Humboldt House Inn
Brian & Robin Elie – Madrone Realty
Pete & Nickie Genolio – Genolio Trucking
Toni Genaro – Insuring Humboldt
Loreen Eliason – Riverwood Inn
Gail & Kevin Arnoul – Arnoul Electric
Craig Parkinson – Parkinson’s Builder’s
Leon & Elaine Warmuth – Leon’s Car Care Center
Don Orazem – Lock Doktor
Arleen Olson – Olson Photography
Bill & Marilyn Stewart – Blue Star Gas
Greg Pfau – Humboldt Performance Cycle
Nicole Foley – Glamorous
Shawn & Aurora Studebaker – Randall’s Sand & Gravel
Chris & Brigette Brannan – Garberville Theatre
Ron Olson – Southern Humboldt Builders Service
Judy Davis – Judy Davis Insurance
James Darin – Joaillier
Cindi Oney & Charlie Bertain – Just Rent It
Gordy Bishop – Guinevere’s Candles
Fred Grundman – Grundmans Sporting Goods
Tom McBride – Deer Horn Market
Rick Poe – Splash Pool & Spa
Gary Trone – Fortuna Motors (Garberville)
Cathy Studebaker – Randall’s Sand & Gravel
Mitchell Cronk – Color Impressions
Michael Dominick – Coastal Business Systems
Rob McLaughlin – Eureka Ready Mix
Rob McBeth – Air Tight Heating & Sheet Metal
Jack Rieke – Shafer’s Ace hardware
Joe Russ – Russ Ranch
George & Mary Schmidbauer – Schmidbauer Lumber
Andra Stringer – Imagination Studios
Dennis Wendt – Wendt Construction
Johnny Wise – Johnny’s Flooring
Frank Wilson – Frw3 Consulting
Sharon Simmons – Shalamar’s Styling Salon
Blake Lehman – Lehman Real Estate Appraisals
John Angus – JANGUS Design
kris kelsoe – Kelsoe Marketing
Joan Courtois – Courtois Accounting Services
Bernie Korbley – Korbley’s Wood Products
Individuals
Chuck & Marla Acridge
Jeanette Ahlgren
Susan Alban
Francis Anna Aldridge
Bonnie Allor
Brian & Melanie Anderson
Bea Anderson
Chestine Anderson
Chuck Andersen
Julia Andersen
Laurie & Daniel Andrews
Lily Aquarian
Connor Ashenbrucker
Joe Ashenbrucker
Bonnie Auerbach
Paul & Debi August
Eric & Babette Bach
Allan & Crickett Baird
Bob Baker
Dena Baker
Michael Balt
Dan & Pat Baleme
Paul & Betsy Bareilles
Bill Barnum
Julie Baumgart
Fred & Belle Baron
Hal Bahr
Karen Barsanti
Joan Becker
Kenny & Jenny Beebe
Jay & Linda Bell
Bob Bell
Mike & Tracy Benbow
Joyce Benton
Pamela Berry
Bill Bertain
Charley Bertain
Mel & Sharon Berti
Ray Bevitori
Lewis David Bisconer
Bonnie Blackberry
Betty Boeglin
Andrea Boldt
Ester Anna Boozer
Willie & Rosie Bosco
Ann Bowen
Alan Brainerd
Nancy Branch
Chris & Brigette Brannan
Ernie Branscomb
Margo Bray
Linda Brodersen
Ben Bronson
Michael Brown
Sue Brown
Kim Browning
John Bruno
Patty Cady
Kevin & Bonnie Caldwell
Margaret Campbell
Ernie Cannady
Lorraine Carolan
Lina Carro
Dave & Shawn Carter
Tim Carter
John Casali
Lola Marie Cathey
Al Ceraulo
Sally Chagolla
Robert & Shari Canevari
Leslee Carlson
Scott & Heidi Chandler
Tiffany Charbonneau
Peter Childs
Kathy Christensen
Lee Christensen
Lesa Christensen
Tina Christensen
Justin Ciarabellini
Patricia & Jack Coleman
Liz & Kent Colwell
Violet Connolly
Frank & Wanda Cope
Sue Coppock
Elizabeth Corbett
Linda Corley
Penelope & Billy Costa
Becky & Keith Coulombe
Sione Courson
Jim & Joan Courtois
Colum & Monica Coyne
Kathleen Creager
Sandra Creager
Mitchell Cronk
William Crotty
Renee Crowley
Charlie Custer
Lisa & Joe Cyrek
Tom Daetwiler
Donna Daily
Christine Danders
Judy Davis
Denise Del Monte
Ed & MaryAlice Denson
Jen deParma
Nicole Devine
Dave & Leora Dickinson
Linda Dillon
Marsha Dillon
Stephen Dillon
John Dimmick
Michael & Mary Dominick
Linda Doolaege
Dan Carbis Downey
Kimberly Downey
Dick & Phyllis Drewry
Peter Dulik
Jimmy Durchslag
Jeanette Dwyer
Starla Early
Doug Edgmon
John & Rene Egan
Laura Emery
Brooke Epperly
Elk Prairie Vinyards
Tami Erickson
Mary Estrada
Betty Etter
Carol Evans
Donna Feddersen
Jeri Fergus
Jim Ferguson
Joy Finley
Esther Flannery
Sean Flynn
Abe Fockaert
Sita Formosa
Jeanne Foster
Jennifer Fournier
Gloria Fredericks
Robert & Vanessa Fredrickson
Sally & Richard French
Pearl Frey
Jimmy Friel
Bob Fuel
Gay Fulton
Colleen Furnish
Jim Furtado
Kimberley & Russell Gans
Russ Gardner
Celeste Giallonzo
Charlie & Jean Giannini
Bonnie Glantz
Paul & Janet Glennie
Kristi Gochoel
Judy Gonzales
Tina Green
Gail Griffin
Duffy Griffin
Guinevere’s Candles
Johanna Hamel
Sandy Hansen
Anne Hapgood
Fauna Harmon
Laura Harden
Kathy Hash
Tim Hass
Lloyd Hauskins
Terry & Terri Hayse
Renee Heider
Paul Henninger
Mike James Hetticher
Rebecca Hightower
Harold Hilfiker
Kevin Hinton
Marty Hobbs
Gayle Hodges
Jim Hoeffer
Tom Hoffman
Gary Holder
Judy Horvath DVM
Lucille Huddleson
Ken Huffman
Cyndie Hull
Patty Hurlbutt
Jo Ellyn James
William Jeffries
Jim Johnson
Kerry Johnson
Pete & Bev Johnson
Dr.Wendy Joiner M.D.
Kari Jones
Alison Jones
Mark Jones
Sidney Jones
Lorraine Celia Jordan
Anita Justice
Anne Kable
Philip Kable
Jennifer Keegan
Becky Keith
Christine Kenlon
Samantha Killbrew
Bev Kingsley
Bernie Korbley
Jim Koch
Ted Kogon
Fern Konieczny
Karen Koskinen
Hugo Klopper
Jennifer Kubik
William LaFerriere
Charlotte Landau
Joedy Lange
Erin Larsen
Christopher & Takiko Larson
Greg Lattanza
Richard Leamon
Blake & Kelly Lehman
Craig & Karen Lehman
Diane Lehman
Jon & Clista Lewis
Laine Lewis
Buzz & Barb Lindsay
Sue Long
Travis Low
Kevin Low
John Lucas
Lauren Luna
Stephanie Lusak
Brice Luster
Dennis Lyon
Ken Lytle
Peggy Macy
Dr. Jim & Lily Macy
Joseph Madson
Vivian Mailhot
Karin Marr
Susan Mazur
Sarah Malcomb
Richard & Carol Markgraf
John & Nancy Marshall
Charley & Linda Mason
Susie Matilla
Elizabeth Marshall Maybee
Rob McBeth
Erin Mcbride
Del & Colleen McCain
Katie McGuire
Patty McGuire
Jean McKaye
Bob & Val McKee
Lela McKee
Tasha McKee
Rob McLaughlin
Marling McReynolds
Katrina & Robert Medina
Marcia Mendels
Amber Meltzer
Tony Mengual
Richard & Ann Michelini
Pete & Regina Miclette
Bud Miller
Cathy & Mike Miller
Debbie Miller
Nancy Miyamoto
Taun Moondy
Julie Mooney
Carol Moore
Tom & Tami Moreland
Bob Morris
Dave Morris
Stu Moskewitz
Bonnie Mullaney
Woody & Pam Murphy
Ted & Angela Murray
Gerald Myers
Eric Negrete
Cathy Newman
Dave & Cheryl Nicholson
Karen Nielsen
Jeana Northern
Elizabeth Nowak
Francisco Nunez
Kathy O’Brien
Annie O’Connell
Finola O’ Doherty
Tim Olsen
Sondra Olson
Cindi Oney
Don Orazem
Kai Ostrow
Leib Ostrow
Amy Palmer
Loren & Sue Pancoast
Diana Papageorge
Joanne Pardini
Lanie Parker
Pam Parsons
Manuel Parsons
Sean Patton
Cinnamon Paula
Judith Peebles
Mitchell Peirson
John Pelletier
Barbara Penny
Raul Perez
Randi Perkins
Linda Peterson
Don Pfau
Lester & Betty Phelps
Jeanne Phillips
Nadine Pleshekov
Jay Pollard
Jan Porteous
Bobby Gene Porter
John Prevost
Kathy & Walter Prince
Debbie & Monte Provolt
Elan Puno
Jim Quast
Bryan Quenell
Steve Quenell
Melody Quiggle
Steven Quiggle
Estella Quiroga
Patte Rae
Ken Radovich
Karen & Roger Ralsten
Kris Renner
Cameron Michael Renner
Gary Renner
Joe Rice
Jasmine Rich
Jack & Michele Rieke
Maryanne Riley
Chuck & Maivel Roberts
Shannon Robinson
Nicole Rocha
Juan & Esther Rodriguez
Annie Rogers
Connie Rose
Paul Rosenblatt
Becky Rupp
Joe & Karen Russ
Shirley Russell
Karen Ruth
Aaron & Jennifer Sandahl
Kristina Suavez
Maria Savage
Doris Ruth Scalvini
Marylou Scavarda
Les Scher
Dennis & Patricia Schlotzhauer
Casey Schmidt
John Schmidt
Dave Schneider
Ryan Schneider
Jane Scholl
Freia Schroeder
Kella Scown
Jim Sewell
Doyle Shamblin
Patrick & Katherine Shannon
Brian Shapiro
Stuart Shayne
Roberto Sibbel
Shyla Sickels
Rod Silva
Ron Sinoway
Damon Siska
Linn & Barbara Sisson
Sam & Shirley Sloane
Gary Kendall Smith
Michelle Smith
Vern Snodgrass
Jeff & Janice Sousa
Cynthia Stafslien
Katy Stern
Daniel Stein
Tina Stillwell
Wesley Stoft
Skip Stone
Andra & Keith Stringer
Virginia Strom-Martin
Elaine St Aubin
Shawn & Aurora Studebaker
Jimmie Sutton
Sam Susmilch
William & Carmelita Swank
John Sweeney
Kathleen Sweet
Cindy Taylor
David Thomas
Julie Thomas
Vonnie Thomas
Claudia Thompson
Jack Thompson
Taylor Thornton
Janis Tillery
Sandy Tilles
Hank Toborg
Sharon Toborg
Nancy Tolk
Darren Tomasini
Wayne Tomasini
Mike Torbert
Everett and Sue Tosten
Diana Totten
Vivian Tracy
Pat Trees
Frank & Anna Trone
Lee & Cathy Ulansey
Archie Umina
Joe Valk
Judy Van Horn
Carol Van Sant
Nan Vellutini
Eleanor Volpi
Janet Mae Walsh
Leon & Elaine Warmuth
Dee Way
Shon Wellborn
Bill & Callie Wells
Dennis Wendt
Wally & Carol West
Whitethorn Winery
Wanda Wheeler
Mary Whitmore
Joe Whitney
Bunny Wilder
Bob Williams
Cassidy Wilson
Frank Wilson
Jessica Wilson
Mary Wilson
Robert Wilson
Bobbi & Russel Wisby
Ed & Mary Wise
Johnny Wise
Kent and Linda Wrede
John Wynands
Vala Young
Steven Youkey
Carla Yvonne
April 3, 2012 at 1:41 pm
anonomous
check out Humboldt mirror post on clif clendenan hilarious….
April 3, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Anonymous
Ya gotta love the way you guys at the fennell group have double listed names, and double listed businesses in with the private people.
Would you be the same fennell group that cheated on the poll?
This is so status quo for fennell and her sheeple.
April 3, 2012 at 5:02 pm
Anonymous
Interesting that the Mirror is backing Estelle and interesting that you find comments over there like this one about Clif: “Moderate? More like a tool for the far left and progressive machine in Humboldt County.”
And yet Estelle doesn’t want to be called a conservative. Birds of a feather.
April 3, 2012 at 5:11 pm
Anonymous
“Birds of a feather”
Othewise known as “guilt by association.”
April 3, 2012 at 7:51 pm
Anonymous
Actually it’s “association by association.”
April 3, 2012 at 9:09 pm
anonomous
clendenans people are really going negative, they must be really worried
April 3, 2012 at 10:34 pm
Anonnymoose
What constitutes an endorsement? I talked to 5 of the people listed on Estelles list and only one of them told me they favored Estelle over Clif and the one couldn’t even give me a reason to vote for Estelle except “she liked her on KMUD news.” Who makes these lists? How can you trust them?
December 15, 2012 at 1:31 pm
KedPleallyTak
These side effects are the result of the THC that is stored legalization.The medical that its your possession three may possibly or may possibly not do so. buy volcano vaporizer THC allows the brain to release its dopamine, a substance from Cannabis, a widely distributed plant, grown world over. The goal of a vaporizer] is to let the employed business immune system’s ability to fight disease. One such organisation, established in 1970, is a ten pressure, views cannabis, do about .5-1 gm of marijuana.