From Estelle 2012 Facebook page – Mark, Estelle, and Rex - a new era.
Recent Comments
 | Eric Kirk 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… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| Eric Kirk on Online Petition to the Board o… |
 | suzy blah blah on North Coast Environmental Cent… |
| suzy blah blah on North Coast Environmental Cent… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
 | Narration on North Coast Environmental Cent… |
| suzy blah blah on North Coast Environmental Cent… |
| Narration on North Coast Environmental Cent… |
 | longwind on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| longwind on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| Eric Kirk on Online Petition to the Board o… |
60 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 7, 2013 at 2:13 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Maybe Estelle can light a fire under the other 4 supes buttoxes in getting the GPU process finished; afterall, Estelle’s GPU knowledge “BLOWS AWAY” the collective total of understanding by the other four supes. Crazy! – HOJ
January 8, 2013 at 7:41 am
ANON
There’s a great pic of Estelle being sworn in on the front page of the Times Standard this morning. Great photo! Some of my family drove up to see her get sworn in and the chambers were packed. As I looked around, I was impressed to see so many people from Garberville, Rio Dell,Fortuna, Shelter Cove and Blocksburg just to see their new Supe Estelle make it official.
January 8, 2013 at 10:05 am
Cookie
Ugh. Yuck. Ick.
January 8, 2013 at 11:21 am
bolithio
I for one will wait a judge her and others based on their performance.
January 8, 2013 at 1:28 pm
anonomous
Fennell is going to be a great Supervisor for not just her District but for all of HC and I’m really happy that she’s finally in there.
January 8, 2013 at 1:44 pm
Jane
Hahahah… Cookie you read my mind! Was thinking the same thing. Hopefully she will prove us wrong.
January 8, 2013 at 1:59 pm
anon says
poor cookiejaneclendenen…… sour grapes
January 8, 2013 at 2:21 pm
Anonymous
Poor county now with a 4-1 right wing majority on its board!
January 8, 2013 at 3:36 pm
ANON
Poor shallow Anonymous….your stale divisive politics are y u lost and r now a thing of the past. Good riddance! hee hee
January 8, 2013 at 4:39 pm
Cookie
Actually the divisiveness that helped Clif lose was brought about by Kathleen and Estelle. Remember the term ‘urban environmentalist’ coined by these 2 and was used in such a derogatory manner.
Arcata remembers how Kathleen constantly dissed them.
January 8, 2013 at 5:51 pm
Anonymous
Interestingly it was not Kathleen nor was it Estelle that coined the phrase ‘Urban Environmentalist’. Check HumCPR quotes prior to Estelle joining the group. Certainly they and many others have picked up it’s use. However, to be perfectly clear the phrase is not derogatory at all, simply accurate when used to describe environmentalists of a particular mindset, particularly when it comes to where they believe housing should or shouldn’t be. It is in no way any more derogatory than ‘rural environmentalist’ might be. I for one, welcome being labled with the latter. Of course I’m not trying to hide my perspective; I’m proud of it.
January 8, 2013 at 9:53 pm
Eric Kirk
Whoever coined it did the community a serious disservice. And yes, it is derogatory, because it’s all in the intention – applying a label to dismiss an argument. It’s lazy, and counterproductive.
January 8, 2013 at 9:54 pm
Eric Kirk
And by the way, it’s not accurate. Arcata is hardly “urban.”
January 8, 2013 at 10:20 pm
Anonymous
Red states are rural. Blue states are urban. The bias against cities is about race.
January 9, 2013 at 2:00 am
ICU812
‘Urban Environmentalist’ has been used since the early 90′s up in Seattle.
January 9, 2013 at 11:41 am
Cookie
HumCPR wants to take the credit for the term, I say we should also credit them, along with Kathleen and Estelle, for the serious disservice done to the community.
January 9, 2013 at 2:31 pm
moviedad
10:20 pm is very astute.
January 9, 2013 at 2:49 pm
Anonymous
“And yes, it is derogatory, because it’s all in the intention – applying a label to dismiss an argument..”
As usual and in an apparent attempt to be snarky you fail to consider all the facts. There is simply nothing derogatory about the word urban. In this case it is simply descriptive of a particular mindset. If the phrase was ‘stupid’ or ‘sneaky urban environmentalists’ or something similar that would be derogatory. When a particular group or type of environmentalist is advocating the benifits of urban lifestyles over rural ones it is totally reasonable to call them ‘urbanists’ or ‘urban environmentalists’. If you perceive something negative with respect to a label that accurately describes your position then perhaps you should change your position. Of course when you’re goal is misinform and mislead your approach works perfectly.
Oh yeah:
“And by the way, it’s not accurate. Arcata is hardly “urban.”
Perhaps you should read any number of articles by Healthy Humboldt, Bay Keeper, EPIC and others along with numerous places in the proposed General Plan and County Health Assessment all of which refer to Humboldt’s obviously urban areas as just that. At least they are obviously urban to those folks along with anyone else who has their eyes open and is more concerned with accuracy than attack.
It’s really too bad. In the past this blog was one of the few places where there was a chance at civil dialog with a minimum of blatent propaganda and personal attacks (of the anonymous persuasion). It’s disappointing to see that perspective disappear. Perhaps with time civility prevails, we can hope.
January 9, 2013 at 5:02 pm
Cookie
There is nothing derogatory about the word urban. Kathleen purposely used the term urban environmentalist, and when she said it she sounded as if she had a piece of shit in her mouth. Her express purpose was to denigrate Arcata environmentalists. Her express purpose was to divide the environmental communities of northern and southern Humboldt. You can poo poo this all day long. What Kathleen and Estelle did was disrespectful to all concerned.
January 9, 2013 at 5:33 pm
Eric Kirk
In this case it is simply descriptive of a particular mindset.
The very assumption that there is a “mindset” of people who choose to live in an “urban” area that is distinct from someone who lives in a rural area is derogatory, and the assumption that someone holds a certain position because he lives in the big city and just doesn’t get it is presumptuous, oversimplifying, dismissive, and just plain wrong. There are plenty of rural dwelling environmentalists who agree that the most efficient allocation of resources, and the most environmental, is the cluster model of development. Are those the only concerns in making a lifestyle decision? No. We all choose to drive cars, fly airplanes, consume according to certain patterns. Are the “urbanists” as you call them right or wrong? That’s certainly up for debate. Perhaps the lower density massive spreadout is actually better for the environment and resources, as was once believed in the “small is beautiful” model which the “urbanists” believe outdated.
The point is that there are “urban people” who agree with your position, and “rural people” who disagree with your position. The assumption that these “urban” or “boutique” environmentalists just don’t get it because they haven’t lived your lifestyle (many of them have by the way) is condescending, dismissive, and yes, derogatory. And it’s been particularly effective in the HumCPR campaign to claim power in the county government by playing to the “other” concept, always a winning strategy in political campaigns, especially electoral.
What you don’t realize is that there are environmentalists right out there in those hills who don’t believe that expanding the homestead model is sustainable. They didn’t necessarily believe that before they spent their life savings getting set up out there, but they have looked at the situation and while they don’t want to be moved off their properties, they don’t think the model should be expanded. They are conscious of the fact that it looks hypocritical – that they got theirs and now want to slam the door on everyone else. But they’re also looking at the data, and the information that wasn’t available 40 years ago, about the draws from rivers, the decline of certain forms of wildlife in subdivision areas, and other issues. This includes my parents who own acreage in Mendocino County. It also includes people who came up to me during the campaign and told me that they were voting for Clif, but whispered it because they couldn’t deal with the social or perhaps business fallout of taking such a position publicly.
So are they “urban environmentalists?” The problem with the term is that it becomes a code word, and explanation for his/her point of view. It’s lazy, and it oversimplifies – at best. At worst, it simply frames the terms for division. Have the Arcata-based activists come up with a code term for you? No, they haven’t. And in fact I’ve noticed at the public meetings that their decibel levels tend to be much lower than that of their opposition.
HumCPR has tried to frame the process as the beaurocrats vs. the people. The frame is compromised when some of the people actually show up to advocate Plan A policies. These aren’t real people of course. They’re “urban” or “boutique” environmentalists. Discussion over, arguments dismissed.
January 9, 2013 at 10:10 pm
anon says
Clendenan lost because he did not have broadbase support, + he never returned phonecalls.( I called at least 5 times, never heard back) His base came from Arcata along with his manager. The 2nd District is not Arcata which clif failed to get.
Fennell had broadbase support from throughout the district and she had a solid win.
That’s the way the Clendenan”Cookie” crumbled, and continues to crumble with these facile excuses as to why Clendenan lost.
January 9, 2013 at 10:39 pm
Anonymous
Of course the same argument doesn’t apply when it’s you who constantly refers to HumCPR being controlled by the evil and supposed ‘developer interests’. That kind of name calling is different cuz it’s you. As if all four thousand members are Realtors and developers. Perhaps they’ve all been somehow hoodwinked or dosed with a magic right wing potion? Maybe they are simply incapible of independant thought or just stupid since they disagree with your more enlightened perspective? Get real, you don’t get to have it both ways. At least not in the reality most of us live in. Double standards can be challenging to justify. But not to worry there’s always a way to spin it if you’re creative enough or if you just ignore the facts.
In any event, go ahead and delude yourself. I give up.
January 9, 2013 at 10:59 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, I’ve never said that HumCPR is evil, and I’ve never called them names. It’s initial funding came from developers, and it’s initial base of support came from developers and the conservative elements of the county – which is why the supporters list was removed from the website after Estelle took over – a very smart move politically. And Estelle did receive 30 grand in developer money right out of the gate. Those of us who have advocated smart growth policies and tighter planning both in “urban” and rural areas are very wary of such an alliance.
The page used to be here: http://humcpr.org/supporters.html
Does this make them “evil?” No, but I guarantee they didn’t each write her $1000 checks because of her fantastic career at KMUD.
If you have questions about the funding and influence of the environmental groups in opposition to HumCPR’s agenda, that’s legitimate. But to dismiss the views of individuals who take the time to show up to public meetings and volunteer their opinions simply because they live in the great metropolis of Arcata, it’s a serious problem and very divisive. You know, the arguments against the “urban environmentalists” remind me very much of the arguments made by loggers against environmentalists – that loggers are the true environmentalists who are constantly involved with the forests, and know so much more than those clueless “Sierra Club types” who have a bachelor’s degree and live in the cities. It’s right out of the book.
January 10, 2013 at 8:40 am
Anonymous
Bonnie Neeley also received thousands of dollars from a developer, Forster-Gill, which is proposing the largest subdivision in the county, right on prime timberlands in Ridgewood. Lovelace has been an enthusiastical cheerleader for this out-of area developer and their massive suburban sudivision / strip mall. So did that make them “developer candidates” too? If not, why not?
By the way, it’s pretty funny to hear complaints about the use of the term”urban environmentalists” being divisive, yet when Shane Brinton referred to his political opponenets as “an unholy alliance of developers and pot growers he was praised as brave and forthright by the same folks who whine about the use of the term “urban environmentalists.” Looks like an extreme case of “can dish it out but can’t take it.”
And finally, the award for most asinine comment of this thread goes to the moron who claims that Estelle Fennell is part of a 4-1 “right wing” majority. To refer to Estelle as “right wing” just shows how laughably outside the mainstream the person doin gthe labeling is. For that matter, neither Sundberg nor Bass is paticularly “right-wing.” By any reasonable standard, they’re pretty moderate, middle-of-the-road, pragmatic types.
Of course if your definition of “right wing” is anyone who does not completely, unwaveringly and without exception hew to the current Humboldt-urban-enviro-left orthodoxy, then Lovelace would indeed be the only non-right-winger out of the 5. Of course that’s the very sort of dogmatic, holier-than-thou attitude that has caused the urban-enviro-left orthodoxy to lose so much support over the last few years.
January 10, 2013 at 8:50 am
Anonymous
In the big picture, the only meaningful solution to development concerns is lower population growth. Like Prius-driving, cluster development may help a little tiny bit, and may certainly make it’s adherents feel a little bit less guilty, but it’s basically a squeezing-the-balloon situation, and as long as we keep blowing more air into the balloon, it’s not going to end well. The most environmentally-friendly lifestyle choice anyone can make is to have fewer children.
January 10, 2013 at 9:09 am
Eric Kirk
I was wary of money Bonnie received. As for the Forster-Gill proposed subdivision, I remain agnostic. I like the model that they’ve proposed. I’m concerned about the amount of space intended for retail in a county which is already very retail-heavy to the expense of job creating industry.
Shane is one young person who made a comment he wishes he could take back. And while you make a good point about the “dish it out but can’t take it line,” you have now admitted that the term is intended as a label for derision.
I agree that Estelle is not right wing. However, on property rights/land use issues, she has adopted a very conservative viewpoint, as have many other Sohum folk. And that’s fine. Personal experiences, such as overreach of government, can impact political views. But let’s not make any mistakes here. HumCPR, it’s philosophy, is at odds with environmentalists and smart growth advocates all over the country who are fighting for the very elements we find in Plan A – sometimes winning, more often losing, because of the money in opposition to them. But then, there has always been an element which differentiates the progressivism of Sohum, and perhaps hippies in general, from “urban” progressives in that the former is more influenced by libertarianism and the desire to be left alone. But I wonder if any of them have rethought their old days when they chained themselves to trees to impede some of the activities of their current allies. At least there should be some honest discussion about it without the prevailing evasiveness and defensiveness. I tried to do a radio show about it a couple of years ago, asking whether being a hippie necessarily puts you into the left-liberal camp. Some didn’t get the question, and others called in to argue that there is nothing left wing about hippies and referenced old conflicts between SDS type activists and elements of the Counterculture. But certain voices stayed completely out of the discussion, and avoid it, like they’re afraid of it. At most they say, “It’s not so simple,” or “I’m not into labels.” Okay, but why not discuss it in more detail? I suspect because it would threaten a potentially volatile alliance.
By “urban environmentalists” I believe we mean more conventional liberals, less concerned with individual autonomy in land use policy.
Getting back to Foerster-Gill, from what I’ve looked at it looks like a very good smart growth model, whether certain details have to be worked out. I also have to wonder why HumCPR has taken a stand against it – at least as implied in Tina Christianson’s article on the HumCPR website. Old money vs. new money? Does the old guard object to the precedent of a smart growth model? Or just conservative Cutten-based NIMBY’s? Maybe Mark supports it for reasons other than political corruption. Have you considered that?
January 10, 2013 at 9:43 am
Anonymous
“It’s initial funding came from developers, and it’s initial base of support came from developers and the conservative elements of the county – which is why the supporters list was removed from the website after Estelle took over..”
You seem to have a lot of information I haven’t seen before. Would you mind providing the factual source for your absolute statement of where HumCPR’s initial funding came from? If you can prove your facts great, if not you might consider admitting that it’s just supposition or some other crap that you just fabricated to suit your purpose of maligning a group you disagree with.
Similarly, please substaniate how you know so precisly that supporter name were removed for some nefarious reason and not simply for the same reasons that EPIC, Baykeeper, Healthy Humboldt, Sierra Club and thousands of other groups don’t publish their membership lists, ie: because they reasonably want to protect the privacy of their membership and moreover they don’t want other organizations mining their list for donors and members. If you don’t actually know why something was done and there are fifty possible legitamate reasons and one with a political overtone you want to capitalize one it becomes a little obvious why you so consistantly pick the one that suits you.
After a while you start to lose credibility when you are just making shit up.
“I agree that Estelle is not right wing. However, on property rights/land use issues, she has adopted a very conservative viewpoint, as have many other Sohum folk.”
Actually, these positions are only conservative when evaluated in the contaxt of the ultra/radical left positions of our local urban environmentalists (nothing derogatory intended). Anywhere else Estelle and her SoHum supporters are firmly found on the left.
January 10, 2013 at 9:49 am
Anonymous
Perhaps HumCPR doesn’t support Forster-Gill simply because it’s a bad project for our community. That would be kinda like the overwhelming number of public commentors including Larry Glass, Linda Atkins, the City of Eureka and hundreds of Cutten residents.
January 10, 2013 at 10:14 am
ICU812
No Eric, democracy was born divisive, that is the point. Just like Conservation has become diluted and changed to Sustainability. It has all come full circle.
In 1864 President Abraham Lincoln signed into law to preserve more than 60 square miles of federal land in California, known as the Yosemite Valley. In 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant signed the bill creating Yellowstone Park, the first US National Park. What would you call their actions?
long before anyone coined the phrase “environmentalist”, you had the Protectionist (John Muir) and Conservationist (Gifford Pinchot) and nothing in between. Guess who won?
How long have you lived in Humboldt County? Do you study or know history? Get to know the origins of history, you know, from the beginning, where it all comes from.
“If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there”
January 10, 2013 at 11:15 am
Anonymous
Good discussion. For my part I agree that, at least on the part of some folks using the term “urban environemtalsits,” there is a certain degree of derision implied and intended. But for many others, not necessarily derision, just the same kind of description and differentiation that you yourself have just referred to above when you acknowledged that “there has always been an element which differentiates the progressivism of Sohum… from ‘urban’ progressives,” and when you said “By urban environmentalist I believe we mean more conventional liberals, less concerned with individual autonomy in land use policy.” So I don’t think “urban environmentalists” necessarily has to be derisive, whereas I don’t really see a way in which “unholy alliance” is anything other than derisive and demonizing. Both are certainly “divisive” in the sense that they identify divisions, but one implies evil intent on the part of the “other,” whereas the other leaves open the possibility of a legitimate difference of opinion.
While you seem to be trying to minimize Brinton’s obnoxious comment as “one young person who made a comment he wishes he could take back,” number one, he wasn’t just some random young person when he made the comment, he was an elected official in Arcata (and is currently the Mayor of Arcata), he has run local electoral campaigns, and he now has a (locally) important job with a union (which I support him in wholeheartedly, by the way). So he’s not a “nobody,” he’s an opinion leader among a significant number of those who are identified (politely or otherwise) as the “urban environmentalist” contingent, and his attitude was noted in that context, for good reason.
As far as the “he wishes he could take it back” part, I haven’t heard him apologize for it…if he did, well O.K., maybe I missed it. But as I recall, at the time of his comment, there were lots of comments from Plan A fans, including here on this blog, praising that comment as beig “brave” and just the kind of thing that needed to be said, so in light of all that, the idea that this was just one kid shooting his mouth off and did not represent others holding a similarly obnoxious point of view — well, to me that just doesn’t hold water.
In my opinion, he was in fact summarizing very well the dismissive, derogatory, and demonizing attitude that too many Plan A enthusiasts have about anyone and everyone who dares to question or worse yet oppose their precious dogma. Anyone who wishes to build a house on their own land is portrayed as either a selfish, greedy land-raping developer, a sold-out shill for said developers, or a foolish dupe of said developers. Even Estelle Fennell, with her many progressive views and many-decades-long record of service to this community, is accused of being a sell-out, a “right-winger” and so on. Compared to all that, calling folks who ARE (self-described) environmentalists, DO live in urban areas, ARE more familiar with the urban lifestyle than the rural lifestyle, and DO support limiting most future residences to urban areas as “urban environmentalists” just doesn’t seem like such a huge diss. As I said above, I do think some people using the term do mean it as a diss, but not all — and even for those who do, it’s a pretty mild one, and not entirely unjustified by the facts.
January 10, 2013 at 11:28 am
That Other Anonymous (8:40, etc.)
Eric, As far as Foster-Gill, I don’t really have a problem with the “model” of clustering some development for those who want to live in that kind of setting, and I’m sure there are some that do. I do have a problem with the massive scale of the proposed Foster-Gill subdivision, and I share your concerns about the amount of retail they are proposing to plunk down there, miles outside of town at the very edge of the suburbs. Cut the number of residential units in half, and reduce the retail by 2/3 or 3/4 (so it’s basically a neighborhood grocery store and pharmacy and some other convenient retail and services for the folks in that neighborhood, and not something that is designed to draw people from Eureka and elsewhere) and I wouldn’t really have a big problem with it.
I don’t have any contact with HumCPR and don’t know for sure why they have taken a position in opposition to Foster-Gill (the concern about ruining the “rural character” of already heavily-suburbanized Cutten/Ridgewood has always struck me as a rather odd complaint), but I suspect these three factors probably play at least some role in it: 1. It’s a large out-of-area developer proposing a massive number of residential units, and probably using out-of-area contractors/subcontractors for most of the work, potentially saturating the market and thereby impacting the bottom lines of some of the smaller, more local contractors, property owners, and builders/tradesmen, some of whom are HumCPR supporters and/or funders 2. Lovelace enthusiastically supported it, and Neeley tapped them for big campaign contributions, and Hum CPR (correctly) perceives them as opponents and by association perceives Foster-Gill aas an opponent, and 3. It’s an easy target to the extent that its proponents have labeled it as infill and “Smartgrowth,” whereas in a number of ways it is really not the sort of site that most people are thinking of when they hear those terms, and therefore it’s an opportunity to draw attention to those contradictions and to question whether folks who support the idea of infill and “Smartgrowth” are being taken for a ride by a developer who is using those buzzwords in an attempt to manipulate public opinion to ignore the negative impacts of developing their land in way that will yield them maximum profit. Neither of the first two factors really speak to HumCPR’s (stated) mission, as they are more about financial and political advantage/disadvantage, but the last one does seem relevant to that state mission, at least indirectly.
By the way, I never meant to imply that Lovelace supported the project for reasons of political corruption. I assume he stated his support for the project because he honestly thinks it’s a good thing for the county. I just wanted to point out what I see as out the hypocrisy of complaints about Estelle’s funding sources, and the implication (and by some outright accusations) that her positions are determined by corrupting political donations. And I wanted to draw attention to what I see as the misleading labeling of some candidates as “developers’ candidates” when in reality their opponents are in some cases supported by developers, too — just different developers.
January 10, 2013 at 5:42 pm
ICU812
There was a post from another thread, that needs to be posted on this thread:
January 5, 2013 at 9:53 am
Cookie
Paul Encimers book store next to the laundromat. Eric, did you happen to catch the KMUD news this morning? Estelle was on. She was saying how she wanted to follow Mendocino’s amnesty program here. Now didn’t she lambast Clif as a cookie cutter politician when he brought up the Mendocino amnesty program? Didn’t she say we need to come up with our own amnesty program? And now she is talking like Clif. What’s up with that?
January 10, 2013 at 8:33 pm
Eric Kirk
Again, I think the term represented a deliberate political strategy. In the past Arcata and Sohum had been natural political allies, due to cultural overlap and a lot of history. HumCPR knew they needed to sever that tie, so they needed a narrative – which was reminiscent of anti-environmentalism of the past, but focused – “they just don’t understand us.”
As for Foerster-Gill, very early on they made a presentation to representatives of local environmental groups. Probably where they come from they know that they can head off opposition by opening up a discussion early in the process. And while the environmentalists left skeptical on some points, they were generally impressed and obviously some of them were won over.
Foerster-Gill then gave money to Bonnie to deliver results. There’s no doubt about it. They knew the opposition was coming from the more conservative elements – Cutten residents who had moved there to escape certain aspects of Eureka, perhaps not wanting the wrong element to move in (the proposal contains low income units).
But the point is, I know what Foerster-Gill wanted from Bonnie. But what does the Gang of $30,000 expect from Estelle? I really don’t think they care about composting toilets and mandatory permits for hippie shacks. So what are they expecting from her? Is the question really not legitimate?
January 10, 2013 at 10:48 pm
Anonymous
Seriously? You coin “Gang of $30,000″ and yet are outraged with ‘urban environmentalist”?
Makes one question just where the source of our communities inability to communicate and collaborate comes from? Perhaps this kind of deliberate maliciousness and disingenuous propaganda is why so many rural environmentalists are alligned with HumCPR.
Of course you have also completely failed to mention the source of any of the information you earlier attributed as fact to HumCPR’s motives and actions. Are we to assume that as suggested you just made that shit up? And if those were lies what else has been fabricated to prop up your positions? Thats the trouble with lies. Over time they build on each other and get easier and easier to say but harder and harder to back up and when caught in one the whole house of cards tends to crumble….
January 10, 2013 at 10:56 pm
Anonymous
Forster Gill is one of those urban developers that don’t understand our rural developer ways. They don’t understand that we keep hippies in their place here. Course there are good hippies and bad hippies. We got hippies who know what’s good for them an we got those uppity people in Arcata. We don’t need no city slicker developers telling us what to do!
January 10, 2013 at 11:29 pm
Eric Kirk
Of course you have also completely failed to mention the source of any of the information you earlier attributed as fact to HumCPR’s motives and actions.
Can you be specific?
January 11, 2013 at 6:51 am
Anonymous
“It’s initial funding came from developers, and it’s initial base of support came from developers and the conservative elements of the county – which is why the supporters list was removed from the website after Estelle took over..”
You seem to have a lot of information I haven’t seen before. Would you mind providing the factual source for your absolute statement of where HumCPR’s initial funding came from? If you can prove your facts great, if not you might consider admitting that it’s just supposition or some other crap that you just fabricated to suit your purpose of maligning a group you disagree with.
Similarly, please substaniate how you know so precisly that supporter name were removed for some nefarious reason and not simply for the same reasons that EPIC, Baykeeper, Healthy Humboldt, Sierra Club and thousands of other groups don’t publish their membership lists, ie: because they reasonably want to protect the privacy of their membership and moreover they don’t want other organizations mining their list for donors and members. If you don’t actually know why something was done and there are fifty possible legitamate reasons and one with a political overtone you want to capitalize one it becomes a little obvious why you so consistantly pick the one that suits you.
January 11, 2013 at 10:15 am
bolithio
We don’t need no city slicker developers telling us what to do!
That is a narrow view. Unfortunately, as good as your little area may be – there still needs to be some form of central control over what is developed and how. Ive talked with some HUMCPR people who seem to want genuine balance, others want complete anarchy, which they define as private property rights, and always seem to have paranoid delusions about the UN or chemtrails.
Do you believe that some things in the world are for everyone? Water, air? If everyone could turn ranches into ghetto subdivisions with no rules like Rancho Sequoia would this still be a good place to live?
I am constantly frustrated by the culture of NO that has ruled humboldt county planning – but it is their approach and lack of professionalism that bothers me, not the concept of regulating development, rural or urban.
January 12, 2013 at 10:32 am
ICU812
“In the past Arcata and Sohum had been natural political allies, due to cultural overlap and a lot of history. HumCPR knew they needed to sever that tie, so they needed a narrative – which was reminiscent of anti-environmentalism of the past, but focused – “they just don’t understand us.”
Eric, where do you get this crap, from the side of the road? I guess you hope it just sounds good? Makes sense to people not from around these parts? I ask again, when did you move to Humboldt?
Let me make this as clear as I can, you have no clue about any of this! You make it up as you go. Since you moved from Redway to Arcata, have you become the urban legend now?
January 12, 2013 at 3:07 pm
Anonymous
“Of course you have also completely failed to mention the source of any of the information you earlier attributed as fact to HumCPR’s motives and actions.
Can you be specific?”
The questions restated at 6:51 certainly seem specific enough. Is there another reason you you don’t want to (or can’t) provide your sources for such specific information? You certainly stated your points as factual.
Eric, your a pretty good guy but when you just make shit up in an attack on others you shouldn’t be suprised to be called out on the lies.
Consider just simply admitting the faux pas and going back to being the good guy who was trying to provide a forum for reasoned and civil dialog. Meanness doesn’t really suit you anyway.
January 12, 2013 at 5:21 pm
Anonymous
It seems that Eric’s theory is that HumCPR made a conscious decision to use the term “urban environmentalists” to create a clver narrative that would effectively divide SoHum-based environmentalists from Arcata/Eureka-based environmentalists for electoral purposes, and then those poor, gullible SoHummers just went along for the ride.
But from my point of view, Arcata/Eureka-based professional environmentalists (led by Lovelace / Healthy Humboldt / etc.) had already created that rift starting at least way back when they supported the idea of making the moratorium on any residences on any TPZ parcels permanent even after Hurwitz’s “kingdoms” plan was rejected by the bankruptcy judge in Texas, and then when that failed, attempting to accomplish the same thing by “re-interpreting” the current rules, and then when that failed, by trying to accomplish the same thing by trying to put provisions requiring discretionary permits for any TPZ residences into the General Plan Update, along with enough regulations and costs to amount to a moratorium-in-all-but-name.
The code enforcement fiasco and the Board of Supervisors’ failure to heed the Code Enforcement Task Force (and in particular the deafening silence from Clendenen) further deepened the peprception that the urban enviros and their supporters were quietly rooting for a rural purge, and Clendenen’s failure to advance any kind of amnesty/grandfathering proposal to deal with unpermitted residences (until his half-hearted effort a few weeks before the election) reinforced this peerception further. Lovelace, Neeley, and Clendenen’s unwavering support for Kirk Girard, in spite of his department’s many failings and his overall hostility to rural landowners who tried to work with the planning department — this fit right into the same pattern.
The fact that such a significant part of Clendenen’s support and volunteer base (including, if I’m recalling correctly, his campaign manager) came from Arcata/Eureka area, also contributed to this sense that Arcata/Eureka-based forces were attempting to push SoHummers aside and force their will on the second district. Clendenen cozying up to Lovelace on so many matters further reinforced this impression. The harsh rhetoric against Estelle, much-respected and much-loved by most in SoHum was yet more evidence that outside forces were willing to stop at nothing to protect “their guy,” Clendenen. The grossly misleading Healthy Humboldt radio ads that implied that TPZ owners were getting an unfair tax break did not help, and the constant repetition of the idiotic idea that converting a few acres on a huge parcel to a residence amounted to “converting the parcel to residential,” also didn’t help.
The fearmongering about “Santa Rosa-style development” and inaccurate use of the term “subdivision” to describe an owner of multiple parcels selling an existing parcel to a new owner also suggested that those framing the issue that way either didn’t understand the difference between selling an existing parcel vs. breaking up an existing parcel (subdividing), or worse yet, that they understood full well, but were simply lying to whip up an anti-rural landowner frenzy among urban and suburban voters who didn’t know better. Labeling anyone who dared to build a home for themselves and their family on their own piece of rural land a “developer” didn’t help the situation, nor did it help to constantly attack HumCPR — the only group rural landowners saw standing up for their rights and showing any understanding of their issues — for being a “tool of developers” and their thousands of supporters as being “dupes.”
Given all of that, what I heard from many SoHummers is that they felt that their liberal, environmentalist brethren from NoHum had not only walked away from their natural allies in SoHum, they had run away, turned around, and started flinging shit. Startled by this turn of events, and casting about for explanations of why these folks seemed to have such a poor understanding of rural land issues, some started referring to these folks as “the urban environmentalists.” Which, from their point of view, seemed like a pretty accurate way to describe those who had split away and started attacking them, and suggested an explanation for their lack of understanding (and in some cases outright hostility). Whether HumCPR had any role in promulgating that terminology, I don’t know, but it’s not like they really needed to — the sentiment was already there, and the phrase was already out there. If they did have any role in promoting that terminology, it was certainly a smart move, because — as with most issue framing / narrative weaving — it really only works well if it is something that already resonates well with the target audience. But from my recollection, it seems more like the “urban environmentaliss” label was something that HumCPR and others picked up from what people in SoHum were already saying and thinking, not the other way around.
I realize that for those who don’t like being labeled “urban environmentalists,” who don’t like the complaints about Arcata/Eureka-based power grabs, who don’t like people pointing out the hubris of the “professional enviro” contingent of two dozen or so of the same old people who seem to have more organizations and letterheads than actual followers, it may be more comforting and require less introspection and self-examination to believe that the loss of support they’ve suffered among rural Humboldt folks is due to some masterstroke of clever messaging by HumCPR. But from my point of view, they themselves played the biggest role in creating — through all the examples of negligence, disrespect and outright hostility that I’ve alluded to above — the very rift that they are now whining about and that they are now casting about for explanations to justify why it happened and how they themselves aren’t at fault.
It’s kinda like an chronically, violently abusive husband whose wife finally leaves him, then complaining that another guy “seduced” the wife, and that the new boyfriend “poisoned her mind” against the abuser. Similar lack of introspection and self-awareness, similar inability/refusal to take responsibility for their own actions, similar need to blame someone else for luring the former partner away. Just makes you want to say “next time, don’t be such an abusive jerk, and maybe things will turn out differently.”
January 12, 2013 at 9:11 pm
Eric Kirk
I’ve skimmed over the latter part of the thread, and I’ll respond in more detail on some points later when I have some time.
As to “proving” that the early HumCPR supporters were mostly conservatives, developer interest advocates, and generally representative of the Property Rights Movement (you did notice that the words “Property Rights” appear in the HumCPR name? That’s not an accident.), if you’re so late into the conversation that you don’t know the organization’s early history I’m just not up for the exercise of trying to educate you. You can look back at the blog posts of the time and read up as to the names of people who first appeared at hearings identifying themselves as members. Unfortunately, you can’t see the list of supporters.
Same with the motivation of scrubbing the list of supporters. The suggestion that it was about privacy is silly. You’re not implying that the organization put put names up on the Internet without permission are you? I first learned that the list was trashed on Heraldo. I’m sure a search will take you to the time frame. You can go back and hit the links as easy as I.
To repond to another question, I have lived in Humboldt County for 17 years. I was involved in the Stafford Demonstration and other actions around the preservation of the Headwaters, and at plenty of meetings in which the rooms were filled with people from Sohum and Arcata. That was another time.
And by the way, I don’t live in Arcata.
January 13, 2013 at 12:04 am
ICU812
Sorry, I meant to say Eureka, you moved from Redway to Eureka. So all your knowledge and stated facts come from blogs? So since the mid 90′s, wow. So you came from the city and got into being a tree hugger at the end, not the beginning. You base everything with one movement in the mid to late 90′s and this is your history? But now it makes sense why you hate the label of “urban environmentalist”, because you are one, coming from the city and all. Your history might go all the way back to the 90′s, but when I talk about history, I’m talking about when you got paid for killing Injuns and taking their land. That is the only cultural overlap and a lot of history Arcata and Sohum have. Everything since is North and South.
You can always tell when people aren’t from Southern Humboldt County, they call it Sohum.
So where has that movement you came here for gone Eric:
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20121224/WIRE/212241027
January 13, 2013 at 12:31 am
Eric Kirk
You know what’s really funny ICU, is that you don’t even realize how ridiculous that post is. Every single sentence.
January 13, 2013 at 9:57 am
Cookie
Gotta disagree ICU. I am from SoHum. I never say Southern Humboldt County. And I mean NEVER. I definitely remember the closeness that SoHum had with Arcata. Our environmental politics, and politics in general.
January 13, 2013 at 10:57 am
ICU812
Damm, and I was shooting for every single word. Maybe next time.
January 13, 2013 at 11:54 am
Cookie
“Sad cuz you have the best website for news in so hum and mendo. Please fix it!!!”
This was over on the LoCo from a poster named Marisa. Now what were you saying about so hum? ICU?
January 13, 2013 at 12:37 pm
Eric Kirk
I didn’t learn the term “Sohum” in San Francisco or Arcata.
January 13, 2013 at 1:06 pm
Anonymous
I’ve got a great idea — let’s get all obsessive about the terminology and that way we can ignore the substance of the issues. Oh, wait, I see you guys are already doing that.
January 13, 2013 at 7:42 pm
Anonymous
“As to “proving” that the early HumCPR supporters were mostly conservatives, developer interest advocates, and generally representative of the Property Rights Movement (you did notice that the words “Property Rights” appear in the HumCPR name? That’s not an accident.), if you’re so late into the conversation that you don’t know the organization’s early history I’m just not up for the exercise of trying to educate you. You can look back at the blog posts of the time and read up as to the names of people who first appeared at hearings identifying themselves as members. Unfortunately, you can’t see the list of supporters.
Same with the motivation of scrubbing the list of supporters. The suggestion that it was about privacy is silly. You’re not implying that the organization put put names up on the Internet without permission are you? I first learned that the list was trashed on Heraldo. I’m sure a search will take you to the time frame. You can go back and hit the links as easy as I.”
Oh, I get it. You have no verifiable factual information whatsoever. You just “made that shit up” and represented that you actually knew what you were talking about.
January 16, 2013 at 2:58 pm
Not A Native
Given the reality that blog threads are like yesterday’s newspaper, this comment is very late.
But Eric, I think you’re fairly accurate in your analysis of what HCPR is about and its political tactics. One thing you overlooked was the lessons HCPR learned from their failed attempts to replace Roger Rodoni with Johanna. To me, it showed HCPR’s fundamental belief in good ole boys and dynastic succession.
The methods HCPR used to recruit Estelle is a secret that others can speculate on. But I think they appealed to the Libertarian character you find in “progressive” SoHummers as their wedge. But they also saw economic ambition that they see is a growing and more openly acknowledged motivation for SoHummers. After all, for years the derision conservatives had for liberals was that they are hypocrites: “You’re no different than we are. You use tp, cut down trees, put in roads, redirect nature unnaturally for your benefit , and daily drive big vehicles into town. Just like us”.
The current political divide isn’t about “urban environmentalists”, its about “rural conspicuous consumers” and their seeking affluence.
January 16, 2013 at 5:37 pm
Cookie
Right on NAN. I wonder how many times Estelle will take the bus to Eureka.
January 17, 2013 at 12:57 pm
Anonymous
In general I see much more “conspicuous consumption” among urban and suburban residents than among rural ones. And while both some rural residents, and some urban/suburban residents have big trucks, if you look in the beds of the trucks, what you’ll see is that most of the rural residents actually frequently use theirs for their engineered purpose — as a vehicle for moving around things that can’t be moved in the back of a passenger car, whereas for the urban/suburban residents, these vehicles are rarely needed — they’re basically just status symbols.
January 17, 2013 at 5:18 pm
Eric Kirk
There’s plenty of status obsession around here too anonymous. Don’t you believe that a counter-culture packaging immuniizes one from that. Nor conspicuous consumption, and there’s plenty of it around here, certainly no less than in the suburbs or cities.
When I was buying records at Amoebas in Berkeley a few years back, I got to the checkout counter and pulled out my check book. The kid behind the counter asked me where I lived. I responded Humboldt County, not sure of the relevance of the question. The kid said, “Sorry, only local checks.” But his supervisor, overhearing the conversation, said, “Oh, if he’s from Humboldt, the check is good. Go ahead and take it.”
So we do have a rep for parting with money. Of course, if he had thought it through, he should have wondered why I wasn’t paying with “Sohum twenties.”
January 17, 2013 at 11:02 pm
Not A Native
My point is that ‘urban environmentalist” is intended to be a parody. Its really an oxymoron i.e. someone can’t be both urban and a environmentalist. Because urban living is ipso facto, decadent, unsustainable, materialistic, and ‘disconnected’ from “The Land”(which is the presumptive sole respository of human environmental awareness).
And conversely, the tacit assumption is the only ‘genuine environmentalist’ can be the rural person who is unquestioned to be ‘connected’ to The Land and therefore environmentally aware.
I won’t harp on the falsity of those ideas other than to reiterate that they are lies crafted for political purposes, as Eric clearly identified.
But as I’ve illustrated above and anonymous has given an example, rural lifestyles(as lately aspired to by a goodly number of SoHumers) is not less consumptive than the (evil)archetypal US way of life. And I maintain they’re even more consumptive because for starters those heavily laden rural trucks doing their ‘engineered’ duty(over long distances) use more resources than an unladen urban status symbol driven fewer miles.
January 18, 2013 at 8:48 am
Anonymous
“But his supervisor, overhearing the conversation, said, ‘Oh, if he’s from Humboldt, the check is good. Go ahead and take it.’
So we do have a rep for parting with money.”
Or maybe we just don’t have a reputation for bouncing checks.
January 18, 2013 at 8:57 am
Eric Kirk
As opposed to …. which counties?
January 18, 2013 at 2:31 pm
Anonymous
NAN, I really don’t think that the term “urban environmentalists” is intended as a parody by most of those who have used it, or that those using it necessarily mean to imply that urban living is inherently “decadent, unsustainable, materialistic.” I find your spin rather ironic, because to me it seems like the whole “Plan A” doctrine is based on a (rather dogmatic, in my opinion) belief that rural living is inherently decadent, unsustainable, and materialistic. But perhaps I’m misinterpreting the beliefs of the Plan A zealots as much as they are misinterpreting the beliefs of those who have used the term “urban environmentalists.
In most cases, I think the term “urban environmentalists” is simply meant to be descriptive, and, to some extent, explanatory. It’s a recognition that people’s experiences help shape their views, and a possible explanation for why some of our local urban-based environmentalists seem to have a rather poor understanding of rural environmental and economic issues. No doubt the reverse is true as well.
Interestingly, with all this talk of urban vs. rural, what’s being left out is that most development happening in this county (and in the U.S. as a whole, I believe) is, strictly speaking, neither urban nor rural, it’s suburban. Which, at least as currently practiced, is kind of “the worst of both worlds” in terms of environmental impact.
January 18, 2013 at 2:33 pm
Anonymous
“As opposed to …. which counties?”
I don’t know…perhaps you should have asked.
January 18, 2013 at 2:41 pm
Anonymous
The point being — having a “rep” for “parting with money” doesn’t necessarily mean you’re careful about not overspending and bouncing checks. In fact, those who carelessly part with money are, in my experience, exactly the type of people who are likely to bounce a check.
To me, the more surprising thing is that the person was paying by check in the first place — I think I used a total of like 5 or 6 checks during all of last year. It’s so easy to pay with a debit card most places, or online for bills, etc. I guess the growers use a lot of cash, but checks? Seems almost antiquated at this point. But then again, so do record stores!