Everything Southern Humboldt and more
The Humboldt Sentinel reports on a very contentious special meeting of the Board of Supervisors, and it looks like the new conservative majority is ready to scrap the whole plan and start over. So far no coverage from the TS or any of the other media blogs.
Addendum: Coverage from the NCJ.
Jen Kalt interviewed on the subject.
Second addendum: Hank comments on the majority’s concern that the document is too big and difficult to read.
 | hillmuffin on Online Petition to the Board o… |
 | That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| hillmuffin on Online Petition to the Board o… |
 | Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
 | Jim A. on On the Watering Down of the Pu… |
| Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
 | Not A Native on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
13 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 12, 2012 at 8:10 am
Twigs
Got to love the argument that the document needs to be dummed-down instead of the public better informed. It isn’t 1920 anymore people things are complex and the science complicated. Could we please move forward into this century without the big box developers and making Humboldt look like just another plastic city in the mega-corporate village.
September 12, 2012 at 8:39 am
Eric Kirk
I got a call from Mark Lovelace who wants to assure us that the General Plan Update itself cannot as a matter of law be “dead.” A GPU which complies with state law must be accomplished. The only question is whether 12 years of work gets tossed and they have to start over.
I figured that was implicit if not explicit in all the articles to which I linked, but he wanted to clarify.
September 12, 2012 at 10:06 am
tra
I don’t get what is so surprising about the majority of supervisors not wanting to just rubber-stamp the GPU document that has been provided to them. We’ve just had an election, there is one brand-new supervisor on the board, and will be another one in January.
Here’s what Sundberg is actually asking for, according to today’s Times-Standard:
“He’s proposing county staff create a worksheet that lists planning items from the 1984 framework plan in one box, the changes made to date in another box and a final box listing the reasons for the change.”
And, again according to today’s Times Standard:
“Bohn said he supports Sundberg’s idea of looking at the initial framework plan from 1984 and the present draft in order to do a comparison of the two. He said he wants to see what is federally and state mandated, and what extra items have been added to the plan.”
So, why wouldn’t we want the staff to compile a clear side-to-side comparison between the existing General Plan and the current draft of the proposed new General Plan Update, along with the stated purpose for each change or new item, and whether each change or new item is mandated by federal or state law, or is at the discretion of the county?
September 12, 2012 at 10:23 am
Eric Kirk
If that’s all he wants, I have no objections. But the statements attributed to them on Monday suggest a bit more to it.
September 12, 2012 at 10:45 am
tra
It looks to me like the request to compare the provisions of the existing General Plan to those in the proposed General Plan Update is being interpreted by some as the first step toward rejecting most of the latter in favor of the former. And maybe it is, I guess we’ll see. Could also be that they just want to be able to pick and choose, taking some of the provisions of the old plan and some from the proposed update.
Lovelace seems to be taking the position that they should only choose from among the options presented to them by the Planning Commission, and that any deviation from that approach would automatically amount to “throwing out 12 years of hard work and starting over.” But I was under the impression that the board was free to accept or reject or modify any of the recommendations from the Planning Commission. Was I wrong about that?
September 13, 2012 at 6:50 am
Twigs
The cost is the problem Jim. It is hard not to see this move as a self-aggrandizing one which new supervisors can use to pull their own political strings. Sinking twelve years of time, energy, and money is a highly questionable action and should be motivated by something other than politics and associated ideology. A clear statement on why, at this stage in the game, there is enough significant questions of value to drive additional costs, time, staff resources, while wasting the budget money that has already gone into the process should be forthcoming.
The public deserves a clear statement as well as a cost estimate on what any delay in process or review would take. After twelve years of input this is simply out of bounds in my opinion. You have freshman supervisors storming in like the Tea Party in Congress who want to change up directions to potentially repay election debts to special interests and not being very transparent about it either.
September 13, 2012 at 7:01 am
Ann
It’s a shame the supervisors didn’t move this process along faster, so that it isn’t an issue with the new board. It should have been approved last year or the year before.
September 13, 2012 at 7:28 am
gpf
It looks like for the first time in a long time, the supervisors are actually supervising their staff rather than the other way around.
“He’s (Sundberg) proposing county staff create a worksheet that lists planning items from the 1984 framework plan in one box, the changes made to date in another box and a final box listing the reasons for the change.”
Nothing wrong with getting answers for fundamental questions. The public deserves clear statements.
This is a refreshing change of wind.
September 13, 2012 at 8:39 am
Twigs
You hold up twelve years of work, twelve years of collective input, grandstanding, to encourage more public input, at the end of the process? If they just wanted a public relations campaign it isn’t hard to give that directive. That isn’t what was done.
But I agree its a source of hot wind in a bag.
September 13, 2012 at 8:41 am
Anonymous
Everywhere else the country is moving to the left. But here in Humboldt we lurch to the right. Profits before people!
September 13, 2012 at 10:03 am
tra
“Sinking twelve years of time, energy, and money is a highly questionable action.”
Asked why they seemed so intent on stampeding straight over the cliff without slowing down and taking a look over the edge, the lemmings said “well, we’ve been running for miles, turning back now would be a highly questionable action.”
September 13, 2012 at 10:50 am
Eric Kirk
The TS has a new story.
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_21532695/options-covered-at-next-general-plan-update-meeting
September 14, 2012 at 6:13 am
Twigs
Tra don’t get your knickers in a knot and go all Faux News and generalize. If they have a good reason then they should be able to document that reason clearly. Along with a budget analysis of what it will cost taxpayers to take a u-turn or other deviant route for special interests. What they’ve put out so far just amplifies my opinion they are shooting with buckshot instead of a rifle and really don’t have a clue that being in public office is not the same as just running one long election campaign. There is a responsibility to be taken seriously. That goes for those on the Board now and those coming in.