I know it tends to be feast or famine for my posting on anything lately. I hadn’t posted in almost a week, but today I’ve posted three times. I’ve a fairly full schedule, so I have to make hay when the sun shines.
First of all, tonight on the HumCPR show Charley will host a discussion with both Clif and Estelle about General Plan and other land use issues. That’s on KMUD at 7:00 p.m., and it’s a call-in show.
….
Don’t miss the debate at the Mateel this Sunday, with all of the information through this link. I am billed as a moderator, but Ed will be handling it alone as I’m committed to coach an Indoor Soccer double-header due to changes in scheduling. Ed is more than capable, and it should be a great debate. It will be simulcast on KMUD beginning at 3 p.m.
….
A little bit of controversy with the Democratic Central Committee last night, at least as far as Richard Marks is concerned. I wasn’t there, and I haven’t heard anything other than what is reported by Richard, but he seems to feel that Estelle was denied an endorsement because of her affiliation with HumCPR. Clif doesn’t qualify for endorsement as a member of the DTS Party, and Richard feels that as the only Democrat in the race she should have received the endorsement.
In the thread he complains that Roy Curliss was denied the endorsement several years ago (when running against Carlos Quilez, a liberal Republican (a dying breed) for the same reason (and I don’t recall Carlos getting the Republican endorsement – probably over the same issue).
Policies around development are a source of division in counties around the state, and Democrats tend to favor controlled growth advocates in their endorsements to the disappointment of union reps who emphasize jobs. It’s not a new issue locally or statewide, but I expect that HCDCC elections to become a little more politicized for awhile.
Cheryl Seidner and Mark Lovelace each received endorsements.
….
Lastly, although I’m now thoroughly bored with the topic, the billboard controversy is apparently covered in the Beacon-insert of today’s Times Standard. I can’t find it online, but if I do I’ll link to it. From what I’ve heard, it adds nothing new to the story.
103 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 12, 2012 at 7:41 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, that was a good discussion.
But…
I really like Charley. We have some common political roots, and I always find our discussions engaging. And I know this wasn’t a formal debate. And he did disclaim his neutrality in the beginning. But when you’re hosting a discussion with two candidates, you should really let the candidates debate so you aren’t ganging up on the odd one out. Actually, it felt more like a debate between Clif and Charley, with Estelle chiming in every once in a while.
Also, when you ask a question, let the guy finish his answer before you interrupt.
Charley’s new to the hosting gig, but he needs to work on self-restraint. I know from personal experience that it isn’t easy.
Interesting enough, when Estelle pointed out, correctly, that protestors shouldn’t expect special favors such as port-o-potties (and asked, “would Dr. King have demanded a port-0-pottie?”), Charley almost ended up debating her. But then the subject changed.
Anyway, there was some substantive discussion about the GPU process as well as the Courthouse situation.
April 12, 2012 at 7:52 pm
Anonymous
I agree eric. Charley was INCREDIBLY rude.Only to one of the guest.
April 12, 2012 at 7:59 pm
Anonymous
I should have also mentioned that Charleys disclaimer at the beginning about his connection to estelle and humcpr, was the give-away that this was going to be a gang bang.
April 12, 2012 at 9:19 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, Clif’s a big boy. He knew what he was getting into when he agreed to be on the show. But it does make for better radio when the guest is allowed to talk.
April 12, 2012 at 9:19 pm
anonomous
I thought the answers between Estelle and Cliff were very helpful. I was dissappointed that Cliff once again stated that he did not support having community advisory groups be part of the General plan Update process. That is what section 1500 calls for, active public participation.
Someone called up said to cliff that you cant have meaningful dialoge or input when you have only a 3 minute one way sound bite to give input.
I was very happy to hear that Estelle pledged that she would ensure we have public participation when it comes to planning.
April 12, 2012 at 9:40 pm
ANON
There was quite a contrast between Estelle and Clif. Especially when it came to creating an Amnesty Program for land owners who have homes built 30, 40 or 50 years ago that don’t have permits.
Cliff said he has staff working on details of a plan and modeling it after mendicino’s. (Charly asked Cliff why he doesn’t have members of the community involved. and then I heard Estelle say an Amnesty plan should include input from the community first and formost and should not model a plan on anywhere else but HERE! Wow how refreshing…….
April 12, 2012 at 10:29 pm
JTC
It was pretty comical actually. Estelle actually had no specific general plan proposals. The mantra was CAG, CAG, CAG, laughably claiming there has been no community input after 270 community meetings. Clif pointed out the ridiculous state mandate of 900 additional multifamily residence complexes when only two have been built and Estelle’s answer? We should have had CAGs.
CAGs are just handpicked closed committees. Better to have imput from the whole community. As in democracy.
April 13, 2012 at 8:52 am
Ernie's Place
The last time that they did a “general plan” they had very-involved citizens advisory groups that took their jobs very seriously. Then they totally ignored the advisory groups recomendations. Maybe that is why they don’t wan’t any advice this time. It’s too hard to ignore in public.
April 13, 2012 at 9:32 am
longwinds
I agree, I wish I could have been more polite when Clif recited the same falsehoods that made me regret trusting him 3 years ago. He had very specifically promised to work with our community. Now he justifies excluding the public from policy formulations that staff knows literally nothing about, such as traditional SoHum pooping practices to be amnestied. Sanitation and building permit reforms that Clif had promised as a candidate, and has begun pretending to deliver 4 years later, again as a candidate, are pre-doomed by this absence of public participation. I deeply regret supporting and voting for Clif, and my bitterness shows.
His reform program will be as successful as the county’s pot eradication programs, as its Housing Element fabrications, as it’s risible General Plan Update, as its inability to spend Headwaters Fund money on the purposes for which it exists. These failures are institutionalized around the county’s grim determination to exclude the public from its formulation of county policies and ordinances. The1500 Series of Public Participation requirements in the General Plan were so rigorously ignored that Clif calls the Planning Commission itself ‘public participation,’ as if political appointees of the Board of Supervisors are the only people the Board needs to talk to.
In other words, talking to itself constitutes public dialog, as far as Clif’s shriveling wing of the Board is concerned. I’m sorry I feel this so strongly, but this is infuriating. It is also profoundly dysfunctional. It guarantees meaningless ordinances that cannot create reforms, let alone the voluntary compliance that is the purpose of reform.
Clif’s been told ever since the start of his first campaign the rock-bottom problem with county government. Staff not only don’t listen to the rural populations they scarcely pretend to serve, they don’t want to listen. No one can make them listen. Alas, in my pained opinion and experience, Clif doesn’t listen either. He fooled me once, and he angers me now. I do apologise to listeners that my experiences with Clif in office were so clearly reflected in the KMUD studio last night. Clif was there because he knows I try to be a fair host. I regret that my frustrations with him were so evident.
April 13, 2012 at 9:48 am
Eric Kirk
Okay, there goes one of my theories as to who TRA is.
Anyway, I’ll respond to some of your points later when I have time, but with regard to the radio experience, I can related. I had ex-Ramparts editor turned arch right winger David Horowitz on my show some years back, and found myself in a very similar situation.
One thing I was hoping to hear from Estelle was what she wants to see in a General Plan. We’re all aware of her (and your) objections to the process, but sooner or later we have to get down to discussing the substance which presumably would have been discussed in the CAG process, and which has been discussed in a record-setting 270 public meetings. I understand that the CAG process could be deeper than those meetings in terms of concrete proposals, but you must have some idea by now to be able to present.
There’s a huge difference between procedural due process (when you have the time check out the 60s Supreme Court case Goldberg v. Kelly) and substantive, and the problem with having procedural due process rights without substantive due process rights is that the authority can ignore anything that comes out of a mere procedural requirement. The point being that even if you had the CAGs in place, they could ignore it anyway, or reject it. There’s no requirement that they accept any of its findings, etc.
Careful what you wish for.
April 13, 2012 at 10:56 am
Beneficent Muse
Estelle, the developer lobbyist?
April 13, 2012 at 11:51 am
tra
I’m listening to the KMUD show now. Up to 10:00 or so, it’s pretty much a snoozefest. Platitudes and truisms abound.
But at about 10:40, Clif says “we fenced the yard, and tried to kind of corral the protest kind of away from the ingress and egress area.”
To put it charitably, this is a very strange statement, given that the fence did exactly the opposite, it “corralled” the protesters over by the courthouse steps, pretty much guaranteeing that any remaining protesters would be closer to the entrance area — contributing to the “ingress and egress” issues that were later cited as a part of the reason for the “urgency ordinance.”
April 13, 2012 at 11:51 am
Anonymous
The local Democratic Party is run by an urban pwog cabal. Not endorsing Estelle who is the only Democrat in the race is just wrong.
April 13, 2012 at 11:58 am
tra
Sorry, just to be clear, they were talking about the Supervisors’ “urgency ordinance” related to the Occupy Eureka protests.
April 13, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Eric Kirk
11:51 – I don’t know what “pwog” means. I’m thinking some sore of muppet?
Anyway, I’m wondering if they’re even going to bother trying to come up with a Congressional race endorsement.
April 13, 2012 at 12:27 pm
Anonymous
Another take on the emergency ordinance I agree with. And I support Estelle.
http://watchpaul.blogspot.com/2012/03/does-this-mean-you-can-take-down.html
April 13, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Jane
The reception Estelle gives to public input is because she is less experienced than Cliff. Cliff is aware how public input, especially from So Hum, not only slows down the process of governing and keeps it from moving quickly to resolve issues but that the So Hum public often has the expectation that because they have input their input should be followed to the exclusion of the objective or other viewpoints. In effect if turns into political lynchings, so to speak.
Public input is good and should always be allowed but not to the point that the public micromanages and forces decisions to a) never be made and/or b) to be made with only the public’s short term or special interests in mind.
Estelle, like most politicians without extensive actual experience, can always adopt the feel-good friendly-to-transparency point of view. Those of us who have worked with Estelle in other organizations know this is not always how she manages her own workload. I haven’t worked directly with Cliff so I cannot speak to his own style.
April 13, 2012 at 1:34 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, again Jane, there have been 270 meetings on this thing. There’s been no shortage of public input. But it gets diluted by “urban pwogs” or whatever who show up as well to speak their piece.
Clif’s point that the Planning Commission is in fact a public process committee is based on the process in most counties for general plan updates.
But I do understand the frustration at having drafted provisions, however ambiguously worded, for CAGs and having them completely ignored without discussion. The irony is that CAGs in general are intended to save government staff work, which can lead one to believe that they were specifically omitted from the process because the staff had a direction of where they wanted to go and didn’t want CAGs, over which they have no control, taking them off track. I think that’s an oversimplification, but I can understand why people think that. But I suspect that it wasn’t the substance of concern, but rather the process – you would be obligated to put HumCPR types as well as Healthy Humboldt types. Nothing gets done and so you get “reports” from two or more factions within the CAG, and the whole process is even more politicized with accusations from one side or another of stacking the group. I can see why the staff legitimately viewed the process as a headache without value. I still think they should have set up CAGs – one for each element – and just ignored them if the members didn’t behave. The process allows for it.
But public meetings are even more dangerous that way, and they have certainly not been stingy with regard to them. In fact, I believe that Humboldt County may have set a record, at least for rural counties.
I also want to respond to something above:
The1500 Series of Public Participation requirements in the General Plan were so rigorously ignored that Clif calls the Planning Commission itself ‘public participation,’ as if political appointees of the Board of Supervisors are the only people the Board needs to talk to.
That’s a strawman Charlie. He didn’t say that, nor did he imply that Board of Supervisors only needs to talk to the Planning Commission. There is a process however, which as to be honored. Virginia and Ryan understand that, which is why they aren’t making promises about how they’ll vote even before the proposed plan is brought to them – at least not publicly, and I suspect not privately either.
April 13, 2012 at 3:37 pm
tra
“…which can lead one to believe that they were specifically omitted from the process because the staff had a direction of where they wanted to go and didn’t want CAGs, over which they have no control, taking them off track. I think that’s an oversimplification, but I can understand why people think that.
Well I think you’ve hit on an important point. And yes, it’s a simplification, but when dealing with a complex, drawn-out, far-reaching process like the GPU process, just about anything one might say would be a simplification. At any rate, I think there’s a sizeable kernel of truth in there.
Which goes to the issue of the appropriate roles of the staff, the Supervisors and the public, which the candidates discussed a little bit in this KMUD interview. For example while they were talking about the amnesty/grandfathering program (or perhaps I should say, while Charley was grilling Clif about why we still don’t have one), Clif indicated that the process was “percolating along” and that something would “surface soon.”
When Charley pressed him on why no one from the County had reached out to members of the community to help develop the plan, Clif said that there would soon be something submitted to the Board for approval, and at that point there would be opportunity for community input.
I think that exchange was revealing in terms of a difference in philosophy about when and how the public should have a chance to influence policy development — at the very end of the process, after a proposal has already been developed by the staff and is being presented to the board, or much earlier, so that interested (and potentially knowledgeable) members of the community can offer their input in the formative stages.
Clif seemed genuinely surprised that anyone would object to an approach where the staff develops their preferred approach, presents that to the Board, and then at the very end of the process members of the community are heard.
That’s certainly one way you can go about making policy, and it may “save time” in the front end, but often you’re going to find out at the back end that failing to consult with the public earlier on will result in a backlash when the policy turns out to be unacceptable to a large portion of the public, and/or to those most affected by the policy.
The way they had to go back and re-do the whole multi-family housing thing seems like a pretty clear example of that problem. Somehow the Supervisors and the staff didn’t anticipate that changing peoples’ zoning to multi-family even when the owners of the property had no intention or desire to have multi-family housing on their property, was not going to be well-received. I can guarantee you that if they had taken some public input earlier on, that point would certainly have come out, and then rather than wasting their time on the initial top-down approach they could have proceeded directly to the voluntary approach (seeking property owners who were actually interested in having their property re-zoned as multi-family), and saved a whole lot of time, angst and hassle.
Democracy is a notoriously messy process, no matter how you go about it, but trying to take short-cuts and/or taking a top-down approach in the early stages of policy development is often going to cause more controversy, more needless work and more wasted time later on, than taking a more inclusive approach to public involvement early on.
April 13, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Eric Kirk
Clif seemed genuinely surprised that anyone would object to an approach where the staff develops their preferred approach, presents that to the Board, and then at the very end of the process members of the community are heard.
Except that it’s done that way on a daily basis with 99 percent of the laws passed. If they have to go through a public process for everything before they can even present a proposal, they’ll never get anything done.
There was a little bit of a panic in response last night. Oh, we want our own model and not Mendocino’s, yada, yada. Why not wait to see what he’s talking about and then complain if you don’t like it?
April 13, 2012 at 4:14 pm
tra
I agree that for routine issues, there’s no need for an extensive public process up front. But for issues like which parcels are going to be re-zoned to multifamily, and what kind of approach the County is going to take to grandfathering existing structures, it seems pretty obvious that more input up front would be not only the right thing to do, but also the smart thing to do.
I didn’t hear any “panic,” just some skepticism, which seems appropriate if what Charley and Estelle were saying is true — that the Mendo program was not very successful.
As far as “Why not wait to see what he’s talking about and then complain if you don’t like it” (which, by the way, is a pretty good summary of the way a top-down, staff-driven, public-input-as-an-afterthought approach works out in practice) the point is that having the staff develop the approach without seeking public input up front makes it more likely that the approach will be something a lot of people won’t like and will complain about, and, if that backlash is significant enough, the staff may end up having to go back to the drawing board and start all over again, just as they did with the multi-family rezoning fiasco.
Alternatively, all the time and effort already invested in whatever approach has been “percolating” in the staff bubble, and then finally “surfaces,” before the Supes, may lead the Supervisors to feel pressure to mostly go along with whatever the staff came up with, even if it’s not as good an approach as it could be, simply because of the time and expense involved in starting over. In other words, once something has already reached the the Supervisors, there is a certain amount of momentum behind it, and I think one of the concerns people have is that if you have staff who are interersted in pushing their own policy preferences, they can take advantage of this dynamic.
April 13, 2012 at 4:21 pm
Charley
tra covered the answer nicely while I fought with WordPress to post this:
Panic? You mean Estelle’s asking why we’re incapable of writing our own laws, instead of adopting models already proven not to work? Mendo’s only the latest example. The Mendo ordinance does not have an amnesty provision for existing and longstanding practices. It has failed to bring meaningful numbers of rural residents into regulation. Why wait to see it fail again, when it’s already failed? Who does Clif think he’s fooling? No one who lives in the country.
What did he mean when he promised to work for a Clean Slate Amnesty program? That’s the phrase, that’s the promise, that’s not what’s in Mendo’s program. That’s why it’s so annoying to hear him bragging in his re-election year of doing something, when after doing nothing he’s doing more nothing, that will result in nothing, and confuse no one but urban residents at most.
Why doesn’t the county want to regulate, indeed have anything to do with rural residents? Why would it rather write pretend regulations, with pretend consequences, and pretend results, that change nothing? We’re about to do this again with the get-tough-on-bulldozers-ordinance game, which like all other county games will not change behavior, and doesn’t work with community people who do change behavior. This was clearly proven with the diesel-storage standards set by the community and publicized by the community, with ultimate buy-in from the county, and no regulatory process whatsoever.
Both Sheriff Downey and his opponent said on KMUD that our community-based diesel education program was a stunning success, which virtually eliminated bad practices that had been commonplace. Clif couldn’t care less. Empowering rural communities is something terrible to Clif and his few remaining funders. I don’t know why. I no longer care why. I’m just glad even people without painful personal experience can see what he’s good for, and choose to do better.
April 13, 2012 at 4:23 pm
tra
It seems like phrases like “yada, yada” and “blah, blah, blah” are almost always employed by those making weak, and/or evasive arguments. I swear, once you’ve noticed this, you’ll see it cropping up time and time again.
April 13, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Charley
Rather than take up whether or not Clif said this or that howler that people can hear for themselves on the archives, I’ll give information on another exchange that I should have handled better, concerning one of the perpetrators of the Code Enforcement scandal. The County Counsel now exclusively responsible for oversight of code enforcement was the stone wall who prevented public understanding of the scandal. I deeply regret that we were so foolish as to trust Clif and his predecessors who promised, in Jimmy Smith’s words, to ‘take charge’ of the problem. The Task Force did a great job of outlining the breadth of the problem–forged judicial warrants, flagrant lies about which branch of law enforcement was the scofflaw, single mothers and families made homeless, flunkies scapegoated for following orders, on and on. If we’d sued, Clif couldn’t say today, as he did on the radio last night, that necessary reforms were achieved. The only reform is that from now on, no one can formally blame the Supervisors for ignoring whatever COunty Counsel chooses to tell Code Enforcement to do.
That’s Clif’s idea of reform. Now he’s reforming the Building
April 13, 2012 at 5:00 pm
Anonymous
How many places in sohum should be torn down and “start over”? This blanket amnesty crap is just that,crap. On a case by case basis is how the issue should be handled. ESPECIALLY those places that have been built on land that has no water.
On another thought,too many public groups/private people have their own
selfish agendas, so let’s change tra’s sentence to this: “I think one of the concerns people have is that if you have CERTAIN GROUPS who are interersted in pushing their own policy preferences,
On to porta potties. What was the response that you Occupy Eureka folks had when estelle said ” porta potties, come on. it’s a protest.”
Will you give her as much flack as you have county government?
Why was Peter Childs trying to disguise his voice last night?
I heard on the KZYX news that the Mendo program was very successful.
Why does SoHum always think we have to re-invent the wheel?
April 13, 2012 at 5:19 pm
tra
By the way, I agree that Charley kind of overstepped his role as the interviewer, and interrupted Clif too often (and based on his comment above, it sounds like Charley acknowleges this as well). Had Charley simply let Clif finish his point, and then responded with follow-up questions, even if they were pointed ones, that would have been at least a little bit better. But even then, it would still have been a bit one-sided, because there was no one grilling Estelle on her answers in the same way.
As to the substance of Charley’s objections to Clif’s answers, I think many of the concerns he named were legitimate, for example the way the Supervisors seemed to almost completely ignore the results of the code enforcement task force and the way the grandfathering program has apparently been “percolating through” without any effort to involve the community in the formative stages. But the interruptions and somewhat accusatory nature of some of Charley’s statements/questions directed toward Clif detracted somewhat from the what was otherwise (I think) a pretty useful discussion. In my opinion, although I wasn’t impressed with some of his answers, I do think Clif handled the situation gracefully, and with good humor.
I’m looking forward to the actual debates, though if the past is any guide, they’ll be lacking in the kind of strong follow-up questions that can sometimes elicit more direct and informative answers, as opposed to the kind of “dueling press conferences” effect that you get when the candidates are asked a question and can get away with just repeating their talking points more or less unchallenged.
It would be fun to have a format where both sides were grilled by a knowledgeable and appropriately skeptical questioner (or maybe a different questioner for each) who would be able to follow up when a question was not clearly answered, and would be able to drill down for more details when appropriate.
April 13, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Anonymous
Longwind, when you bought your property with house and barn, you went in on it with another couple who built their own compound, doubling the density on the parcel, knowing that was not legal (you also made what is functionally an in law unit out of the barn, though you don’t rent it out). You said that the realtor said the county doesn’t care if you can’t see it from the road (not your exact quote, but close, also not true). I ask you again, what should the county do about people like you who willfully violate the rules.
April 13, 2012 at 6:55 pm
Anonymous
“Why not wait to see what he’s talking about and then complain if you don’t like it”
Maybe because we have seen exactly how that works out for us in the end. What ever trust existed between the majority and the government has long ago been spent. It’s about time that our officials began to bend over backwards to hear the people not more of the same nonsense that got us to where we are. Clif was 100% clear in expressing the fact that he doesn’t get this simple concept. I think Clif is a pretty smart guy, he just fundamentally believes that staff is smarter than the public. He actually may well be right but what he misses is that that is just not the way our system is designed to work. For better or for worse enacting the peoples will is what his job entails. No where does it say that he is supposed to consider that he is smarter so screw you voter, I’m doing what I know is best regardless of what you want. I think Clif will likely win in June, unfortunately it will be because the average voter has no idea what he plans to do to them. I hope he doesn’t need more than another four years because at some point he will have to vote on issues that that will make his agenda clear and it will not go over well. Ask Bonnie how it worked out for her.
April 13, 2012 at 8:45 pm
Eric Kirk
Yeah, actually, I do think it was panic. Clif basically announced that an amnesty program is in the works. That’s good news. But immediately we had to go to the dark side. Oh, we want input first. We don’t like Mendocino’s model. We want our own. We don’t trust the staff to come up with anything reasonable to work with.
It plays right into the stereotype of Sohummers as perpetually cranky with huge senses of entitlement. I mean, how about, “that’s good news Clif, but I think that the effort would benefit from a more community input process early on. There are some good ideas out there to tap into.”
But that’s not how it went. Water had to be thrown at it. Immediately.
Maybe it wasn’t conscious, but I wonder if the dynamics would have been the same if we weren’t in full election swing.
April 13, 2012 at 9:07 pm
Anonymous
Clif slammed dunked them last night!
April 13, 2012 at 9:15 pm
Anonymous
And this is why Estelle didn’t get the Democratic Party endorsement. This is on their platform.
III. Environmental Protection
We believe that it is the duty of our democracy to…
Protect and sustainably use the natural resources of our community, state, country, and world.
Guarantee safe and healthy food, water and air.
Enact legislation and policies that promote sustainable forms of energy and the conservation of fossil fuels.
Protect, preserve and restore the Nation’s ecosystems.
Prevent resource exploitation that violates public trust.
Reduce, reuse and recycle.
April 13, 2012 at 9:22 pm
tra
You sure have a funny idea of what constitutes a “panic.” By your definition, your response here could just as easily be judged as one of “panic.” Someone dares to question the top-down, behind-closed-doors, public-input-as-an-afterthought approach your candidate thoughtlessly embraced, so now you’re freaking out and lashing out with your ill-advised insults of the entire SoHum population. (See how easy it is to ascribe “panic” to a response you don’t agree with.)
It’s good news that there is an amnesty program “in the works,” it’s bad news that “in the works” means “in the staff bubble.” It may be a perfectly good plan, or it may not, but there’s nothing “cranky” or “entitled” about questioning why something so important is being crafted behind closed doors. The real “huge sense of entitlement” at work here is those who believe they are entitled to craft policies on important issues behind closed doors, woth no up-front consutation with the public, the elected officials who support that approach, and their supporters who enable that kind of foolishness.
Look, if the county didn’t have such a rich history of staff going off in ridiculously counterproductive directions (the multi-family housing clusterfuck, the code enforcement disaster, the trying-to-make-the-TPZ-moratorium-permanent fiasco, and on and on) and then having to go back to square one once the public finally got a chance to weigh in, then maybe more people would be willing to just “trust” that the staff was probably going to come up with something reasonable. But we all know that’s not the history, so it seems a bit silly to act surprised and offended when people express an appropriate degree of skepticism about the process.
If the end result of the process is good, I’ll be as thankful about that as anyone else, but that doesn’t mean that I should meekly go along with their decision to, once again, pursue an insiders-only approach to policy development, and only inviting the public in at the very end of the process.
April 13, 2012 at 9:28 pm
tra
I mean, how about, “that’s good news Clif, but I think that the effort would benefit from a more community input process early on. There are some good ideas out there to tap into.
You know, if this was like the first time this top-down, inside-out process issue had ever come up, then you might have a point. But the need to involve the public in a meaningful way, up-front, on important issues like this, has been pointed out over and over again, politely, pointedly, impolitely, and in every way conceivable…yet here we are, once again.
April 13, 2012 at 9:46 pm
tra
By the way, I have no problem with modeling county programs on successful programs in other counties, or even modeling them on not-completely-successful programs in other counties as long as what you’re doing is taking the best parts of those programs and improving on the parts that aren’t so good. But in the latter case, it seems like inviting public involvement up-front would be especially important.
April 13, 2012 at 9:47 pm
Jane
Thank you Eric. That explanation helped.
As an aside (to another poster)… the public doesn’t write its own laws because if that happened there are some red states which would still have different drinking fountains according to color and modern slavery would become an economic reality. While Humboldt may not dabble in the race issue, and perhaps its authority processes could use improvement, it would also behoove Humboldt to send people into public service who are not as easily bought and sold by special interests.
To that aim… Go Cliff!
April 14, 2012 at 7:10 am
Dave Kirby
While I am absolutely opposed to blanket amnesty I do think there should be a clear path to getting an existing residence permitted. Buyers are asking more and more about the permit status of prospective purchases so it behooves sellers to get legal. When I was selling real estate I saw a number of properties that were ecological disasters. Places where so much diesel had leaked that the ground was shiny. Places where the only water supply was being poached off another parcel, Virtual junk yards of dead vehicles leaking fluids. I saw failed composting toilets and places with no sewage disposal at all. These properties should condemned not approved by some kind of amnesty.
April 14, 2012 at 10:20 am
Eric Kirk
You know, if this was like the first time this top-down, inside-out process issue had ever come up, then you might have a point. But the need to involve the public in a meaningful way, up-front, on important issues like this, has been pointed out over and over again, politely, pointedly, impolitely, and in every way conceivable…yet here we are, once again.
The point is that an amnesty program is in the works. Other than the paranoia about what it might look like because people with the time to attend meetings didn’t get to help draft it, there is nothing to base any negativity on as of yet. Any amnesty program is better than no program.
And by the way, there have been plenty of public discussions about amnesty at the GPU meetings. What Clif reported is a response to that public input. It didn’t come out of a vacuum. I know this because I called for an amnesty program in my input. I know that certain people want to influence the writing at the get-go, so they can frame everything to their advantage, but I think that the way the vast majority of laws are drafted makes the most sense. It’ll be presented to the Board, and then the Board will invite public comment, and it will be rewritten accordingly. There’s nothing wrong with that process.
I’m sorry, but when someone goes immediately to the negative, it really looks like someone has a vested interest in undermining any sense that the county is actually responsive to public input. That seems to be the issue. Because if the county is in fact taking into consideration the input and desires of homesteaders, what’s the point of Estelle’s campaign? What will she be “fighting” for?
April 14, 2012 at 11:15 am
Charley
Eric, how can I politely tell you how offensive you’re being? Suggesting that I’m only sick of Clif now to help Estelle is not just silly, it’s delusional. He has disappointed people ever since he and his rubber stamp came into office, as you know.
The actual point you ignore above is, he’s not offering an amnesty program. Mendocino doesn’t have an amnesty program. Stop calling it an amnesty program, that’s not what he’s imitating. This is why Estelle and I were so annoyed at Clif pretending that Mendo’s proven failure adresses either Clif’s campaign pledges, or Humboldt’s needs. Disgust is not panic.
Having someone who’s never pooped in the woods write codes on pooping in the woods without information is lamebrained. Do you really want to argue about this?
I suppose you hope this time may be different, this time the county may have information. As tra emphasizes, they won’t. We’ve been down this road for 30 years, and what will be different this time? Clif? That’s a good one.
The ‘negative’ you misconstrue is that Clif very specifically promised to work with this community. He has broken that promise repeatedly. He broke it again in saying he would follow Mendocino’s lead. Are you arguing that Clif breaks his campaign promises positively?
Here, I’ll go positive too: Clif is the most unresponsive politician I’ve ever made the mistake of supporting.
April 14, 2012 at 11:37 am
Anonymous
Charley,
You are being absolutely rude and disgusting. You assume so many things. One is, How do you know Clif has never “pooped in the woods”?
I think all you blanket amnesty people have such illegal and environmentaly hazordous dwellings, that you are panicked at the thought having to actually comply and live up to your “words”.
Clif has worked with the community. Because he has not followed only you, doesn’t mean he broke his promise.
April 14, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Eric Kirk
Charley – needless to say, I have a very different view of Clif and his excellent service to this community. I understand that you are primarily concerned with land use issues, and you’re not happy with the direction the GPU may be
moving (I can’t tell where it’s moving actually), but there are other issues. Clif and other supervisors have managed to weather a fiscal crisis while maintaining social services – what they’ve accomplished in that is phenomenal. They did it while other counties and municipalities (such as Eureka under, ironically, a conservative majority) fell deep in the red almost to the point of default. And I find Clif to be one of the most thoughtful pols I’ve met, who will listen to every side and govern accordingly. I haven’t agreed with every vote, but I don’t expect to. What I do find is a man of quiet intelligence and exceptional integrity. This is from getting to know him, both as a friend and a politician.
And Mendocino County has actually had a couple of amnesty programs. I had a client who made use of the latest one. It had mixed results. It didn’t lead to a large exodus of people getting permits, but those who took advantage of it benefit from considerable equity in their property. .The problem I see in Mendocino County is that the County is lax on its enforcement of any of its codes. I know this from professional experience, and we know that developers have walked all over them. This may be proof that the carrot alone is inadequate.
And the latest is indeed called an “amnesty program.”
http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/planning/pdf/Building_Amnesty_edited_for_Dec._31_2010.pdf
And sorry, but pooping in the woods does not qualify you to write laws. It doesn’t disqualify you. But it doesn’t qualify you.
All Clif said was that a proposal for an amnesty program is in the works, and will be discussed at some point in the future, and that it is somewhat modeled after the Mendocino program. It’s a good thing Charley, regardless of how the election turns out in June. Cheer up.
April 14, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Dave Kirby
Clif spent a summer with CDF Whitethorn. He may actually have pooped in the woods. Does a porta potty in the woods count? I remember visiting a parcel in Whale Gulch where sewage disposal consisted of a hole cut in the floor with a plastic barrel under it that the woman would drag to a shallow pit about ten feet from a seasonal creek and empty before it got too heavy to move. Nasty.
April 14, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Charley
I’m trying to dodge the semantic labyrinths you drive discussion through, Eric. “Clean Slate Amnesty” was Clif’s pledge, as I’ve said. It’s what was recommended by the Planning Commission in 1988, and agreed to by the county, the Board of Supervisors, even the League of Women Voters and a host of other county groups, before it was sabotaged in the eleventh hour by staff. Clean Slate Amnesty is what we refer to here as ‘amnesty’.
Calling a penalty-reduction program an amnesty program is all good fun, but it’s not the goods. That’s why it doesn’t work, not in Mendo nor here. This isn’t an issue of “benefit from considerable equity in their property”. It’s about addressing the county’s abused power to declare virtually any rural residence illegal. This is why Clif’s dishonesty about his pledges was so maddening. His labels may sound good to people who don’t know any better, either because they’re what’s left of his urban base, or perhaps because they share the cultural stigma against rural residents that goes back even before the hippies came here.
But misleading slogans don’t work on the people Clif promised to serve down here, who voted for him. I would think, since you want to see him elected with a majority this time, that you would care about these things too, Eric. But it’s your strategy. Good luck.
April 14, 2012 at 4:19 pm
Jane
Charley, I am stunned. I can’t comment on your perception of Cliff’s actions but if you want someone in that office who will say anything to get elected and then go their own way once power has been achieved; you are supporting the right person. Personally I have only good exchanges with Cliff and I wouldn’t take Cliff out without a credible replacement. And there isn’t one on the ballot.
April 14, 2012 at 4:42 pm
Anonymous
Charley, are you suggesting that “virtually every” rural dwelling flouted the law. All my families dwellings (and “garage structures”) are totally legal. So let’s assume there was a clean slate in 88, what should the county do about people like you who knowingly violated the rules in the last decade. Also, why are HumCPR and allies dragging out the GPU process, causing continued uncertainty for the few who give a damn. And yes, I think the biggest driver of this is ex-hippies who flouted the law but now want to cash out and speculators who want to subdivide more large parcels. Given that the Hum Association of Realtors is on record as opposing time of sale conditions on meeting codes when should flagrant issues be dealt with? PS How much federal cash was your road network granted to help the fish?
PPS I realize that your homesite is one of the better ones in your neighborhood and you have a well placed outhouse.
April 14, 2012 at 4:58 pm
tra
It’s getting a little warm in here.
April 14, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Anonymous
Its all an act tra, traditional and contemporary drama with a touch of SoHum theatrics, substance and character to add color and mysticism to the mix. Its so thick you can cut it with a chainsaw.
April 14, 2012 at 9:34 pm
Anonymous
Charley,
You don’t seem to have a grip on what the problem really is. I would estimate that 9 out of 10 rural homes were never permitted, or are now out of code, even if they were originally permitted. It will probably take longer to get this mess straightened out than the GPU. What the amnesty program should probably evolve into is a permitted residence with caveats. A Clean Slate amnesty, is childish. To give a clean slate for things they can’t see?
Like your electrical wiring. Do you think they are going to give you a clean slate? And then have your house burn down because of faulty wiring? The whole process, getting a building permit and your occupancy permit is like getting a warranty from the county. Do you really think they should warranty all these questionable structures?
The problem is much bigger than CAGs.
April 14, 2012 at 10:27 pm
Eric Kirk
Ok Charley. First of all, let’s get something into perspective here. When it comes to “strategy” on this here blog, it’s a moot point. I’ve been trying to get the participants to grasp this for some time now. This is not a large traffic blog. I have never intended it to be a large blog. My discussion interests tend to be on the arcane side. Unless there’s a major event such as a Reggae War or a Federal Bust, I get between 400 and 800 hits a day. More than half of the people who come just read my main page entries and don’t click into the discussion threads. And I suspect that many of my discussion thread hits are repeats. For instance, today you would have accounted for at least three of them if you’re reading this before midnight.
And if the readers are like me, very few will follow a thread for very long. I suspect that the number of people who will read this entry number between one and two dozen really. And we probably know each of them by name. And each of them has probably already decided how he or she is going to vote.
Yes, sometimes something that gets said on a blog generates some chatter in real life, which will result in more traffic to a certain thread, especially if someone links to it in emails or from another blog. But painful as it is to admit, a discussion between Charley Custer and Eric Kirk on the proper form of amnesty just isn’t going to generate a whole lot of coffeehouse talk, no matter how much my ego and your ego would love to think otherwise. Basically, reading this will be a few supporters on either side, maybe a neutral or two who happens to have some time to kill, and the guy who was trying to google Amnesty International and inadvertently hit the wrong link.
In other words, this is purely an intellectual exercise. Any “strategy” here is of no consequence. None.
When I actually post my endorsements, there will be a spike in traffic, because I’ve been distributing my endorsements since before I was even online. Jared Rossman distributes his, and usually we agree on all but one or two candidates or issues, and people like to participate in a discussion about that. Any “strategy” I may employ might have some minimal effect at that time, but not in a thread like this.
Getting back to the topic, the Mendo programs weren’t “penalty reductions.” If you availed yourself of the opportunity, you were not penalized at all, and in fact you didn’t even have to pay investigative fees – something you ordinarily have to pay if you are applying for a permit. I don’t think it exempted them from compliance inspection fees, but that’s something anyone anywhere has to pay for when they want to build and apply for a permit. In fact, you normally have to pay for multiple inspections throughout the construction, and in this case they paid the fee for one and only one inspection.
The problem in Mendocino, again, is that they are extremely lax in enforcing codes. It’s great if you have a violation. It’s bad if you’re impacted by someone else’s violation. Getting them to do anything about a code-violating nuisance is like pulling teeth, and sometimes we just have to file suit and get injunctions on our own. That’s the problem with their amnesty program, or any program they implement. Nobody cares. When a developer can build a non-compliant three-story buidling next to the Noyo River Bridge, and there are no consequences, who’s going to take you seriously as a code enforcing entity?
I don’t know much about the 1988 Amnesty Program except what Peter C. has told me, and he also said the staff of the time failed to implement it. But if “clean slate” means that all existing buildings are treated as legal and only additions or remodeling from here on out will require a permit, I would have a hard time supporting that.
The conspiracy theories also don’t impress me. I know they’re popular around here – there’s this oppressed “us” who are special and “they” don’t like us. Clif did not pledge to adopt that tone, and quite frankly since the Board involvement has been minimal with regard to the GPU land use element up until now, you really don’t know what he’s going to support. What he did say last time was that he favored an A-/B+ approach to the general plan, which meant that he supported tightening up regulations related to growth and environment, just not so extreme as some of the provisions incorporated into “Plan A.” He said it more than once. If your understanding was different, you weren’t paying attention.
Lastly, concern about the impacts of unregulated low density development is not a cultural stigma. Nobody wants to take away their dreams. But the simple life ideology of the back-to-the-land-movement may be a bit outdated as far as the science goes, and being “good stewards” may not be enough to mitigate the problems associated with low density development. It may take some planning, and regulation – a troubling concept for people who moved here to be left alone. As someone who has lived the homestead lifestyle and loved it, I really sympathize. But with rivers drying up, deer populations halved over the course of 20 years, salamanders disappearing, etc. – we have to step back and take a look at what we’re doing.
April 15, 2012 at 8:00 am
Charley
I appreciate where you’re coming from here, Eric. And thanks for engaging with this issue that has so exasperated all of us who spent years trying to solve it. But we can’t solve it. Only the county as a whole can. Here’s some perspective that previous posters may profit from, it’s the Code Enforcement Task Force’s 16th Unanimous Recommendation:
“The CETF recognizes that the public concerns regarding onerous and punitive enforcement actions are much broader in scope than the CEU (Code Enforcement Unit). The CETF recommends that the Board of Supervisors make a priority out of reviewing past documents touching on code compliance issues in the County (as found or referenced in this report) and consider appointment of a new committee to examine these broader enforcement issues, including but not limited to:
–amnesty/clean slate issues
–housing element implementation
–permit process compliance/streamlining
–decriminalization ordinance implementation
–cost of implementation”
All these recommendations have been made many times by many entities, for more than 30 years. They are not a plea for special treatment. They are a guide to correcting the consequences of half a century of systematic neglect. The Task Force that approved this motion included the County Administrative Officer, Supervisor Duffy, and two career enforcement officers. It is not special pleading.
You suggest things are different now. I argue that things won’t be different until we commit ourselves to resolve our heritage of mismanagement of our rural areas.
You and I share the goals of defending rural ecosystems and Humboldt’s special character. This may be where we disagree: you think our government may become effective, this time, by continuing the policies and population treatments that have, until now, made governmental efforts comprehensively ineffective, indeed often ridiculous. I strongly disagree. I think until we address and repair the relationship between town and country in this county, new efforts will be no more effective than old efforts to turn around environmental damages that do indeed get worse. We must actually do something about them, not pass more unenforced laws. We must cooperate to solve our problems. We must have open discussion and leadership commitment to meaningful change,or we won’t change at all, we’ll just deteriorate.
A caller to the KMUD show practically implored Clif to hear that at the state level people recognize that we simply must engage with the public to influence it. Without engagement we aren’t doing anything.
April 15, 2012 at 8:19 am
Anonymous
Eric, you forgot: Park/NIMBY Neighbor Wars, frogs and when the hell have you ever ‘lived the homestead lifestyle and loved it’? In fact what is the homestead lifestyle? The Manifest Destiny 1840′s kind or the Hippy 1960′s kind.
Like I said drama, drama, drama. Did I call it or what!
April 15, 2012 at 11:19 am
Anonymous
Anyone going to the Mateel today and see the debate between these two. Hope to see more comments on a real fair debate in front of the public in SoHum. The KMUD debate was a joke and totally one sided towards Fennell, but Clif pulled it off anyway. Funny how that works
April 15, 2012 at 4:24 pm
Anonymous
Basically, reading this will be a few supporters on either side, maybe a neutral or two who happens to have some time to kill, and the guy who was trying to google Amnesty International and inadvertently hit the wrong link.
In other words, this is purely an intellectual exercise. Any “strategy” here is of no consequence. None.
Except in the battle for the soul of the guy who hit the wrong link. He might live in the Second District!
April 15, 2012 at 4:59 pm
Eric Kirk
Charley and others – I’ll get back to the discussion later on. Just had to coach three games of indoor soccer, and I have tired kids to feed.
I look forward to listening to the debate on the podcast.
April 15, 2012 at 5:59 pm
pointarenabasin
And the results of the straw poll conducted after the Mateel debate are in…ta da da dah….. Estelle – 41 / Clif – 20.
April 15, 2012 at 6:28 pm
Eric Kirk
The debate is available at the KMUD archives, but right now it’s labelled The World Beat Show according to the regular schedule. Just click where it says 3:00 p.m.
http://archive.kmud.org/
April 15, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Eric Kirk
Okay, so either Estelle or Clif is correct re stp funds. Cliff says that a state project has to be included in order for any funds to be obtained for county roads. Estelle says that’s not true.
That’s a research project for local journalists. Hank? Ryan?
April 15, 2012 at 6:38 pm
Anonymous
Its a good thing we don’t have to live or die with the results of a straw poll. Of course Fennell would have jumped on a grenade to save McKee (big round of applause), she knows how to play a room, but her working for KMUD or HumCRP has nothing to do with that. Must be nice to have that kind of hind-sight, could she of said the same thing about McKee in Fortuna? The only ones talking about ‘Free McKee’ are Fennell and Dennis Huberis.
And this ‘Pre-approved Streamline Planning and Permit Process’ that’s less costly for buisness owners and developers, when she say’s out the other side of her mouth, “I’m an environmentalist”. Well you do know what she’s yaking about, its the environmental permit process. That is the most costly part of the permit process and that’s what she wants to cut from the process. Makes sense, since she doesn’t have a problem with Caltrans taking down Richardson Grove Redwoods (big round of applause)!
April 15, 2012 at 6:54 pm
ICU812
Hey, pointarenabasin, did you notice if the people who raised there hands for Estella in the straw poll raised both arms?
April 15, 2012 at 7:05 pm
Eric Kirk
6:38 – I would also like to know what she intends to streamline. The devil’s in the details as she once said on another issue.
She did avoid the big box question this time. Last time she said that it depended on which big box whether she would support it. This time she framed it as a personal choice – she doesn’t want to buy cheap plastic crap from China. But nothing as a matter of policy.
Clif was more definitive, but it’s one of his core issues, and one of the reasons I endorsed Clif over Estelle four years ago.
April 15, 2012 at 7:11 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, I agree with Estelle’s position for increased wages for in home healthcare providers. Clif couldn’t state a position due to negotiations, but he said he agreed in principal, but it has to be balanced with other concerns. So let’s see how the negotiations work out.
I agree that it should be state funded. Actually, I think it should be federally funded through socialized medical care, but that’s not where we’re at.
April 15, 2012 at 7:16 pm
Eric Kirk
Again, she blames government “rules and regulation” on the lack of affordable housing.
I do hate to keep harping on this point, but this is the classic fundamental conservative view of economic problems in general. Why do her supporters get so angry when I point out that she holds some fundamentally conservative positions.
Clif brought up inclusionary zoning, which, at least four years ago, she opposed.
April 15, 2012 at 7:30 pm
tra
Clif said something like he’d like to give IHSS workers a raise, but the county was dealing with very difficult budgetary conditions. True enough. Now, for extra credit, see if you can connect the dots between that anwer, and another issue that came up — the millions of dollars the County has spent (wasted) on needless litigation, including the Tooby Ranch case?
Sure would be nice if we could stop flushing our money down various bureaucratic toilets and litigation rat-holes, so that maybe we could pay a half-way decent wage to the people who care for elderly and disabled friends, family, and neighbors. But no, apparently we’re not even allowed to know how many of our tax dollars are spent on litigation.
April 15, 2012 at 8:03 pm
pointarenabasin
6:54 – It was by secret written ballot. Dave Sky poll watched and counted.
April 15, 2012 at 8:06 pm
tra
“Again, she blames government “rules and regulation” on the lack of affordable housing.”
I assume what you meant to say was that she blamed the lack of affordable housing on government rules and regulations?
Of course she did not say that this was the only barrier to affordable housing, she pointed out that increased restrictions and regulatory burdens are one factor. And they are.
For example, Arcata has been debating changes to their rules on “secondary units ” (aka mother-in-law units). But last I heard, the council majority was unwilling to change the rule that in order to build a secondary unit on a property, the owner had to live in the primary unit.
Interestingly, it is Shane Brinton who has pushed to change that rule, stating that this restriction is unnecessary and that it’s counter-productive to the goals of promoting infill and affordable housing. So, I guess by your logic, that makes Shane a “fundamentally conservative” position on economic issues, right?
April 15, 2012 at 8:14 pm
pointarenabasin
What was kind of surprising was some questions that were not asked – Marijuana legalization for one.
April 15, 2012 at 9:03 pm
Anonymous
I want to know why Fennell thinks the County should drop its case with McKee? What does she know that the County or the Courts don’t know. If McKee is so right, why is he still in litigation?
tra, its not Tooby Ranch anymore, it stopped being the Tooby Ranch in October 2000. Why can’t you say McKee and Buck Mountain Ranch?
You want us to believe that the IHSS workers are not getting a raise because of the County vs. McKee litigation? And you put all this on Clendenen?
Tell me, what has Fennell done for her community serving on all those Boards? Actions speak louder than words. I believe the Mainstream Media Project is in Arcata? And why is she getting all that lunch money from Eureka?
April 15, 2012 at 9:58 pm
tra
“You want us to believe that the IHSS workers are not getting a raise because of the County vs. McKee litigation?”
Well, money’s tight, so any money wasted on unnecessary litigation is money that can’t be used for something else, including IHSS raises.
“And you put all this on Clendenen?”
No, I don’t.
April 15, 2012 at 9:59 pm
Eric Kirk
I assume what you meant to say was that she blamed the lack of affordable housing on government rules and regulations?
Of course she did not say that this was the only barrier to affordable housing, she pointed out that increased restrictions and regulatory burdens are one factor. And they are.
No tra, they really aren’t. There are plenty of homes on the market at prices cheaper than they’ve been for years. There isn’t a lack of affordable housing. The problem is that people can’t afford housing.
My father is a construction contractor, just about in retirement. He’s built in 5 or 6 counties, in California and the State of Washington. Compared to San Francisco, San Mateo County, and even Sonoma County, our permit process is a cakewalk. Many fewer rules and regulations. Yet the rules and regs barely even slow the growth down there. If homes could be sold here, they would be built.
No, she didn’t say it was the only factor. But it’s the only factor she addressed. I am frustrated by that, and her response to the big box question.
This does not make her a “Rush Limbaugh on steroids.” And I believe she is sincere in her philosophy. I simply don’t share it. That’s why I can’t support her campaign, at least not while there is another candidate to her left on this issue fundamental to the position. I know that labels aren’t always useful, but this is a fundamental philosophical issue.
April 15, 2012 at 10:21 pm
Eric Kirk
I’m also disappointed that she knows nothing about the waterfront road issue.
On the other hand, I like how she handled the home health issue. I agree that the county, without giving up invoices which could give away legal strategies and issues of confidence, should reveal how much it has spent on lawsuits. I agree with her disagreement with the “urgency ordinance.”
I’m not sure I understand her position on Richardson Grove.
I’m glad she opposes wasting time and money on reviving the railroad. That shows some sign of being willing to buck the conservative end of her coalition.
I think both candidates did what they had to do. No mistakes. Both have improved their debating skills over the past four years, or their public presentation anyway – it’s really not a debate without direct interaction IMO, but nobody ever asks me.
Actually, one of them made a mistake on the stp funding. Both can’t be right.
April 15, 2012 at 10:47 pm
tra
Well I agree with you that the root problem is people not having enough money. But unless you have some magical solution that will solve that problem overnight, lower-income people will continue to need someplace to live, someplace they can afford, in other words “affordable housing.” I would note that Clif went on and on about the need for “affordable housing,” so if you really believe there is no problem with the price of housing, perhaps you should explain your position to him. And isn’t the need for “affordable housing” the whole reason for “inclusionary zoning?” It seems to me that your arguments in this area are a bit self-contradictory, to say the least.
Meanwhile, while you note that there are “plenty of homes on the market at prices cheaper than they’ve been for years,” surely you must realize that many low and moderate-income people who are in need of housing are not in the market to buy anything — they’re nowhere near that level of financial security — they’re looking for a rental. It’s all fine and well to say “well if people just had more money, they could all buy houses,” but since that’s not the case, your remark comes off as a bit of a “then let them eat cake” moment. Almost Romneyesque in it’s tone-deafness toward the very real issue that people of modest means face trying to find a place they can afford. Prices for purchasing a home may have gone down, but rents have not.
And it’s simply not true that regulatory issues have no impact on whether low and moderate-income people can afford housing or not. You simply ignored the Arcata example, but it’s quite clear that a particular regulatory restriction is preventing some folks from building small, affordable rentals. Restrict the supply of rentals too much and rents will go up, and poor people will suffer. Shane understands that, and I’m kind of shocked that you apparently don’t.
April 15, 2012 at 11:08 pm
Eric Kirk
No, no tra, you don’t get it, and the irony of “let them eat cake” statement is that what they are asking for in order to make the construction of low income housing affordable is to be allowed to build crap housing with lax regs.
We have low income housing in Redway. It was constructed under the regs recently. And it’s quality because of those regs.
Most contractors don’t want to build low income housing because it’s not profitable. Inclusionary zoning basically subsidizes the construction of low income housing through the profits of profitable housing. It’s socialism in effect, or redistribution anyway. Progressive taxation. Whatever. You want thhto build some expensive homes to sell. Fine. But you’re going to have to build some affordable stuff too.
Rents have gone down in most places, but not here for reasons particular to the local economy. No amount of derugalation is going to change that.
Again however, if your free market approach was going to work, it would work to sell off some of the inventory of low income housing which has been sitting on the market for years now. But people are broke because they aren’t working, and because they can’t get loans. And they’re in that spot because of deregulation of another industry. We don’t need more deregulation.
Sorry TRA, but I’m frustrated. YOU should know better.
April 15, 2012 at 11:08 pm
tra
Glad you agree that the County ought to be able (and willing) to tell us how much money they’re spending on litigation. While I suspect you’ll disagree with this characterization, I must say that I thought Clif came off as pretty weasely on that point. He seemed to be trying to give the impression that the County legally constrained from sharing that information, but he didn’t supply any kind of argument to back that up. He certainly didn’t come across as a “straight shooter” on that point, at least not to me. At any rate, it sure would be nice if they just handed over the information, instead of spending more of our tax money on litigation defending their “right” to not tell us how much they’ve spent on other litigation.
April 15, 2012 at 11:16 pm
Eric Kirk
TRA – he’s heavily constricted on what he can say about lawsuits, and the attorneys are telling him not to talk about it – for good reason. Unfortunately, I’m not in a position to discuss the Tooby case either.
I believe the amounts should be disclosed, in a certain form. Clif is in a bind trying to run a campaign with attorneys restricting what he can say, but it’s part of the job.
I can tell you with confidence that Estelle will probably be singing a different tune if she’s in office. Not that she won’t vote to end the suit, she might do that. But her behavior will be confusing to some of her supporters hot on the McKee case issue, or any lawsuit issue. And she won’t be able to explain it fully. Note that Virginia and Ryan have also been very reserved as well. It’s tricky.
April 15, 2012 at 11:25 pm
tra
If they discussed the “urgency” ordinance in this debate, I guess I missed it. But they certainy discussed it the other night on Charley’s show, where Clif made the astonishing statement that “we fenced the yard, and tried to kind of corral the protest kind of away from the ingress and egress area.”
It seems to me that this statement was either disengenuous (which is how it came off to me), or else shows an inability to grasp a very simple and obvious fact — that the fence did exactly the opposite, it “corralled” the protesters over by the courthouse steps, pretty much guaranteeing that any remaining protesters would be closer to the entrance area — contributing to the “ingress and egress” issues that were later cited as a part of the reason for the “urgency ordinance.”
His lame explanation of the perceived “need” for the urgency ordinance also failed to explain how criminalizing candlelight vigils, or any other kind of nighttime gatherings at the courthouse, would do anything to address the “ingress and egress” issues during the day, or for that matter, would address any of the other reasons given for why the “urgency” ordinance needed to be passed. Again, he came off more as a deflecting, misleading politician than a “straight shooter.”
But perhaps to some folks who consider themselves “progressive,” defending freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, and demanding transparency in government just aren’t considered a “core” issues any more…as long as the candidate shares their views on land use, then trifling little matters like the First Amendment or the Freedom of Information Act are apparently just not all that important.
April 15, 2012 at 11:46 pm
tra
Yes, your frustration is apparent, but it appears that it is also interfering with your ability to reason. One moment you’re saying that there is no need for “affordable housing,” and the next, you’re advocating for “inclusionary zoning” to guarantee that there is more of it. By the way, I’m fine with inclusionary zoning. I’m a pragmatist, I’m not wedded to the idea that only free market approaches can work, not to the idea that only government-subsidized approaches can work.
Again, you have ignored the specific example I brought up, related to secondary units (which, by the way, are an example of actual “infill”). No one is advocating that it should be “crap housing with lax regs.” Shane Brinton is advocating that the City of Arcata should remove it’s requirement that in order to build a “secondary unit” the landowner must reside in the primary unit. Yes, it’s a free-market approach, and it does require removing an unnecessary and counter-productive regulation, but it doesn’t preclude other approaches from being utilized as well.
Your attempt to paint this as a black-and-white issue where if you’re for some free-market removal-of-unnecessary-and-counterproductive-regulations approaches, you must be against any other approaches, just makes no sense. Shane is for taking this unnecessary-regulation-removing approach on secondary units, and (I believe) he is also for inclusionary zoning. Estelle is for some free-market approaches, but just like Clif she also stated her support for more “supportive housing,” which is (as far as I know) is always government-subsidized.
Apparently it’s easier to wrestle with that monochromatic Straw Man you’ve created, than to grapple with the actual issues. Well, have at it. From my vantage point, it looks a little bit silly, but then again so is a good deal of what passes for political discourse in this county.
April 16, 2012 at 4:07 am
S
tar, for all your posted opinions wouldn’t it be a service to the community to identify yourself? Why do you hide your identity yet try to influence people behind a cloak of secrecy? You’re not alone in this identity fraud business of Progressive activists but it really is a continuing slap in the face of democracy to have hidden promoters working the public. Why hide except to deceive the public?
Stephen
April 16, 2012 at 6:11 am
ANON
I was impressed with the big crowd given how beautiful it was outside.
As far as who had the edge, I would have to give it to Estelle.
The audience obviously thought so too since the straw poll gave a resounding win to Estelle. (41 votes for Estelle and 20 for Clif)
April 16, 2012 at 8:39 am
Eric Kirk
TRA – Inclusionary zoning is a long term policy. You know that. It’s a liberal approach, opposed by conservatives.
I don’t know what “supportive housing” means, but if she’s supporting tax-payer backed housing, I wish she would say it.
As far as monochromatic approaches go, I believe I paid Estelle several compliments for her debate performance in this thread. So far you’ve called Clif a liar and an idiot.
I don’t know anything about the measure advocated by Shane in Arcata, but if it’s as you describe then maybe I would support it. I would need more information.
If Estelle would be specific about which regulations she opposes, perhaps that would help. Typically what developers whine about is that by demanding the same standards to protect poor people we are pricing them out of the market because nobody can afford to give them housing at the same standards. That’s what I hear when when a politician says that.
Words and labels may have limitations in their applicability, but they do have meaning. They do reflect philosophies. For instance, “property rights,” while they sound benign enough, have very specific political meaning.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-404es.html
And as for monochromatic approaches to political ideas, I would not be so concerned if she hadn’t alligned herself so closely and intimately with those interests. I want to know what they expect of her. Why they are pouring money into her campaign? She has told me that she is focused on rural issues, not urban issues, but she’s not just a single issue advocate anymore. She will have to deal with those rural issues. Other than her opposition to the Cutten proposal, which is also opposed by most of the old guard developer interests for reasons other than the commercial space, I have not seen her comment.
Maybe in the next debate a question will come up on the Balloon Track. I’ll watch for her answer, and hope she doesn’t say as she did to the Fortuna big box four years ago, that it’s Eureka’s business and nobody else’s.
I’m glad she said that she opposes wasting time trying to revive the railroad through the Eel River Valley, but that’s a forgone conclusion. I would like to be able to comment positively on idications that she will act independ of some of her supporters. Otherwise, the presence of her sign on that barn north of Hansen’s Truck stop – the one which has hosted signs for Meg Whitman, Bill Simon, and a host of Republican candidates, will continue to generate a sense of urgency here. Of course, then I will be concerned as to whether she can last more than one term if she shows too much independence, but at least I can comment positively on her independence based upon public statements. Not that I’m not sympathetic that she has to be careful if she’s going to maintain the unwieldy coalition behind her. I saw signs of potential fraying of that at one of the big GPU meetings.
As far as the straw poll, while not scientific I think it is by coincidence reflective of the sohum vote. I expect her to take Sohum about 2 to 1, with somewhere between 60 and 70 percent of the vote. Assuming Sohum votes at the same rate as Fortuna (usually it’s lower, but there may be a more motivated vote this time), then she has to take about 40 percent of the northern votes to break even with him (assuming she gets 70 percent down here). She has the right wing of the business community behind her, but that hasn’t always corresponded with wins in Fortuna. I don’t know how it will play in Rio Dell and Hysdeville, both of which went to Rodoni the last time. I’ve spoken with people involved with both campaigns who claim to be speaking to Rodoni supporters who are supporting them. Johanna herself appears to be staying out of it. I don’t blame her. She’s in a different district now anyway.
And if it’s that close, Clif’s agreement to give up the Fortuna suburbs to the First so that all of Sohum can remain intact will go down as a self-less sacrifice for a community which does not politically support him. And that speaks to his integrity.
April 16, 2012 at 10:03 am
Anonomous
I attended the debate last night. the crowd seemed very much leaning for Estelle with rounds of applause at many of her statements.
There was one really annoying thing going on behind us during the whole debate and that was some lady was making distracting noises and actually “cackling” every time Estelle would answer a question. People kept turning around to see who was doing it . I didn’t know who she was until after the debate when I asked someone . Then it all made sense to me after learning that the woman was Arcata resident Elizabeth Connors. She is a staunch very restrictive Plan A proponent and Clif is paying her to be his “consultant”.
Arcata should focus on their own district ( mark Lovelace’s) and stop trying to influence what goes on in our 2nd district .. memo to Clif and Elizabeth: We’re Not Arcata, stop trying to shape us into your likeness.
April 16, 2012 at 10:14 am
Eric Kirk
I would just point out that zenophobia only plays into the stereotypes of cultural bias Charley speaks of earlier in the thread.
There was a time when Sohum and Arcata felt an affiliation as progressive oasis in an otherwise conservative county. Times have changed.
April 16, 2012 at 10:24 am
tra
“So far you’ve called Clif a liar and an idiot.”
No, I haven’t. I do think his statement about the “urgency ordinance” on Charley’s show, where he said “we fenced the yard, and tried to kind of corral the protest kind of away from the ingress and egress area” is pretty hard to explain, and it seems to me that it either indicates disingenuousness, or a lack of understanding. Since I don’t think he’s “an idiot,” and incapable of understanding how fencing the yard did the exact opposite of what he claimed, the statement came off as disingenuous, at least to my ear. If there is some other explanation, I’d like to hear it.
April 16, 2012 at 10:47 am
tra
As far as their performances in this “debate” (and I totally agree that it’s not much of a “debate” when there is no real back-and-forth between the candidates) I actually think Clif came of as a bit more more polished than Estelle. Several times, Estelle had to ask Ed to repeat the question, and it seemed like she ran out of time and wasn’t able to wrap up her answers as clearly as Clif, who I thought generally did a better job of keeping his answers concise.
And as you noted, Estelle whiffed on the question about Waterfront Drive. To be fair, it hasn’t really been discussed at all for a number of years, and until the article in the Times-Standard yesterday, I had no idea there was any active movement on it at all. So I guess she hadn’t read the Times-Standard yesterday, which was a mistake. And though I doubt this issue matters a great deal to 2nd District voters (and I doubt even more that the Waterfront Drive extension is going anywhere anyway), nonetheless, since that question came at the end of the debate, and she sounded kind of befuddled about it, it certainly didn’t come off very well.
Overall, I agree with your judgement that they both basically did fine, with no major mistakes. In my opinion, neither one came off as a particularly charismatic speaker, but since this is just a County Supervisor race, expectations in that area are probably appropriately low. But, putting aside the content of their answers, at least on overall style/presentation, in all honesty I’d have to give Clif a slight edge.
April 16, 2012 at 10:50 am
Eric Kirk
Yeah, “liar” and “idiot” was hyperbole, and I got on your case about the rush limbaugh on steroids, so I shouldn’t have said that. Sorry.
April 16, 2012 at 11:19 am
tra
No problem. It’s probably inevitable that this kind of discusssion gets kind of heated sometimes, and I’ve certainly veered into hyperbole at times, too, including some posts in this thread. Ah well, nobody’s perfect. That being said, I think you and I generally do quite a bit better than average, as far as actually trying to address one another’s points.
I think one thing that’s being illustrated here is that our reactions to each of the candidates’ statements often ends up having as much to do with what we are “reading into” their statements, as their statements themselves. I think partly this is just human nature, and partly it’s because many of the answers given by both of the candidates were kind of vague. Which is par for the course in politics, but still frustrating.
April 16, 2012 at 11:29 am
tra
I’d like to see (what I consider) a “real” debate, where the candidates have a chance for rebuttals. For some reason, they were each given a chance for a rebuttal with the very first question in the debate, but not any of the other questions.
By the way, does anyone know how they decided which questions were “one minute questions,” which were “two minute questions,” and so on? I found that aspect rather puzzling, as there seemed to be no particular rhyme or reason as to which questions were given a longer response time. In some cases, the candidates clearly could have said more, but were stymied by the fact that the question they were responding to was a “one minute question,” and in other cases, where they were given a longer response period, it seemed like they were kind of filling time by reverting to talking points that weren’t really very closely related to the questions they had been asked.
April 16, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Dave Kirby
For a lot of us boomers its hard to let go of the old formula. Work hard, stay out of trouble and sooner or latter you get the house on a lot with a little white picket fence and “two cats in the yard”. Its hard to realize that a majority of the up and coming generation may never own a single family residence.
This means that “affordable” becomes a multifamily unit or rental. The biggest obstacle to providing more of this form of housing is resistance from the neighbors to these projects. As Eric mentioned profit margins for builders also plays a part. In the south weather and low income make for a large number of trailer dwellers. That may become more prevalent here.
I am always amused when I see news of some disaster where in the aftermath someone starts spouting off how we Americans pull together to help each other in tough times. After spending 4 years on the county planning commission this sounds particularly tinny. The motto of most of the testimony I heard was “I got mine, you go somewhere else and get yours”. Until we can break down that selfish mind set and see we are all in the same leaky boat together it will be difficult to resolve these housing issues.
April 16, 2012 at 8:22 pm
eddenson
tra – the questions were assembled by Dave Sky, some from emails sent to him. A couple sounded to me like set-ups from the campaigns. I did a bit of editing trying to make the questions not point to a certain answer, made “cheap Chinese crap” into “cheap Chinese goods” , things like that. The candidates received most of the questions (all but the last few) a day or two in advance by email, Dave tells me, so they had time to prepare answers. Both were using written notes.
The time limits were on the sheet Dave Sky gave me, so I imagine he determined them. I don’t know if the limits were on the copies sent to the candidates, but I believe so. I thought they didn’t fully correspond to the questions, either. Probably I would have set 1 minute on all of them except the introduction and closing, and then if both candidates said they wanted more, given it to them, were I in charge of the time limits. Just as happy that I was not, however.
The question of a “real debate” is on my mind too. Couple of things: first it would take much longer to cover any topic, thus there would be many fewer topics. Second, it would require a much more active moderator if someone were to require the candidates to stay focused on the actual issues at hand. I imagine it being more like cross-examination at a court hearing- but that’s because I’m a lawyer. The Republican “debates” were great fun, but they were not really issue debates. Just allowing time to “reply” does not make a debate. Speaking of that, I too wondered why only one question got a rebuttal time.
Most interestingly there were no marijuana questions, and no Urgency Ordinance questions. I was especially surprised at the lack of pot questions because now for almost the first time in a decade the Supervisors are actually doing things about marijuana regulations which affect growers and users. There is a dispensary ordinance in the making, outdoor growing hasn’t been addressed (nor does it need to be IMHO, but it will be). As for the Urgency Ordinance, there is a lot of money being wasted on Occupy Protest prosecutions, and the ordinance seems to make further and larger waste likely, so you would think between the rights issues and the financial issues that it would come up. Go figure.
I thought both candidates came off well, but as moderator I didn’t hear about 1/2 of it. Estelle’s mic boomed, which didn’t help, but mostly I had to keep track of the timekeeping and who was going to speak next, so I couldn’t just listen to it. Perhaps I should go to the KMUD archives and listen to it all.
April 16, 2012 at 10:24 pm
Eric Kirk
The candidates received most of the questions (all but the last few) a day or two in advance by email, Dave tells me, so they had time to prepare answers. Both were using written notes.
The questions ahead of time? That’s no fun!
It explains why Estelle knew about the second part of the Richardson Grove question.
I hadn’t thought of the lack of pot questions. That’s weird now that I think about it. They dominated the congressional candidates debate. Maybe everyone just assumed that someone else would ask about it.
April 16, 2012 at 10:31 pm
tra
Thanks Ed. I thought you did a great job.
I’m surprised to hear that both campaigns had most of the questions in advance.
April 17, 2012 at 6:55 am
Anonymous
“Words and labels may have limitations in their applicability, but they do have meaning. They do reflect philosophies. For instance, “property rights,” while they sound benign enough, have very specific political meaning.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-404es.html”
As long as the paranoia flu is going around take a look at:
There are nuts on all sides. It might be worthwhile if a few of us held off from drinking too much of the Kool Aid or the next thing you know we will all be wearing tin foil hats.
Not everything is an international conspiracy by either the environmentalists or the developers to take over the world. Sometimes it’s just local folks with different perspectives.
Besides tin foil doesn’t really stop the ray gun waves anyway. The Martians figured out a way around that years ago.
April 17, 2012 at 8:13 am
Ernie's Place
For me, the two pivotal questions were the first one, about why the STIP funding for SoHum paving and road repairs was giving away by the Supes, and two, how much money has been wasted on the Buck Mountain Ranch / Williamson Act lawsuit.
The lawsuit needs no follow-up question because the lawyers have all that information tied up by intimidating public officials from revealing anything.
Giving away the STIP money is a very big deal and should have taken up at least a half hour.
April 17, 2012 at 9:15 am
Eric Kirk
Well, basically, Clif said that the STIP money can only come if a state project is in the mix, and Estelle said no. It really comes down to that, because that’s Clif’s explanation for his vote. Until someone verifies the question one way or another, there’s not too much to talk about.
6:55 – it’s a true enough statement, but I don’t see what the video and the second half of the post has to to with my point which you quoted. I didn’t say anything about conspiracies.
April 17, 2012 at 4:35 pm
ICU812
Wait a minute, your telling us both Clendenen and Fennell knew the questions a day or two before hand and that was the best answers either of them could come up with? What the hell! So it was live, but not the questions? What kind of shake down is this debate, what BS.
April 17, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Anonnymoose
Check out LostCoast Outpost for a very relevant piece on the STIP money and the Eureka/Arcata safety corridor. Boiled down to the essence, Clif was right and Estelle was wrong. 16 million would not have been available to fix county roads but would have gone to other State highway projects.
April 17, 2012 at 8:07 pm
eddenson
tra – I was surprised to hear about the advance notice to the candidates, too. You notice the one time someone was puzzled it was one of the add-on questions. All in all, I think advance info gives better answers to every question except one: “How well does the candidate think on his/her feet? ” which may not be a crucial quality for a supervisor to have.
April 18, 2012 at 10:32 am
Anonymous
Exactky ed and tra. This was a shake down debate. It was an open book test, it doesn’t test your knowledge, just your ability to access knowledge. After the fact that estelle is wrong about the STIP funds, basically says that estelle can’t even pass an open book test. estelle needs to be sent back one grade.
April 19, 2012 at 12:22 pm
eddenson
Well, all Supervisor decisions are “open book” in that they get input about decisions that they need to make, and then they make them. I don’t think we want a supervisor that shoots from the hip and then gets the facts straight. ICU812 did not like the quality of the answers. Without joining in it as I did not actually hear all the answers, it seems to me that is a legitimate critique of the candidates, and one which this type of “debate” with advance knowledge of the questions, is well-suited to allow. In a way it displays the kind of thinking that will lead to their decisions if elected.
April 19, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Ernie's Place
I guess a better question would be: WAS Garberville in the STIP plan for pavement.
If yes, the secondquestion would be: Why isn’t it now?
I don’t understand where the money went. If the county is supposedly getting more money than it would have gotten before giving it to the Safety Corridor, why are they not not paving Redwood drive?
Follow the money.
April 19, 2012 at 3:24 pm
Eric Kirk
I guess a better question would be: WAS Garberville in the STIP plan for pavement.
If yes, the secondquestion would be: Why isn’t it now?
You mean the proposal? Because if I’m understanding Kym’s article, there’s no “plan” with approved financing, only a proposal for funding, revised to maximize the possibilities of getting any of the funding.
An old umpire saying, “somes is balls and somes is strikes, but until I calls em, they ain’t nothin.”
April 19, 2012 at 4:15 pm
suzy blah blah
“somes is balls and somes is strikes, but until I calls em, they ain’t nothin.”
-i have to admit that explanations of wave/particle duality and theories that Nuttin really exists are over my head, suzy’s still tryin to figure out who’s on first.
April 19, 2012 at 4:19 pm
suzy blah blah
-whoops, maybe this … will close the italics.
April 19, 2012 at 5:53 pm
immigrant
So, how is Charley Custer affiliated with HumCPR? I assume he gets paid for writing articles for their newsletter, does he get paid to do a radio show for them?
April 21, 2012 at 3:00 pm
kmudtech
Audio from Sunday 4/15 debate at Mateel has been re-uploaded to http://archive.kmud.org and re-labeled as Supervisor Debate at Mateel Community Center. It’s downloadable.
Today is the first day of KMUD’s spring pledge drive. Please give generously so the station can continue to bring you this kind of service. Go to http://kmud.org and make a donation, or better yet, become a sustaining member. $10 a month perhaps? Sound good? Alrighty, thank you very much!