The Board of Supervisors selects an at-large P.C. rep on Tuesday. Some great names on the list. Hank has an excellent post on the matter, and he’s probably right about the outcome.
Still, in my opinion the best name on the list is John Rogers, a Redway resident who has served with the Institute for Sustainable Forestry and spent a long time on the Redway Community Services District. Will the BOS have the good sense to appoint him?
I’ll be writing a more detailed post in support of John over the weekend. Now is the time to contact your Supervisor!
522 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 23, 2013 at 2:02 pm
Not A Native
I know it’s rhetorical, but the correct answer to your question is NO. Ulansey is in, for sure. If you disagree and you’re a betting man Eric, lets make a wager. Loser donates to winner’s choice of community organization.
February 23, 2013 at 10:29 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Good bet NAN,
but what is the bet in terms of a proceed; afterall, it ain’t gonna be a Billy Ray Valentine, capricorn scenario? – HOJ
February 24, 2013 at 10:08 am
Anonymous
The longer I pay attention, the more depressing Humboldt’s state of politics reveals itself to be. It always boils down to “development”. Never a yes or a no, but which. There might as well be a single monopoly of the whole political process. And an army of blog zombies ready to drown out all common sense in predictable and meaningless debates. Well versed, well rehearsed, polite and friendly bullshit. In all the years I’ve lived here, I haven’t read one single expose on how the “development community” has a foothold on what’s being considered “government”. Government has become about money, nothing else. Everything in government is to do with money, and even less about how money relates to the natural environment.
130,000 people in Humboldt, of whom at least 99% are considered faceless nobodys, and whose best interests are blatantly ignored year after year.
February 24, 2013 at 11:14 am
anonomous
Of all the candidates with their names in the hat, it seems that Ulansey would add more to the seat in terms of his comprehensive experience and knowledge regarding land use issues. And he seems genuinely able to work with a wide spectrum of people and not just a segment of them.
February 24, 2013 at 3:27 pm
Anonymous
“sustainable forestry” needs to be called what it is: perpetual logging. The bottom line of interest is not the forest, but the trees as capital. The term “sustainable forest” would be infinitely more appropriately applied to areas like off-limits old growth groves. It’s another example of calculated bastardization of language by business and politics, to manipulate people.
Will you, erik, spread that word? Will you acknowledge the intentional misleading use of language?
I don’t know enough about any of the candidates. I’d lend my support to whoever is against this kind of politicing, sharedby the front runners like Ulansey.
February 24, 2013 at 3:57 pm
Jane
John is awesome. So is Mel Krebs. Superior human beings in my own personal opinion.
February 24, 2013 at 3:58 pm
Jane
And if anyone thinks that all members of the planning commission are not political and do fishy things… I’ve got that bridge in the Florida panhandle waiting for a buyer.
February 24, 2013 at 4:57 pm
Cookie
It is now apparent why Ulansey was so keen on being part of the ad hoc group doing the GPU thing. He exactly wanted to be seen like anon @ 11:14am. Don’t be fooled. He is still the wolf in sheep’s clothing, the fox guarding the hen house, and Estelle owes him big. Can’t wait to hear what her rhetoric will be on why she has to support him.
February 24, 2013 at 5:24 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
anonomus, what is genuine? the outside cover that which never reveals the behind the scenes interior expose?
Jane, Mel Krebs complained too much about time away from his job while serving on the Planning Commission. To that HOJ asks the question, why the heck did he apply and why would he be on the commission to begin with then? Accept the position and its requirements or shut the hell-up! – HOJ
February 24, 2013 at 6:17 pm
Anonymous
Cookie, It’ll be interesting to see if Eric steps up and corrects you. He has personal knowledge contrary to your mistaken impression.
February 24, 2013 at 8:00 pm
bolithio
Hi, Anonymous at 3:27. You say: “sustainable forestry” needs to be called what it is: perpetual logging.
As a practitioner of sustainable forestry, I agree with you. Its just like sustainable agriculture, which could be called: perpetual food. And also when applied to our species: perpetual survival. I am very interested in all of this, and that is why me, and people in my profession, have devoted their lives to working in the woods to make them better.
Yeh, the idea is to have a sustainable forest. Economically and ecologically. Remember Anonymous at 3:27, sustainable forestry did not exist 50 years ago. The fact that it does now is very good thing. You wonder about old growth reserves? You do realize that over 650,000 acres in Humboldt County have been permanently set aside and/or are in USFS LSRs? As of now, about 350,00 acres of the 1.5 million acres of forest in Humboldt County is devoted to intensive industrial timber production (GD and SPI). I think its a reasonable trade off, especially when one considers where the impact is offset to if lumber production stopped here entirely. And its important to remember that the 500K acres of previously managed lands that are now set asides did in fact offset demand to places were seriously heinous shit is going down in forests. You have to consider these trade offs in a sustainable model.
You say: Everything in government is to do with money, and even less about how money relates to the natural environment.
Naturally. As bad as things may be in politics, the fact remains CA has the tightest logging restrictions in the world. The majority of the worlds wood supply comes from unregulated countries or places where regulation is currently impossible even they did have it. Since we are responsible for the bulk of the demand for this wood, should we not be supportive of our own forest product production? Or should we exert our Empires power and off-set logging to other countries so we dont have to deal with log trucks?
February 24, 2013 at 8:33 pm
ICU812
bolithio, that sounds nice, but please explain how Green Diamond Resource Company can claim these same standards you are talking about:
http://www.greendiamond.com/FSCPressRelease.pdf
Please explain how a “practitioner of sustainable forestry” like yourself that has “devoted their lives to working in the woods to make them better” can put up with what the growers are doing to the natural environment without timber harvest, timber management plans or environmental review? These same growers are clearing the environment of timber for what?
February 24, 2013 at 9:33 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Bolithio,
Some good points but remember 2 things:
1) old historical damage is still used in certain contexts to create fear of the advanced practices of “logging”.
2) America’s population loads are greater, and that too of the world. It would be wise to continue coming-up with new ways to expand forrest product wastes, as well as too use other materials to take over for what the forrest has provided for in the past.
Wood, lumber, pulp (or whatever else is used to “politically” explain the natural resource we all use at some point in our life) actually is a gift to those who sustain the resource, but also who limit the rate of its use so that demand can’t limit the supply in times of greater need. If, for example, society gets thrown back into the dark ages so to speak, and factories can no longer pump out electricity, wood will be about all that can be used in lieu of technology that may become stymied. Same idea translates for fishing.
Logging practices can always get better on the mass scale, but still, money drives the greed while regulation drives the money. As far as sustainable forestry not existing 50 years ago, who is to say that it did not exist 500 years ago, 1000 years ago, 10,000 years ago? Less people equals less need to practice forestry, pure and simple.
Sincerely,
HOJ
P.S. Anyone explain what “stickykeys” is after pressing the shift key 5 times in a row. Some weird stuff going on HOJ’s response box on Eric’s blogsite!
February 25, 2013 at 8:28 am
Forest Queen
Farming 10,000 acres of hemp will provide as much paper, building materials and pulp as 41,000 acres of forest.
February 25, 2013 at 9:35 am
Anonymous
Bolithio, the word “sustainable” has always been irrelevant, and not for the reasons you state. It has become a political ploy, a buzzword. Just as Simpson Timber changed their name to Green Diamond Resources. It is intentionally misleading. You cannot call yourself an intelligent person and not acknowledge that. It is even a misnomer to call areas that are logged “forest” if they are to be “sustained” for logging. They are then de facto tree farms, and in just about all cases, not even of a native variety.
So now the public hears that Green Diamond Resources “practices” sustainable forestry. To say Simpson Timber perpetually logs massive tree farms would be far more accurate.
It is a business/PR move and you know it. Meetings were held to come to such terminology and you know that as well. It’s business 101.
February 25, 2013 at 11:06 am
bolithio
That is true. Although “building materials” created from hemp can not replace dimensional lumber. Its also not a good idea, in my opinion, to convert a forest system into a crop of hemp. Or crop of anything for that matter be it grapes, cattle, coffee, tea, or hemp.
February 25, 2013 at 2:02 pm
Forest Queen
I dunno about ‘dimensional lumber’ I’m not a contractor. There is a bridge in South France built in the 6th century (of hemp) and still in use today. While looking for a picture of the bridge, I came across these two links –
http://www.innovateus.net/earth-matters/how-hemp-used-building
http://www.hemp.org/news/book/export/html/202 (hemp for houses).
“Sustainable Development” comes to us from the United Nations Agenda 21 under the direction of an NGO called ICLEI (Int’l Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) now also known as Local Governments for Sustainability.. is it me, or does anyone remember granting AUthority to our elected localites to invest our $ in an organization that is not part of the local, state, or federal {government}corporation. NGO – Non-Governmental Organization. Of course we didn’t . . that would
February 25, 2013 at 2:55 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Interesting information Forrest Queen,
Agenda 21 is for real; and, local money should stay local, not filter abroad. look to the dumbed-down local voters for “at fault” finger pointing. – HOJ
February 25, 2013 at 3:06 pm
suzy blah blah
Farming 10,000 acres of hemp will provide as much paper, building materials and pulp as 41,000 acres of forest.
-hemp not only produces about 4 times as much fiber as trees per acre but it matures in less than one year. Trees take so long to grow to maturity that it nearly negates the fact that they can be renewed
February 25, 2013 at 7:59 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Hey,
Good to see Suzy blah blah blogging, been awhile.
As far as dimensional lumber, HOJ is gonna research using steel studs instead of wood because it seems the cost is more comparable and the benefits (because this ain’t the south where kiln dried lumber is used) will be straighter walls, not termites, no splits, no sapwood, no rot, stronger load bearing, etc…Only thing is the union to lumber and labor costs, but nowadays, seems negligible. Plus, avoid that goddamn extra tax on forrest products that went into effect this year thanks to the assholes that run this state.
Sincerely,
HOJ
February 25, 2013 at 9:22 pm
bolithio
Plus, avoid that goddamn extra tax on forrest products that went into effect this year thanks to the assholes that run this state.
…silly HOJ. You know what that does right? It funds regulation of timber harvesting…
February 25, 2013 at 9:37 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Bolithio,
silly, as if the consumer has any power or protocols on how the timber company harvests their timber (select cut, clear-cut, dozers, choppers, ridgeline cable pulley systems, etc…); and to imply that the consumer base is a reason regulation is needed is hogwash!
Regardless of the consumer, a cost is applied to harvest that timber while the profit motive and mark-ups tend to be the over-riding factor in whether the timber/logging company harvesting that natural resource does a good job or not so good job, environmentally speaking of course. Cutting corners is the American business way all-too-often!
Sincerely,
HOJ
February 25, 2013 at 10:00 pm
Forest Queen
Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of the desert. Congress said, “Someone may steal from it at night.” So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job. Then Congress said, “How does the watchman do his job without instruction?” So they created a Planning Department and hired two people, one to write the instructions, and one person to do the studies. Then Congress said, “How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?” So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One was to do the studies and one was to write the reports. Then Congress said, “How are these people going to get paid?” So they crated two positions, a time keeper and a payroll officer, then hired two people. Then Congress said, “Who will be accountable for all of these people?” So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary. Then Congress said, “We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $918,000 over budget, we must cut back.”
February 25, 2013 at 10:23 pm
Forest Queen
So they fired the night watchman. NOW slowly, let it sink in.
Quietly we go like sheep to slaughter. Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPT. OF ENERGY during the Carter Administration? Anybody? Anything? No? Didn’t think so. Bottom line is, we’ve spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency, the reason for which very few people who read this can remember! Ready? It was very simple . . .And at the time, everybody thought it very Appropriate. The DEPT. OF ENERGY WAS INSTITUTED ON 8-4-1977, TO LESSON OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL. Pretty efficient huh?
And now it’s 2013, 36 years later, and the BUDGET for this “Necessary” Department is at $24.2 BILLION a year. It has 160,000 Federal employees and approximately 100,000 contract employees: and look at the job it has done!
This is where you slap your forehead and say, “WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?” 36 years ago 30% of our oil consumption was foreign imports. Today 70% of our oil consumption is foreign imports.
February 25, 2013 at 10:33 pm
Anonymous
Is it the full moon? This thread got taken over by whackos!
February 26, 2013 at 7:57 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Anonymous,
nah, that is just the sarcasm bending-over and exposing its hairy side to ya.
Sincerely,
HOJ
February 26, 2013 at 8:44 am
bolithio
and to imply that the consumer base is a reason regulation is needed is hogwash!
I completely disagree. You are also way off the mark about the motives to “do a good job”. Your view, along with many others, is that the blame for our problems lies with ‘the man’. Its the bankers. Its the corporations. Its the industry. And as long as that is your world view you will be completely powerless to effect it.
The demand for wood is where the responsibility lies. Consumers are absolutely on the hook. Just like democracy, its up to the citizens to make it right – not just the people we elect.
You should also try to have a better understanding of where the forest practice rules (and other environmental regs) even came from. If that isnt the public having a say as to when things are clear-cut, selected, by what machine and when, I don’t know what is!
February 26, 2013 at 9:33 am
Cookie
Dont’ want to hijack this thread, but this is interesting. Especially in light of the turbines that almost made it above Ferndale.
Two wind turbines towering above the Cape Cod community of Falmouth, Mass., were intended to produce green energy and savings — but they’ve created angst and division, and may now be removed at a high cost as neighbors complain of noise and illness.
“It gets to be jet-engine loud,” said Falmouth resident Neil Andersen. He and his wife Betsy live just a quarter mile from one of the turbines. They say the impact on their health has been devastating. They’re suffering headaches, dizziness and sleep deprivation and often seek to escape the property where they’ve lived for more than 20 years. “Every time the blade has a downward motion it gives off a tremendous energy, gives off a pulse,” said Andersen. “And that pulse, it gets into your tubular organs, chest cavity, mimics a heartbeat, gives you headaches. It’s extremely disturbing and it gets to the point where you have to leave.”
The first turbine went up in 2010 and by the time both were in place on the industrial site of the town’s water treatment facility, the price was $10 million. Town officials say taking them down will cost an estimated $5 million to $15 million, but that is just what Falmouth’s five selectmen have decided to move toward doing.”The selectmen unanimously voted to remove them. We think it’s the right thing to do, absolutely,” Selectman David Braga said. “You can’t put a monetary value on people’s health and that’s what’s happened here. A lot of people are sick because of these.”Now the matter will go to a town meeting vote in April and could ultimately end up on the ballot during the municipal elections in May.
“It’s highly likely that what the voters will be determining is are they willing to tax themselves at an appropriate amount to cover the cost and dismantle and shut down the turbines?” Falmouth Town Manager Julian Suso said. In the meantime, the turbines are being run on a limited schedule as the selectmen respond to the concerns of nearby neighbors. The turbines only run during the day — from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. — which means they’re operating at a loss.The dispute has been a bitter three-year battle in the seaside town where officials argue the project was thoroughly vetted, researched and put to public vote multiple times.”To say ‘let’s let the voters decide’ — it sort of flies in the face of what we went through all these years,” said Megan Amsler of the Falmouth Energy Committee. “We never tell somebody ‘hey, you’re going to have to take that coal plant down or you’re going to have to stop mining the mountain tops.’ These are very visible and a lot of other ways that we get our energy are invisible to the average American,” Amsler argued. “People don’t even know how much energy they consume on a yearly basis so I think it’s good for people to be able to see where their energy comes from and know that it’s coming from a clean source.”
“I think if we end up taking these turbines down it will be a shame. It will be an embarrassment for the Town of Falmouth,” said Amsler.
Town leaders say the state bears some monetary responsibility for the situation because Falmouth was granted renewable energy credits and received advice from state level energy officials through an ongoing partnership. “They certainly have been involved and have a tremendous stake in this process,” said Assistant Town Manager Heather Harper. Harper said the Mass Clean Energy Center “provided the technical assistance to conduct all of the feasibility studies.”
“I feel the state is responsible because they were really pushing for more wind power which, believe me, the whole board of selectmen are supportive of renewable energy. I am. Maybe wind, but not in this location,” said Braga.
Ultimately, town leaders are hoping the controversy will be resolved and the community will find a way to move forward together.
“It’s imperative to the community that we do have a coming together and a healing and find a resolution one way or the other,” said Suso. His advice to communities considering a similar project to the one causing strife in Falmouth is “move cautiously, communicate well, have extreme public dialogue and listen well.”
February 26, 2013 at 9:49 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Bolithio,
Ok then, lets see how far the timber companies can go without profit being a motive? For you to believe that consumers are the reason regulation is needed is disagreeable. HOJ’s view is not that it is “the man” as the problem; rather, it PARTLY (not solely) is that too many people are living and those people make-up the potential profit based market potentials. Of course the industry is not forced to “harvest and sell”, but chooses to do so knowing what lies ahead.
HOJ agrees with you on bankers, corporations and industry, but the consumers have less effect upon this as opposed to those who buy-up the land and its resources just to extract it. Further, who makes-up the bankers, corporations and industry….MAN. Also, are not most timber companies….incorporated, take-out loans to do business, thereby conducive to the industry to make as much money as possible at any given time through price gougings, not a minimalist approach to making a little bit of “fair profit”.
It is like the speculative housing market that is based upon high costs, partly from lumber transactions, that force the builder, then consumer to pay what the ask is because “MAN & WOMAN” need a place to live and do business, right?
Now, if you mean by “the man as in government”, well do tell how efficiently previous tax dollars have been spent on regulating an industry which is less impactive today than it has been in previous decades…and the government needs more money to regulate today? Hmmm, pensions plans, perks, benefits and too many people living that need government employment positions to live off the proceeds that were stolen from Peter to pay-off Paul. The reason partly why the structure of government regulation is like an “extension-ladder” is to mask and camoflage all the thievery of private sector wealth that gets translated into government minion paychecks and perks because more unemployed people in an over-populated country means that the current politicos lose power and favor, point blank!
As far as citizens making it right, well then, that means the citizens must have options, yes? So again, do tell what options are affordable when societal costs are being intentionally manipulated upwards. You do know about COLA’s as a means government uses to artificially inject excessive valuations into a “fake economy”?
Again, do tell where democracy decides anything for a Timber Harvest Plan when it is the company that submits the plan and the regulators who review the plan. Of course, we can think of ole Pacific Lumber and other logging outfits that just decided it was worth more to them in terms of profit to just cut and answer to the violations later because the penalties in the end still allowed more profit than that which would have been earned doing the job on the “straight and up”.
HOJ had an uncle who was a career logger, lived in Covelo and then up in Oregon. HOJ had his fair share of understanding of logging operations, but you are correct in that HOJ has more to learn always as the future is everyday.
So, agree and disagree on points.
Sincerely,
HOJ
Ps. As far as “world view”, you obviously are “slanting your come-back response ill-effectively” because HOJ is “on record so very often” as to the “challenges in societal hierarchy” that is fracking this planet too.
February 26, 2013 at 9:51 am
Anonymous
bolithio writes: “The demand for wood is where the responsibility lies. Consumers are absolutely on the hook. Just like democracy, its up to the citizens to make it right – not just the people we elect.”
And furthest from that, the people actually involved in the industry. That is what you ultimately argue every single time, going on at least five years. Just shoot yourself, bolithio. Pretty please?
Bolithio is a glowing example of a serious problem that has emerged in “social networking”…corporate presence disguised as mere participants.
February 26, 2013 at 9:53 am
Anonymous
Erik, are you paying attention? Of course you are. Pay even more attention, you are in a position to really make a difference in how such industries are translated to the public.
February 26, 2013 at 11:06 am
Eric Kirk
I’ll have to catch up on this thread later. I’m really busy at the moment.
February 26, 2013 at 1:34 pm
Eric Kirk
Does anyone have any news?
February 26, 2013 at 3:11 pm
ICU812
Yeah, just watched it and its Ulansey 3-1-1, but Ulansey just had to mix it up with Lovelace after he was appointed. I think Ulansey proved Lovelaces point and concern.
February 26, 2013 at 3:14 pm
Eric Kirk
Who voted for whom?
February 26, 2013 at 3:17 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
News,
Just found out a State Park Service employee in a vehicle struck a bicyclist yesterday, killing the guy. Not sure if alcohol was a factor with the biker as he was an alcoholic, local gossip has it.
Sincerely,
HOJ
February 26, 2013 at 3:22 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
ICU812,
It can be easy to “mix-it-up” with Lovelace who is, at times, confrontational with his lack of wisdom or forthright judgment. Kinda like the ROTR where “word crafting” was used to essentially say that economic impacts are not reviewable. That is a false assertion. CEQA says “not required” but then goes on to say it can be discussed and economic impacts must be mitigated in certain instances. Lovelace and other supes, at times, use grey areas to word smith in misrepesented fashions. It takes two to stroke and Lovelace strokes too!
Sincerely,
HOJ
February 26, 2013 at 3:24 pm
Eric Kirk
Okay, so the NCJ reports that Estelle, Virginia, and Rex voted for Lee. Mark of course voted no.
Ryan abstained, even though Lee was his second choice. Anybody know what that’s about?
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/blogthing/2013/02/26/ulansey-appointed-planning-commission/
February 26, 2013 at 3:27 pm
ICU812
Guess you should have watched on-line. Take a guess who voted for whom? I’m sure KMUD will have an in-depth report.
February 26, 2013 at 3:31 pm
Eric Kirk
Hank has a few more details.
http://lostcoastoutpost.com/2013/feb/26/ulansey-gets-supes-planning-commission-appointment/
February 26, 2013 at 3:37 pm
Anonomous
Wow, Mark Lovelace was incredibly negative. He had very snide and snarky comments about Ulansey which totally made it clear that he intended to keep divisiveness going and probably will be the main engine for it.
February 26, 2013 at 4:04 pm
Anon
Right after Ulansey was appointed by the Board; Mark Loveless let rip a negative rant ( from his chair as Supervisor) against Lee Ulansey. It was incredibly disrespectful, unprofessional and divisive.
February 26, 2013 at 4:09 pm
Anon
So Mark Lovelace claims to NOT have an agenda or ideology? OHHHH, that’s right……….his agenda and ideology is the only correct or righteous one.
February 26, 2013 at 4:23 pm
Eric Kirk
Both sides are pointing fingers about the exchange. I guess I’m going to have to wait for the video.
February 26, 2013 at 4:55 pm
Anonymous
Anybody feeling stupid for voting for Estelle yet?
February 26, 2013 at 5:20 pm
Cookie
** After Bass’ motion to appoint Ulansey passed, there followed a quite extraordinary scene. Ulansey took the podium and thanked Bass, Bohn, Sundberg and Fennell for their conversations prior to today’s meetings. Perhaps, he pointedly noted, Lovelace would wish to have a similar talk someday.
Lovelace said that he was open to such a sit-down anytime — Ulansey had but to request it.
“Of course, as we know, I’ve tried,” Ulansey said.
Before Sundberg moved on to the next item, Lovelace wished the record to note that he had received no such request.**
This is a telling point. Is Ulansey a liar?
February 26, 2013 at 5:30 pm
ANON says
The only thing I feel stupid about is voting for Fennells opponent the first time around. We are sooo happy that Estelle ran again and this time won.
February 26, 2013 at 6:41 pm
ANon
We have lee ulansey and humcpr to thank for forcing the county to comply with the public records act. We the citizens of HC will finally find out just how much of our tax dollars are being spent on these punitive never ending lawsuits the county keeps waging against landowners ( like bob mckee’s) . This is a good thing.
February 26, 2013 at 6:54 pm
Cookie
Bob McKee filed the first lawsuit. Not the county. Bob McKee was ordered to pay county costs. Bob McKee needs to do what the appeals court ordered.
February 26, 2013 at 7:03 pm
Anonymous
The best board money can buy!
February 26, 2013 at 8:25 pm
ICU812
ANon, how simply and absolutely hysterical, living in a County that has the largest unknown underground economy that pays no tax on that income and you want to know how much the County is spending in lawsuits, your tax dollar? I guess you would be right if everyone paid their fair share into the system. Wow, I think you forget where you live, do as I say, not as I do.
February 26, 2013 at 10:19 pm
moviedad
They’re gonna all be blog-fodder fer’ sure!
February 27, 2013 at 7:14 am
bolithio
HOJ, I never said that only the consumer was responsible. I think your missing allot of my points. Mainly, people talk about shutting down logging without fully understanding what impact that would have on other forests. Second, people talk about impacts from logging as if it were still the 1950s, without really understanding what goes into it now, and the efforts to change practices over the past 20 years. Third, there is a big myth that the timber industry can do what ever it wants for the sake of profit in Humboldt. It is certainly true of the past, and we know its true today in other parts of the world, but it just doesn’t work that way here. And the reason – is largely due to the formation of the Forest Practice Act, the Clean Water Act, the CA ESA, and many other laws passed in CA as a response from public pressures to change things. That is how the public participates in a democracy, and that was my point as to how people have input, if they give it, into the system.
I have said this many times. You dont just flip a switch on the cultural phenomena of manifest destiny and pioneer mentality. We has 1000s of years of it. Its a miracle in many ways sustainable forestry is even a word! But obviously we are making great strides as a species, in spite of our past and on-going mistakes.
Im an optimist. Sorry! And there will always be people who wish I would “kill myself” for expressing these ideas. Sheesh! Thank god I dont live in China!
February 27, 2013 at 8:11 am
Anonymous
Cookie, Bob didn’t file the first lawsuit. He was sued by the county after being told in writing that Tooby Ranch was in complete compliance.
February 27, 2013 at 9:04 am
anon says
Talk about having an agenda.
Mark Lovelace’s appointment to the Planning Commission is by far the most controversial, Ralph Faust. Faust was the main architect of arming code enforcement officers and sending them marauding through the hills of Humboldt pointing guns at and terrorizing the country folk under false pretenses of looking for code violations when really they were on the search for marijuana, of which they did not find any.
Howz that for protecting people’s property rights?
February 27, 2013 at 9:39 am
Anonymous
bolithio writes: ”
Im an optimist. Sorry! And there will always be people who wish I would “kill myself” for expressing these ideas.”
Except you don’t simply express those ideas, you work for the industry. You even clearcut. You are a hired gun and you are part of a serious problem. You argue against common sense with a very specific agenda, every time, five years running.
You are part of the problem, not the solution.
.
February 27, 2013 at 9:41 am
Anonymous
…and good for one of the supervisors manning up and speaking his peace about the circle jerk taking place in broad daylight in “our” government.
February 27, 2013 at 11:04 am
Cookie
**ANon
We have lee ulansey and humcpr to thank for forcing the county to comply with the public records act. **
According to County Counsel, they responded to the PRA before this latest ruling. At the case management hearing, the county counsel will show they have already responded? If this is the fact, HumCPR as a whole are liars.
February 27, 2013 at 12:35 pm
Eric Kirk
TS Report – Ryan abstained because Lee doesn’t live in McKinleyville.
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_22678011/ulansey-named-county-planning-commission-lovelace-opposes-boards
February 27, 2013 at 12:57 pm
ICU812
Thanks for that breaking news Eric, If you would have watched the meeting live, he stated the same sentiment about finding someone from Mville for the PC at large when talking out loud about his two choices during the deliberation. Glad to see your right on top of this stuff!
February 27, 2013 at 1:11 pm
Eric Kirk
Sorry ICU. Some of us have to work for a living. On behalf of all of us, I humbly apologize that we aren’t always available at your convenience.
February 27, 2013 at 1:38 pm
That Other Anonymous
I can understand why Sundberg would want someone from McKinleyville on the Planning Commission, because, as he notes, McKinleyville does have the “largest population in unincorporated Humboldt County.” However, he did have a chance to appoint a McKinleyville person directly last February, when he made his pick for the 5th district seat. But he didn’t pick someone from McKinleyville, he appointed Susan Masten of Hoopa. Which, by the way, seems like an excellent choice:
http://www.tworiverstribune.com/2011/02/sundberg-appoints-hoopa-resident-to-humboldt-county-planning-commission/
By the way, in that article from last year, Sundberg raised the same point about McKinleyville, and expressed confidence that Masten would do a good job of representing McKinleyville residents:
“Sundberg noted that elements of the General Plan Update are of particular importance to McKinleyville, the population center of the 5th District. ‘I totally support Susan’s position that the residents of McKinleyville be provided the opportunity to influence the direction of their community and to preserve their way of life.’”
February 27, 2013 at 2:58 pm
anonomous
We’ll take Lee Ulansey over Ralph Faust any day of the week.
Lovelace’s pick, Ralph Faust, is way too extreme. He tried very strongly, to insert into the new GPU, a regulation that would make it illegal for anyone to use the water on their own land if any structure on their property didn’t have a permit.
(this pretty much would mean over 65% of all Landowners in HC)
February 27, 2013 at 3:29 pm
ANONOMOUS
hey “loveless cookie”: anyone that would have a Problem with the public knowing how much of our tax dollars are being spent on lawsuits the County files against HC citizens, either works for the county or is part of the “outside council” they hire for over $400.00 an hour. (millions of our tax $$ spent just on the McKee suit)
OR, you were part of the losing side from last June and just want to be a contrary pantywaist
February 27, 2013 at 3:32 pm
Eric Kirk
We’ll take Lee Ulansey over Ralph Faust any day of the week.
Just so “we’re” clear, who is “we?”
February 27, 2013 at 4:42 pm
Not A Native
Gee Eric, if only you had followed through on your commitment to write a detailed post over the weekend, the greater virtue of appointing John would have become apparent to at least one of those three supes. And Ulansey wouldn’t be on the commission. A kingdom lost for want of determination.
So really, we can attribute the result to Eric’s lack of follow up gumption. I guess he’s not committed to progressive action like the relatives he likes to wax nostalgic about. Methinks that dissipation is no secret to him.
February 27, 2013 at 4:54 pm
Eric Kirk
I did write to the Supervisors, for the record. Got positive feedback from almost all of them. But, maybe I should have posted the letter here. I’m sure that would have made the difference.
Unfortunately, I have a life. It gets in the way.
February 27, 2013 at 5:04 pm
Cookie
Bob McKee filed the first lawsuit against the county regarding Tooby Ranch. The county did not file the first lawsuit. Bob McKee trying to say that somehow a contract that had been signed for 10 years with the county and Arthur Tooby(Williamson Act), that stated land could not be divided into less than 600 acre parcels, that somehow when he(Bob McKee) bought Tooby Ranch, that suddenly the contract should revert to the original of 160 acre divisions is ludicrous. The contract changed before McKee bought the ranch. If he wasn’t aware of the change, his bad.
February 27, 2013 at 5:46 pm
Forest Queen
Anonymous back up there the 24th @10:08,
Worth repeating . . .”predictable & meaningless debates.” And the ‘blog zombies ready to drown out common sense.’
Hey Hangman of Justice,
If your remark regarding “hairy sarcasm” was aimed at my post . . . I want to know how you arrive(d) at that conclusion? What doesn’t ring true to you in my ‘Congress’ post?
BEEcause it doesn’t ring true to you . . . you cast a shadow. Am I wrong?
I once was (that’s a joke).
Sincerely,
Forest Queen (with one r)
February 27, 2013 at 6:57 pm
ICU812
“But, maybe I should have posted the letter here. I’m sure that would have made the difference”~Its never too late to post your letter, if it does exist.
“Got positive feedback from almost all of them”~Does that mean three out of five, what number does “almost” represent?
“Some of us have to work for a living”~Does that mean your factual information should lack? I thought you were the king of everything politics in Humboldt County? Guess I was wrong, must of been working and was distracted.when I heard that. I can typing..
February 27, 2013 at 7:23 pm
Eric Kirk
I wrote the letter and decided not to post it here. It’s just not the kind of letter I want to expose to an anonymous blog crowd that perpetually sees the glass half empty. Anyone who wants me to send them what I wrote, just send me an email address.
Almost all of them means not quite 5 of them.
As for the rest of the post, I can typing indeed.
February 27, 2013 at 7:34 pm
ICU812
OK, I put it on my post info, look forward to read it?
February 27, 2013 at 9:28 pm
ICU812
Are you still writing it or what Eric. How much time could it take to attach it to an email? Hey, you made the offer!
February 27, 2013 at 10:47 pm
Eric Kirk
It’s there. And sorry. I spent time with my son, did some dishes, went to the gym to work out, and watched the Warrior Baek Dung Su defeat the Sky Lord. Priorities.
February 28, 2013 at 12:50 am
ICU812
Well Eric, you need to give the anonymous blog crowd more credit, some of us see the glass half full. I thought your letter to the BOS on behalf of John Rodgers was insightful, lucid, intelligent, well-thought-out and I would totally agree with you. Thank you for taking the time and sharing your letter. You should still post it to this thread. John Rodgers would have made a better choice for PC at-large, but as we know, the deck was stacked.
February 28, 2013 at 8:26 am
Eric Kirk
There are people who would take the opportunity to seize the thread to attack John. I didn’t want to open it up to that.
February 28, 2013 at 9:06 am
Cookie
Any bets that Ulansey runs for Supervisor?
February 28, 2013 at 9:21 am
Eric Kirk
He would have to move to another district to have a prayer. He knows that.
February 28, 2013 at 10:40 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Bolithio,
HOJ did not miss any of your points; rather, you are responding by regurgitating the “points HOJ made previous to anything you are now responding to in your post @ 7:14 am 0n 02-27-13″.
Bolithio wrote this in the previous response to the referenced comment above: The demand for wood is where the responsibility lies. Consumers are absolutely on the hook.
HOJ’s response to that quote: Notice there is no word “too” after the word “hook”….no need to assume “only” when it is implied already in “sentence structure/format/word usage or lack of word usage”.
Further, Bolithio’s statement that the demand for wood is where the responsibility lies as opposed to “the demand for profit based upon the secured natural resource” that the “extractor has on the cheap” compaired to what any consumer must pay as its baseline product costs GO EVEN HIGHER as that cheap resource gets manufactured into something other than that former extracted raw timber.
Lastly, HOJ harkens back to the regulation thought that Bolithio suggests and still asks the unanswered question: “Why is this extra tax needed to regulate when timber practices are less damaging than they were decades ago?” It seems that this tax is to pay off public employee pensions moreso than being needed to regulate an industry less damahging than previous decades. So again, this tax was created by assholes in government who pick and choose who pays for more and who gets to be “scott free” of any extra taxations. Just about everyone has “skin in the game”, but only the specific lumber consumers get “tagged”. Apparantly, all forrests are only good for in the minds of State regulators is “profit” and “taxation”, not clean air or clean water or maintaining species through biodiversities, etc….because if the latter really and truly existed, everyone would be paying the State sales tax increase.
Sincerely,
HOJ
February 28, 2013 at 10:56 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Forest Queen,
If you read the comment, it was responding to an “anonymous poster”.
Related only if you (as Forest Queen) dip in and out with multiple handles, monikers and id’s. Duly note the original comment and successive response only indicates “anonymous”, not a Forest Queen, unless of course Forest Queen plays both sides of the fence and won’t show it for some reason.
Sincerely,
HOJ
Below is what is being responded to “tied directly” to the original posted comment about “sarcasm” @ 02-25-13 10:33 pm
February 27, 2013 at 5:46 pm
Forest Queen
Anonymous back up there the 24th @10:08,
Worth repeating . . .”predictable & meaningless debates.” And the ‘blog zombies ready to drown out common sense.’
Hey Hangman of Justice,
If your remark regarding “hairy sarcasm” was aimed at my post . . . I want to know how you arrive(d) at that conclusion? What doesn’t ring true to you in my ‘Congress’ post?
BEEcause it doesn’t ring true to you . . . you cast a shadow. Am I wrong?
I once was (that’s a joke).
Sincerely,
Forest Queen (with one r)
February 28, 2013 at 11:23 am
Eric Kirk
The video of the proceedings is up. They begin somewhere around 5:45 and end somewhere around 6:05 with regard to the at-large rep pick.
I think Mark is right to criticize the vote on the grounds that the at-large rep should be based on a consensus if possible. Each Supervisor appoints his/her own Commissioner to reflect particular, yes, agendas. The at-large pick should be one they could agree on, and it looked like Denver Nelson would have been a possible consensus candidate.
I do think that Lee’s jab was unnecessary and counterproductive, though it is a little bit of a let-down after all the hype. Mark had made a good effort to voice his objections diplomatically, and Lee should have taken the opportunity to offer a branch.
I’m still not entirely clear that Ryan abstained simply because there were no candidates from McKinleyville. He did name two candidates he could support, including Lee.
And Estelle did name John as her second choice, as did Mark. I wonder if John also could have been voted in by consensus.
Here’s the link.
http://humboldt.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=659
Final thoughts – perception of partisanship is almost as much of a concern as substantive partisanship. Again, I think you have to choose your public role – are you a partisan advocate, or are you a consensus builder? There is no shame to the former role. It plays a very important role in the process. But in a politically charged climate as this one, I don’t believe that Lee was the best candidate. I say this as someone who likes Lee. Whether he deserves it, he is a polarizing figure.
Can he overcome that and reach out to the Arcata crowd, Healthy Humboldt, EPIC, etc.? Well, let’s see what he does. But he should have thought it through before sniping at Mark. That’s not a good start.
February 28, 2013 at 11:38 am
Anonymous
What pole do you favor, erik: ecology or economy? Would the erik of 1983 pony up to logging companies as much as the erik of 2013 would? You work for the parks, for chrissake. What difference will you have made in the long run, if you continue to invest in corporate (logging) modes? There is no environmental obligation to logging whatsoever. In fact, the opposite is true. There is only select economic subserviance, and with it comes all the pitfalls of human behavior, bleeding into government and snowballing frmo there. “Someone like me” can only hope to create a meaningful spark within “someone like you”…dig this: you work for the park district (or some such job), have a radio show, and drive around in a Prius…but are totally oblivious to the cliche you’ve become within the big picture as such. Whether or not “forest industry”(? what an oxymoron) is too late to make changes, they’re still far too little. You’re kissing their ass while in a real position to go out on a limb and stand by extreme changes that need to happen. Will it be after the third or fourth or fifth consecutive year of severe drought in this county that you might begin to open your eyes to this fact? Why should crisis precipitate necessary change, and why must it be later than sooner? The state of the environment is not given the recognition it deserves…it is not being taken as seriously as it needs to be taken by “people like you”.
February 28, 2013 at 11:47 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Eric,
so how much governance must refrain from those polarizations? Just to be clear, the two party system is very polarizing and plenty of Humboldtians have been polarized by the local brass who support the two party system even though local is camoflaged as “non-partisan”. Maybe, more consensus building could occur if groups and organizations “led the way”? Afterall, many people can’t agree on so many topics, that is partly the nature of mankind…to disagree! A problem is when the “brass” continually use the same retoric and arguments that never seem to include those folks who don’t support the two party system.
Sincerely,
HOJ
February 28, 2013 at 11:51 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
As far As Faust goes,
He is by far the most knowledgeable of the bunch, but at times seems to pick a side as opposed to what the regulations allow for. During other times, Faust is spot-on with regulation and equal applications/protections of the law, while the other commissioners are simplky clueless or letting kickback perks get through on a majority vote.
It is good to have a “mixture” on any commission to avoid one-sided decisions time and again.
Sincerely,
HOJ
February 28, 2013 at 12:07 pm
Eric Kirk
Anonymous – In 1983 I was much more of a dye-in-the-wool socialist, and like the old left socialists I associated with, I would have put economy first and ecology second. The view of old line socialism – what my grandfather told my father is that “ecology is a bourgoise science.” A “quality of life issue” rather than a bread and butter issue which socialists should be focused on. People first. Pretty surroundings second.
As I got older, I realized that the world is much more complicated, and that socialist economics just like capitalist economics were rooted in 19th century assumptions of infinite potential abundance. Catastrophic ecological issues did not figure into the equation, I think to the detriment of the socialist movement’s deepest agendas.
However, when you say “economy,” you are speaking of corporate interests. Whe I say “economy” I am referring to that which presents opportunity for people to survive – to obtain the goods, services, and opportunity necessary for life and dignity. And I do believe that the push for “simple” living and voluntary poverty comes from a class basis – people who were born into privilege and who have opportunities most people lack. The environmentalist movement still fails because it does not address social inequity, nor does it address the basic day-to-day living of the vast majority of human beings on the planet. And the preaching that they should all be willing to give up their cars and their dreams of material comfort is no less classist than the preaching that people without need only work harder to get what they want. There remains an inappropriate sense of smug superiority about your life choices, and the assumption that everyone else is obligated to mimic your choices because after all you walk softly on the earth and they don’t.
Well, most of those people, to eat need jobs. Not ten years from now. Not next year. Not tomorrow. They have to eat now. So to the degree that you would want to impose restrictions on logging companies, the oil industry, or any other aspect of what you term “economy,” these people need it to feed, cloth, and shelter their children. Now. Today. This minute.
It’s not even a question of morality. It’s practicality. These people will oppose you if you try to take their jobs away, because they have to. They don’t have the time to worry about whether the glaciers are melting. They have to feed their children. Today. They will fight you tooth and nail, and if you’ve alienated them to the point where they are willing to work with the interests of capitalism to defeat you, you’ve lost before you’ve started.
In 1983 I would have told you the same thing. It was part of my socialist upbringing, even though my parents came to a more nuanced understanding of the finite nature of resources, and the potential impacts of unchecked industrialism.
So yes, I am happy to see logging trucks filled with lumber. It means kids are getting fed. Homes are being built to shelter them. And I believe there are models of sustainability which may evolve into something which addresses the various competing interests inherent to the human condition. Absolute bans on logging, oil production, or any other staple will not only result in economic and social inequity, but also trigger backlashes which will ultimately be even worse for the environment.
In short I support an environmentalism which is not elitist and which addresses social conditions as well as ecology.
February 28, 2013 at 12:09 pm
Eric Kirk
HOJ – Again, I think partisanship is productive in government. But I think each Supervisor should pick his/her partisan Commissioner. The at-large pick should be a consensus builder. That’s what Mark was getting at.
February 28, 2013 at 12:27 pm
Anonymous
I’m honestly very surprised by your response. Just about every sentence of it. The logic you have constructed to describe what is happening. It sucks. It more than sucks; it’s pathetic. Yeah, people have to eat alright. “The environmentalist movement”???? You are really way more out of touch than I imagined you to be.
Here is an environmental scenario for you: take the physical shape of Humboldt’s landscape 200 years ago and transform it into what we live in and around today, in fewer than 200 years. You show no signs of comprehending the severity of such a change.
February 28, 2013 at 1:05 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, if it’s really that bad – and by the way I do believe that it’s very serious, but overblown by pseudoscience – then nobody should be opposing a wind-generator project because it kills birds and clutters up views.
But it’s hard to respond, because you haven’t presented anything of an argument other than “it sucks.” And maybe that’s an indication of why your view has no influence. Zero. Not only is your elitism reflected in your morality, but also because we can’t read your mind.
February 28, 2013 at 1:12 pm
Jim Ferguson
Whatever your opinion of Lee, until he starts voting, every statement about his appointment and how he will make decisions are just blowing smoke. And he is just one member of the P.C. and can be outvoted if his position is too far out of line or solution runs contrary to prior approvals.
No matter what their political position, there are codes, ordinances and laws the P.C. must follow when projects come before them. Ask for too much, not only can their decision be appealed to the BOS but the option of a lawsuit is readily available.
February 28, 2013 at 1:27 pm
Anonymous
erik, the entirety of my posts above suggest what you can do about it. Stop sucking up to logging companies pretending to be in the best interests of anything or anybody but their bottom line. Recognize the importance of nomenclature and step up…volunteer yourself to call logging what it is. You not only secularize “the environmentalism movement” but claim ot to be failing. How is environmentalism failing if it is about the environment? Logging is certainly not failing, nor is construction or real estate transactions. They are all succeeding. They are having a hay day with “people like you.” Look at “our” government roster…logging, construction and real estate, right across the board.
I would like you to answer a question, please. Human to human, no bullshit. After three consecutive years of severe drought in this county, with all indications that it will only get worse, how will you re-evaluate what you have written above? “People have to eat”…what people? Are you and I supposed to adapt to the environment created by “people who eat” in the logging industry? Can’t they find new work like so many in defunct industry before them? People like “everybody else”.
February 28, 2013 at 1:46 pm
Cookie
We know how Ulansey will vote. Just like Estelle. She has voted every way I have expected her to.
February 28, 2013 at 1:47 pm
Cookie
Also, the planning commission is a huge part of making the codes. Remember all the PC has t do with the GPU.
February 28, 2013 at 1:50 pm
ICU812
“In short I support an environmentalism which is not elitist and which addresses social conditions as well as ecology”
It would seem you didn’t think this one out. Your comment is an oxymoron when you know the definitions of “environmentalism”:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/environmentalism
“So yes, I am happy to see logging trucks filled with lumber. It means kids are getting fed. Homes are being built to shelter them. And I believe there are models of sustainability which may evolve into something which addresses the various competing interests inherent to the human condition. Absolute bans on logging, oil production, or any other staple will not only result in economic and social inequity, but also trigger backlashes which will ultimately be even worse for the environment”
What you are saying is sacrificing the natural environment for the sake of the greater good (humans). History has shown since Gifford Pinchot circa 1876, the greater good doesn’t help protect the natural environment. The reason it doesn’t work is because of greed. So what has changed in Humboldt County? Being socioeconomically green in Humboldt County has a whole different definition than being environmentally green. You can’t have it both ways, e.g. Mateel Reggae on the River at French’s Camp.
February 28, 2013 at 2:03 pm
Anonymous
Thanks for posting the link to the meeting. I watched the clip and my only thought was. “is that it?”. Mark predictibly made a few negative comments about Lee. Lee made the point that Mark hadn’t sat down with him to discuss concerns as the others had and hoped to have the opportunity in the future. They also obviously have some disagreement about who might or might not have attempted to contact the other in the past. Both were civil, both were polite. Where’s the beef? I think there are a lot of folks who should find something more productive to do with their time. For those who can’t help it, watch the video, at least you’ll probably get a quick nap.
February 28, 2013 at 2:41 pm
bolithio
History has shown since Gifford Pinchot circa 1876, the greater good doesn’t help protect the natural environment. The reason it doesn’t work is because of greed. So what has changed in Humboldt County?
Really? There is no doubt greed stands in the way of progress, yet there are plenty of examples of progress requiring greed to get out of the way. Just because big corporations dont like it, or aren’t changing out of the goodness of their hearts does not diminish the fact that change has occurred.
Imagine if there had been no ‘greater good’ aka conservation policy developed by Pinchot. Do you really believe that things would be the same as they are now? I dont blame you for not really understanding the level of planning, regulation, oversight, and monitoring that is occurring on timber projects in CA. I wish people could understand it better. It has changed dramatically since 1876 – from a manifest destiny assumption of never ending supply to the careful practice of managing a renewable resource while meeting clean air, water and wildlife objectives.
People can hate that we do that here in Humboldt. But I dont understand why anyone would, considering the alternative of complete disregard – which is what occurs in the majority of the earths forests. Shouldn’t we all be proud of what has transpired here? From devastation to restoration to long term sustainability?
I don’t understand why people who are so fast to reject the premise that supporting the most regulated forestry/logging system in the world is a good way to encourage better practices elsewhere in the long run. If we cant make it work here, what does that mean for the other countries?
February 28, 2013 at 3:07 pm
Eric Kirk
Alright, human to human, let me first say that the logging industry, fraught as it may be with greedheads and short term thinking, is not a major factor in global warming. The removal of equatorial rainforests may be a serious aggravating factor, but that is generated more by the demand for cattle pastures and thus more attributable to the fast food industry than the logging industry. The loss of carbon processing by northern hemisphere old growth conifers is a small factor at most.
Much greater of a factor is carbon emissions from fossil fuel combustion vehicles, with most of the emissions coming from rural and suburban commuting, with tons of carbon being generated by idling engines in traffic jams. Airplanes are a huge factor, so never, never pay for an airline ticket. And don’t oppose the Willits bypass, because right now, every afternoon, there is a long line of vehicles sitting in place waiting for the 20/101 intersection light to change, tossing carbon dioxide (and monoxide) into the air. And move to the city where you can pool your carbon footprinting with others, by using public transit. Certainly do not live out in the hills here where you have to drive to purchase food.
I haven’t said anything about the “greater good.” I’m saying that people have to eat. They have to feed their children. Now. Not tomorrow. Today.
And about half of the logging industry in Humboldt is made up of Latino workers. Is it really appropriate for comfortable and privileged white hippies to cast judgment on them over their vocation? The Latino vote is a growing force in Humboldt County, and I believe turned two Fortuna districts to Obama in this last election. What is your message to them? Quit your job and join us in the woods where we live one with the land?
The problem I have with many environmentalists is the dismissal of the concern of jobs as a shallow love for money. For most people, money is a means not an end. It’s a means to food, shelter, health care, and whatever pleasures are available. Whatever your model of sustainability, it has to incorporate the basic survival and dignity of those at the bottom, and historically environmentalism comes from privilege and is too dismissive. It’s one of the reasons the conservatives now rule the county once again – as they did a decade ago. Another reason is, and this will always get me into trouble, but hippies here have shown us that they are not necessarily progressive. Perhaps it’s the libertarian element associated with the back to the land movement that distinguishes it from the “urban” environmentalists. “We are stewards of the land” is the mantra. We don’t need regulation. We need incentives.” (translate, money that nobody has to give them).
And we have a knee-jerk opposition to everything that might result in economic development. Unless we want to shut down the power grid, which is not going to be supported by any potential ally of the environmental movement, we have to encourage alternative energy development, even if it means, yes, sacrificing birds. Everything we do has an impact on the world around us, every single thing. We can’t eliminate our impact on animals. Every organic carrot we’ve purchased came at the expense of animals residing in the soil. For one thing to live, something else must die. We can’t change that. We can only mitigate our impact. The Alaska spill two decades ago killed more birds than all the wind turbines in California will kill in the next millennium. Something has to give. You can’t have everything you want, and certainly a return to the stone ages is not in the cards.
You know, I’ve written two long pieces today. I think I’ve made my points clear. If you want to debate them, then please debate them. But a short angry post telling me that my perspective sucks – that’s really not productive.
February 28, 2013 at 3:11 pm
Eric Kirk
Thanks for posting the link to the meeting. I watched the clip and my only thought was. “is that it?”. Mark predictibly made a few negative comments about Lee. Lee made the point that Mark hadn’t sat down with him to discuss concerns as the others had and hoped to have the opportunity in the future. They also obviously have some disagreement about who might or might not have attempted to contact the other in the past. Both were civil, both were polite. Where’s the beef? I think there are a lot of folks who should find something more productive to do with their time. For those who can’t help it, watch the video, at least you’ll probably get a quick nap.
We do see it differently. Mark predictably pointed out that Lee is perceived as divisive. Whether it’s warranted or not, he is. I thought that Mark was very diplomatic in the way he said it, and in fact the other supervisors, including Rex and Virginia, responded productively to Mark’s comments. Lee didn’t have to say anything, but decided to get up and actually interrupted Ryan trying to move on to the next agenda item. I understand that he was frustrated, but it was unnecessary. He gained nothing by doing it.
It was also less dramatic than I expected, but then I had a couple of days of lively blog posts to ramp up my expectation. Lee should have just said, if anything, “I would like very much to talk to Supervisor Lovelace to clear up some misconceptions.” That would have played much better. Hopefully he learns from the mistake.
February 28, 2013 at 3:18 pm
Anonymous
I appreciate that, erik. I’ll respond later. This stands out, however:
You write: “The problem I have with many environmentalists is the dismissal of the concern of jobs as a shallow love for money.”
Cutting to the chase, you gotta wrap your head around this: there is no “environmental movement”. There are no “environmentalists.” There is, however, a constant ANTI-environment movement. Your buddies in the “sustainable forestry industry” belong to it. “Environmentalists” aren’t trying to halt a new freeway from being constructed in wetlands around willits. People from all walks of life are stating it is exemplary of everything wrong with economic priority in the government, etc. It doesn’t spare mother nature where and when she can be spared.
On teh one hand you call for balanced conclusions in political decisions, on the other you say such polar conclusions like “to live, one must die”…it’s all nonsense. There’s common sense and there’s stupidity, ahd when you draw the line of reasoning at the future health of the planet, it’s very easy to conclude which is which.
February 28, 2013 at 3:27 pm
Not A Native
Eric, it’d really be a lot easier if you’d just be more honest and not make up stuff about why you didn’t do what you said you would, and finally after being cornered acknowledge you never intended to do it at all. You’ll be taken more seriously and your credibility would increase. And using your children as an excuse is really pathetic and demeans them.
Anyway, your argument that environmentalism is elitist clearly has some merit but overlooks that the point of environmental thinking is intended to liberate people, especially those who believe material consumption is a “cure” for social status angst. I think you’re spot on about what economiics is about, but a lifestyle involves choices that have moral dimensions beyond assuaging feelings of deprivation or inequality.
To use your example of everyone needing to eat daily: but what to eat? Survival and thriving is possible with many diets but some diets are more resource intensive. So, environmentalism provides some guideposts for better diets for health and resource conservation. That’s not a social inequality thing, a environmentally sustainable diet is for everyone. And I’m not talking boutique or trendy ideas that, as you imply, are really about establishing and signaling social status. People will always seek social status, thats a human characteristic. But seeking to feel proud for eating the last blue whale steak is wrong, and environmentalism says so.
Yeah, you need to feed your children now, this minute. But even more importantly you need to vision a future that food’s nutrition will carry them into. Feeding them today in a manner that creates a bleak future is a disservice and lacks morality.
Its not the last word, but here’s one essay about potential futures that we might well be choosing today by our actions. I looked for another one I think is better but can’t find it. This essay is long, you probably won’t read it.
http://jacobinmag.com/2011/12/four-futures/
February 28, 2013 at 3:29 pm
Anonymous
I actually agree that your suggestion would have been a better response though I still maintain that nothing of any substance really happened. On the other hand Mark was voting on someone for an important position that he’s never even had a conversation with. As an elected official one would think that given the real possibility that Lee would be selected that he might feel the obligation to at least talk. Mark was very quick to point out that Ulansey could call him for an appointment but missed the concept that phones go in two directions. Arguably, on that point they were both wrong.
February 28, 2013 at 3:38 pm
Anonymous
“To use your example of everyone needing to eat daily: but what to eat?”
For many people, whatever they can get.
February 28, 2013 at 5:04 pm
Cookie
It was really more on Lee Ulanseys shoulders to call Mark Lovelace about the appointment to the commission. Ulansey wanted the job. He should have acted like an applicant, not the employer.
Second, eric, would you please set me, and everyone else here straight on who filed the first lawsuit over the Tooby Ranch debacle? It is my understanding the Bob McKee filed the first lawsuit, demanding that the county give him AP numbers for all the pieces he sold that were less than 600 acres. The county was refusing to do so. The rest is history.
February 28, 2013 at 6:10 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Eric,
HOJ worries not about “carbon emissions in little ole Humboldt County – not enough emissions per landsacpe; yet, for urban areas, the emissions can’t be ignored because a person smells them all day, everyday. It is where the masses of people live where the generation of carbon emissions is noticeable.
As far as “opportunity”, well, there is no such thing WHEN “opportunity is sabotaged or manipulated”, and sadly this occurs all-too-often when “processes are manipulated by public employees”.
“Opportunity” should be “results based too, from start to finish, 100%” but alas, government types and those types who fear more competition “drum-up” opportunity as a feel good word to bandy about to make other people “the supposed future opportunists” feel all warm and fuzzy about their “unknown opportunities”.
There is less opportunity than that which is socio-politically advertized. Heaven, Hell, God and Devil forbid another humanoid throwing in the monkey wrenches to disrupt a despised one.
Sincerely,
HOJ
February 28, 2013 at 8:15 pm
Not A Native
Well anon 3:38, does that include other humans(maybe close relatives)? Thats always something that can be gotten. Every adult makes choices of what(or not) to eat.
February 28, 2013 at 8:18 pm
bolithio
Hench… I really mean this as constructive criticism. It is close to impossible to understand what your are saying sometimes. Your constant use of “quotations” don’t really get across what ever “tone” or “sarcasm” you are trying to put out there. And when all wrapped up in a third-person, run-on sentence its more distracting than helpful. I guess I get the “gonzo journalism” thing if that’s what your going for… but man, i have to smoke a joint to even try to understand you half the time!
And to your unanswered question: “Why is this extra tax needed to regulate when timber practices are less damaging than they were decades ago?”
To answer this completely I would have to write an essay. While I complain about problems from the bureaucracy of forest regulation, I absolutely believe regulation is necessary. In a perfect world our industries would self regulate. But thats not our world. You have to keep spending money on it so the laws change with the current science, and allow for refinement.
Our products are not a level playing field with the world economy. Other timber producing states/countries harvest for much less cost because they don’t deal with the relegation we do.
I will pay an extra few cents for lumber I buy to ensure CAs forest are well regulated. In fact thats why I like CA, because we like to spend money for perks. Like education, clean water, better emission standards.
February 28, 2013 at 10:09 pm
ICU812
“I will pay an extra few cents for lumber I buy to ensure CAs forest are well regulated. In fact thats why I like CA, because we like to spend money for perks. Like education, clean water, better emission standards”
If you have to smoke a joint to even try to understand HOJ, I must need to heat up a spoon to understand you.
What perks in education are you talking about, public K-12?
Better emission standards? And who killed the electric car?
And you fall for the logging and timber’s industry’s goal of internalizing profits while externalizing mitigation cost to the public? If we did have a well regulated logging and timber industry in Ca, why is the restoration industry growing. At what point do we say no more, now that the marijuana industry has replaced bad logging practices. Maybe you agree with Gov JB and want to scale back CEQA and streamline the process? There is your forest regulation. Time to fire up a fatty about now?
March 1, 2013 at 7:48 am
bolithio
OK ICU. Have you ever spent time in any other states? CA has a host of laws that put us in front.
CA Forest Practice Act
CA Water Quality Act
CA Endangered Species Act
CA Environmental Quality Act
These all do things way beyond what other states of the Union do. And if you dont think the quality of life here is better because of that you are the one who is high.
Restoration is growing because our knowledge is. And for many other reasons that some of you are too lazy to learn about. Like how fire exclusion is leading to serious problems all across the state, and increasing the demand for restoration projects.
No one in my experience on the internet has yet to be able to provide me with any real evidence that logging under current regulation and policy in CA is having any harm on the environment.
Why is it so hard to see that there is good happening too? I mean seriously, lets just throw our hands in the air and walk off a pier! Ill just stop defending our sustainable, renewable resource industry. Stop trying to point out what the alternatives to it are. As usual the discussion ends with people seeing the world through an adbusters magazine and accusing me of being some paid industry shill. All ridiculous.
March 1, 2013 at 8:29 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Bolithio,
…and again…..it ain’t about regulation (as a word); rather, it is about the additional collection of this new 1% tax to use to supposedly regulate (in some fashion) when regulation has already been ongoing and continues today (sometimes illeffectively) even though the logging practices are less impactive than prior decades (the motto seems to be about more regulation in a less needed regulated environment, even though where the taxes are partly spent may be elsewhere to fill budget shortfalls).
Can’t wait for your essay manifesto, be sure to punctuate for the “English Skills Challenge Cup”.
Sincerely,
HOJ
March 1, 2013 at 9:29 am
Cookie
Isn’t this thread supposed to be about planning commission politics?
March 1, 2013 at 9:34 am
Forest Queen
Eric,
The words ‘global warming’ transferred to ‘climate change’ some time ago.There is a lot of ego here because some have jumped onto Gaiaism, Prince Charles and Gore’s materialist religions. People don’t know what liberty even is. It has nothing to do with words, bibles/churches, lawyers, lords or scapegoat gods – this is corruption of humanists/scholars with self-interest in profiteering. It’s about gratitude for whatever is the creator(s) of all and act responsibly for the community. Wherever there is usury, liberty is not. Usury is an act of war. If we want a non-corrupt system there can be no usury in it, there can be no resource backing, as then the current holders have all the leverage from their usury theft. We can’t just agree to something and expect it to be all done for us. It requires action, if that action is unlawful using the same behavior as the unlawful, you do not differ, you empower the system.
March 1, 2013 at 10:27 am
ICU812
bolithio, California adopted and implemented all of the laws and regulation you named from the Federal Law. And BTW, its called the Z’Berg-Nejedly Forest Practices Act.
“No one in my experience on the internet has yet to be able to provide me with any real evidence that logging under current regulation and policy in CA is having any harm on the environment”
Just for starters and locally I would go to the Pisces Party in Briceland on March 8th and talk with Richard Gienger or Sharon Duggan or contact them to answer your questions
Historic development
The development of the 1946 Forest Practices Act was given impetus by the traditional fear of running out of wood, coupled with concern within the State’s lumber industry that the Federal government was going to get involved in forest regulation (Arvola, 1976). Regulation of forest practice in this early Act was controlled by a Board of Forestry that was dominated by representatives from the forest industry. This Act was in force for over twenty-five years, until examination by a university class led to a court case which determined that this set of regulations was akin to having the hen house guarded by the foxes (Bayside, 1971).
Following invalidation of the 1946 Act, there was a flurry of legislative activity that resulted in the Z’Berg-Nejedly Forest Practices Act (FPA), which took effect January 1, 1974. This new law superseded the old, and re-established a nine member Board of Forestry whose mandate was the control over forest practices and forest resources in California. This Board, by law, is dominated by those from outside the forest products industry who have no financial connection to the forest industry. This Act requires that a Timber Harvest Plan (THP) be prepared by a (newly created) Registered Professional Forester (RPF) for timber harvest on virtually all non-federal land. The Board of Forestry is the policy arm of the California Department of Forestry, which is the enforcement branch.
The FPA also established the requirement that all non-federal forests cut in the State be regenerated with at least three hundred stems per acre on high site lands, and one hundred fifty trees per acre on low site lands. In 1976, this Act was declared the functional equivalent of an Environmental Impact Report required for such activities under the California Environmental Quality Act (Green, 1982).
This FPA and each Board of Forestry were active, always with new rules being created, until 1990, when public concern about forestry resurfaced in an unresolved contest of ballot-box forestry. Three initiative measures were signed by enough citizens to be placed on the ballot, and at least twenty million dollars were spent to support/defeat these. Despite bitter contests, none passed. Some of the bloodied combatants of this skirmish in California’s ‘timber wars’ decided to try to work together. They developed an accord that was to put into motion many of the clauses and directions of the defeated initiatives. This led to a larger accord, which in the end passed the legislature, but ultimately was not signed by the Governor. The focus of both the initiatives and the accords became a matter of Board of Forestry concern immediately thereafter, and subsequent intense discussion resulted in the adoption in 1993 of rules that go beyond forest practice regulation, and attempt the protection and development of forests through THP’s which now require sustained yield planning, with, for example, requirements that all forest land owners develop at least 15% late-seral-stage forests on their ownership.
These new rules were added to regulations regarding cumulative impacts, archaeological sites and habitat protection already in place. One subsequent important element has been the addition of other Resources Agency Departments gaining standing in the rules.
~ Donald P. Gasser
Harvesting Specialist
University of California Berkeley,
California, USA
March 1, 2013 at 12:02 pm
Anonymous
“It was really more on Lee Ulanseys shoulders to call Mark Lovelace about the appointment to the commission. Ulansey wanted the job. He should have acted like an applicant, not the employer.”
Actually Cookie I think your experience is different that most of the rest of us. Most often, a potiential employee fills out an application, sends it in, and then the employer calls them to set an appointment for an interview. It certainly doesn’t have to be that way, it’s just the way it usually works.
In this case, Ulansey certainly could have called for an appointment and I agree that perhaps he even should have, but it would have been just as appropriate and more typical for Board members to do so. Apparently four of them did exactly that, though is was likely easier for them to do so then it would have been for Mark. Then again, he’s getting paid a lot of money to do the job.
Just sayin.
March 1, 2013 at 12:20 pm
ICU812
Anonymous: last year while Ulansey was on the Eureka Planning Commision, he also interviewed and was picked for a seat on the Humboldt LAFCo Commission, but there was a conflict of interest with being on the Eureka Planning Commission and again he questioned the process in public:
http://www.humboldtlafco.org/sites/default/files/meeting-minutes/May%2016,%202012%20Adopted%20Minutes.pdf
March 1, 2013 at 12:52 pm
Anonymous
ICU: Thanks for the link. A little dry but interesting reading. Looks to me like LAFCo had a screwed up handbook, that was contrary to state law where it discussed board eligibility. Good for Ulansey for suggesting they fix it. I also went to the LAFCo site and it looks like they took his advice. Good for them for correcting their mistake.
http://humboldtlafco.org/sites/default/files/Policies%20and%20Procedures/Final%20Administrative%20Policies%20and%20Procedures.pdf
March 1, 2013 at 1:35 pm
ICU812
Anonymous, I totally agree, but because of the resent appointment to the HC PC, It was his comment: “Mr. Ulansey argued that a planning commissioner is unquestionably not part of a governing body”. Is that a fair assessment or argument? If a Planning Commissioner is not part of a governing body, what are they? The HC PC has to conform to the Brown Act and Conflict of Interest Code of HC,including form 700. Since Ulansey feels the PC is not apart of the governing body, who does he represent?
March 1, 2013 at 2:46 pm
Anonymous
I think the issue is not that a PC is not part of a governing body but that they themselves are not a governing body. As Lovelace pointed out the PC is a ‘quasi-legislative’ body as opposed to a governing one. In the case of Eureka, the city council is the only governing body. That’s why the LAFCo handbook had to be corrected. I believe that all your points about the Brown Act and such are correct. btw, none of this stuff has anything to do with representation. It seems to me that an ‘at large’ position would need to represent, at the very least, a big portion of the County’s ‘middle ground’, whatever that is. That’s intuititive though, I doubt there is a codified requirement.
March 1, 2013 at 7:14 pm
ICU812
Lovelace was concerned about someone having a agenda and then said: “the Planning Commission is not a legislative body, it is a quasi-Judicial body that is there to make decisions based in law not ideology”
March 2, 2013 at 8:58 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Thanks ICU812 on the history of forrest practices and concerns. The same conflict of interest as the (Bayside, 1971) reference occurs in different areas of government too, like law enforcement at local levels and boards and commissions at the State and Federal levels.
As far as the HCPC, it is a function of government, no doubt. It definately is quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial with any appealing of any matter going up the ladder to the HC BOS. This is why the importance for acting elected officials to “stack the deck” but to do so without raising eyebrows.
“At Large” positions don’t mean really anything different than “non-at large positions” except maybe that the applicant as an “at large” does not fall under any requirement to be from any particular District. Nothing in the rules that suggests “consensus by all is used as the basis to select”. To expect an “at-large” to be selected from non-foxes would suggest that a hand should go into a box to select a folded piece of paper with a name written on inside or that the voters vote for “at-large positions” during the regular election ballot box selections of county supervisors. Afterall, who will actually select an “at-large” representative of the “middle ground” (enemies versus supporters of government)?
Sincerely,
HOJ
March 2, 2013 at 9:27 am
Cookie
Bob McKee thinks he should only have his Williamson Act contract voided as his penalty for Tooby Ranch. ! LOL ! What a joke. He should have to pay every single penny it cost the county for this debacle. If his contract is voided, wouldn’t that change the legal description of the land, and then he would be in violation of the sub division map act. In either case, he is guilty of robbing the county to pay Bob McKee.
Maybe a good reaming will him a more law abiding, honest fellow.
March 2, 2013 at 9:52 am
Cookie
Judge hears final arguments in McKee lawsuit; decision on penalty expected within 90 days
Grant Scott-Goforth /The Times-Standard
Posted: 03/02/2013 02:36:19 AM PST
Updated: 03/02/2013 02:36:19 AM PST
Attorneys for Humboldt County and developer Bob McKee presented final arguments before a packed courtroom Friday in a long-standing lawsuit over a subdivision of 13,700-acre Tooby Ranch.
San Francisco attorney Robert Moore, representing McKee, asked for leniency from Superior Court Judge Dale Reinholtsen, who has 90 days to decide how the Williamson Act violations should be remedied.
A state appeals court found in 2008 that McKee violated the Williamson Act — which grants landowners tax relief if they agree to keep their land in agricultural production — when he sold portions of the Tooby Ranch property smaller than 600 acres, which is the minimum parcel size allowed under the act.
Friday’s hearing involved Buck Mountain Ranch, of which McKee is part-owner. McKee is one of more than 30 defendants named in the case who own parcels in the subdivided Tooby Ranch.
Moore called the case “absolutely frivolous,” and said McKee was singled out for Williamson Act violations. He argued the Williamson Act violations should be considered a violation of a contract, not an illegal act.
Oakland attorney Joshua Cohen, representing the county, said the subdivision was prohibited and that 30 other defendants in the lawsuit shows that the county was not singling out McKee.
”The breach has already been established by the court of appeal,” he said.
Reinholtsen has several options in deciding a remedy for the violations, including requirements of the parcel owners to report changes in agricultural activity on their properties to the county. The court could also order McKee to purchase subdivided parcels back from their owners. “People have been on that land for 12 years,” Moore said.
Another option is fines. Moore warned that penalties could cost McKee more than $100 million, but Cohen said that high of a penalty was unlikely.
”The county has set forth what potential damages could be,” he said. “That’s not what the county expects.”
Moore asked the judge to consider non-renewal of the Williamson Act contract as a penalty for the violations.
“Anything else would be grossly unfair,” he said.
Following the hearing, Cohen said non-renewal of the contract was insufficient.
”Non-renewal is not a remedy,” he said. “It’s not a penalty. They could’ve asked for non-renewal any time they wanted to.”
”The county doesn’t want a non-renewal,” Cohen added. “They want to encourage actual ag production.”
Cohen said it remained to be seen whether Reinholtsen’s decision in the Buck Mountain Ranch portion of the case would set precedent for the other defendants.
McKee purchased the Tooby Ranch property in 2000. The former owner of Tooby Ranch had entered into a Williamson Act contract with the county in 1977, when the minimum size for subdivided parcels was 160 acres. In 1978, Williamson Act guidelines called for an increase in the minimum parcel size, to 600 acres. After he bought the ranch, McKee sold several parcels that were under 600 acres, averaging about 300 acres.
In 2006, Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Bruce Watson ruled that the 1978 guidelines couldn’t be applied to McKee. The county appealed.
The county and McKee settled on two other claims in the suit but the Williamson Act element of Watson’s ruling was thrown out, netting a victory for the county. McKee asked the California 1st District Court of Appeal to reconsider the matter, but the court turned it down. The California Supreme Court also denied McKee’s request to hear the issue.
Grant Scott-Goforth can be reached at 441-0514 or gscott-goforth@times-standard.com.
March 2, 2013 at 1:15 pm
ICU812
The comical and sad side show to all of this, past writing on the wall. Check out this blog from April 2012 and the first post: We can only form our own opinion and look at the track record, the chain of events that have taken place to lead us here. Only time will tell how long Humboldt County will allow themselves to be bamboozled by:
“Humboldt Coalition for Property Rights is dedicated to preserving the rural lifestyle that has been the historic tradition of Humboldt County. We will aggressively pursue the right to allow all members of our community a broad choice of alternatives for living, working and recreating. HumCPR will actively monitor and oppose actions that erode property rights or diminish the economic viability of our community”
http://humboldtherald.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/another-humcpr-lawsuit-against-humboldt-county/
March 2, 2013 at 4:23 pm
Cookie
HumCPR uses their lofty language in a feeble attempt to hide a smarmy agenda. Thomas Jefferson said “patriotism is the last refuge for the scoundrel”.
March 2, 2013 at 5:35 pm
Anonymous
Jefferson also said: “A government afraid of its citizens is a Democracy. Citizens afraid of government is tyranny!”
If you can pry off the tin foil hat for a moment you might actually consider the facts that created HumCPR in the first place.
March 2, 2013 at 5:54 pm
Forest Queen
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
No democracy, no republic, no conservatives, no liberals, no left, no right,or all of the other fictitious labels. Just corporatism – profit no matter what the cost.
March 2, 2013 at 6:08 pm
hillmuffin
the countryside is already so messed up with out of control grows that i doubt if a pro-development planning commission will make it any worse…
March 2, 2013 at 6:21 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Less people, less consumption, less profit, less competition, less marketability, less, less, less versus more people, more consumption, more profit, more competition, more marketability, more, more and more until inputs (the need to reenergize) far outweighs the outputs (what can be reproduced to offset the fixed energy source losses), especially since fuel (typically needed to drive and heat, operating equipment) is also considered as food. Many people need to be “re-fueled” but are not getting enough food to eat. Profit allows for healthy living if so chosen; lack of profit means to struggle.
People started to really hurt bigtime when the monthly “basics” expanded and/or shot-up in price…….rent, food, healthcare, fuel, insurance, utilities, ISP services, etc….
HOJ
March 2, 2013 at 9:03 pm
ICU812
“if you can pry off the tin foil hat for a moment you might actually consider the facts that created HumCPR in the first place”
Please share with the group the facts you have that created HumCPR?
Here is what HumCPR stated in their first news letter dated Feb 26, 2008:
In case anyone is not aware, we believe our numbers and united voice significantly contributed to the Board of Supervisors voting to immediately stop their headlong “Rush to Regulate” to implement the amended TPZ ordinance proposed by the Planning Department – separate from the General Plan Update process. During the meeting of December 11th, Supervisor Geist stated she had completed investigation on her own, and was convinced that PALCO’s Redwood Ranch development could never really have happened, and that the amended TPZ ordinance was being brought forward under the “Trojan Horse” of fear that the Redwood Ranch development was imminently possible without regulation or CEQA environmental review. The Board voted 4-1 (Woolley dissenting) to immediately stop their review of the TPZ ordinance amendment, and return all matters to the General Plan Update process.
However, please recognize that ALL of the issues of concern regarding the proposed TPZ ordinance recently proposed by the CDSD, must still be addressed in the General Plan Update process, over the next several months.
This delay in implementing the TPZ ordinance is significant to our organization for several reasons:
* This allows us to avoid functioning in a constant “panic” mode, trying to keep up with the Planning Department’s attempts to immediately implement an amended TPZ ordinance that would essentially disallow any residential building permits within TPZ lands
* There has been a public acknowledgement that Planning staff misrepresented this issue to the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, and general public – in order to justify the “emergency” TPZ building permit moratorium and to grossly accelerate the consideration of the amended TPZ ordinance.
http://humcpr.org/newsletters/first-newsletter/
March 3, 2013 at 9:09 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
ICU812,
the 4-1 vote is misleading in that it occured only after other supervisors were on board to create the TPZ debacle. The “in between cloud of time and space” was those supes getting their asses handed to them for being deceptive twits themselves too. Simply to come back later to vote 4-1 is not reversing “manifested injustice” that began because of the 4 supes’ actions as per planning staff cheerleading prior to their eventual lackluster play alongs to make voters think an important issue is at hand. As far as Woolley, he at least did not reneg flip-floppishly on his original thoughts and vote, even though it was all baseless and wrong. So, what really was learned was how stupid the voters were that elected the supes because it showed how clueless and not very smart elected officials are with their own responsibilities and personal knowledge of how county departments operate and are managed. It all translates to into their hiring practices and appointment processes. For the voters proved themselves as dummies in majority.
Rather have an intelligent, knowledgeable and straightforward person as an elected official as opposed to pandering idiots who merely shmooze lack of judgment in order to decieve others into thinking that the official can work with people. Reality is that those other people won’t work with elected officials who can’t be manipulated or led by the few minority power strokers. Arrogance of knowledge is good in a sea of stupidity.
Past due time for voters to accept the “in your face attitude” type officials because the shmoozers are plane not doing a good job at most of their direction and orders, but the shmoozing can be enlightening.
Sincerely,
HOJ
March 3, 2013 at 9:20 am
bolithio
Ok ICU, I have been following this discussion, and you have been making a strong criticism of HumCPR. I have a stake in the TPZ stuff, but I am not involved with that group or any other. Allot of the points you are making ring true to me. I have spoken with some so-called HumCPR people and have heard all kinds of paranoid, crazy shit – like how the county is being controlled by the United Nations and other weird delusions.
That said, if you fail to see the conditions that gave a group like HumCPR the political capital it has now, you are missing a substantial part of the story. The County has a long history of inconsistency and inefficiency when it comes to planning, permitting, and communication between various departments. Many of the disputes over rural land quasi-subdivisions and confusion over patent parcels vs legal parcels has occurred due to lack of oversight and outreach from the county. The fact that the County failed to complete its due diligence following mandatory merger ordinances is no small mis-step and has undeniably led to support of CPR.
I have worked with many TPZ and Ag landowners who dealt with very frustrating circumstances with County Planning. While as a forester I really don’t want to see a paved highway for large ranch/TPZ subdivisions, I expect the process for various projects to be black and white. When plan updates are occurring, it is not OK to enforce underground regulation in anticipation that a new policy will emerge. Especially not while initially telling applicants that they need to do A,B,C to do a certain project, and then changing their minds once those items are complete and now require X,Y,Z when the new items cost significant money that the applicant doesn’t may not have. I still have several on-going projects that have been stalled out over 5 or more years now do to back door decisions by the mysterious “Management” (the powerful OZ that planning staff blames for all uncomfortable decisions).
So who gets to play? The wealthy. If you can afford to throw money at your project for years on end, eventually you will be able to complete your project (theoretically). But if your not the 1%, and are the cash poor rural native who inherits the family property and find it has legacy map act issues, you are probably SOL.
I am not backing CPR, political clubs tend to make me feel icky. But I can see why they have become what they are, and its not all about the 1% trying to develop everything rural. I believe the TPZ issue can be solved easily by leaving alone legal 160 acre parcels and requiring conditional use permits for sub-standard TPZ (40-159 acres). I also think planning should have a RPF on staff. Humboldt has 1.5 million acres of forest!
March 3, 2013 at 9:39 am
Cookie
It seems too like Lee Ulansey had/has a personal agenda to all of this. He wanted to be able to sub divide his 210 acre TPZ parcel into 5-10 acre parcels and DEVELOPE the crap out of it. That is why he got so up in arms over the moratorium. And is still up in arms.
March 3, 2013 at 10:37 am
Forest Queen
bolithio,
Regarding your above post @9:20,
I am unwilling to accept bull shit. Doesn’t matter how much sweetener is added to bull shit, it’s still bull shit.
If your action is unlawful using the same behavior as the unlawful, you do not differ, you empower the system.
March 3, 2013 at 12:13 pm
bolithio
What?
March 3, 2013 at 12:15 pm
bolithio
You are unwilling to accept that the County has mad mistakes in the past and some times has enforced underground regulation? I don’t understand what you are calling BS.
March 3, 2013 at 7:28 pm
Forest Queen
I’m in a 7 year CUP debate here where I live. The problem we continue to debate is the effect a CUP has once you figure it all out. State property rights over-ride. It’s next to impossible for me to reply at this time with dial-up.
March 4, 2013 at 10:05 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Forest Queen,
the effect between “what is on paper and filed with public agencies” typically is different than what eventually hits the ground.
Take Streamside Manegement Areas part of a CUP project. On paper, it is all about “speculative do’s and dont’s”; whereas, on the ground AFTER sign-offs, “new owners come in and violate terms and conditions”. Ultimately, false information now exists as publicly recorded deceptive documents. Who will ever know WHEN public agency processes are as much to unfoil as they are to cover with foil. Afterall, can’t have a public agency calling another public agency at the higher level to tell them that what once was filed as accurate and true is no longer true. (but if not for the real movie-making issues)
So ya, CUP’s and their effects usually evergoing on. Why? Too many people living on a “Green Earth” under regulatory processes that are not worth the paper they are written on.
Sincerely,
HOJ
March 4, 2013 at 10:12 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Bolithio,
what you “pen” as the county making mistakes is partly inaccurate when considering “county personnel intent”. It is hard to separate “individual man” from “governance”.
Yes, it is true that individuals manifest racketeering from their public employment positions as retaliation and brute force.
Good thing not all public personnel pontificate poor practices per public protocols pressing peer processes. Now, the good ones need to “out the bad one’s”.
Sincerely,
HOJ
March 4, 2013 at 11:15 am
bolithio
You can view it as you like. It doesn’t change the fact that the frustration over the handling of these issues is where HumCPR gained it political capital.
March 4, 2013 at 12:16 pm
ICU812
But whom did HumCPR gain its political capital for? If you get a chance, check out Monday Morning Magazine on KMUD today, it was on the 7-8 am show, its starts at 46:50 on the counter. Dennis talks with Supervisor Fennell and congrats her for all the efforts of HumCPR and successful politics in Humboldt with the HumCPR alliance.
http://archive.kmud.org/mp3/kmud_130304_070000goodmorning1.mp3
March 4, 2013 at 5:58 pm
Forest Queen
Henchman of Justice @10:05 a.m.
Well said!
March 4, 2013 at 7:14 pm
anon
thanks for the mmm radio link. I really appreciated Dennis’ positive commentary on Estelle’s win for Supervisor. Fennell sounded great and is obviously already doing a lot for our district and sohum. Keep it up!
March 5, 2013 at 9:30 am
Cookie
Please name what Fennell has “done” for our district and sohum.
March 6, 2013 at 8:55 am
Anonomous
Reading all of these comments, whoever “cookie” is, they seem to be a Mckee,Fennell, and rural land owners hater. “Cookie” is either connected to clendenans failed campaign and and still can’t believe they lost and is still sour graping everything. OR , as one previous poster characterized……”cookie” is just being a contrary Pantywaist. Either way, they have a lot of time on their hands and are probably single to boot. (no wonder)
March 6, 2013 at 4:06 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
So Anonomous,
blame single people for voicing their opinions? HOJ is single because he is picky about disrespect and mental disparity. Families are going down the tubes because mommy and daddy disrespect each other too often. People tend to be single in today’s reality because of all the problems being in a relationship causes.
Last gal HOJ hung out with, she disrespected HOJ when HOJ was only trying to “spark-up” a conversation. HOJ waited a couple days to let her know, and she took it as many women do (pissed-off, disgruntled and feeling rejected no doubt). HOJ’s problem is being too straightforward and not holding things inside. So, even though HOJ knows a woman could be very happy, she is not around long enough to get the chance because a “deal-breaker” is lack of respect and that second chances are rarely given by females who are “called on their disrespect”.
If a man or woman are controlling power trippers, it is a negative. It is also a negative when being straightforward and the other person don’t want to talk things out to learn and grow together; afterall, in a happy relationship, why would anyone want to be negative or not strive to learn the nuances of the other? Females tend to get “scared-off easily” while men “consider is it worth it?”
Sorry Anonomous, reality today is different. Being single is more normal than ever.
Sincerely,
HOJ
March 6, 2013 at 4:52 pm
Anonymous
Could be a lot of things, but talking about yourself in the third person probably isn’t helping matters any.
March 6, 2013 at 8:22 pm
ICU812
March 6, 2013 at 11:37 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Anonymous,
What difference does first, second or third person matter, really. If that is the best response a shady poster can make, well tattoo you an English Degree. – HOJ
March 7, 2013 at 12:22 am
That Other Anonymous
The difference that it makes is that you come off as a pompous jackass with delusions of grandeur. Of course some chicks may be into that, but most aren’t, which may help to explain your situation. On the other hand, it seems likely that your other unappealing characteristics are plenty enough to drive most women away, even without the third person nonsense.
Hey, you asked.
March 7, 2013 at 9:23 am
Cookie
I re-read HOJ comment above, and I don’t see any question posed about why he is single. You anonymy are the “pompous jackass’ with delusions of grandeur.” Would you both have the balls to make those comments to his face? I thought not.
March 7, 2013 at 9:45 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Wow, some differences there dark and shadowy follower TOA @ 12.22 am.
Do explain how first, second or third person comments express a pompousness. Anyhow, not offended at all by your comment, but HOJ must say certain “unknown” bloggers get really mad for nothing; or, is it something, but never really diseminated. EH, who cares? Answer: not HOJ
As far as unappealing characteristics, well, HOJ learned from the best: public educators, family units and generally many of the disrespectful people in society. No reason to “bottle-up” the disrespect created by others unless a person enjoys being “walked-all-over” in their life.
Sincerely,
HOJ
March 7, 2013 at 11:32 am
That Other Anonymous
You truly don’t realize that referring to yourself in the third person comes across as pompous? Amazing. I’m not mad at you, I’m sad for you.
March 7, 2013 at 1:28 pm
suzy blah blah
-sigh, now we have someone here who’s biased against being single. Seems to be a new evil blog post everytime i turn around. But i guess it just comes with the territory, suzy’s run into a lot of upthight up bloggers myself. They usually have nothing original to say because they keep their feelings repressed. Then when a truth is expressed, surprise, all that bottled up negative energy pops their cork and they retort to namecalling and insults. Is it any wonder that certain people wonder what happened when suzy walks all over them.
Keep sparking up Hench. I see that you have a sort of vital energy and a lot of impelling things to say.
March 7, 2013 at 3:56 pm
ICU812
March 7, 2013 at 7:00 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Thank You ICU812, excellent video that explains a bit about why HOJ in part feels so “outcasted”. It gets to be “same old, same old” when all a person wants in life is happiness and peace, but because so many disrespectful, backstabbing, reneging, crooked, lying cheats exist and affect HOJ on a near daily basis, one must wonder when “the boots will walk all over these disrespectful types”.
HOJ believes a person can be killed, murdered, become dead, even though they are not buried or cremated. Ya see, ruining a person’s lifestyle and subjecting that person to constant mental anguish or worse, physical assault & battery is creating a victim that could actually be better off really dead, as compared to living a “dead lifestyle”. It is like PURGATORY right here on God’s Green Earth.
Sincerely,
HOJ
March 7, 2013 at 7:03 pm
Anonymous
Humcpr’s attorney basically just said of their lawsuit “the county can just keep doing what it’s doing and give me SEVENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS and we’ll call it all good.”
Whose idea was the lawsuit to begin with? How many of those humcpr honchos own large portions of real estate?
Erik, “sustainable forestry” is the grossest misuse of language being flaunted in this county. It’s the misnomer of the decade, if not century. It exemplifies all things corporate whitewashing. It’s outright sick. This is supposed to be an era of awakening, but it’s becoming one of even more convoluted rhetoric, and you are partipating against the grains of common sense.
March 7, 2013 at 7:20 pm
suzy blah blah
-give her an inch and God’s Green Earth will walk all over you!
March 7, 2013 at 7:22 pm
suzy blah blah
walk all over you!
March 7, 2013 at 7:22 pm
Eric Kirk
Erik, “sustainable forestry” is the grossest misuse of language being flaunted in this county. It’s the misnomer of the decade, if not century. It exemplifies all things corporate whitewashing. It’s outright sick. This is supposed to be an era of awakening, but it’s becoming one of even more convoluted rhetoric, and you are partipating against the grains of common sense.
Can you elaborate?
Personally, that’s what I think of the world “organic.”
March 7, 2013 at 7:23 pm
suzy blah blah
http://ih0.redbubble.net/image.8697273.4370/flat,550×550,075,f.jpg
March 7, 2013 at 10:09 pm
Anonymous
Better yet, eric, why don’t you explain to me why “sustainable forestry” should NOT instead be refered to in terms of logging? If the activity is so benign, call it what it is. The general public only reads and hears about it, and they are being misled. People trust eachother and the words we use, and as you say of the word “organic” so it is of “sustainable” and “forestry” in the case of commercial logging enterprise. It’s about as bad as it gets.
March 7, 2013 at 10:43 pm
Eric Kirk
I’m not sure what you mean. Is it the term “forestry” you object to? Because that term predates all of the politics around the concept.
March 7, 2013 at 10:56 pm
That Other Anonymous
“Humcpr’s attorney basically just said of their lawsuit ‘the county can just keep doing what it’s doing and give me SEVENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS and we’ll call it all good.’”
Ummmm….where are you getting that from? If you’re referring to their lawsuit aiming to force the county to disclose how much money the county has been spending on legal fees, the latest news I saw was this:
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_22737089/transparency-lawsuit-continues-humcpr-says-county-still-withholding
What is the source for your claim that they have offered to “let the county just keep doing what it’s doing,” as long as they get $70,000 from the county?
March 8, 2013 at 6:59 am
bolithio
Anonymous is dead wrong about forestry, especially in Humboldt County. It is indeed the time of awakening. If you want to get involved in the forests here, I encourage you to take forestry courses at CR or HSU to learn about all the exciting things that are going on.
March 8, 2013 at 7:16 am
Forest Queen
True enough, the virus is the illusion of communication. In this morning’s emails was an article about the homeless in Eureka and how many deaths there have been this winter. It’s crossed my mind to put up a sign at either end of Eureka using O.K. for it’s original purpose. O.K. meant zero deaths. As 12K would mean 12 killed.
C.O.P. – civilians on patrol.
March 8, 2013 at 7:30 am
Forest Queen
Also there is a meeting tomorrow 1:00 – 4:00 at the Trinidad Town Hall on Main Street to confront Green Diamond’s claims to Strawberry Rock.
March 8, 2013 at 9:22 am
Cookie
Per the HumCPR PRA, isn’t that still in case management, or his that been heard already. Doesn’t the county intend to show that they complied with the request? If that is the case, HumCPR is just continuing to hassle the county. It really does seem like Ulansey on the PC in any way, is a conflict of interest.
March 8, 2013 at 9:46 am
Anonymous
You’re no longer worth addressing whatsoever, eric. It’s a damn shame somebody like you works for the parks.
March 8, 2013 at 10:10 am
Eric Kirk
You’re no longer worth addressing whatsoever, eric. It’s a damn shame somebody like you works for the parks.
Translation: “I can’t answer even the most basic questions about what I’m talking about because I really don’t know what I’m talking about, but I can typing.”
March 8, 2013 at 11:27 am
That Other Anonymous
Cookie,
Did you read the article that I posted a link to at 10:56 pm?
March 8, 2013 at 3:33 pm
Cookie
I had not. I have now. This statement jumped out at me-
”We have done that, we provided the records,” assistant County Counsel Carolyn Ruth told the court Wednesday. “Interestingly enough, (Jackson) has yet to pick them up.”
March 8, 2013 at 6:15 pm
That Other Anonymous
Cookie,
I agree, at least at first glance, it doesn’t make sense to me why HumCPR would not pick up the offered documents, even if they believe those documents are incomplete. Why not get what’s there, and then argue over what’s not there? But I am not an attorney, and I wonder whether there could be some legal significance to accepting the (supposedly) incomplete documents. I don’t know.
Based on the Times-Standard article, it sounds like the dispute is about whether the records the county has offered include everything HumCPR has asked for, and are entitled to, or not. If I understand correctly, it sounds like HumCPR is asking for documentation on how many hours of staff attorneys’ time have been spent on the lawsuits, in addition to how much money has been spent on outside counsel in these lawsuits.
The county says (and I have no particular reason to doubt them) that they have provided the information on the amount of money spent on outside counsel, but that the request for the documentation on the amount of staff attorney’s time spent on the lawsuits was not part of the original public records request, or the original complaint in this lawsuit — and that in any event, the documents HumCPR has requested on staff attorneys’ time (the “A-87′s”) do not break out the amount of time spent on lawsuits, as opposed to time spent on other Planning Department related legal tasks. If I understand correctly, it sounds like this is the basis for the county refusing to approve the “stipulated agreement” that calls for the release of the info on staff attorneys’ time, in addition to the info on outside counsel costs.
Jackson appeared to disagree with at least the first part of the county’s claim, as she was quoted in the Times-Standard as saying “All we are asking for is what was in the complaint. Their weak attempt to offer redacted portions of what we requested does not suffice.”
So it sounds like one of two things are going to happen. Either (1) the county and HumCPR reach an agreement on what will be turned over before the case goes to trial, or else (2) the judge will have to sort it out.
But again, I don’t understand why HumCPR would not want to get their hands on what the county has already provided, even if in HumCPR’s view what the county has provided is not complete. Why not take what’s been offered, and then argue about what hasn’t been provided? I would be interested to hear from an attorney as to whether they think there may be a compelling legal reason for not accepting what they view as an incomplete offering, or whether maybe it’s more a matter of public relations?
March 8, 2013 at 7:08 pm
Cookie
Maybe they not taking what has been offered to so HumCPR so they can keep calling the “county” “uncooperative “, and keep being contrary.
Eric, what do you think of all that?
March 8, 2013 at 7:11 pm
Cookie
Wow. I meant maybe they are not taking what has been offered to HumCPR, so HumCPR can keep calling “the county” “uncooperative”, and HumCPR can keep being contrary.
Eric, what do you think about what That Other Anonymous has posted?
March 8, 2013 at 7:34 pm
That Other Anonymous
Another question would be: Why shouldn’t the county just provide the requested documents? So what if the “A-87′s” don’t break out the staff attorneys’ time by lawsuit time vs. non-lawsuit time, it sounds like they do show how many staff attorney hours were spent on Planning Department work. I don’t see any reason why that info shouldn’t be shared with the public, and if that’s the only real stumbling block, then I don’t see how it’s really in the interests of county taxpayers for the county to try to continue to drag this out in court, especially as it seems quite likely that in the end, the county will be ordered to turn over those documents anyway.
And if it’s really just about the county not wanting to agree to pay HumCPR’s attorney’s fees at this point, then given that HumCPR’s position has been upheld by the courts and the county’s position has been rejected, it seems likely to me that the county will ultimately end up paying HumCPR’s attorney’s fees for this case — which is all the more reason why it doesn’t seem like it would be a good idea for the county to continue to withhold the requested info, drag this out longer, and go to trial. The county’s attorney said “there’s no longer any reason to fight,” but she also said the county won’t accept the settlement. That seems like a bit of a contradiction, to say the least. If you aren’t willing to accept the settlement, then you must be claiming that there still is something worth fighting about. But it’s not at all clear what the county is claiming that “something” is.
March 8, 2013 at 8:41 pm
Eric Kirk
I don’t know of any reason at law that the attorney should not pick up the records, whether they are complete or not. I don’t know what was redacted, but I would assume that the county would redact any portions of the documents which would reveal any strategies or information about their cases which would give their opponents an advantage – such as billing itemization.
But I’m only guessing until I can review the documents myself.
March 8, 2013 at 9:08 pm
That Other Anonymous
Cookie,
You may be right that the reason HumCPR’s decision not to pick up the documents offered by the county is really all about public relations (as I speculated might be the case at the end of my 6:15 comment), and specifically so that they can continue to complain about the county being “uncooperative.”
But then there’s the matter of the county’s actual lack of cooperation, in the form of declining to provide the requested information on staff attorneys’ hours dedicated to these lawsuits (in addition the outside counsel costs that they say they’ve already provided).
I’d be interested in your response to my 7:34 comment, which touches on that issue. We know what HumCPR says they are still fighting for — the info on the staff attorney hours. What we don’t know is what the county believes they are still fighting for…indeed their attorney says there is “no longer any reason to fight.” So, why are they still fighting? Why not just turn over the rest of the requested documents and be done with it? Then the only thing left to fight over would be attorneys’ fees, and at least those won’t keep piling up while the county ends up going to trial over something that they say isn’t worth fighting about.
Curious what your thoughts are on that.
And by the way, thanks for the interesting and civil dialogue. I suspect you and I could have hashed all this out a whole lot quicker (and cheaper) than HumCPR and the county!
March 9, 2013 at 7:06 am
longwind
HumCPR left the incomplete documents in court for the judge’s inspection, so he could verify the county’s lack of compliance with the stipulated settlement. Redacted documents by definition aren’t informative–or they wouldn’t be redacted.
March 9, 2013 at 7:39 am
Forest Queen
I’ll give a thumbs-up to That Other Anonymous @ 7:34.
In a way of answering some of your questions – First, there is no government. There are corporations. That’s it. Be it a corporation of a mere 40 members, or a City/County/State Corporation, what they’re “fighting for,” is to conceal the fraud. They’re bleeding from the fingers trying to hold onto the lies. It’s Public Theater at Public’s Expense.
It’s happening in my own backyard – literally. Makes for a VERY interesting time ahead.
March 9, 2013 at 8:11 am
Forest Queen
Truly, I can’t post on ‘Quick Notes’ however, wanted to share this link of interest: How Hemp Threatens the Corporatocracy’
http://consciouslifenews.com/abby-martin-hemp-threatens-corporatocracy/1151186/#comments
March 9, 2013 at 8:39 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Reference March 2 @ 6:21 pm –>
Today’s headline : For the Middle Class, Expenses Grow Faster Than Paychecks
CNNMoney.com – In the wake of the Great Recession, millions are being pinched by stagnating incomes and higher costs.
Sincerely,
The Seer,
HOJ
March 9, 2013 at 10:44 am
Forest Queen
Good it says ‘Today’s HEADLINE’ cause it sure isn’t news.
The “Great Recession” – also hypnotic/repetitive/annoying words.
No one can enslave you or your mind without your consent. STOP Non-consensual withholding deductions for income taxes, benefits, programs, social security trust. Stop giving away 70% of your earnings.
No law compels a private-sector non-governmentally-privileged work eligible man or woman to submit a form W-4 or W-9(or their equivalents), nor to obtain or disclose a SSN as a condition of being hired or keeping one’s job. With the exception of an order from a court of competent jurisdiction, issued by a duly qualified judge, no amounts can be taken from one’s pay (for taxes, fees, or other charges) without the worker’s explicit, intentional knowing, voluntary, written consent.
“Be the change you want to see in the world” – somebody said that.
The problem isn’t the problem. The problem is the attitude about the problem.
March 9, 2013 at 12:20 pm
Anonymous
Let’s cut the bullshit. The plaintifs have very large, expensive real estate portfolios. Nobody is disclosing just how extensive they are, but the hush-hush about it alone is pretty damning. They want to build estates on rural land. Not back-to-the-land living, but will all the first world amenities, driveways foundations wells septics and all. They want to divide lots and construct estates…and cut down a bunch of trees along the way. Somebody will not typically interject with rhetoric bla bla bla subdivision is technically bla bla bla they’re obliged to do this that and the other, but that’s teh bullshit around the fact that a bunch of real estate investors want to build estates in heretofore undeveloped rural areas, and it opens up all kinds of doors into the future that should be left closed if for no other reason than that much preservation of natural space. It’s all as ass-backwards as refering to logging operations as “practicing sustainable forestry” to say the issue is about “property rights” and leave it at that. The lawsuit itself seems ridiculously stupid coming from a group that’s demanding its own lawyer’s $70,000-and-growing legal tab be included. These are “good people” all around, but money corrupts and not necessarily that it makes people “evil” but out of touch with the big picture.
March 9, 2013 at 12:51 pm
Cookie
Longwind, how could HumCPR leave the documents with the court if they never picked them up?
That Other Anonymous, your 7:34 post is most interesting. I keep questioning why HumCPR changed their request after the original lawsuit was filed. It doesn’t seem like you could do that, and then call foul. I have to repeat what Eric said, the part about since we haven’t seen the documents, we know nothing. Maybe the county has done exactly what was requested. And then, we get into “interpretation”. A real can of worms. It is all interesting. Too bad it costs so much money.
March 9, 2013 at 2:15 pm
Eric Kirk
Did they redact numbers, or other information?
March 9, 2013 at 3:03 pm
Cookie
And I am confused about does HumCPR want a total number of hours of attorney fees for lawsuits, or are they asking for itemized fees? It seems like what HumCPR really is only interested in is how much did they spend on the Bob McKee lawsuit. Everything else is fluff. Bob McKee has done a real disservice to the county, and everyone he sold Tooby Ranch land to.
March 9, 2013 at 3:06 pm
Cookie
And by the way, thanks That Other Anonymous, for a civil and interesting dialogue! You too Eric! You ask good questions.
March 9, 2013 at 4:32 pm
That Other Anonymous
“I keep questioning why HumCPR changed their request after the original lawsuit was filed.”
That seems like a fair question. Here’s a possible answer: Perhaps simply because they decided they’d like to see the info on staff attorney time as well as the info on outside counsel costs, because they believe the public is entitled to that information, and because it was more efficient to amend their complaint (not an unusual thing in lawsuits, from my understanding) to include a request for that info, as opposed to filing a whole separate lawsuit? That seems like a likely explanation, at least to me. If that’s not the explanation, I’d be interested to hear what the explanation is.
Which still leaves the question of why the county doesn’t simply go ahead and supply the requested information — all of it — and be done with it. You say “Maybe the county has done exactly what was requested,” but in the Times-Standard article it sounds pretty clear that they’re conceding that they in fact did not supply the information on the amount of time the county’s staff attorneys have spent on the lawsuits. According to the Times-Standard article, the county claims that the requested “A-87s” don’t break out time spent on lawsuits from time spent on other Planning Department business — but then why not go ahead and provide the requested “A-87s” anyway, since they will at least show the amount of time the county’s staff attorneys have spent on Planning Department business in general? Surely they could at least estimate what percentage of that has been spent on the lawsuits (and if not, that would certainly be an interesting point, as it would suggest that the county has no idea what they are spending on lawsuits, which is a bit hard to believe — but if true, would certainly be troubling).
So, the question remains, why hasn’t the county agreed to go ahead and release all the information that was requested, both in the original complaint, and in any amended complaint? What is their justification for not doing so? So far, at least as far as I can tell from the media coverage, they haven’t said.
March 9, 2013 at 8:50 pm
Cookie
Well, you have me thinking and thinking, asking myself more questions, ’til I realized the questions don’t matter, bottom line is both “parties” think they are right. The county thinks they have complied with the request, and HumCPR thinks they haven’t. Maybe the county doesn’t think it is they who have been fighting. I think it is, well,something is really wrong for HumCPR attorney to ask for $70,000. If HumCPR has an issue with how much the county is spending on lawsuits, their attorney’s should be doing the lawsuits for free. Hopefully the judge can get it figured out. And I really hope he decides that the county has complied. I will be disappointed if they have not.
March 9, 2013 at 10:42 pm
That Other Anonymous
Hi again Cookie,
If the County hadn’t changed it’s policy and decided to no longer disclose the information on the amount it was spending on lawsuits, then HumCPR wouldn’t have needed to file a lawsuit in the first place, the county wouldn’t have spent the last year attempting to defend its indefensible position, and the attorney’s fees on both sides could have been avoided. But perhaps you aren’t aware of the backstory? Maybe this will help:
“In a letter on the HumCPR matter, the county wrote that it no longer releases attorney billing information in pending litigation, despite doing so in the past… the practice of disclosure was stopped approximately two years ago… It was around that time that a California Public Records Act request by Arcata resident Rondal Snodgrass found that the county has spent $2.1 million for outside legal aid and consultants up to June 2009 in a lawsuit involving Southern Humboldt County developer Bob McKee… Humboldt County spokesman Sean Quincey declined to comment on why the practice changed.”
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_22510377/64-000-question-does-county-have-disclose-attorney
The $70,000 in legal fees for HumCPR’s successful lawsuit kinda pales in comparison to the county spending more than $2.1 million for outside legal counsel and consultants and an undetermined amount for staff attorneys’ time and other staff time, up through June 2009, and an unknown additional amount for both outside counsel costs and staff attorneys’ time in the past several years, since the county suddenly decided in June 2009 to refuse to release any further information on it’s legal spending on that case. What will the final total number be? $4 million? $6 million? $8 million? And that’s just for one case, which has done… what exactly, to improve life for anyone in the county (other than the attorneys who hauled in all this taxpayer dough)?
Meanwhile, potholes proliferate, and the IHSS workers taking care of our vulnerable elderly residents continue to work for minimum wage, because the Supervisors say they can’t do any better, because the county is just flat broke — and yet somehow they have had no problem coming up with millions and millions of dollars to lavish on the county’s attorneys to fight tooth and nail for maximalist interpretations of the county’s authority. To me it all seems like a pretty goddamned expensive power trip for county officials (at our expense), and one which, as far as I can tell, doesn’t appear to have any actual tangible benefit to the public or the environment.
And the $70,000 attorney’s fees for HumCPR in this lawsuit? Well if the county hadn’t decided to drag their feet and assert their (imaginary) right to hide the costs of their litigation from the public, then HumCPR’s public records act lawsuit wouldn’t have been necessary in the first place. Given that the county used to release this kind of info, and then after it was embarrassed by the disclosure of how many millions it was lavishing on its attorneys in the Tooby Ranch case the county suddenly, and without any explanation, decided to stop releasing that information — based on a highly dubious legal theory that has now, unsurprisingly, been soundly rejected right up through every level of the California court system — do you really think the plaintiffs should have to pay their own attorney’s fees for forcing the county to (finally) do what is legal and ethical, and that clearly they should have been doing all along?
Whatever you think of Bob McKee and the Tooby Ranch, whatever you think of HumCPR and its motivations, can you really defend the county’s attempt to keep its legal spending a secret from the public, whose taxes are the source of these millions of dollars in legal fees?
March 10, 2013 at 7:54 am
longwind
Word.
Cookie, you ask: “how could HumCPR leave the documents with the court if they never picked them up?” The incomplete county-redacted documents were delivered to the court by the county. HumCPR saw they were incomplete and left them there for the judge to see the county’s incomplete compliance. Staff lawyer time is lawyer time, which the county stipulated to provide. None of this is the least bit complicated. Here’s the secret strategy: “Deny, Delay, Don’t Pay.”
March 10, 2013 at 9:20 am
Cookie
Why is the HumCPR attorney charging” the county” if HumCPR is so concerned about money spent on lawsuits is what I asked. It shouldn’t matter how much time a suit takes if they really truly are concerned about how tax payer dollars are spent.Thanks for teaching me that the documents were delivered to the court by the county. I don’t know about defending the county trying to keep it’s legal spending a secret. I guess I have been trying to defend them because in the case of Bob McKee, I think they were right to sue him for violating the Williamson Act. And if you knew Bob McKee, and I mean really knew him, you would know his strategy is “Deny, Delay, Don’t Pay”, and straight out lie. If you knew Bob McKee, you would know his style is doing things like the illegal Seely Creek division. If all developers acted like that, and just developed willy nilly, no oversight, no real concern for the environment, where would we be?
March 10, 2013 at 9:27 am
Anonymous
What are Humcpr’s motives for the lawsuit to begin with? Obviously not for the sheer good will of shared information. Reeks of PR, money, real estate and smear.
March 10, 2013 at 10:44 am
bolithio
Here’s the secret strategy: “Deny, Delay, Don’t Pay.”
Which is the same strategy that is applied to trying to implement legal projects on your property, like a LLA or JTMP.
March 11, 2013 at 9:23 am
Cookie
This was written on Jan 8,2013 by John Hardin on his blog. I love this piece. It says it all.
“I heard Dennis Huber interview Bob McKee this morning on KMUD’s Monday Morning Magazine show. I listened mainly because Bob McKee sounded so much like Bobcat Goldthwait. I thought, “Man if anyone can make real-estate law funny, it’s Bobcat”, but the punchlines never came.
No, the joke was on me. I was listening to the desperate, quavering voice of a millionaire real-estate developer, whining about the fact that he broke the law, then fought the county in court, at tremendous expense to the taxpayers of Humboldt County, and lost. Now he hopes to drum up a wave of popular sympathy that he can use to force the county to let him off the hook
I’ve heard Bob Mckee interviewed at length on KMUD, at least half-a-dozen times, but I never noticed how much he sounded like Bobcat, until today. Thanks to all of these shows, I know more than I ever wanted to know about The Williamson Act, the law Bobcat violated. It sounds like a stupid law, but it only applies to landowners with large rural holdings, totaling, what, 1% of the total population of Humboldt County?
Well, Bob, we have a lot of stupid laws in Humboldt County. Most of them only apply to poor people. Poor people get punished for violating stupid laws in this county, every hour of every day. Poor people get punished in this county, even when they haven’t violated any stupid laws, and the county gets away with it, because poor people don’t have six million dollars to spend on their own defense. I wonder why we don’t hear much about those people on KMUD.
Personally, I’m glad the county spent six million dollars of the taxpayers money to prosecute Bobcat, and I want them to spend whatever it takes to punish him for his stupid Williamson Act violations. I hope they seize all of his property, demolish his home, take his kids away from him and throw him in jail for it, just like they do to poor people around here every day. It would reassure me greatly to know that we have injustice for the rich, as well as the poor here in Humboldt County.
While I have learned a lot about the stupid Williamson Act, thanks to all of the in-depth interviews on KMUD, and full page ads in our local papers, I haven’t seen anything that leads me to believe that Bob McKee did not violate the law. For all of your high profile, mostly bought and paid for, media coverage, Bob, you really haven’t made your case very effectively.
I know that Bob McKee has a lot of friends down here in SoHum. Every blood-sucking dope-yuppie around here talks about Bob McKee in glowing terms, because he sold them logged-over timber land at a price almost anyone could afford, and they got rich off of that land by flouting the law. Now Bob seems to be saying, “Hey, I helped you get rich off of your criminal behavior, now come help me get rich off of mine.”
It really amazes me how many of KMUD’s programmers have answered Bobcat’s call to action. Bud Rogers even immortalized Bob McKee in a song. That’s how fucking sick we are down here in SoHum. We sing folk songs about real-estate developers. Can you imagine Bob Dylan singing about a real-estate developer?
I know Bob McKee donates a lot to KMUD. I mean, it’s pretty widely known, and I have been there at the pledge drive when Bob McKee stopped by to make a donation (and talk about his case, incidentally), but the fact was not mentioned on Monday Morning Magazine.
Bob McKee never made me a great deal on a piece of land, nor has he donated money to support this blog. No, my opinion of Bob McKee was forged when I heard him say, on KMUD, in an interview with Bud Rogers: “Well, you know, there’s a lot of poor people around here these days. I can’t do anything about that. I hate to tell people what they’ll have to pay for a piece of land these days.”
Dennis followed his half-hour interview with Bobcat, by badgering Humboldt County Supervisor, Mark Lovelace, with a bunch of loaded questions about, you guessed it, Bob McKee’s Tooby Ranch Williamson Act case, as though Bob McKee’s Tooby Ranch Williamson Act case was the biggest scandal in the county’s history.”
March 11, 2013 at 10:46 am
Cookie
And hi That Other Anonymous! Been thinking about what you said here–
“If the County hadn’t changed it’s policy and decided to no longer disclose the information on the amount it was spending on lawsuits, then HumCPR wouldn’t have needed to file a lawsuit in the first place, the county wouldn’t have spent the last year attempting to defend its indefensible position, and the attorney’s fees on both sides could have been avoided. But perhaps you aren’t aware of the backstory? Maybe this will help:
“In a letter on the HumCPR matter, the county wrote that it no longer releases attorney billing information in pending litigation, despite doing so in the past… the practice of disclosure was stopped approximately two years ago… It was around that time that a California Public Records Actrequest by Arcata resident Rondal Snodgrass found that the county has spent $2.1 million for outside legal aid and consultants up to June 2009 in a lawsuit involving Southern Humboldt County developer Bob McKee… Humboldt County spokesman Sean Quincey declined to comment on why the practice changed.” ”
The last part about Rondall Snodgrass pretty much seals it for me that HumCPR is only interested in the Tooby Ranch because of personal agendas. They really don’t give a rats patoot about tax payer dollars.
HumCPR got mad that the county changed it’s policy. I can not tell you many times I have heard the saying “Things change. Deal with it.”
Don’t really know if that fits here, but I’m pretty sure Humboldt County isn’t the only county that has changed a policy that has angered some people. Also, could you or Charley please answer Eric’s question of did the county redact numbers or information? I think that is a good and important question.
Thanks again for a interesting and educational conversation.
March 11, 2013 at 10:48 am
Cookie
And remember, the illegal Seely Creek division is not the Tooby Ranch/Williamson Act division. Seely Creek was back a while ago. Can’t remember the year. Late 80′s or early 90′s.
March 11, 2013 at 6:04 pm
ICU812
Cookie 9:23 am. Like the post and by the way, DH said this morning on MMM, he was going to have McKee back on his show again next Monday Morning. Hey, you got to give the guy a gold star for his marketing skills. He may not win in a court of law, but he is dam sure going to win in the court of public opinion here in Sohum, e.g. because that is all he has left.
I bet that 80 acres he owns along 101 at the south end of Garberville goes up for sale soon, any takers?
March 11, 2013 at 7:15 pm
That Other Anonymous
Hi Cookie,
Well John Hardin is welcome to his opinon, which he has certainly made clear. However, none of that changes what we’ve been discussing here in terms of whether the county was right to withhold the records HumCPR asked for in it’s Public Records Act request. The courts have ruled the county was acting contrary to the law by doing so, and the county has agreed that it must release the info on how much they have spent on outside counsel on these cases.
All that remains of that argument is whether the county can continue to withhold some info on staff attorneys’ time spent on these lawsuits, based on the county’s argument that they don’t account for that time and therefore can’t comply, and/or the argument that HumCPR didn’t ask for it in their initial complaint and that therefore the county shouldn’t be forced to comply at this time. The county doesn’t seem to be even trying to make the argument that the public doesn’t have a right to that info, which is not surprising, as it would make no sense to say that we have a right to know what our county is spending on outside counsel for these cases, but somehow we don’t have a right to know what we’re spending on the county’s own lawyers in the same cases Oh, and of course there’s the argument about the attorney’s fees, which frankly I don’t see as amounting to much of an argument.
At any rate, if Mr. Hardin, and you, and whoever else, feels that it was a good use of $6 million dollars (or whatever the final figure turns out to be, we already know it’s well over $2 million as of 2009)) of the county’s money to prosecute that case, well, you’re welcome to that opinion, too. But I’m sure you’re aware that not everyone shares that opinion. And we all had and have the right to be made aware of the costs, so that we can all weigh those costs against the (alleged) benefits. That’s vital for democracy to function — without timely and sufficient information, the citizenry is simply not in a position to make an informed judgement one way or the other, and to hold their elected officials accountable on that basis. That includes those who feel that the case was worth the cost — if, like Mr. Hardin, they feel that the case was well worth the cost, they should be fine with the cost being revealed, and in a timely manner, and they should be more than happy to defend their opinion about the cost-benefit tradeoff (as Mr. Hardin clearly is).
As far as your bit about how “HumCPR got mad that the county changed it’s policy” and how things change and that’s just the way it is — I’m afraid you’re missing one very important point: The county changed their policy from a policy that was legal under the California Public Records Act, to a policy that is illegal under the California Public Records Act. That’s not just my opinion, that’s the opinion of the courts that have ruled on the matter.
So whether anyone was “angered” about it, or whether people have problems with “change” in general is not really relevant. What’s relevant is that the county broke the law by withholding the public records that were legitimately requested, and now must comply with the courts’ rulings. It really is that simple. By the same token, Mr. McKee’s actions have also been ruled illegal, and he too must comply with the courts’ rulings. And in both cases, one could argue that the lawbreaking should be punished, and by the same token in both cases one could argue that the law was not entirely clear beforehand and that therefore a harsh punishment would be inappropriate and would suit no real purpose, and that the more important point is to see that now that the courts have clarified the interpretation of these laws, they should be followed going forward. I find it fascinating that some folks are all hot and bothered wanting to throw the book at Mr. McKee because he has been found to have broken a state law, but seem to have no concern at all about their own county government breaking a state law, the California Public Records Act, that is arguably much more important in the big picture.
I have no idea what you have against Mr. Snodgrass, or what his involvement signifies to you, but it’s worth pointing out that he has not done anything wrong at all. He requested documents he was entitled to, and received them. The fact that the county soon afterward changed it’s policy to illegally withhold the same kind of documents from HumCPR is not Mr. Snodgrass’s fault. So I just don’t see what you’re getting at by bringing him into this.
As far as your question about whether the county redacted numbers or information, I’d point out that number are information. But maybe you meant did they redact only numbers, or also other information? If so, I don’t know for sure, because I haven’t seen the documents in question. But from the Times-Standard article it seemed pretty clear that what wasn’t provided (or was “redacted” or whatever) was the information on the amount of time the county’s staff attorneys have spent on the lawsuits in question. It sounds like they did supply the information on outside counsel costs. Whether they also withheld or redacted some any other requested info, outside of the info on staff attorney time, I don’t know.
It will be interesting to see what the final number are, once it all comes out (or as much of it comes out as the judge sees fit to order). It could end up being somewhat anti-climactic, if the amount spent since 2009 isn’t very much. On the other hand, if they’ve spent millions more, on top of the more than 2 million we already know they spent, that’s something that a lot of people are going to be interested in hearing about. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
March 11, 2013 at 7:28 pm
That Other Anonymous
As far as Mr. Hardin’s actual “argument” (if you can call it that) I find it rather incoherent. First he stipulates that the law in question “sounds like a stupid law,” but discounts that by noting that it only applies to a small number of people, as if that made it any less stupid. Then he complains that there are a lot of stupid laws applied to other people, and that some people are punished even when they are not breaking a law. But rather than advocating repealing stupid laws and not prosecuting people who are not breaking any laws, he advocates throwing the book at one person who was found by an appeals court (but not by the trial court) of breaking the law that Mr Hardin says “sounds stupid.” In fact, not only does Mr\. Hardin advocate throwing the book at Mr. McKee, he advocates going far beyond what the law allows in doing so:
“I hope they seize all of his property, demolish his home, take his kids away from him and throw him in jail for it”
So the county should punish him severely him for breaking a “stupid law” that even the judge at his trial didn’t think he was actually breaking, and the county should do so by applying draconian, illegal punishments? (And you applaud this opinion?) With all due respect to Mr, Hardin (and yourself if you really agree with that) this seems like an emotional argument, not a legal or ethical one.
Nowhere in his colorful and obviously heartfelt screed does Mr. Hardin explain how he thinks the lawsuit, or its outcome, or the draconian punishments he has called for, would benefit the community or the environment in any way, aside from satisfying his revenge fantasy.
Which doesn’t surprise me. No one has yet explained to me what the big problem is with taking a massive ranch and dividing it up into somewhat smaller — but still very viable-sized — ranches and homesteads, according to already-existing parcel lines. The property is still capable of supporting agriculture, which is supposed to be the intention of the Williamson Act. If the current Williamson Act rules don’t allow the tax break for these somewhat smaller (but still very sizeable) parcels, and the interpretation of the court is that the Williamson Act contract rules were changed in a legally appropriate manner, then so be it, the property owners will have to pay the higher tax rates resulting from no longer being covered by the Williamson Act. Hopefully that won’t interfere too much with their viability as farm/ranch lands, because that would certainly be a counter-productive outcome.
Meanwhile, I’m not sure quite how the judgement will change the situation on the ground — I mean what are we supposed to do — force Mr. McKee to buy back all the parcels, and force all the buyers to sell them back to him, and move off the land they’ve now been living on for years? I’m pretty sure that would be wildly illegal — but then so would Mr. Hardin’s totalitarianist proposal to demolish Mr. McKee’s house and “take his kids away from him.”
March 11, 2013 at 8:55 pm
Cookie
Hi That Other Anonymous!
That is a lot to chew. I am going to have to take off small pieces to make comments and ask questions. First comment would be that I assumed John Hardin was only joking about the part of demolishing Bob McKee’s home, taking his kids, and I don’t think Bob McKee can be thrown in jail or have all his property seized? I do know I read that it is possible(but in my opinion not very probable) that a remedy option could force Bob McKee to buy back all the smaller parcels. (I think a good remedy would be that Bob McKee should have to pay all the county expenses from this lawsuit, bring each smaller parcel into sub-division map act compliance,
(all roads, septic, buildings, water,) etc. Everything must be brought to code. The parcel would then be issued a variance within the Williamson Act land, based on sub-division Map Act compliance. Bob McKee should have to pay for all of this. I don’t think any building on the Tooby Ranch has a permit? The owners should have the option to receive the purchase price of the land from Bob McKee. Then Bob McKee should have to bring the parcel up to sub-division map act, and then be able to re-sell.
Bob McKee knew he was going to be sued by the county for the Williamson Act violations. He thought he could out money and out lawyer them.
I have so many more questions and comments for you, that will have to wait until tomorrow. This is so much fun!
March 11, 2013 at 11:23 pm
That Other Anonymous
” I assumed John Hardin was only joking about the part of demolishing Bob McKee’s home, taking his kids”
Well I think at the point when you start “joking” about demolishing people’s homes and taking their kids, you’ve already completely abandoned any kind of moral high ground. At that point you’ve plunged deep into the mud of personal animosity and pontificating from your high horse while said horse thrashes about in the muck, just comes off as quite ridiculous, which is basically the position I think Mr. Hardin put himself in.
I seriously doubt your proposed remedy for the Tooby Ranch would work, for a number of reasons, perhaps the most obvious being that unless Mr. McKee lives for another 40 years, it’s unlikely he’d get all that through our glacially-paced Planning Department. Meanwhile, I don’t know how much money he has, but my guess is that if the judge was to charge him all of the county’s costs for the lawsuit and all the various threatened penalties, he probably wouldn’t have the resources to do all the rest of what you think he should be ordered to do. In other words, the judge could choose to bankrupt him, or the judge could choose to order him to buy back the land and/or and go through the various legal processes and mitigations you suggest, but as a practical matter, probably can’t really do both. But after offering all those criticisms, I feel that to be fair I must admit that I don’t have a good answer either for what ought to happen next.
I don’t know if McKee expected to be sued over the Williamson Act or not, but if he did, it may not just be a matter of him thinking he could out-money and out-lawyer the county, he may have thought he was right in his interpretation and they were wrong. Given that the initial trial court agreed with McKee and ruled against the county, it seems that the law was not exactly clear-cut on that point. Which, again, seems like a pretty good argument that a harsh punishment approach would not really be just.
Anyway, interesting discussion. I’m not sure I’d call it “fun,” but I do appreciate anytime I come across someone who is able to discuss issues like this in a civil manner, even when they may have a very different point of view, and even when they may disagree strongly on some points. So I commend you for that. Have a nice evening. I’ll try to check in here again tomorrow to see what further thoughts you may have.
March 12, 2013 at 10:12 am
Cookie
Hi That Other Anonymous. Would it be alright if I called you TAO?
As far as the county changing their policy, you said they changed it from legal to illegal. That is stupid and wrong. I would like to know why. Was it a policy left open to interpretation? Did some other county change their policy and Humboldt thought they would follow suit? This does not change for me the fact I still feel the county was right to sue Bob McKee for the violations. Have been trying to think of an analogy for this situation and can’t. Only a stupid one that doesn’t really work. Because for me, when Bob McKee said that because he bought Tooby Ranch the Williamson Act contract reverted to the original contract was lunacy.
IF Bob McKee did have to go bankrupt, this would be his 4th time.
You are probably right that the judge could only rule way in all the things I suggested.
As far as the taxes, that is one of the reasons Bob McKee has never opted out of the Williamson Act. Like a lot of people who own TPZ land that they never plan on logging. It”s all about the lower tax rate. If all these people were paying their share of the taxes, maybe the IHSS workers could get that raise, the schools and roads could be taken care of and fixed. But it seems like these are the people who scream the loudest about paying taxes at all.
This is fun to me. It is interesting, intriguing, thoughtful, and I have learned some things. I like all those words.
Will have more questions for you later.
I do agree that joking around in a serious issue is probably not such a good idea, but John Hardin’s post did make me laugh and smile,on his blog he had some really great pictures to go with his post, and he did say some things I had been thinking. Would his writing be considered satire?
March 12, 2013 at 11:38 am
Cookie
“while two wrongs don’t make a right, if a set of immoral things are done
and left un-prosecuted, this creates a legal precedent. Thus, people who do the same wrongs in the future should rationally expect to get away as well”
~Victor Lasky
I had to bring this here because I have been thinking kind of this way about Bob McKee, the Tooby Ranch, and his illegal sub-division of Seely Creek. Bob McKee just called out on the Seely Creek issue, After like 30 years. I believe he told the county when he was originally dividing this ranch, this particular 1500 acres was going to be left intact. Then he divided it on his own, without going to the county and filing all the proper paperwork. You had said something back in this post that you didn’t know why people were getting upset over someone buying up big ranches and dividing them. To me part of the problem goes to cumulative impact of poorly put in to hazardously put in roads, parcels sold that have no water source other than a water truck, the list of things being done that are not code or safe goes on. It is a huge issue, so complex.
Boiling down to the GPU, the PC, and the BOS.
March 12, 2013 at 5:25 pm
Cookie
At the heart of the matter are records — which the county says do not exist — showing how much county staff attorneys are being paid to defend particular lawsuits. The Humboldt Coalition for Property Rights lawsuit, which alleges the county will not release public documents that record the costs of defending current land use lawsuits, says the billing records do exist.
We have done that, we provided the records,” assistant County Counsel Carolyn Ruth told the court Wednesday. “Interestingly enough, (Jackson) has yet to pick them up.”
Following the hearing, Jackson said she hadn’t picked up the files because she knew the county was still withholding staff billing records.
”It’s not worthwhile to go over and get it,” she said. “All we are asking for is what was in the complaint. Their weak attempt to offer redacted portions of what we requested does not suffice.” ((Paul Nicholas Boylan, an attorney who specializes in government transparency and public records requests, said he advises governments to release attorney billing records.”When it comes to attorney records, the law in California is not entirely clear,” he said. “In my opinion, are they public records that should be disclosed? Yes.”
“Any information beyond the cost and date of services and the name of the attorney retained could be redacted to protect the case,” he said.
Ruth maintains that the staff billing records were not part of the original complaint, and that HumCPR never requested staff billing records in its original public records request that led to the filing of the lawsuit.
It was only after the lawsuit began, Ruth said, that Jackson asked for “A-87s” — a county cost allocation form that shows hours staff attorneys spend working with certain departments, according to a letter sent from Ruth to Jackson last year.
”The attorney’s A-87 record would only reflect the number of hours worked on Planning Department matters or other departments, and it would not break out time spent working on a lawsuit,” Ruth wrote.
Hi That Other Anonymous. That up there is a bit of combining of the two Times-Standard articles. I am sad that our conversation is winding down and coming to an end. The two articles really hit home today, and this issue is in the hands of the judge, probably. I have to ask from reading them back to back, why would Carolyn Ruth lie? I believe her if she says the records HumCPR is asking for don’t exist. I believe her that records would not show how much time a lawyer spend on a certain lawsuit. Again, why would she lie? I will check in tomorrow to see if you have posted anything. Hope that someday I will be able to be like you and get things out all in one thought/posting!
March 13, 2013 at 2:59 pm
That Other Anonymous
If the county’s argument is that they actually don’t know how their attorneys (in other words, our taxpayer-funded attorneys) are spending their time, well, that’s something taxpayers might want to know. Attorney time is very valuable, and is usually documented pretty carefully. If the county truly has no documentation of how much time their (our) attorneys are spending on various lawsuits, that should be remedied immediately.
And of course I have to wonder how the county would recover attorney’s fees in cases that they win (and for which the losing party is ordered to pay the legal costs) if it’s true that they don’t have any documentation about how much time their attorneys spend on each lawsuit.
March 14, 2013 at 8:58 am
Anonymous
Humcpr’s attorney (who happened to also attempt to claim a seat in humboldt’s political arena a year back) by her own admission refused to pick up documents she had requested, reasoning only after the fact (and on the witness stand, no less) that they were insufficient. That is very tell all. If nothing else whatsoever of the matter, paying her $70,000 thus far alone warrants her to drive on down to the office and pick up the most important piece of evidence in the whole trial. To say the evidence is incomplete is to bullshit. Incomplete evidence is evidence no less. They’re not speaking plain english, they’re all full of bullshit playing real estate lawsuit games with lots of money, in an attempt to get even more money in the long run of the politics involved.
It’s not a complex issue whatsoever when focusing on the individuals involved and what they are after in terms of money hinging on the decision. Follow the money. Real estate/development/political bullshit as usual.
March 14, 2013 at 12:21 pm
Cookie
I would have to guess that county attorneys probably work an 8-10 hour day. How many cases or lawsuits do they work on in that day? Or a week? It would seem impossible to keep track of which lawsuit you spent an hour here, 2 hours there, 1/2 hour there. Unless they had timers for every lawsuit? I can only guess that an outside attorney would work on one county lawsuit at a time, and would thus be able to tell exactly how much time they would be billed. Don’t have a guess for how the county gets reimbursed for county attorney lawsuit time. It is a good question to ponder. As far as what Anonymous above me says, I do have to agree that this is all about politics and money. Going back to the election of I think 2008 when Estelle Fennel lost her bid for supervisor. Lee Ulansey, and she, had big plans, worked very hard, like republicans actually, to get all this political power. And it all boils down to Bob McKee and Tooby Ranch. Developers.
March 14, 2013 at 1:33 pm
Anonymous
Wow. You sure know a lot about bullshit.
March 14, 2013 at 2:02 pm
That Other Anonymous
You have offered an explanation of why you think HumCPR’s attorney declined to accept the documents that they say contain only some of the information they have requested, namely the information on how much the county has spent on outside counsel for these lawsuits. But no explanation of why the county has not provided information requested about how much of time the county’s own attorneys have spent on these lawsuits.
One explanation that has been offered is that the requested documents don’t contain that information. Which leaves the question of whether there are other documents that do contain that information, or whether the county really has no record of how much time it’s own attorneys spent on these lawsuits. I find the latter a bit hard to believe, but if true, that certainly raises a lot of questions about accounting and accountability within the county counsel’s office.
It looks like the county will have to explain to a judge why they have not provided the info about the amount of time the county’s own attorneys have spent on these lawsuits. If the answer truly is that the county actually has no idea how their attorneys (our taxpayer-funded attorneys) are spending their time, they may find themselves having to explain that lack of accounting and accountability to the Supervisors, and the Supervisors may have to explain that to the voters, and tell us what steps they are taking to remedy that situation.
March 14, 2013 at 5:00 pm
Cookie
I did offer a guess as to why the county attorney’s don’t have exact records on how much time is spent on individual lawsuits. It was here:
“I would have to guess that county attorneys probably work an 8-10 hour day. How many cases or lawsuits do they work on in that day? Or a week? It would seem impossible to keep track of which lawsuit you spent an hour here, 2 hours there, 1/2 hour there. Unless they had timers for every lawsuit?”
That is my best guess.
March 14, 2013 at 5:03 pm
Cookie
“If the answer truly is that the county actually has no idea how their attorneys (our taxpayer-funded attorneys) are spending their time, ”
These are your words That Other Anonymous. I find this totally rude. I am sure they know how they are spending their time, even if they can’t say exactly how many minutes were devoted to a specific lawsuit
March 15, 2013 at 8:08 am
Anonymous
That Other Anonymous, finally cutting to the chase @ 2:02…please answer a couple questions…
You argue that the county’s money is the public’s money. And it is the county’s duty to protect the public’s best interests. One has to grant the county good governance in this regard, when talking about doling out legal information to private parties. HumCPR is not paying a lawyer $70,000 to be philanthropic toward the public. What are you suggesting the motives are behind the lawsuit?
March 16, 2013 at 5:40 pm
That Other Anonymous
Cookie@ 5:00pm 3/14,
My 2:02 3/14 comment was a response to Anon’s 8:58am 4/14. At the time I posted it, your 12:21 comment had not yet appeared (held up in moderation, I suppose). Anyway, sorry for the confusion — I should have made it clear who I was responding to.
As far as your explanation for why the county (supposedly) doesn’t know how much time their own staff attorneys have worked on lawsuits, well, I have never heard of an attorney, working on lawsuits, who did not keep track of the hours they spent. Attorney’s time working on litigation is generally very carefully accounted for, in part because this is how many attorneys bill their clients (I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase “billable hours”), and partly because if they win a lawsuit and the judge orders the other side to pay the attorney’s fees for their side, they need something to show how much they are owed.
Now the former doesn’t apply to the county’s staff attorneys, because they are paid a salary (I assume) and the latter may not be an issue for the county’s attorneys when working on non-lawsuit issues, where the possibility of winning back attorney’s fees is not an issue. But when working on litigation, where there is often a possibility that the other side will lose and be forced to pay the attorney’s fees for the winning side, it seems to me that not accounting for their time (and therefore being ineligible to collect from the other side) would amount to squandering money that rightfully would belong to the county (taxpayer money). So, for that reason, your explanation doesn’t make much sense to me, unless the county counsel’s office is just operating in a sloppy, wasteful way, risking squandering taxpayers’ money. I wouldn’t rule that out, but I hope that’s not the explanation.
March 16, 2013 at 5:51 pm
That Other Anonymous
Cookie @ 5:03 3/14,
““If the answer truly is that the county actually has no idea how their attorneys (our taxpayer-funded attorneys) are spending their time, ”
These are your words That Other Anonymous. I find this totally rude. I am sure they know how they are spending their time, even if they can’t say exactly how many minutes were devoted to a specific lawsuit
They don’t necessarily have to know down to the minute exactly how much time the attorneys are spending on what, but apparently they are claiming they don’t have any record at all, and therefore I don’t think there’s anything “rude” about my point. They aren’t claiming that the problem is that HumCPR is asking for a minute-by-minute accounting, they’re claiming that they don’t have any record whatsoever. At least that is what it sounded like from the Times-Standard article.
It will be interesting to see what explanation they offer to the judge. It will also be interesting to see if the county has ever won a judgement plus attorney’s fees from individuals or entities that they’ve successfully sued, or who have unsuccessfully sued the county, and if so, how the county came up with the numbers for the attorney’s fees in those cases, if they supposedly have no record of how much time their attorneys spend on lawsuits.
March 16, 2013 at 6:08 pm
That Other Anonymous
Anon 8:08 3/15 said “One has to grant the county good governance in this regard, when talking about doling out legal information to private parties.”
The courts have already decided that the county acted unlawfully by withholding this information, so I’m not sure how “good governance” could involve anything other than following the law (the California Public Records Act) and turning over the information in a timely fashion.
“HumCPR is not paying a lawyer $70,000 to be philanthropic toward the public. What are you suggesting the motives are behind the lawsuit?”
I really don’t care what their “motive” is, given that they asked for information they (or any other folks who wanted it) were entitled, by law, to receive, the county refused to provide the information, the courts ruled in favor of HumCPR’s position and against the county’s position and the county will have to comply with the law. I’m pretty sure HumCPR would rather have been able to get the information a year ago, when they requested it, rather than having to fight for it in court at a cost of $70,000 and wait more than a year to get the information.
I hope you’re not suggesting that because you’re suspicious of HumCPR’s motives, therefore that would justify the county breaking the law, dragging their feet, and costing taxpayers a bunch of money in the process? If you’re upset that the county, as the losing party, may have to pay HumCPR’s attorney fees (not to mention the county’s own legal costs) your displeasure would be better aimed at whatever county decision-makers decided to try to illegally withhold the information, and dragged this thing out for a year, racking up attorney’s fees on both sides.
You don’t have to like HumCPR, or their “motives,” to be glad that they stood up to the county’s illegal refusal to comply with the California Public Records Act. Remember, at some point in the future, it may be you, or some organization whose “motive” you approve of, who will want to get access to county documents that the public is legally entitled to have access to, and you may have HumCPR to thank for the fact that you won’t have to pay $70,000 to force the county to follow the law.
March 17, 2013 at 6:42 am
Anonymous
That’s a cop out answer, That Other Anonymous. I’m afraid HumCPR’s motives are of very legitimate concern. They are paying a lawyer $70,000+ that they expect you and I to reimburse, if nothing else. You’ve taken the time to write paragraph after paragraph speculating and accusing the county of all sorts of wrongdoing.
Can you please speculate on HumCPR’s motives? What would promt an organization of real estate investors and developers to spend upwards of $100,000 (of the public’s money, considering they’re demanding reimbursement) on this matter?
March 17, 2013 at 8:25 am
Not A Native
The way I understand the TS article is the county said they don’t have the information requested, not that they don’t have information as to how staff attorneys spend their time. Like you have your house painted and then are asked how much time the painter spent on each room. You don’t know, even though you know the overall time expended. I do think its a good question that if they county were to be awarded costs, how would they calculate the costs?
March 17, 2013 at 11:35 am
That Other Anonymous
Anon 6:42,
The simplest explanation for why HumCPR sued the county to get the information is that they wanted to expose how much money the county has been spending on these lawsuits, and since the county refused to release the information, despite being required by law to do so, suing them was the only way to accomplish that.
Again, if the county had simply provided the information, as the law required, there would be no $70,000, or $100,000 or whatever, in attorney’s fees. It was entirely within the county’s power to avoid all those costs by simply handing over the information when it was initially requested, as they are required by law to do.
March 17, 2013 at 11:45 am
That Other Anonymous
Not a Native,
Your house painter analogy doesn’t quite work, as it is not common practice for house painters to keep track of the cost per room. It is common practice for attorneys to keep track of the amount of time worked on each case, in part because, as you acknowledged, they may be called on to account for that time later, if they win the case and are awarded attorney’s costs. In addition, in the case of attorneys working on the public’s dime, it is hard to see how the public is supposed to decide whether the alleged benefits of the county pursuing these lawsuits are worth the costs of doing so, if there is no way of knowing what the costs were.
March 17, 2013 at 6:18 pm
Anonymous
I wonder just what the repercussions should or will be if in fact contrary to normal and prudent practice the county doesn’t in fact keep track of time spent on cases? Forget the CPRA request, failure to follow basic and simple bookkeeping should result in some kind of disiplinary action with whatever department head was involved. If virtually every lawyer in the country keeps track of their time in a certain way and only Humboldt doesn’t bother…..well that would say something about the caliber and capibility of Management to me.
March 17, 2013 at 11:05 pm
bob
it’s not that difficult for attorneys to track their time on a case-by-case basis. many private attorneys out there use lawyer-specific tracking software for just that purpose. i’m sure there are others, but a program called “timeslips” can help them track their time by increments of only a few minutes. i have no idea how the county does it.
March 18, 2013 at 8:45 am
Anonymous
That Other Anonymous @ 11:35, your simplest explanation as to why HumCPR is suing the county (not the other way around, remember) isn’t the simplest at all. It’s not even logical. $70,000+ isn’t pocket change. That kind of money could fund school busses, or cleaning downtown, or fund volunteer fire departments, etc. That Other Anonymous, you have no qualms about equating the money the county spends on lawsuits with its potential to be spent elsewhere, but make no acknowledgement that it works both ways. The county’s money is the public’s money, as you argue, and the county doesn’t persue lawsuits. That’s against the public’s interest. The $70,000+ HumCPR is spending (and demanding be refunded) has nothing whatsoever to do with the good of the general public.
Take pick-a-county california…say anywhere within 100 miles of the san francisco bay area. What have real estate/developer conglomerates done with information about a county’s financial ability/inability to defend itself against real estate/development lasuits? What interest would a real estate/developer conglomerate like HumCPR have with information about how much the county can afford to defend itself vs. settle lawsuits of $___(fill in the blank)? Of what interest and to whom would information about the finances of large landholders be to a group, like humcpr, that is comprised of people who make a living crunching these exact kinds of numbers for long-term profit? The entire san francisco bay area is hopelessly buried in lawsuits from developers who want to cash in on their trade: real estate and development. The voice of reason has been prevailing as well as you see the bay area being “rural”. It might as well be that every vacant lot is slated for upward construction and every field is slated to be paved. because that’s been the mode for decades. “Rural living” has been supplanted by financial motives, not back to the land lifestyles. Many “property rights” organizations have amassed enough wealth and sponsered enough seats in government that the rules and regulations pertaining to development are completely different today than they were 20 years ago, but they argue otherwise stating the very rules they have bent over the years themselves. The late 90′s early 0′s saw the bay area drenched in overdevelopment lawsuits (still is) in which real estate/development parties knew they could dodge the system and build first, seek approval later…because they had the records that demonstrated they had the money to both pay all penalties as well as catch up costs with the county involved in re-writing the rules through their sponsered politicians, and knowing exactly when and how the county can/cannot afford to persue legal action against such land use coups. Also it reveals volumes of information about the finances of other people involved in lawsuits with the county. A clusterfuck of ultimate proportions that Humboldt County can do without, thankyouverymuch.
Please, That Other Anonymous, take a minute to demonstrate that you are thinking beyond whatever your personal involvement with humcpr obviously is. The information HumCPR wants isn’t worth two cents to john q. public, so why is it worth more than $70,000 to HumCPR? If a credit card company approached the county seeking your legal/financial records, you would no doubt express reserves about the county providing them with that information. There are stipulations in lawsuits that require confidentiality as far as legal spending, for the sake of both parties. In any case, you haven’t come close to offering an explanation as to “who cares and why” on the part of HumCPR.
March 18, 2013 at 10:43 am
That Other Anonymous
Oh, I certainly agree that the money the county has spent defending their illegal withholding of information that the public is entitled to could be better spent on other things. The difference is that I place the blame for that on the County, which is entity that broke the law and illegally withheld the information.
You’re welcome to your opinion that the information that HumCPR requested, and which by state law is a matter of public record which the public is entitled to see, isn’t important. But the California Public Records Act does not apply to only those cases you think are worthwhile. I think the information HumCPR requested from the county is important information for Humboldt residents and taxpayers to have, and I suspect that I’m not alone in that — that many Humboldt residents are curious to find out how much of their tax money is being spent on these lawsuits. Yes, it’s regrettable that getting access to that information may cost us taxpayers money, but again the blame for that falls squarely on those decision-makers at the County who decided to try to illegally withhold the information. No illegal withholding of info, no court costs to defend the illegal withholding. It really is that simple.
If you feel that the amount of money the County is spending on attorney’s fees for Planning Department lawsuits is justified, and a good use of our tax money, you are certainly welcome to that opinion. No doubt some county residents agree with that point of view. That’s fine. And I’m sure you’re aware that some county residents disagree with that point of view. And many, maybe most of us, would say that some of the county’s litigation expenditures have been unavoidable and/or justifiable, and some have not. In the context of a democracy, the right answer is to have that debate and try to persuade some of those who disagree with you, or at least some of those who have not yet formed a strong opinion either way, to come around to your way of thinking, and let that debate inform voter choices. The right answer is not to support the illegal suppression of that information so that the debate cannot be an informed debate.
Those who believe that the county has been spending our money wisely in all these cases should be happy to defend that use of county resources. The fact that some appear chagrined that it looks like the full costs of the county’s spending on litigation are going to be revealed suggests that these folks don’t feel very confident in their argument. Oh well, too bad, the info is coming out, and we’re going to have that debate whether those folks like it or not. My advice would be stop whining about the fact that the dollar figure is being forced out into the light, and start getting ready to defend it.
March 18, 2013 at 10:44 am
ICU812
Did anyone hear the Bob McKee radio hour on KMUD this morning?
http://archive.kmud.org/mp3/kmud_130318_080000goodmorning2.mp3
March 18, 2013 at 3:58 pm
Anonymous
That Other Anonymous, why do you think HumCPR wants such specific information in the first place?
March 18, 2013 at 5:10 pm
That Other Anonymous
I don’t know, and don’t care to speculate. You are, of course, are free to speculate all you want, but it makes no difference in terms of the county’s legal obligation to provide the information. According to the court rulings, HumCPR is entitled, by law, to receive that information, as any of us would be. The county should have just given them the information that they are entitled to, when they first asked for it, end of story.
March 18, 2013 at 7:04 pm
bolithio
What a waste of our resources.
The definitions of the various types of parcels are defined, as are the requirements of various zones and what is required to subdivide and such. The way the Map Act effected patent parcels was never popular and is very complex. But at this point, it is what is. The County completely dropped the ball along time ago on Tooby, Titlow, etc… It couldn’t have been that hard to put together if they looked at the assessor parcel data or recorded deeds.
The ONLY solution is to force them to re-zone and complete the sub-divisions. That will force an EIR which is the only mechanism for requiring and enforcing actual mitigation from potential impacts of the existing illegal subdivision. Double fines, case closed.
90% of this would have been prevented if the county would have drafted new assessor parcel maps reflecting the legal configuration of patents following the Map Act. It is totally confusing if your not well versed in to our policies as to what a legal parcel is. I bet 99% of people believed a assessor parcel = legal parcel prior to this whole shaded parcel development. As it stands now, it takes a planner several hours and some time days worth of time to complete a determination of status! Hello! The county really needs a overhaul in planning.
March 19, 2013 at 8:25 am
Anonymous
Well, That Other Anonymous, I’m going to safely bet you’re one of those bloggers who has a favorite county supervisor as well as a couple folks in our government you like to talk shit about on a regular basis. You’re a kook and a codger, and for all I know a common two bit troll.
HumCPR is after more than total expenditures, and it makes all the difference. I couldn’t imagine case-by-case itemization ever being readily available to the public considering the sensitive nature of the information for all parties involved. Try and walk into any city hall anywhere and ask for complete itemized billing over somebody else’s court case…what would you expect? Beyond the bottom line, which is available information, case costs are a matter of privacy, as I’m sure you’d want your financial information to be protected BY the county just the same. Additionally, at this point there’s every reason to suspect HumCPR of conspiring to further waste the public’s time and money in more lawsuits. They’ve already proven themselves to be a litigious private party of mudslingers and political players. They are obviously attempting a land use coup to resume their real estate/development business as usual in heretofore virgin territory. The future consequences of which are too grave. HumCPR are real estate developers and investors by profession. It’s not even a secret. I believe the county is protecting the public’s best interests by staving renegade development. Humboldt’s rural areas need as much protection from new construction as possible. We’re no longer living in a 1950′s pulp fiction novel idea about such things as industry and weather patterns.
March 19, 2013 at 8:41 am
Cookie
Concerning your point of “I bet 99% of people believed a assessor parcel = legal parcel prior to this whole shaded parcel development.”,
if people like Estelle Fennel would have applied for building permits, she/they would have found out at that moment she/they did not have a “legal” parcel. The person at the bottom of Seely Creek and Tooby Ranch is Bob McKee. Why is that?
March 19, 2013 at 10:33 am
That Other Anonymous
Anon 8:225 said: ” You’re a kook and a codger, and for all I know a common two bit troll.”
Name-calling…the last refuge of someone with a strong opinion, but an unpersuasive and/or non-fact-based argument. For example:
Anon 8:225 said: “…case costs are a matter of privacy”
Not when it comes to government spending on lawsuits, the courts have ruled otherwise. That’s already been established in this case, now the county is just arguing that they can’t provide some of the information, because they don’t have documentation for it.
Anon 8:225 said: “as I’m sure you’d want your financial information to be protected BY the county just the same.”
My financial information isn’t a matter of public record, because I’m not a government entity funded by taxpayer dollars. That’s why it’s called the California Public Records Act, not the California Private Records Act.
March 19, 2013 at 10:51 am
Anonymous
That Other Anonymous, the county’s finances are no secret in that regard. You’re either confused or confusing the argument. Itemized billing on a case-per-case basis, however, is another story, for reasons you don’t even care to speculate. That Other Anonymous, please walk into any city hall in any other county and ask for itemized billing over somebody else’s court case. Tell us how well you fair.
March 19, 2013 at 11:33 am
That Other Anonymous
Anon 10:51,
Apparently you are unaware of even the most basic facts about this case. Re-read the thread. The County refused to provide information on how much money they were spending on these lawsuits. After HumCPR sued the County and the courts ruled against the County’s position, the County agreed to provide information on how much they have spent on outside counsel for these lawsuits, but are claiming that they do not have documentation on how much time has been spent on these lawsuits by the county’s staff attorneys. That’s where things stand at the moment.
Meanwhile, we’re not talking about walking into a city hall and asking for billing information related to a lawsuit between two private entities. We’re talking about a California Public Records Act request about the amount of public funds used on lawsuits involving a public entity, in this case the government of Humboldt County.
March 19, 2013 at 12:26 pm
Cookie
Wouldn’t it be wild if the county attorney records of time spent on **these lawsuits** didn’t exist because **these lawsuits** were all handled by outside attorneys. What are **these lawsuits** anyway. The only one I know of is Tooby Ranch.
March 19, 2013 at 1:20 pm
Cookie
I got into the archives and listened to the MMM Bob McKee hour. The last few sentences were very telling. Bob McKee pretty much admitted, in my opinion, that he knew he all about the 600 acre minimums when he bought the ranch. His double speak about the 1978 Williamson Act contract didn’t exist because the Williamson Act wasn’t in line with the GPU is complete bullshit. Dennis Huber, you are disgusting. Do you roll over and pee on yourself too?
March 19, 2013 at 1:27 pm
Anonymous
Ah, the thread that wouldn’t die. Just a thought, but it might be that the discussion is well past the point where an opinion might be changed. As if it were ever possible with this group. The current cluster fuck might sound erotic to some but in actual practice it is less than fulfilling. Might there be better ways to spend our time than running in circles?
March 19, 2013 at 2:58 pm
Anonymous
That Other Anonymous, re-re-re-read what’s going on. HumCPR wants expenses itemized. Department spending is otherwise available. I defy you to acquire what they are asking for anywhere else. Have you noticed HumCPR has not provided such an obvious demonstration either? $70,000 spent and not a penny of it to demonstrate how easily they can obtain from another county’s government, what it is they claim is being withheld by our county’s government! And still they’re demanding $70,000 from the public for their awkward lawsuit, which comes across as a political mudslinging money making opportunity more easily than anything.
That Other Anonymous, why would a real estate conglomerate want specific information about how much their private investors can afford to “out sue” the county? Why would a politicized group of large landholders want information about other landholders’ financial status? Are you related to somebody involved in the lawsuit or something, to not even care to speculate?
March 19, 2013 at 3:26 pm
That Other Anonymous
“Wouldn’t it be wild if the county attorney records of time spent on **these lawsuits** didn’t exist because **these lawsuits** were all handled by outside attorneys.”
Then I would expect the county to say so, as that would be a simple explanation which presumably would resolve the issue. Given that they haven’t made that claim, and have instead argued about how they account for their attorneys’ time (or don’t) and whether HumCPR’s original complaint requested that info, I doubt the answer is as simple as “no staff attorney time was spent on these lawsuits.”
March 19, 2013 at 3:39 pm
Anonymous
That Other Anonymous @ 3:26, it is more true that no explanation would resolve the situation, as HumCPR hasn’t accepted an explanation in lieu of $70,000. And they want you and I to pay them the $70,000.
March 19, 2013 at 6:35 pm
Anonymous
Well I’ve re-read your entire commentary in this thread, That Other Anonymous, and I don’t know if I should even continue humoring…you? Who the hell are you that anything you say should be given my time and consideration? If there’s anything serious about the lawsuit…$70,000 donked out of the county’s budget is serious to me…than I don’t understand whatsoever why you refuse to discuss why HumCPR might want the information that they are in fact seeking in articulate specifics. HumCPR’s lawyer has approached the county with a lawsuit, not John Q. Public looking to satisfy a random curiosity. Not any other organization, in fact. Nobody else, ever. To me, the lawsuit seems like a pointless punching bag. I cannot think of any reason HumCPR would want the specific information they are seeking without thinking sinister thoughts, considering the manner of the lawsuit. Is it real or some kind of puppet show itself? You go so far as to refuse to speculate. I admit I don’t know much of anything about the toby ranch mcgee cases, but you argue as well it’s all beside the point of the case as it stands now. So why aren’t you free to speculate? All I know about it is what I’m reading in the papers…same as you?
Can you speculate, That Other Anonymous, why the county would intentionally withhold the information as you insist they are? Considering they’re being sued for $70,000, one would think they’d have coughed it up by now. HumCPR’s lawyer’s meter is still running, right? What are the county’s motives behind the criminal activity they are so obviously engaging? Which individuals are to blame? It would have to be that at least one individual under county employment has the key to the filing cabinet, or password to the excell spreadsheet with the requested information, to somehow put the matter to rest. As it stands, it’s almost like such records don’t exist. Which, whether true or not, again makes me wonder why HumCPR wants that specific information so badly in the first place? Is the lawsuit some kind of time wasting joke? An inner-political routine that I’m naive to? Nobody’s really spending $70,000 on a lawyer over this, right? That comes back to everybody after it’s exchanged hands for the cameras?
March 19, 2013 at 10:37 pm
Delusions of a Bubble Community
Oh I think this is great. It endorses my concept that most of SoHum is living under the illusion that most everyone else in the county lives “double” lives as well. The illusion of the mask must be stripped away from local officials because everyone is as corrupt, manipulative, secretive, and hiding their agenda–in SoHum that is just how the world works. In the real world, occasionally one runs across professionalism and people who take their jobs and the obligations of that job seriously–in the interest of the broader community (meaning ALL the community). In SoHum few are as they appear. My experience of the culture–it is rotten for the greater part. Good people generally. Rotten bubble culture manifested and concentrated by the underground economy. And HumCPR is a concentration of this culture. You only trust your neighbor because you have no one else you can trust and if you trust your neighbor all the time you are a fool. But since no one really cares we fools will join together to become a political power source.. onward! Doesn’t make for well reasoned approach to community–anything. Hot air blowing bigger delusions because they got Fortuna to bat for their team last election.
But I could be biased.
March 20, 2013 at 8:56 am
That Other Anonymous
Anon 6:35,
So you are concerned about the $70,000 the County may have to pay HumCPR for this lawsuit? Okay, well, many of us are concerned about the millions of taxpayer dollars (we know it was already more than $2 million as of 2009) that the county has paid out for the County’s lawsuit against McKee and the secondary defendants in the Tooby Ranch.
We know about the $2 million plus because when these figures were requested in 2009, the County complied with the request, as they were required by law to do. But as the Times-Standard article quoted above made clear, shortly after complying with that 2009 request, the county, without explanation, decided to change their policy to (illegally) withhold the same kind of information in the future.
Why? Well, my guess is that after the $2 million figure was made public in 2009, the County received a good deal of criticism for spending so much money on that lawsuit, so they decided that, in the future, perhaps they could avoid (or at least delay) that kind of scrutiny from the public, and the embarrassment and questioning of their priorities that came along with that scrutiny, by simply refusing to release the figures the next time they were asked. Which is what they did. However, that strategy has now backfired, because withholding the information just made people more concerned about how large the litigation costs are that the county has been trying to keep secret, and this has drawn more attention to the issue.
March 20, 2013 at 9:13 am
Cookie
That Other Anonymous, you said to anonymous at 6:35–
**So you are concerned about the $70,000 the County may have to pay HumCPR for this lawsuit? Okay, well, many of us are concerned about the millions of taxpayer dollars (we know it was already more than $2 million as of 2009) that the county has paid out for the County’s lawsuit against McKee and the secondary defendants in the Tooby Ranch.**
I have said on many occasions that this all boils down to the Tooby Ranch /Bob McKee lawsuit. You have pretty much denied my statement all along. I think this statement of your pretty much proves I was correct. I have even asked you point blank what are **these** lawsuits. Now you show it is only **this** lawsuit.
I don’t believe you anymore when you said you had no connection to this issue.
March 20, 2013 at 9:20 am
That Other Anonymous
Sorry, there I go again, speculating about the county’s motives without speculating about the motives of HumCPR, and others who want to see this information made public. Okay, I’ll “humor” you and engage in some speculation on that side as well. So my guess (speculation) is that HumCPR, and some residents like myself who are not part of HumCPR but have been following these issues, believe that the county has spent (wasted?) a lot of taxpayer money on the Tooby Ranch lawsuit and other Planning Department-related lawsuits, and want to get the cost information out there so that the public can have an informed discussion on the costs and (alleged) benefits of these lawsuits. Obviously it is impossible to have an informed debate on costs and benefits, when the cost part of the equation is shrouded in secrecy.
March 20, 2013 at 9:21 am
That Other Anonymous
“Who the hell are you that anything you say should be given my time and consideration?”
You do realize, don’t you, that I could ask the same question of you? Neither of us is under any obligation to continue this discussion. I am continuing to “humor” you, just as you are continuing to “humor” me (the only difference being that I don’t feel the need to lob insults at you, question your motives, etc). If you don’t want to discuss the issue any further, just say so, we can “agree to disagree” on unresolved points, and end the discussion in a civil manner. There’s nothing wrong with that.
On the other hand, if you continue to ask questions and raise points for discussion, I’m not sure why you would be upset that I am continuing to converse with you.
March 20, 2013 at 9:37 am
That Other Anonymous
“HumCPR’s lawyer has approached the county with a lawsuit…
You left out what happened before that, where HumCPR began by approaching the county with a California Public Records Act request (which is not a lawsuit), asking for information that they are entitled by law to receive. They were requesting the same kind of information that the county had previously been releasing, only this time the county (illegally) refused to release the information. Given the county’s intransigence, that left HumCPR in the position where their only options were either to either file a lawsuit to force the county to adhere to the law and release the information, or else accept the county’s illegal refusal to provide the information, and drop the request.
Since you don’t think the information is important, it sounds like you would have preferred they take the latter approach, but again, not everyone in the county agrees with you that the information is unimportant. And in any event, it certainly would have been a poor precedent to allow the county to illegally withhold information that the public is entitled to under the California Public Records Act.
Again, next time it could be you, or some group whose goals you strongly agree with, that wants access to information that you are entitled to under the CPRA, but are denied by the county. Thanks to HumCPR, perhaps next time the county will be less inclined to deny someone information that they are legally entitled to, in other words perhaps they will be less likely to force members of the public to file a lawsuit just to obtain the information that they are already legally entitled to.
March 20, 2013 at 2:13 pm
Anonymous
criminey, that other anonymous. twenty questions. So…is humcpr trying to help or hinder tooby ranch mcgee cases? Is humcpr on the side of letting them off the hook more, or further impaling them on the hook?
March 20, 2013 at 2:19 pm
Anonymous
barffff…That Other Anonymous, the more I read the more I just want to give up. And I think I will. I have done everything BUT suggest the information is unimportant. It is absolutely worthless to 99.999 percent of residents in this county, but HumCPR sure finds it important and that’s okay with me. Why do you think they want that specific information so bad?
March 20, 2013 at 3:16 pm
That Other Anonymous
“It is absolutely worthless to 99.999 percent of residents in this county,”
Well, we just disagree about that. As stated above, it’s impossible to compare costs and benefits when the costs are not disclosed. If you don’t care at all about the costs, or you’re convinced that the benefits are so important that they would outweigh any costs, no matter how high those costs might be, then the information may seem “worthless” to you. I get that. But I think where you’re going wrong is in assuming that 99.999% of county residents agree with you that the cost information is “worthless.”
March 20, 2013 at 4:00 pm
Just Watchin
It’s good to see that the ” anonymous” name is alive and well here. Take a stand and at least make up a name!!
March 20, 2013 at 4:59 pm
Cookie
I think HumCPR wants to know because of the effect the lawsuit has had on Bob McKee. Rondall Snodgrass is a very personal friend of the McKee family. The other people who care about this case are the McKee cheerleaders. Whose idea was it in HumCPR to file this lawsuit? Was Estelle the executive director at the time? We know her connection to Bob McKee. I also think there is some nefarious reasons the developers of HumCPR want this information.
March 20, 2013 at 5:46 pm
That Other Anonymous
“I have said on many occasions that this all boils down to the Tooby Ranch /Bob McKee lawsuit. You have pretty much denied my statement all along. I think this statement of your pretty much proves I was correct. I have even asked you point blank what are **these** lawsuits. Now you show it is only **this** lawsuit.
Well I haven’t — and wouldn’t — deny that the Tooby Ranch lawsuit is an important part of the context of HumCPR’s California Public Records Act request to the County, and their lawsuit challenging the County’s refusal to comply with the CPRA. What I have said is that whether you personally believe a particular lawsuit — the Tooby Ranch lawsuit or any other — has been a good use of public money or not, that is no excuse for the County acting illegally by refusing to disclose how much public money it has been spending on the lawsuit.
In my view, that would apply equally whether you’re talking about the County’s litigation against Bob McKee and his partners, and against the “secondary defendents” (the owners of the parcels McKee sold), or whether you’re talking about the lawsuit Foster-Gill filed against the county in an attempt to force the county to allow them to move forward with a portion of their “Ridgewood Village” development in the Ridgewood/Cutten area, or whether you’re talking about the lawsuit the affordable housing group Housing Now joined against the county related to multi-family zoning, or whether you’re talking about lawsuits filed by Arkley’s “Sunshine for Humboldt” group related to the county’s housing element.
According to what I’ve read in the newspaper, the Tooby Ranch lawsuit is not the only lawsuit covered by HumCPR’s California Public Record Act request. The HumCPR request asks for information pertaining to “all litigation filed with regard to land use, planning, and the current General Plan update,” presumably including all the lawsuits like the ones I listed above, if the county has spent money on those lawsuits during the period covered by HumCPR’s CPRA request. So, no, the California Public Records Act request and the subsequent lawsuit are not limited to just the Tooby Ranch lawsuit, and would appear to cover all planning and land use litigation the County is involved in. That’s why I have (accurately, I believe) referred to “these” lawsuits, and not just “this” lawsuit.
March 20, 2013 at 6:24 pm
That Other Anonymous
Cookie said: “I don’t believe you anymore when you said you had no connection to this issue.”
So you’re accusing me of lying. Well, I’m not. But as you know, I have no way of proving that to you, and you have no evidence to back up your (false) accusation, so that’s effectively a dead-end.
While you’re clearly making a personal attack, questioning my veracity, integrity, and motives, I’m going to choose to not take it too personally, because I see this sort of thing all the time, both online, and in the real world. It seems that many people tend to believe that in order for someone to disagree with them, that person has to have some direct financial self-interest or other ulterior motives.
For example, I could choose to believe that, based on your defense of the County’s actions, therefore you must work for the County, I could accuse you of that, and then when you deny it I could just say “I don’t believe you.” That would free me from the need to try to understand why we disagree, since I could just ascribe your actions to self-interest, careerism, sticking up for your colleagues, etc. See how easy that would be? But where would that leave us? Nowhere, that’s where.
In reality, sometimes we just disagree, even though neither of us has any direct financial self-interest, or nefarious ulterior motives. It’s dangerous to be too quick to ascribe nefarious / self-interested motives to those you disagree with, because it may lead you to resort to personal attacks and false accusations (like falsely accusing someone of lying), which in turn tends to spoil the opportunity to understand one another’s points of view and to find common ground when possible. It’s unfortunate, unnecessary, and unhelpful.
March 20, 2013 at 7:38 pm
Not A Native
Eric isn’t responding here, probably because he has clients who are respondents in the ‘Tooby’ lawsuits. But his thread title, ‘..politics’ says it all. And I guess the discussion of the anonmi here has skirted around that truth. So, just what are the politics that this involves? Certainly its large landholders against a newly activist county. Its also small undercapitalized landholders who have relied on lax enforcement of county ordiances, especially building permitting and standards and want those laws enforced selectively only for large landholders. Lastly, its Libertarian Republican growers who have an interest in curtailing all local government authority. What CPR is doing, IMO is attempting to create a political force from those disparate groups. To a degree, the local November election results showed CPR’s effectiveness.
These groups only common interest is restraint of code enforcement. But their interests are strongly opposed for how code enforcement should be appropriately used. Now that the Tooby lawsuit is in the penalty phase, CPR is attempting to keep attention on the mechanism that has traditionally been used to ‘hollow out’ local government, scarcity of resources. By illuminating county expenditures to an economicaly depressed public, CPR wants to evoke envy and anger among those who have no natural interests in the legal issues but will contrast their personal finances with county expenditures which seem to be a relative fortune. The idea is to let people imagine what they personally could do if they were given the money the county is expending for (insert here the item you oppose). The evidence for my opinion is that the amount of county expenditures on public works, parks, sheriff, or district attorney vastly exceed the expenditure on the Tooby enforcement, but publically trumpeting those doesn’t advance CPR’s interest.
March 20, 2013 at 8:10 pm
Anonymous
“The idea is to let people imagine what they personally could do if they were given the money the county is expending for (insert here the item you oppose).”
Boy you must think people are really stupid. No, people aren’t going to be daydreaming about the dream vacations they might take, or the mansions they might buy if the county handed them millions of dollars for their own personal use. Because nobody is stupid or delusional enough to think that the county would do that.
March 20, 2013 at 9:00 pm
ICU812
This is why McKee has his own radio hour on KMUD allot these days, Its to gain public opinion support and talk about how much public tax money the County is spending to get him. Where but a better place to spread paranoid delusions of government coming after you, than a underground black market culture and their shady parcels. You can’t make this #2 up, its perfect propaganda for HumCPR in SoHum.
March 20, 2013 at 9:02 pm
Cookie
I don’t think you are a liar That Other Anonymous. I am not and did not call you one.And I am not accusing you of lying. I just don’t believe you. And how come before when I asked you about **these** lawsuits, you gave no answer until today. All the sudden. A huge answer like you did homework or something. For my part, I don’t like that Bob McKee has been getting away with his shady real estate deals. His double dealings and double escrows. And illegal things like the Seely Creek sub division.
March 20, 2013 at 10:10 pm
Eric Kirk
As a general rule NAN, I don’t discuss my cases on the blog. It’s a personal rule. I don’t mind that you all are discussing it, but I try to keep the blog separate from my work.
March 20, 2013 at 10:37 pm
That Other Anonymous
“I am not accusing you of lying. I just don’t believe you.”
I told you I am not personally involved, and you said you don’t believe me. I don’t see how you can claim that you’re not calling me a liar. How else do you reconcile those two things?
“And how come before when I asked you about **these** lawsuits, you gave no answer until today. . All the sudden. A huge answer like you did homework or something.”
No, I just thought it was kind of a silly point (and I still do) but it became clear that you attached a lot of significance to it, so I responded. But instead of addressing the substance of my response, you complain about its timing.
March 21, 2013 at 7:36 am
Anonymous
That Other Anonymous, some of your first posts in this thread show that you’ve given HumCPR’s motives some thought, then you adamantly dropped that line of thinking from your consideration altogether, in everything else you wrote. Believe you me, I would like to think otherwise but I can easily and most logically deduce malicious intent on the part of humcpr toward members of the county’s government, based on everything I’ve come to gather about this case.
When somebody starts pouring new foundations in new territory, it’s all downhill from there. “Development” is one of the dirtiest games being played in politics and those of us who grew up in urban areas know it. When it comes to open space, protect what you’ve got at all costs because when it’s gone it’s gone. HumCPR wants to start pouring foundations in the woods. That’s the bottom line of what all this means to me. There would be new estate subdivisions in the timberlands of this county. And with the allowance of that would come all kinds of problems in the future, forever to come. I feel I’ve been duped by humcpr until looking into their actual land use activity. It’s no surprise in retrospect that a “property rights” group, advertising themselves as being all about “rural lifestyles”, would more literally be a bunch of rich real estate investors and developers cashing in on undeveloped subdivisions instead of genuine back-to-the-landers treading lightly. Take a look at all the criminal building giants in california…seeno homes, remember them? Flatten hillsides first, give a shit later. They’ve single handedly changed the physical shape of the entire east bay area in so many negative ways forever. All their top members belong to all kinds of “property rights” groups and “environmental” organizations…doesn’t mean squat.
March 21, 2013 at 8:59 am
Cookie
Well, the substance of your information. ok. There are a lot of lawsuits. Big developer interests would be the common denominator. I still believe Tooby Ranch is the basis of it all. I wonder when all these lawsuits were filed. Dates and such. Which one was filed first. And was Estelle Fennel director of HmCPR at the time of this lawsuit? I don’t remember.
I can’t reconcile in words that I don’t believe you, and don’t think you are a liar. You have something somewhere in you to put you on the side and beliefs you have. Do you own a big chink of TPZ? Do you have land you want to someday develop? A family memeber maybe? I know no one who is on, lets say your side of the issue, unless they are a Bob McKee cheerleader, a humCPRer, or has some kind of vested interest, now or in the future. Or they hate the idea of code enforcement.
March 21, 2013 at 11:58 am
That Other Anonymous
“Do you own a big chink of TPZ? Do you have land you want to someday develop? A family memeber maybe?
No, no, and no.
I know no one who is on, lets say your side of the issue, unless they are a Bob McKee cheerleader, a humCPRer, or has some kind of vested interest, now or in the future. Or they hate the idea of code enforcement.”
The fact that you don’t know anyone who doesn’t fit into those categories doesn’t mean we don’t exist.
March 21, 2013 at 11:59 am
That Other Anonymous
Oops, let’s try that again, with proper italics and quotations:
“Do you own a big chink of TPZ? Do you have land you want to someday develop? A family memeber maybe?”
No, no, and no.
“I know no one who is on, lets say your side of the issue, unless they are a Bob McKee cheerleader, a humCPRer, or has some kind of vested interest, now or in the future. Or they hate the idea of code enforcement.”
The fact that you don’t know anyone who doesn’t fit into those categories doesn’t mean we don’t exist.
March 21, 2013 at 12:22 pm
Forest Queen
Great thread – and, of course, this same thing is happening on all ‘levels’ of corporations. The spending to prove a negative is obscene.
Just thinkin . . . that That Other Anonymous is still on the ‘for profit no matter what the cost’ ship. That ship is sinking. We’re all in the same leaky boat here – working at plugging the holes.
Or, you should maybe go back to sleep, and let the grown-ups handle the matter. I don’t mean that in a rude manner. It could be a generation
difference of opinion?
March 21, 2013 at 12:50 pm
That Other Anonymous
“Just thinkin . . . that That Other Anonymous is still on the ‘for profit no matter what the cost’ ship.”
Wrong. That’s never been my position, and never will be.
March 21, 2013 at 1:54 pm
Forest Queen
TAO,
Good good. Well then, if I’m making a sign, or some other project, and I goof it up twice – I’m done. It wasn’t meant to be. ‘Court’ cases go on as long as there’s a transfer of wealth, and this takes a word smith, using many words, without agreed upon definitions. Lie ability – the ability to lie. The negative words, having no value, are damaging and adding debt onto the people’s shoulders, with no restraint, or end in sight, is despotic.
March 21, 2013 at 7:16 pm
Internet Troll for $10000 Jeopardy Question
A bit off the argument perhaps… so you get all these costs disclosed then what? Who gets decides what was innappropriately spent? Do you have a legal degree, an accounting degree with a lot of background in community development issues and legal expertise, years spent as a real estate agent with a legal background and experience being a member of a civic body? Or is the need for a $$ figure simply to release to the press what appears to be a huge dollar figure (or not perhaps) to shock the local community which does not have, most likely, any expertise to decide how well those dollars were or weren’t spent? Or is it to call a Grand Jury investigation? I mean what is the point here. If you want to call a commission together to look further into the matter then why do you need the dollar figures… just do it if you think someone is corrupt or made bad decisions. The actual dollar figure does nothing and is meaningless unless you have a standard for what should have been. And obviously that standard is that it shouldn’t have been done at all and the parties should have walked away… blamelessly.
Doesn’t make a lot of sense does it unless someone is after political brownie points or wants to protect someone involved. I guess it could just be a control issue about a lack of control. But unless you people are a key player in the whole thing this back and forth slinging **** at each other doesn’t make a lot of sense to this, outside, observer. You don’t need the dollar figures to press for action and if you are not going to press for action then just what is a resolution to all this for you?
March 21, 2013 at 7:31 pm
Cookie
Eric. I don’t think I have ever been this mad. Why in the name of honesty, and transparency didn’t Kathleen Creager identify herself tonight on your program? She was the caller who gave the details of what supposedly the straw vote was. And to say she doesn’t really pay that much attention? Lori Clendenen would never stoop so low. Or be so dishonest, sneaky or creepy as that. Why on earth didn’t you call her out on it? This should not be allowed. Especially from the wife of Estelle, who calls for transparency. How low will those two go? Absolutely disgusting. Her days of engineering Thank Jah thank God are long gone.
March 21, 2013 at 9:14 pm
Eric Kirk
There’s no obligation of callers to identify themselves, and I only think it’s egregious if you’re misrepresenting something. I don’t believe that’s the case, and therefor I thing Daniel Mintz’s headline may be misleading. Unintentionally, but misleading nevertheless.
However, I’m not certain I would support the service fee exemption even for small projects, and I would like to know what kind of numbers we’re talking about before I believe that they make small time development cost-prohibitive. And even small time development should be accountable for its increases on the burden on infrastructure. Unless, as a policy, we decide that we want to collectively subsidize it.
Selective socialism. And it’s not necessarily a bad thing. But we should call it for what it is.
March 21, 2013 at 9:51 pm
Anonymous
Internet Troll:
You are making the same argument the county did, which is basically that the public is too stupid to know what’s good for them, and that therefore they don’t need the information.
If that’s the case, why bother having a democracy at all? Just hand over the keys to the bureaucrats and they can decide what’s best for us.
You could make the same argument about the military budget — most members of the public aren’t generals or defense contractors, so any opinion the public might have over defense spending should just be ignored, right?
It’s an elitist, antidemocratic, misanthropic point of view. But thank you for sharing it, since it goes a long way toward explaining where you’re coming from.
March 22, 2013 at 7:40 am
Anonymous
Anonymous 9:51, I’m not the troll you claim, and I haven’t made any such argument that the county is conspiring against the public. The public hasn’t accosted the county. Nobody in the whole entire world has approached the county in this manner except a close-knit group of real estate investors and developers with a long history of sour relationships toward the county. There’s no logic to humcpr’s motives as they describe them about this lawsuit. On the contrary, it’s ridiculous to suggest anything’s beind done for the common good. It’s far easier to look at all the information about the case and fill-in-their-blank intentions with a rural land use coup, political smear and lots of money to be made by humcpr in the long run.
HumCPR isn’t suing the county for anybody’s sake but to further their own real estate endeavors…if you believe the lawsuit is for the public’s benefit, then I suggest you re-arrange your criticism of me to one of yourself, around falling for the corporate who-gives-a-fuck mode of living, in which developers and lobbyists use county-level government to walk all over the general public. Literally walk all over it, as they change everybody’s landscape forever. The natural environment is tanking and financial resources are dwindling, to let a “local corporation”…excuse me, “non-profi group”…siphon more natural and financial resources out of everybody’s pockets. And that only and always leads to more of the same in the future.
This case has nothing whatsoever to do with military spending or a conspiracy on the part of the county to decieve the general public. It’s a one-on-one case. If anything, I could see how the county might be engaging in a paperwork filibuster with humcpr, and based on the facts of the case as I’ve read them, I commend them for it. Developers and real estate investors raise everybody’s cost of living while justifying their own slices of sprawl like it’s no big thing. Fuggum like they fuggus.
March 22, 2013 at 8:20 am
Anonymous
anonymous 9:51, I just read the comment @ 7:16 to which you were responding. Ten thousand dollar Jeopardy question guy is only raising the obvious point as to why humcpr is insisting on spending $70,000 of the public’s money at this time. That is, wondering out loud what humcpr wants to do with the information they’ve requested. Why have they requested it. You haven’t answered that question either. I mainly deduce reasons based on media smear and/or crunching financial information about the county (public’s money) that would benefit their litigious endeavors toward new development in rural areas of this county. That’s a far cry from suggesting HumCPR has donated $70,000 to fight the government over a grave injustive…like military spending? They even want the $70,000 back, fer chrissake.
As far as I can gather, the county can and has provided department spending, as they have before, in which legal spending is given a bottom line…but humcpr is now demanding itemized expenses in that regard, and the county has responded that there’s no singular record keeping for what they’re now asking. If I’m to think the case has anything to do with tooby ranch mcgee whatever, then humcpr’s deceptive intentions are even more obvious, as they, like you, are rattling off that the case is all about the public’s freedom of information. Bullshit! They’re a cash money enterprise after cash and money.
March 22, 2013 at 8:22 am
Internet Troll for 1 Million Please Alex
i will reply once so I don’t board this same train.
Really, I didn’t make any argument. I made the point that your argument has either a false, or nontransparent, foundation itself which also require accurate disclosure. I did not say there wasn’t any argument to be made for transparency or reviewing what happened–just that what you are pursuing makes no sense if that is your intent. There are shorter routes to the conclusion you purport to desire. Less political routes. Nor did I affirm there was a problem which needed investigation. I simply posed a question as to the obvious (if you think about it) undisclosed purpose of what you are going to do if you get the information you want.
But if you want to continue to obfuscate the issue, or make your straw man/woman rebuttal, I strongly suggest you keep going in the same direction. Or you could just call for an investigation into whether there was any actually fiscal mistakes made by County officials. The amount of money spent isn’t going to tell anyone anything unless you have the background to analyze those expenditures to understand if they were excessive in light of the duties and obligations of County officials.
Unless you just want to release them to the press to make it “look” on the surface like something really skanky happened because you believe it did and don’t like what was done. A political ploy to put pressure on people in government to respond and spend money to pursue your own witch hunt (note* I still haven’t said if there is a real witch to pursue or not). Which of course will then add even more costs to the whole debacle chasing down your ideas that there were misdeeds done. Which isn’t that one of your complaints in the first place that too much money was spent on this matter without a really good purpose?
March 22, 2013 at 8:49 am
Cookie
And Lee Ullansey wants to be able to develop is 200 acre TPZ land into 5-10 McMan$ion$
March 22, 2013 at 9:35 am
Cookie
And, Daniel Mintz’s headline is only slightly misleading if Kathleen’s interpretation of what went on at the supe meeting and the straw vote is correct. what Mark Lovelace said in the papers seems to say that the vote was for developers to not pay their fair share. He did not use the words “raise” the amount of the costs. If Daniel Mintz did not put this in his story, that it is about raising costs, that is pretty egregious. I still think all builders/developers should have to pay a service fee. Costs of things have gone up, so if it is a raise in cost, it should reflect the rise is costs.
March 22, 2013 at 9:41 am
That Other Anonymous
” I could see how the county might be engaging in a paperwork filibuster with humcpr, and based on the facts of the case as I’ve read them, I commend them for it.”
So you’re commending the county for breaking the law, because you don’t like the motivations of those who are demanding that they follow the law. Got it.
March 22, 2013 at 10:12 am
Cookie
We don’t know yet that they are breaking the law. Has the hearing with that judge happened yet? Forget what it was called. If the judge says the county has complied with the HumCPR request, that says it all. If he says otherwise, that says it all.
Eric, Kathleen Creager isn’t just any caller, Especially with Estelle Fennell standing right beside her during that call. Why didn’t Estelle Fennell just call herself? She is the one always talking about transparency. It makes me wonder, how many phone calls is Kathleen Creager returning for Supervisor Estelle Fennell that are work related. How many calls is Kathleen Creager making and actually acting like she is Supervisor Estelle Fennell?
March 22, 2013 at 10:40 am
That Other Anonymous
We already know that the County broke the law, what is being argued now is whether they are still breaking the law.
We know that the County broke the law by not complying with HumCPR’s California Public Records Act request when it was originally filed. And we know that after adverse court rulings, the County has offered to release some of the information requested in HumCPR’s CPRA request.
We don’t know yet whether the court will rule that the county is still illegally withholding information, or whether the County’s current offering will be ruled sufficient to meet the requirements of the California Public Records Act.
March 22, 2013 at 10:56 am
That Other Anonymous
If the parties don’t reach an agreement in the meantime, it sounds like the case goes before a judge in a few weeks. According to the Times-Standard:
“A readiness hearing is scheduled for April 3, and an evidentiary hearing — where the two sides will present their arguments before a judge — is scheduled for April 19.”
March 22, 2013 at 11:33 am
That Other Anonymous
The headline in the McKinleyville Press article was:
“SUPERVISORS SUPPORT REDUCING DEVELOPER COSTS”
http://mckinleyvillepress.com/supervisors-support-reducing-developer-costs/
But in reality they didn’t vote to “reduce” developer costs, they voted to not increase them.
If Supervisors voted to reject a proposed tax cut, but the newspaper headline said that they voted to “raise taxes,” I think we could all recognize the inaccuracy in that. This is basically the same kind of situation.
So a more accurate headline would have been “Supervisors Oppose Increasing Developer Costs.” (To be fair, I’m not sure who wrote the misleading headline, the reporter or the editor.)
By the way, I think it’s perfectly valid to argue that developers should pay more than they do now. But let’s just be clear that that’s what this proposal was about. It was not about “reducing” what they pay now.
March 22, 2013 at 11:51 am
Anonymous
That’s not true at all, That Other Anonymous @ 9:41. HumCPR isn’t demanding the county release legal documents. That’s not the big picture at all. HumCPR is demanding the county give leverage to large landholders for them to skirt as many legalities involved in developing subdivisions on rural timberlands as they can *afford*. It could also be seen as a means to nullify activity among their constituents over real estate deals gone sour (mggee etc.)…get it?
HumCPR sees the case as an investment, not an act of good will, and not anything to do with freedom of information.
Again, I read that the county has followed the law to the best of the county’s ability, and that the record request is asking for more than the county has to offer. I also see that the lawsuit is a very convenient means for humcpr to defame the county in local media while championing their own politicos.
Otherwise, can you suggest why the county would so blatantly behave illegally, as you and humcpr insist they are?
March 22, 2013 at 11:55 am
Anonymous
…I agree with your post @ 11:33, by the way. I no longer believe you’re “an insider”…inasmuch as you’re not banking on this stuff. Maybe you’ve got friends who are humcpr players, that’s a-okay. “Good people” all around, but damn if money doesn’t fuck the planet up along their way.
March 22, 2013 at 11:57 am
Eric Kirk
I contacted Mark Lovelace about Monday’s vote and last night’s radio show. This is what he says:
Eric, the policy that was deleted in its entirety stated only “New development shall pay the proportional cost of providing infrastructure and services as needed to serve the development”, making no distinction between large and small developments. The vast majority of development in Humboldt County happens as single homes, making this a classic cumulative impact issue. If the vast majority of development is not paying its proportionate fair share for infrastructure and services, then it is being subsidized by the taxpayers.
So I guess I’m going to have to read up and watch the hearing and make up my own mind about what was voted on. Either way, assuming that the proposed increase in fees was effectively tailored to the burden on public infrastructure, make no mistake that we are all subsidizing development. And maybe that’s a sound policy, but at least let’s call it what it is. I’ll post what I conclude.
March 22, 2013 at 12:31 pm
That Other Anonymous
“Again, I read that the county has followed the law to the best of the county’s ability…
It has already been established, by court decisions, that the County violated the California Public Records Act by holding back the info on outside counsel costs for these lawsuits for more than a year. So, no, the County certainly didn’t “follow the law,” even on that point — until forced to by litigation.
The remaining question is whether the County is continuing to violate the California Public Records Act. That’s what a judge will be hearing arguments about in April, including (presumably) the county’s argument that they are unable to produce documentation on how much time County staff have spent on these lawsuits.
March 22, 2013 at 12:40 pm
That Other Anonymous
“can you suggest why the county would so blatantly behave illegally, as you and humcpr insist they are?”
I already did so, in my comment that posted on March 20th 8:56 am:
“Why? Well, my guess is that after the $2 million figure was made public in 2009, the County received a good deal of criticism for spending so much money on that lawsuit, so they decided that, in the future, perhaps they could avoid (or at least delay) that kind of scrutiny from the public, and the embarrassment and questioning of their priorities that came along with that scrutiny, by simply refusing to release the figures the next time they were asked. Which is what they did.”
March 22, 2013 at 1:08 pm
ICU812
The whole point is what’s stated on the BOS agenda from Tuesday March 19th and that was:
CLOSED SESSION
1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9 (d)(1); Humboldt Coalition for Property Rights, Inc. and Lee Ulansy v. County of Humboldt, et.al., Humboldt Superior Court Case No. DR120178.
Its the fact Ulansy is named in the suit and a sitting Planning Commissioner after the fact. Lovelace was justified in what he stated, there is no if’s, and’s or but’s about it.
March 22, 2013 at 1:27 pm
That Other Anonymous
So Ulansey shouldn’t be on the Planning Commission, because he had the temerity to demand that the County comply with the California Public Records Act? That’s an interesting point of view.
March 22, 2013 at 1:34 pm
That Other Anonymous
I’ve heard some sensible arguments for why Lee Ulansey was not a wise choice for the at-large seat on the Planning Commission, but that is not one of them.
March 22, 2013 at 4:43 pm
Anonymous
In case anyone is interested California already has a law that requires developers of more than three lots to pay ALL the costs associated with the impacts assosiated with their development. It’s called CEQA, and it requires that a special report be prepared outlining all the impacts, their cost, and then specifies what the developer needs to do or pay to cover their fair share. thats why Mark was so careful to word his response the way he did. The impact fees that were being proposed were purposfully aimed at mom and pops or very small contractors, ie; the little guys AND to exact fees from larger developers over and above their fair share. Eric, I had an opportunity to listen to your show last night and thought it was very interesting and as usual, well done. Thank you, but I also agree with your point that we should be saying the truth about what is going on. The truth is that this whole issue is about charging people MORE than their fair share. the other unmentiond issue is that this is not about building the new infrastrusture associated with development it’s about funding maintenance on existing infrastrusture and adding things like bike lanes and trails. We need to fund maintenance and other improvments but we shouldn’t be lying about what we are doing and tying it to new projects when it’s really something we all receive benifits from and that we should ALL be contributing to.
March 22, 2013 at 6:42 pm
Anonymous
I completely disagree with you, 4:43. There is no obligation to appreciate or accomodate new development. That’s cannibal culture mumbo jumbo. Also, you say that the county was exacting “fees from larger developers over and above their fare share.” You have a monumental difference in philosophy that you take for granted, to suggest wiping out so much more natural earth, for “commercial” purposes, should even HAVE a price tag!
That Other Anonymous, your reasoning that the county is withholding information to avoid it being used to publicly flogging them is just not plausible. It’s almost become a six digit lawsuit. HumCPR cannot be so desperate for the information for that sole reason either. Unless it’s some kind of bullshit ploy. Is the price of the bogus lawsuit worth getting their jabs at the county in public as often as media reports their “news”? They’re getting lots of free publicity. Not a $70,000 lawsuit from humcpr, but $70,000 in campaign ads that don’t even come across as commercials.
March 22, 2013 at 8:07 pm
Cookie
This is how McKee skirts the development laws in my mind. He put 30 people on Tooby Ranch, with double escrows. So it shows 30 individuals developing, instead of just Bob McKee as the big developer. His loophole is the double escrow. How can that be fixed so it can’t be done? Bob McKee skirted CEQA. You say the fees aimed were over and above their fair share. How do you know this?
The following quote from Mark Lovelace shows no aiming at anyone, mom and pop or big developer. So how can you say it is aimed ay anyone?
“Eric, the policy that was deleted in its entirety stated only “New development shall pay the proportional cost of providing infrastructure and services as needed to serve the development”,
I personally DO NOT want to subsidize development or developers/Bob McKee.
March 22, 2013 at 8:37 pm
Not A Native
That’s not the complete truth. CEQA requires only that significant impacts must be mitigated. A impact fee program can make the determination of mitigation more predictable and less costly for both the developer and lead agency. A fee program can also reduce legal challenges to EIRs based on cumulative impacts. By streamlining the EIR process and forestalling legal challenges, fee programs benefit everyone, except ideologues who oppose CEQA and want to have opportunities to circumvent and nullify it. That’s been the traditional ‘standard operating procedure’ in HumCo
March 22, 2013 at 11:48 pm
Eric Kirk
The truth is that this whole issue is about charging people MORE than their fair share.
None of the Supervisors made that claim in their comments before voting. They simply said that we needed to lower the burden of fees for development. If it was more than their fair share, can you show me how? I certainly don’t read it in the simple sentence which was stricken.
Mark responded further:
Hi Eric. I just listened to the show. The caller you referenced was unclear on the issues. This was only a policy, which would be implemented through a fee study. The Board would have the ultimate say on how the fees are structured and what they are intended to cover,but it’s important to understand that fees can only pay their proportional share, as determined through a nexus study, and cannot be used to generate general revenue. All of the specifics would have been determined in the future.
Your statement about CEQA is silly, because most homes don’t require EIRs, and the EIR process does not always require financial compensation for burdens placed on infrastructure, though that might be proposed for mitigations.
Historically we have always subsidized development. As the one caller pointed out, there was some pushback years ago in places like Palo Alto. The Board decision is in fact one to renew the old policy of subsidization, represented as free market policy. What was nixed was even the very concept of proportional responsibility, because none of the details had even been proposed.
March 23, 2013 at 8:46 am
Cookie
In other words, Kathleen Creager was the one who was misleading us all. Not Daniel Mintz’s headline. Typical of Kathleen and Estelle. I hope Eric that you will continue this discussion on your next show? It was Estelle Fennell who used the word over burdensome. Showing her pro development side. Who wooda guessed? Ha. Hopefully there will be push back. Basically, Kathleen lied?
March 23, 2013 at 9:09 am
Cookie
Something else Eric. Did Kathleen Creager say anything over the radio that wasn’t discussed at the BOS meeting? The reason I wonder is what are the laws rules and regulations of the wife of a Supervisor speaking the way Kathleen Creger did. What did Estelle Fennell tell Kathleen to say? What are the ethics involved here? I have to look up what the Brown Act is. Do you? In a nutshell? Did she do any sort of a violation?
March 23, 2013 at 9:15 am
Anonymous
The uber-wealthy nestled in their private estates on the other side of the tracks in Palo Alto, where they rightfully NIMBY’d new development
(some of the last redwood forest in the entire bay area), had to acknowledge that murder was on the verge of becoming a regular crime only a few miles away in their own downtown. If you haven’t been to palo alto, the change in scenery is literally divided by train tracks that run through town. City had to curb the enthusiasm being enjoyed by their own “development community” who were getting very rich very quick, cashing in on the neverending population explosion. “Low income housing” only means “high income real estate” for anybody involved in any aspect of the business. The intent is not to provide for the poor, as the ghettos of this country prove, but to extract maximum capital per capita, and on an ongoing basis through introducing as much capita as “allowed”. It’s the american way…business as usual. Profit by simply introducing more of the exact same profit motive. Cannibal culture…people versus even more new people. “Permits” with a price tag to destroy the planet along the way..
Federal and state mandates for growth are reasons for the failing environment and economy. On the national/global scale, they’re calculated to narrow wealth (governing power) to members of the government’s own inner circle. They are capitalizing on the human survival instinct, knowing people will make the most of their manifest life circumstances, and after a single generation of reduced comforts, the cycle repeats as an established norm. The more people there are, the more empowered the fewer in power are. In the corporate eye, we are in fact “free people” in that the human motors required to keep corporate commerce alive are dispensable in cost-to-production ratio as well as availability as laborers. The rich get richer while the poor grow in numbers but fall in comfort, and the natural environment tanks a little more every single day because of it.
March 23, 2013 at 9:36 am
Anonymous
…the natural environment is so badly damaged, it’s become necessary to artificially manipulate the weather to maintain watersheds even at failing levels. All over the world, and in this state. The causes and consequences of that should speak for themselves. It’s the biggest wake up call in our lifetime, that governments are covertly manipulating the very weather out of necessity.
A few large planes delivered the horizontal “clouds” that can be seen this morning just off the coast by anybody living in central humboldt. To extract moisture from the hazy incoming front? To maintain cool temps and stave evaporation? Assuming “cloud seeding” is the purpose of those “contrails”. It’s another airplane exhaust day, that much is absolutely true. Watch the sky today. No clouds whatsoever yesterday. No planes yesterday either. Pay regular attention and you’ll see their specific behavior.
March 23, 2013 at 11:27 am
Anonymous
About an hour and a half since I witnessed the last plane fly across the weather front. Did anybody else see it? The needle thin “contrail” it left sky is now a huge hazy “cloud” falling in elevation as it dissipates. The “contrails” that were left hours earlier did the same thing, and are now indistinguishable as atmospheric haze. The sky is noticeably less vibrant blue, more white. Am I to conclude it’s a good thing, having witnessed the phenomenon become a regular occurance in our sky over only a few years time?
March 23, 2013 at 12:06 pm
Cookie
ConChemtrails give me a headache. I want to know the moisture that they steal from here, where do the contrails end up in all this wind? Who gets the moisture? I also still want to know why didn’t Estelle Fennell call the show instead of having Kathleen Creager call? And hey there That Other Anonymous. Guess we will know soon how the lawsuit thingy is going to shake out. I still hopeful that the judge says the county did fulfill HumCpr’s PRA. I didn’t know there was such a thing as lawyer computer software. Still don’t see how county attorneys’ could use such a thing as they probably work on so many different things at one time. Would keeping track on software be so time consuming as to be a cumulative waste of time?
March 23, 2013 at 4:51 pm
Cookie
“Many title firms in escrow states refuse to close double escrows, complaining about covert dealings and corrupt appraisals and loans.”
“Double closings and simultaneous closings are ways to close real estate deals without using your money and still getting paid.”(Bob McKee did not put up any of his own money for the Tooby Ranch sale.)
Just shows a little more about the shady dealings of Bob McKee.
“None of the Supervisors made that claim in their comments before voting. They simply said that we needed to lower the burden of fees for development. If it was more than their fair share, can you show me how?” I certainly don’t read it in the simple sentence which was stricken.”(Removing that simple sentence is so developer/Bob McKee/HumCPR friendly it is disgusting. Estelle Fennell showing us she truly is bought and paid for.)
March 23, 2013 at 4:58 pm
That Other Anonymous
“In other words, Kathleen Creager was the one who was misleading us all. Not Daniel Mintz’s headline.”
I’d have to go back and listen to Kathleen’s words, but there’s no question that the headline on the Daniel Mintz article was misleading (at least the one in the McKinleyville Press was — I don’t have a copy of the Independent handy, so if that one was different, feel free to let me know). The headline said “SUPERVISORS SUPPORT REDUCING DEVELOPER COSTS.” But that’s not what they voted to do. They voted to not increase developer costs. Calling that a vote to “reduce developer costs” is misleading in the same way as claiming that voting against a tax cut means you’re voting to “raise taxes.”
March 23, 2013 at 5:15 pm
Anonymous
“It’s the biggest wake up call in our lifetime, that governments are covertly manipulating the very weather out of necessity.”
Or, alternatively, the “chem-trail” hysteria is just a demonstration of the power of illusory correlation and confirmation bias operating in the service of a paranoid conspiratorial mindset.
March 23, 2013 at 6:36 pm
Cookie
“They simply said that we needed to lower the burden of fees for development” This is what Eric’s interpretation is.
March 23, 2013 at 7:24 pm
Cookie
Supes balk at developer impact fees, infrastructure discussion continues March 25
Virginia Graziani/Redwood Times
Posted: 03/19/2013 09:44:49 AM PDT
Humboldt County supervisors tackled the Infrastructure Element of the county General Plan Update at their hearing last Monday, March 11.
Underlying much of the discussion was the question of who should pay for the impacts of new development on existing infrastructure. The answer from the majority of the board, so far, is, “Not the developers.”
March 23, 2013 at 7:36 pm
Cookie
Independent Headline–GPU: Supes Support Cutting Developer Costs.
“The county’s General Plan update is changing direction as a majority of the Board of Supervisors supports deleting or changing policies that would charge new development for service costs”.
“I just don’t see putting these extra burdens on people who are trying to make things happen”(Estelle Fennell quote)
In my mind, by deleting this sentence: ” “New development shall pay the proportional cost of providing infrastructure and services as needed to serve the development”, they are reducing, cutting, getting rid of, developer costs. Completely.
March 23, 2013 at 9:51 pm
Forest Queen
http://aircrap.org/thrives-kimberly-gamble-will-succeed-stopping-chemtrails/336920/
March 23, 2013 at 10:00 pm
Forest Queen
Stop Spraying Us! Peaceful Protest in front of San Francisco City Hall
March 27, 2013 11:00 a.m.
March 23, 2013 at 10:24 pm
That Other Anonymous
Cookie,
The county has existing developer fees. As part of the General Plan Update process, there was a proposal on the table to increase those fees. The Supervisors voted down that proposal. They did not vote to “reduce” or “cut” the existing developer fees, they voted to reject a proposal that would have increased those fees. That’s why the headlines are misleading. Rejecting a proposal to increase something is not the same as reducing something.
Just like we have existing tax rates, and if there was a proposal on the table to increase those tax rates, and the Supervisors voted that proposal down, that would mean that they had voted to not increase taxes, not that they voted to reduce the existing tax rates. If, following that vote, a newspaper headline said that the Supervisors voted to “reduce taxes,” that would be misleading in the same way.
Want to argue that the development fees should be higher, and that the way the majority of Supervisors voted was not in the best interest of the community as a whole? Go for it. There are some pretty persuasive arguments that can be made in that direction. But the claim that they voted to “reduce” or “cut” developer fees is just factually inaccurate, and as such, not a basis for honest criticism.
On the other hand, if you don’t care if what you’re saying is true or not, then saying “they voted to reduce developer fees!” is probably a more effective way to get poorly informed people all riled up — certainly more so than the somewhat less compelling (but accurate) statement that “they voted against increasing developer fees.” So, given the politics, I’m not surprised to see that some folks would prefer to make the former claim…its factual inaccuracy notwithstanding. But to those who are paying attention, making that claim once reveals a lack of information, and continuing to make that claim once the information has been provided would reveal a lack of integrity. The information has now been provided. So there we are.
March 24, 2013 at 7:47 am
Anonymous
That Other Anonymous @ 10:24, I understand your argument but you should think of it in economic terms rather than literary terms. The board is deciding to remove a literary passage from legislature that effects economic activity. I would typically inject here something along the lines that “sustainable forestry” should always and only be refered to as “perpetual logging” when cutting down trees for profit is involved…it’s on the same token, as the battle of words in our own government continues to screw with everybody. This instance is no exception.
The cost of living index is as real to the economy as mud is to ecology. Costs will go up. Period. It’s the profit formula. If I continue to earn minimum wage and the government doesn’t increase my wage as the cost of living increases (transportation food rent taxes etc), the government will have, in fact, reduced my income. Only bullshitters would want to argue otherwise. I will be making the exact same amount of money but the money will be worth less. As with this issue, the cost of services around new development will increase over time. The real community cost of dealing with the new commercial waste, human waste, vehicle waste, human services, building maintenance, transportation medical police food gas water cotton and lamp oil will all increase. Meanwhile, the people who introduced and profited from all the new infrastructure and its subsequent population will have wiped their hands free of the mess they made after profiting handsomely from the whole deal. And the cycle will repeat as it always has, given that “development” is how they make their fortunes. The supervisors live very comfortably, they are out of touch. Their comforts of living are a-typical. All the budget shortcomings of today could have been prevented had developers not been cohorting with our government to cash in on increasing humboldt county’s population of “consumers”. They aren’t looking at the general population as peers, but like some sort of sim city video game avatars forced to deal with the growing mess being created by their own local government around them.
March 24, 2013 at 8:08 am
Anonymous
Anonymous 5:15 wrote: “Or, alternatively, the “chem-trail” hysteria is just a demonstration of the power of illusory correlation and confirmation bias operating in the service of a paranoid conspiratorial mindset.”
That sounds like what you must be doing to deny the existence of something that’s right in front of your face. Over your own head, actually. I’ve always been a skywatcher. Since a little child. Months straight of maxfield parish sunsets are long gone from california. I learned about “chem trails” around the year 2000, but simply didn’t see any. On the internet were people talking about them primarily from the midwest and overseas. Over time, beginning mid-0′s, planes leaving horizon-to-horizon “contrails” that would fog out into gigantic bands across the sky started showing up in humboldt’s skies. I’m always sky watching, but still wasn’t seeing many. Weeks, months apart. A plane here, a plane there, very questionable as a phenomenon. Over the last few years, however, it’s become an undeniable activity. I suggest you begin paying attention and relating what you see. I don’t bite hysteria and am no “conspiracy theorist”. I’m only relating what I see with my own two eyes, and for myself try to understand what’s going on.
March 24, 2013 at 9:09 am
Cookie
Hi That Other Anonymous!
Show me in words please,that the vote was about voting down “a proposal to raise developer fees”. My interpretation of what I think what I heard was they voted down a STUDY of proportional fees. Why did they vote that down? Things cost more to maintain when there are more people. How many years old are the existing developer fees? When was the last time they went up like a cost of living increase? And you still ignore the deletion of this sentence:
“New development shall pay the proportional cost of providing infrastructure and services as needed to serve the development”,
What does that sentence mean to you? NEW DEVELOPMENT SHALL PAY being the key words to me. That says to me that unscrupulous developers are gonna say we don’t have to pay fees for NEW development. Cutting developer costs. They may as well say “NEW DEVELOPMENT SHALL NOT PAY.” I am pretty thick skulled, some say dense, but those words seem pretty clear to me. By deleting them, well, what does that mean to you? I go back and forth now as to whether the headline is misleading or not. Either of these headlines or yours are good. I would like to know why BOTH these articles have the same idea that, well, this quote from the Redwood Times: “Underlying much of the discussion was the question of who should pay for the impacts of new development on existing infrastructure. The answer from the majority of the board, so far, is, “Not the developers.”(Who said “Not the developers?)
Did you listen to Kathleen Creager again? Or call her or Estelle Fennell to ask about this? What did they say to you?
March 24, 2013 at 9:35 am
Ed Voice
Maybe Eric could start a new thread about the question(s) he raised on his radio show concerning who does pay the cost (short and long term) of new Development & Infrastructure, Environmental fee’s, Planning cost, Application fee’s etc. I thought he posed an excellent question coming from a Community Park Board member.
March 24, 2013 at 10:14 am
Eric Kirk
Absolutely the Park should, and will, pay for any burdens on infrastructure it may impose.
March 24, 2013 at 11:06 am
Ed Voice
That’s great to hear Eric. Does that also include the Park Board’s share of cost for CEQA for Annexation process, that would authorize and allow new infrastructure for Municipal services at the Park?
March 24, 2013 at 12:42 pm
That Other Anonymous
“And you still ignore the deletion of this sentence: ‘New development shall pay the proportional cost of providing infrastructure and services as needed to serve the development’”
If that provision was part of existing law, and the Supervisors voted to repeal it, that would be one thing. But it wasn’t part of existing law, it was a proposed change to existing law.
I’m not sure if you don’t understand the tax policy analogy, or whether you’re just ignoring it. But I’ll go ahead and offer a different analogy, in this case one firmly rooted in a current policy debate unfolding in Eureka:
Minimum wage in Eureka is currently $8 per hour. Recently the City Council voted against a proposal to increase the minimum wage (for employers with more than 25 employees) to $12 per hour. So the minimum wage in Eureka remains $8 per hour. So, which headline would be more accurate:
“City Council Votes to Reduce Minimum Wage.”
or
“City Council Votes to Reject Proposed Increase in Minimum Wage.”
Clearly the latter headline would be accurate, and the former headline would be inaccurate, and misleading.
March 24, 2013 at 1:49 pm
Cookie
Of course, yes,, the latter headline is more accurate in your head line analogy. SO now the question is this, you said the deleted sentence wasn’t part of existing law. So where is the policy that states that development shall pay it’s proportional cost? You said this:”The county has existing developer fees.” I asked this:Things cost more to maintain when there are more people. How many years old are the existing developer fees? When was the last time they went up like a cost of living increase?”
I also asked this:Show me in words please,that the “vote was about voting down a proposal to raise developer fees”(the words in quotes are yours). Thanks for a really interesting and thought provoking conversation.
March 24, 2013 at 1:52 pm
Cookie
The words I am asking for in that last paragraph would be from the supes.Here again, I thought it was voting down a STUDY of developers paying their proportional share. I mean, if there was a hell of a possibility that the costs would go down from such a study, Fennell, Sundberg, Bass, and Bohn AND developers would vote FOR the study. Yes?
March 24, 2013 at 2:34 pm
Anonymous
The difference in specifics around your example, that other anonymous @ 12:24, is that the county is removing passages from legislation, not a third party trying to alter it altogether. It’s very ambiguous but very important languiage at that. The board of supervisors are kissing developer ass bigtime.
March 24, 2013 at 4:10 pm
Cookie
And then there is this that someone said that is what I was trying to say
The cost of living index is as real to the economy as mud is to ecology. Costs will go up. Period. It’s the profit formula. If I continue to earn minimum wage and the government doesn’t increase my wage as the cost of living increases (transportation food rent taxes etc), the government will have, in fact, reduced my income.”
SO not studying proportional fair share is reducing the cost/fees. Yes?
March 24, 2013 at 4:36 pm
Not A Native
First of all, a tax analogy is misleading because impact fees aren’t a tax, they are a charge for services and capabilities the county provides to residential propertes.
Focusing only on the fee amount and neglecting the purposes is ignoring the real issue, the use of fees to fund necessary public works. Using the headline analogy accurately: “Council votes against maintaining the purchasing power of minimum wage county workers or analysing the value of their productivity”.
March 24, 2013 at 6:14 pm
That Other Anonymous
Yes, “Council Votes Against Maintaining the Purchasing Power of Minimum Wage Workers in Eureka” would be an accurate statement, but probably a rather poor headline, as it fails to name the specific action that took place, namely that the Council voted against raising the minimum wage.
The headline “City Council Votes to Reject Proposed Increase in Minimum Wage” would certainly be accurate, and names the specific action the Council took, but it does not include the context that without the increase, purchasing power will continue to fall. But that context could (and if it was up to me, would) be included in the article itself.
None of that changes the fact that “City Council Votes to Reduce the Minimum Wage” would be an inaccurate and misleading headline.
Same with the headline that claimed “Supervisors Support Reducing Developer Costs.” Just not accurate. “Supervisors Reject Proposed Increase in Developer Costs” would be accurate, but obviously not all-inclusive in terms of context. So the article could (and should) include that context — in this case, the claim that the current developer contribution are inadequate. If you can figure out a way to include that context in the headline, while still keeping the headline accurate (and concise enough to be a headline), then great. Not being able to do that does not justify using an inaccurate headline like “”Supervisors Support Reducing Developer Costs.”
March 24, 2013 at 7:05 pm
Not A Native
Forget your sidetracking about headlines already. Its a bogus issue unless your belief is the majority of people are uninformed and unwilling to read a newspaper article. I don’t.
The issue is: what are the costs of development(conversion of land use to residential) to the public(government) and how are those costs to be financed? Eric has made the case that development has been subsidized, in many locales including HumCo. That means public money is expended for the particular benefit of those who develop property, not those who raised the money. Its a lie to imply that allocating development costs in a transparent way is like a tax. And in the context of local politics, its a lie that exploits ideological beliefs(government is corrupt, taxation is theft) to obscure how essential public works are financed.
March 24, 2013 at 7:57 pm
That Other Anonymous
“Forget your sidetracking about headlines already. Its a bogus issue unless your belief is the majority of people are uninformed and unwilling to read a newspaper article.”
People are better informed by accurate headlines than inaccurate ones. The “sidetracking” has only occurred due to the convoluted attempts to defend the clearly inaccurate headline.
“Its a lie to imply that allocating development costs in a transparent way is like a tax”
I didn’t claim that the developer fees are “like a tax” any more than I claimed that developer fees are “like a minimum wage.” In both cases these were just analogies used to point out that voting to not increase something is not the same thing as voting to “reduce” something. Just as not increasing the price of bananas is not the same thing as reducing the price of bananas. That doesn’t mean I’m saying that development fees are “like bananas” expect in the sense that, like anything else we might discuss, not increasing their price is not the same as reducing their price.
As to the substance of the issue, as I said back in my very first comment on this topic (March 22, 2013 at 11:33 am):
“By the way, I think it’s perfectly valid to argue that developers should pay more than they do now. But let’s just be clear that that’s what this proposal was about. It was not about “reducing” what they pay now.”
March 24, 2013 at 7:57 pm
Cookie
Supervisors vote to not study developers impact on existing Infrastructure and on going maintainence costs. ?
March 24, 2013 at 8:03 pm
Cookie
Where in the heck did the proposal say it was about developers paying more than they do now?
From Mark Lovelace(nothing says anything about raising fees)
Hi Eric. I just listened to the show. The caller you referenced was unclear on the issues. This was only a policy, which would be implemented through a fee study. The Board would have the ultimate say on how the fees are structured and what they are intended to cover,but it’s important to understand that fees can only pay their proportional share, as determined through a nexus study, and cannot be used to generate general revenue. All of the specifics would have been determined in the future.
Eric, the policy that was deleted in its entirety stated only “New development shall pay the proportional cost of providing infrastructure and services as needed to serve the development”
March 24, 2013 at 8:05 pm
Cookie
I have to admit I’m lost and so confused now.
March 24, 2013 at 9:26 pm
Not A Native
You’re back to faulty analogys, again ignoring the effect of changes of costs. When the cost of a good rises and its price doesn’t, then the price has gone down. Since you recently acknowledged that point, either you’re very forgetful or being disingenuous. So stop analogizing and address the actual circumstances.
The vote was to not study the public costs of development and determine what portion of the costs are financed by development fees. The vote keeps the dollar amount of fees constant while the costs of mitigating the impacts of development are increasing. Its accurate to characterize that as reducing fees, because the value of the fees is getting smaller. To claim the fees aren’t being reduced ignores the actual financial calculations people make when trading and developing property.
March 24, 2013 at 11:14 pm
That Other Anonymous
“The vote keeps the dollar amount of fees constant…”
Exactly. Just as the Eureka City Council’s vote kept the dollar amount of the minimum wage constant. Which is why no one in their right mind would defend a headline that said “Council Votes to Reduce Minimum Wage” on an article describing the Council’s action.
And again, sure, I understand the argument that the fees should be raised, because they are currently inadequate, and would need to be raised periodically just keep up with inflation — just like the argument that the minimum wage should be raised because it is currently inadequate, and would need to be raised periodically just to keep up with inflation. So, to me, it seems like a pretty good analogy, as there is a very similar dynamic going on there. It’s easy to claim that something is a “faulty analogy,” but you haven’t identified a “fault.”
I see that reasoning by analogy doesn’t seem to be your strong suit, but, just for fun, I’m going to throw another one out there: Let’s say Redwood Transit is considering a proposal to increase bus fares. They discuss the proposal, but decide against raising the bus fares, and instead decide to maintain fares at their current dollar amount. Would the headline “Redwood Transit Reduces Fares” be appropriate? If you think it would, then it’s a good thing you’re not writing headlines, because there would be some rather disappointed bus riders when they found out that the fares did not go down.
March 25, 2013 at 7:19 am
Anonymous
Stick to what’s important:
Will all costs and subsequent costs of new construction increase? Yes, in every sense of the term.
Would developers have to spend more of their own money if the county didn’t change the language of the law? Yes.
Will developers now have to spend less of their own money in the future as a direct result of the county’s decision to change the language of the law? Yes.
Therefore, the county has reduced developer costs.
Not a third party proposal or hypothetical scenario. An existing law has been changed and as a direct result developers will now spend less money, proportionate and sum total, than they were going to have to spend otherwise.
Why anybody wants to argue with that bottom line is beyond me. Is it fair that the general population gets stuck with and blamed for all the problems created (literally) by developers, when it’s the government who calls all these shots?
“County Kisses Developers’ Asses Again” is the headline I would run.
March 25, 2013 at 11:28 am
Cookie
Eric, PLEASE HELP!
What is your opinion?
Did the supervisors:
1) vote to not increase developer fees
2) vote to cut developer fees
3) vote to not even look at or study developer fees and the impact of new development on existing infrastructure
4) none of the above
March 25, 2013 at 11:37 am
Eric Kirk
Cookie, I haven’t been following the thread, and I haven’t watched the video of the hearing nor read any official documents. However, unless Mark Lovelace made up the wording of what was stricken (which can be easily checked), it looks like number 3 is the most accurate.
I would like to put some elbow grease into the issue. I just don’t have a lot of free time right now.
But it looks like the BOS decided that it doesn’t matter what the impact is on the infrastructure because it’s already too hard on developers/builders to make their efforts profitable due to fees. So in essence, the rest of us should be expected to subsidize their impacts on infrastructure if they exist and exceed current fee rates. Maybe they do and maybe they don’t, but we basically don’t want to know because the primary concern is whether fees of any justification will deter development.
That’s how I read it.
Not that there’s anything new about it. Communities routinely subsidized development until the 1970s when there was the first serious push-back from controlled and smart growth advocates, suggesting that developers should pay and, if possible, pass the costs on to the purchasers.
However, the election results of the past couple of years suggest that the majority in the county believe that we have not had enough development and we have to encourage development. Therefor, socializing the developer costs (while privatizing the profits) may be the best way to meet that mandate. I disagree, but maybe I’m wrong. But my appeal is to call it what it is. Subsidization. Socialism.
March 25, 2013 at 12:03 pm
That Other Anonymous
Anonymous @ 7:19 claimed “An existing law has been changed and as a direct result developers will now spend less money, proportionate and sum total, than they were going to have to spend otherwise.”
No, a proposed change to the General Plan has been voted down. Not an “existing law.” The vote did not “reduce” fees charged to developers.
March 25, 2013 at 12:17 pm
Eric Kirk
I suppose you could say that in real dollars there is a reduced fee. If infrastructure costs have increased, and developers are paying the same rate, then their proportional burden is reduced.
But I think it’s fair to criticize the headline.
March 25, 2013 at 1:16 pm
bolithio
What about increased costs of fuel and construction materials? How does that effect the feasibility of developments and profits of developers?
March 25, 2013 at 1:19 pm
Cookie
Thank you Eric for the clarification. In essence, Estelle Fennell, who champions community discussion, debate, and round table talks, voted to quash any debate on the impact of development on existing infrastructure. I wonder if the general public really knows and understands this vote, and if they did, would they still agree, headlines aside. It sure got confusing for me for awhile. And I agree that in real dollars it is a reduction of fees. I had asked That Other Anonymous to please put post the costs, since (don’t know if you are a he or she) since they had put up a comment somewhere about the county already having fees in place. I wanted to know how old these fees were? Can you do that That Other Anonymous?
Gotta end by saying–in essence, Estelle Fennell, who champions community discussion, voted to quash community debate.
March 25, 2013 at 1:28 pm
Cookie
How does the increase costs of fuel and construction material, like asphalt etc. effect existing infrastructure, and the public works depts?
March 25, 2013 at 1:36 pm
Anonymous
“However, the election results of the past couple of years suggest that the majority in the county believe that we have not had enough development and we have to encourage development.”
The majority of who? Not we the general public, who would prioritize resources toward our own comfort and stability far sooner than building new infrastructure. The majority of county government? Of course! Look who sponsers them! They direct the whole political show, spending tons of money to broadcast false issues of importance in as ambiguous and widely appealing *language* as possible. In reality, new infrastructure is of ZERO priority to existing residents of this county. New infrastructure and mandated population growth are nothing more than burdens on natural and financial resources.
March 25, 2013 at 1:58 pm
That Other Anonymous
Anyone who wants to can watch the discussion at the Board of Supervisors’ Meeting and decide for themselves what took place. Here’s the link to the archived video of the Board meeting:
http://humboldt.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=671
The discussion of IS-P6, the “Fair Share Cost Allocation” provision, begins at 3:33:35 and continues though about 4:07, when the straw vote was taken.
March 25, 2013 at 2:16 pm
That Other Anonymous
A few minutes into the discussion, Supervisor Fennell makes an interesting point: Under Prop 13, longtime homeowners pay much lower property tax rates than new buyers will be paying. So in the property tax revenue part of the picture, it’s new owners who will be “subsidizing” existing owners. Supervisor Lovelace pointed out that the new infrastructure costs will come up front, while the county will not see the full benefits of the increased tax revenue from the new homeowners until some years later. But he did not dispute the point that, overall, the new homeowners will in fact be paying more in property taxes.
March 25, 2013 at 4:12 pm
Eric Kirk
TOA – if that’s the case, then the study should have been allowed so that we could make the appropriate adjustments to help out the new owners. If you’re right, the vote actually hurts the people it was intended to help.
I mean, we certainly don’t want developers and new owners paying more than their fair share, right? The language would have ensured a policy to make sure that everybody pays their fair proportionate share.
March 25, 2013 at 4:49 pm
Eric Kirk
Thank you for the link!
I’m listening, and I think it comes down to Mark’s comments beginning around 3:51:30. Somebody has to pay for the burden on infrastructure. At about 3:57 Estelle makes an impassioned argument that we should not “burden people who are trying to make things happen.” We have to make it easier for them.
Apparently there are already some mitigating fees at the subdivision level. This would put it at the actual construction level. Apparently the idea would have allowed for differentiation in different community districts, which ought to have addressed Estelle’s initial concern that it was unfairly burdening rural projects – the implication that rural projects have little impact on infrastructure.
Nobody addressed Mark’s points, which were made again at 4:00 or thereabout. Ryan didn’t get it and asked him to repeat it.
“One way or another there has to be funding behind it.”
Somebody has to pay for the increased burden on infrastructure. The BOS has decided, at least tentatively, that the community as a whole will cover it, even if you aren’t going to purchase another house.
Estelle says she would support it for major subdivisions, but that really misses the point because even small projects cumulatively impact infrastructure. She says that to hold small time projects accountable for their impact on infrastructure is cost-prohibitive. So we have to finance it for them.
And maybe that’s a rational policy. But let’s call it what it is.
Subsidization.
Socialism.
March 25, 2013 at 5:06 pm
That Other Anonymous
“In essence, Estelle Fennell, who champions community discussion, debate, and round table talks, voted to quash any debate on the impact of development on existing infrastructure.”
Vastly overstated. No one has “quashed” debate and discussion. The discussion continued today, with the Supervisors addressing specific infrastructure impacts including in the areas of fire protection, the need for street lighting, and in-lieu payments to support parks. As the McKinleyville Press article noted “More policies and implementation measures on controversial items like impact fees lie ahead.”
March 25, 2013 at 5:22 pm
Anonymous
Estelle makes an impassioned argument that we should not “burden people who are trying to make things happen.”
Man, I’ve heard that dumb complaint from hoity toity to-do’s so much. Funny how “making things happen” always means big new construction projects to those people.
March 25, 2013 at 5:26 pm
That Other Anonymous
“I had asked That Other Anonymous to please put post the costs, since (don’t know if you are a he or she) since they had put up a comment somewhere about the county already having fees in place. I wanted to know how old these fees were? Can you do that That Other Anonymous?”
Sorry, I don’t know how the county currently determines how much the fees should be, and how long ago the fees were last adjusted. I agree these are good questions, and my suggestion is that you should inquire with county staff.
The fees themselves are not spelled out in the General Plan, so I would assume they are enacted by ordinance, and as such can be changed (including increased) at any time by a vote of the Board. So I don’t think the rejection of that particular language in the General Plan ties the Board’s hands and prevents them from raising those fees in the future. I would say that the discussion they had suggests the current majority does not seem inclined to add these kinds of fees for smaller projects, such as one or two houses.
March 25, 2013 at 5:45 pm
That Other Anonymous
” if that’s the case, then the study should have been allowed so that we could make the appropriate adjustments to help out the new owners.”
That’s assuming the study took the Prop 13 effect into consideration. I don’t know if it would have or not. Perhaps they could have specified that it must? It’s certainly an interesting twist.
March 25, 2013 at 6:08 pm
Cookie
Thanks for the suggestion to call county staff. I will because I really want to know how old these fees are. When I find out I will post it here.
I should have said Estelle Fennell quashed debate on a study on developers impacts on existing infrastructure.
March 25, 2013 at 6:31 pm
Eric Kirk
That’s assuming the study took the Prop 13 effect into consideration. I don’t know if it would have or not. Perhaps they could have specified that it must? It’s certainly an interesting twist.
It would have considered the financial impact of new development proportionate to the existing revenues. There’s no way that Prop 13 couldn’t be taken into account. Whatever the basis of the current rates, that’s what would be calculated.
That it was eliminated before we could even gather the facts suggests that it wasn’t going to matter. New development should not be further burdened by fees, not even to cover the costs they generate for the rest of us. That was the decision.
March 25, 2013 at 7:19 pm
Not A Native
When I hear that Estelle finds only a subgroup of people “make things happen’ and are therefore worthy of being favored in public policy, it reminds me of conservative Republicans finding a subgroup of “job creators” also worthy of favoritism.
Apparently other people, who don’t own capital that can be used as financial collateral are parasitic dependents, vassals to the Monarchs.
March 25, 2013 at 7:44 pm
Cookie
Wonder what Estelle Fennell considers a “small time project”? Her term “people who make things happen” sounds like she is talking about someone like Rob Arkley?
March 26, 2013 at 12:37 pm
Cookie
No information on fees yet. I do have another question though. Listening to the supevisor video that That Other Anonymous put here for us to listen to, this ad hoc group, Why are they given so much weight to their opinions? All the public meetings and public opinions that went into the draft GPU, well, it’s like all that meetings and opinions have been forgotten. I made one public comment. It was scary and nerve wracking. Don’t know that I could do it again. Especially to just say the same thing again. The ad hoc has split decisions just like the PC. Why is Virginia Bass so totally looking to this group for direction?
The video is so interesting to listen to. And it has me asking more questions(for later).
March 26, 2013 at 8:53 pm
Ed Voice
Hey Eric, any comment about today’s Redwood Times article and the Park Boards development plans to burden GSD with CEQA costs?
March 26, 2013 at 9:20 pm
Eric Kirk
Wow! Is that what the Park Board plans to do? I must have missed that meeting.
March 26, 2013 at 10:23 pm
Ed Voice
The Park Board requested to be included in the GSD Annexation process, which includes CEQA review and initial study. However, the Park Board does not want to pay the Parks fair share or even half of the GSD Annexation cost to be annexed.. Weird you didn’t know about that, since I sent you the information from the GSD Board meeting and your name was included in the letters to GSD.. Funny that an estimate of $16,000 was included just for the Community Park, not to mention the $6000 GSD already spent in the first Annexation IS/MND that is going to be re-written and re-circulated later this year because the first one didn’t fly as an MND. I think you were at the meeting, the lights were on, but nobody’s home?
The issue is the same as the issues in this thread concerning what you raised in your KMUD talk show. The Park Board wants the local public agency (GSD), that is supported and funded by property tax and ratepayers to pickup the tab for the Park Boards development plans, e,g, being annexed into the GSD jurisdictional service boundary at NO Cost to the Park Board, only the Community. This is news to you?
March 27, 2013 at 8:06 am
Eric Kirk
So can you quote anyone associated with the park as saying that we plan to force the GSD to pay for CEQA costs associated with the annexation of the Community Park?
I don’t know what you mean by the “First Annexation.” We are in the Sphere of Influence, but we have not been annexed.
Do you understand the difference?
And despite your attempts to force the GSD to undergo a redundate EIR just to get us into the SOI, which LAFco unanimously agreed would have been ridiculous, there are no CEQA costs for including us in the SOI.
You know, you guys really made yourselves look silly at the meeting. You revealed that you didn’t understand the process, and that you really don’t know what you’re talking about. I was grateful for Mike Losey’s comments in particular, because it really is about blanket opposition to anything that just might, even at some future date, be of any benefit to the park. That you guys don’t even know how you come across is really sad.
March 27, 2013 at 8:10 am
Forest Queen
Humboldt County Statement of Net Assets, pg. 15 CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) June 30, 2012 –
Total Liabilities & Net Assets:
$504,263,384
Nine months later (March 2013) you can bet your bottom doll hair it’s MUCH more.
Pass the lube.
March 27, 2013 at 8:15 am
Eric Kirk
When I hear that Estelle finds only a subgroup of people “make things happen’ and are therefore worthy of being favored in public policy, it reminds me of conservative Republicans finding a subgroup of “job creators” also worthy of favoritism.
Apparently other people, who don’t own capital that can be used as financial collateral are parasitic dependents, vassals to the Monarchs.
I think there’s just been a conceptual frame that the community in general is responsible for all infrastructure and we don’t think in terms of a particular impact of any particular stakeholder. The wealthy figure that they pay more than their share of income tax (even if the benefit they derive from government services is more proportionate to their wealth as a whole rather than their income in any given year) and since they’re paying for it anyway, some of the money ought to be spent for their benefit, yada, yada, yada.
But what they won’t admit is that they’re abandoning the free market approach, which is to spread the cost around to the consumer base rather than the tax base. And if what they are saying is correct, then development is not a profitable business absent subsidy. And considering that housing starts are the predominant measure of a healthy economy, that’s a very profound statement.
And if that’s the case, I’m not necessarily opposed to subsidies for development. But let’s then admit that’s what we’re doing and fashion a specific policy to promote the types of development most beneficial to the economy and the community as a whole. Otherwise, the socialist policy is haphhazard and slipshod, which is how socialism has failed in so many contexts, while it has succeed well in others.
And I welcome people like Rex to the socialist cause. Someone should request that the Internationale be sung at the next BOS meeting.
March 27, 2013 at 8:58 am
Anonymous
“But what they won’t admit is that they’re abandoning the free market approach.”
But they’re not trying to build a free market in the first place, they just want to build. Why would you allow yourself to paint some kind of societal scenario around their individual intentions, when the tangible facts of the matter for literally everybody else are simply new construction and more people? That’s how they make their money!
March 27, 2013 at 9:40 am
Eric Kirk
I don’t think anythings that pat. Motivations are always mixed – blend of self-interest with general good concerns. In fact, the largest egos equate the two.
I agree though. Building more residences with no economic base to support increased residency other than retirement money is narrow-sighted at the very least.
March 27, 2013 at 9:51 am
Not A Native
Eric, I understand your point and agree it has some merit. But you’re assuming a context that I think misses most of the actual local dynamic.
You’re tacitly assuming that the ‘project’ being pursued by these officials is some type of overall ‘common good’. Perhaps consistent with the legal principle of deciding issues on the basis of ‘the greatest good to the most people’. So, your strategy is makeinga case for an accurate and consistent application of that principle.
But I believe a different ‘project’ is being pursued, competitive self interest to maintain and enhance the existing power relationships within the community. Particularly, to preserve local dynastic derived differentials of wealth and authority. So the ideological issue of ‘subsidies within a free market’ isn’t in play. the concern is for directing support to appropriate individuals, the ones who ‘make things happen’(in truth, as you’ve pointed out, they aren’t necessarily more able, they may make things happen only when privileged with subsidies). Elsewhere, you’ve also perceived this as a contest for authority between ‘new money’ and ‘old money’.
So, if I’m more correct, the local game isn’t “Building a Mountain”, its “King of the Mountain”. And your appeals for transparency, rationality, and consistency in awarding public subsidies will have little effect and go unheeded. And in fact you would be counterproductive, diverting attention from confronting the actual motivators of officials. Talk with your supervisor directly and ascertain whether my point has merit.
March 27, 2013 at 10:45 am
Ed Voice
Reply to Eric March 27, 2013 at 8:06 am:
The public record speaks for itself from GSD meetings. You have your opinion and I have the facts. The facts are very clear. Maybe you should go to the next GSD meeting tomorrow or read the GSD agenda Board packet. You never answered my question, only responded by putting words in my mouth and inaccurately quoted someone and put your own spin on it.
Why not have a Park meeting and we can talk about it like adults and neighboring property owners to share the facts and concerns we all have. The Park Board pays Lobato $40,000 a year to deal with Park issues, why not have a public meeting? its been over 2 years now, allot has happened. You want the Community to pay for your development, but you don’t want to have public meetings to talk about it, go figure.
The bottom line, the Park Board wants GSD to pay for their inclusion into the GSD service boundary, that is called an annexation process, including a CEQA review, what part of this don’t you want to understand.
March 27, 2013 at 10:54 am
Cookie
I think I remember hearing Kathryn Lobato say the park did not want to pay costs associated with the park getting water. Someone from the GSD responded that the park is a private business concern, and the GSD should not have to pay. Or something to that effect.
March 27, 2013 at 1:02 pm
Isabelle Ringing
” I was grateful for Mike Losey’s comments in particular, because it really is about blanket opposition to anything that just might, even at some future date, be of any benefit to the park. That you guys don’t even know how you come across is really sad.” -Eric
It proves that Mike Losey doesn’t even bother to read comments the public submits to LAFCo or he would have never said anything so stupid and so obviously politically motivated.
Clearly, it is about getting the assets of the Park Board in the water and sewer district, no matter what you have to say to get there.. Just think how much that land will be worth once it’s in the district. And already divided into conveniently saleable pieces!
March 27, 2013 at 1:29 pm
Anonymous
I don’t think the majority put much thought into it at all. It was put on the agenda because some loud developer voices wanted that sentence cut out of the general plan update once and for all and they had the votes to do it. The fix was in. You could tell from the awkward silence at the beginning.
March 27, 2013 at 1:31 pm
Anonymous
I do agree that motivations are mixed and that the Supervisors may even believe that they are acting in the community’s best interests. But they didn’t.
March 27, 2013 at 2:24 pm
Cookie
Yes. Yes. Yes. HumCPR paid for this vote. And Bob McKee
March 27, 2013 at 5:00 pm
Not A Native
Slightly relevant to this topic, considering Eric mentioned socialism, free markets and benefits to the community as a whole.
Two news items of contrasting trends:
Trappings of Power Are Scaled Back for China’s High-Rolling Elite
Hedge Fund Titan Buys Hamptons Property for $60 Million
March 27, 2013 at 5:43 pm
Cookie
Ok, so I have a question related to politics. The Prosperity 2012 report just issued. Says Humboldt is doing grand in creating good paying jobs and new businesses’. Didn’t both Estelle Fennell and Rex Bohn run a platform that said the exact opposite? And our biggest age demographic is 20-29 yr olds? Didn’t both these same two people say all the young people were moving out of Humboldt because of the lack of jobs? And the bus that Clif Clendenen worked so hard on getting is doing great? What has Estelle Fennell done so far?
March 27, 2013 at 6:41 pm
Boudicca
The March 26 Independent quotes Estelle Fennell at LAFCo saying that the park’s current zoning “allows five to 20 housing units per acre.” WRONG!
The land was designated for one unit per five to 20 acres on part of it and one unit per 20 acres on the other park parcel.
Was the Independent wrong or is Estelle just putting out some misinformation for the benefit of her pals?
It’s hilarious that the park board and their political appointees always act like if the park board doesn’t get their way the park is just gonna break out in houses spontaneously.
Who is the park board protecting the park land from? After all, they own it.
March 27, 2013 at 10:43 pm
Not A Native
In fairness cookie, Estelle has been in office only three months. But she has done something. Installed CPR principals into the planning commission. One of them, Ulansey is Eric’s friend, as told to the NCJournal. In this week’s Journal’s cover story, Eric gives the background that he alluded to during the campaign. Clif was given a political ultimatum; vote my way or I’ll raise funds to oust you. So cookie, what Estelle has done so far is payoff and payback….
March 28, 2013 at 8:34 am
Cookie
So much for her telling us “I am my own woman”. The vote of deleting that sentence about proportional fair share only benefits developers.
March 28, 2013 at 8:45 am
Ed Voice
Quote from this week’s Journal’s Cover Story:
“Property rights, of course, are a complicated thing. Does my right to do anything I want on my property let me dump a reeking cow carcass in the creek that provides my downstream neighbor’s drinking water? Does my right to build a new subdivision entitle me to create a bunch more traffic on your quiet street, or do I have to make amends by paying for a traffic signal? In public policy circles, liberals sometimes accuse conservative business people of wanting to socialize costs while privatizing benefits. That is, taxpayers pay for the costs of growth, while landowners or business owners pocket the profit. Developers of big projects often counter that growth helps everyone, creating more jobs and a stronger economy. Landowners often say that limiting what they can do on their property is pretty much the same as taking it without paying for it. (This was the position the other HumCPR official who is now a planning commissioner, Bob Morris, took in 2003 with an unsuccessful lawsuit against the federal government for preventing him from cutting down old-growth redwood trees.) From all sides, it’s a complicated equation — who has the right to use his own property in ways that make a neighbor miserable? And how miserable? Is a river drained dry OK? Are toxins in the groundwater OK? When does it stop being fair?”
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/news/2013/03/28/humcpr-rising/
March 28, 2013 at 10:27 am
Eric Kirk
I posted a link to the article on the main page. Ryan did a great job, I think.
March 28, 2013 at 10:59 am
Not A Native
You know, I’ll eat crow and allow that even though he’s no progressive, if Eric were to vie for supervisor in the First, I’d contribute the maximum allowed.
I haven’t followed the discussion of County campaign spending limits, but wonder if its connected to the conservative conquest. Hey Eric , its $86K+bennies, you could continue most of your practice, and you wouldn’t have to decline receiving full salary like Mark does.!
March 28, 2013 at 11:14 am
Eric Kirk
NAN, even if I was remotely interested in running for office, which I’m not (too many skeletons in my closet – I shoplifted a candy bar back in the 6th grade on a dare from Doug Powell), I live in Rex Bohn’s district now. It’s going to be a long time before that district is open to anyone to the left of FA Hayek to represent it.
March 28, 2013 at 11:19 am
Forest Queen
You guys do know that you’re discussing Robber Barons, right? We should just find a lot of pirates, assign some to the people, and everyone could sit on their shoulders and continue to repeat what is being said. I should start a Pirates ‘R’ Us, or a Parrot Shelter. Both are money makers! I know, I’ll create an Express Trust for this idea. Then place it on a UCC, even though I’m sovereign. O.K. I’m having too much fun with this idea.
“Experience has shown that even under the best forms of government, those entrusted with authority have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” Jefferson
March 28, 2013 at 11:39 am
Eric Kirk
Experience has also shown that Thomas Jefferson, much like Albert Einstein, is very often quoted out of context.
March 28, 2013 at 12:10 pm
Forest Queen
You can do better than that Eric.
The system is corrupted and the courts are broken, the men and women in these laboring positions are robots and do not posses the brains that the freedom community does. If you’re still hovering in the land of political promises, remember that political promises are the most insecure promises made. Sticking to the existing system is unrealistic.
You can quote me.
March 28, 2013 at 12:21 pm
Eric Kirk
The system was worse back in Jefferson’s day. He owned slaves.
March 28, 2013 at 12:38 pm
Forest Queen
It’s the same system, and MUCH MUCH worse today, it’s a global emergency.
We can’t correct it if we all believe a lie.
March 28, 2013 at 3:35 pm
Not A Native
WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE, WE’RE GONNA ALL DIE, WE’RE DYING ALL GONNA, DYING ALL GONNA WE Obi Wan
March 28, 2013 at 4:58 pm
Forest Queen
Oh Not A Native, you make me laugh. Of course we’re all going to pass on – all of nature does.
So as not to crash and burn, it takes three years to turn this ship around. A new economy can arise from the death of the old, if . . . as a matter of conscious evolution we consciously choose to create a system that is radically different from the one that is dying all around us.
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
Buckmaster Fuller
March 29, 2013 at 9:41 am
Forest Queen
Apologies, I can’t post on the lengthy ‘Quick Notes’ page.
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/03/us-army-captain-dhs-prepping-for-war-on.html
March 29, 2013 at 8:18 pm
Ed Voice
Eric, you should have gone to the GSD meeting yesterday evening, the Park Board is incurring quite the burden for the Community. Now, the Park Board wants the power drop for the new GSD water treatment plant to be underground, instead of overhead, thus costing the District another $10K to $12K. And when the issue came up about the Park Board’s cost for the annexation, the Park Board has not paid a dime. Guess we will read about it in the paper next week.
March 29, 2013 at 10:14 pm
Eric Kirk
Well the Park hasn’t paid anything because it’s not in the annexation. It won’t be until we apply for it.
As for the power drop, yes, we prefer that as a park we don’t have lines overhead. We’re more than willing to grant the easement, which normally involves a monetary transaction. All we’re asking is to maintain the Park’s natural beauty. As someone who is supposedly concerned about “development,” you ought to support the position. But really your obsession is attacking the park at any opportunity.
March 30, 2013 at 1:00 am
Ed Voice
As you are well aware Eric, I have been opposing the new water treatment plant location for years, but again you like to twist the facts and put words in my mouth, but hey, you are good at it, I’ll give you that much.
You are worried about a couple hundred feet of overhead 3 phase, which is being dropped away from the Park property, with the existing PG&E service lines still running the length of the property, both north and south overhead? Come on, you can do better than that!
It was the Park Board that lobbied for and with GSD to put that new water treatment plant down at the Park to begin with, hoping to make $25K on an easement agreement and get water from GSD. However, the site and location changed a couple hundred feet to the east and put it on McKee’s property instead, remember?
That 3 phase drop is coming from a PG&E pole next to the McKee service road that borders the Park property on the East side below 101, natural beauty my ass. The Park Board is using that line as a way to leverage money out of GSD, so you don;t have to pay for your annexation, that is the real reason..What do you bet, if GSD gives you money, lets say $10K to $15K you will let them have overhead lines!
If the Park Board is so concerned about “natural beauty”, have you ever looked at what’s across the river, that is also Park property. That big gaping hole from mining in the side of the mountain upstream from the bridge and what’s on the river bar down stream of the bridge, that is Park property too, right, you lease that Park property for surface mining, instream gravel extraction and a Cement Batch Plant operation, right!
I think you are confused, I am not attacking the Park, I am criticizing the Park Board and holding them accountable for their actions or inaction’s, which ever the case may be…..
March 30, 2013 at 8:41 am
Cookie
Geeze Eric, hate to say that I agree with Ed Voice. The park, which is a privately owned park, should have to pay for costs of the power drop, and any costs to GSD for water. You board members are making all the decisions. You board members should be the ones paying for those decisions.
March 30, 2013 at 9:37 am
Cookie
And a question on the power drop. PGE isn’t going to spend $25k on your power drop, even though the park is granting them an easement in return. Unless PGE thinks they are going to get that money back and then some. Which means that power drop will equate to development. That is not a good thing Eric.
March 30, 2013 at 10:02 am
Eric Kirk
I would call you a liar Ed, except that I think you actually start believing your own crap.
For the record, we don’t want money from the GSD. We want the line underground.
‘
March 30, 2013 at 10:58 am
Ed Voice
Do you want me to post the letters and email between GSD and the Park Board Eric? Most of what I submitted to the LAFCo commission included those documents. Sometimes the truth hurts and you have to do the right thing to make it right. Calling someone a liar shows the extent you and the Park Board will go. You are confusing crap with documented facts. And BTW, its not my own crap, its the crap your Board has been into since day one.
March 30, 2013 at 11:17 am
Not A Native
No interest in this, but just trying to follow the facts. Eric, are you saying that the Park board offered to give GSD an easement at no cost with the only condition that the line be underground?
March 30, 2013 at 11:39 am
Ed Voice
Yeah, I want to read your response to Not A Native’s question too.
March 31, 2013 at 9:12 am
Not A Native
Eric has clearly decided to not respond. Well, no response is a response. So the answer must be that the Park Board has asked for money AND an underground line. What they might be willing to negotiate is unknown.
I don’t understand the perceived or desired relationship between the Park and GSD but hope its cooperative….
March 31, 2013 at 10:21 am
Ed Voice
Not A Native, a better way of putting it: the perceived public or desired private partnership between the Park Board and GSD. Tomorrow (having Easter with the Grandkids today) I will post some email between the two since the beginning that will shed some light about the relationship you are asking about. Eric is new to the Park Board and may not know the extent and long private partnership between the Park Board and GSD.
As Supervisor Fennell stated at that LAFCo hearing on March 20th concerning GSD:
“Yes, there is a checkered past – let’s call it that,”
March 31, 2013 at 10:28 am
Eric Kirk
For the record, what Estelle was referring to was the inclusion of service to areas outside its SOI – having nothing to do with the park. Had to do with an inadvertent placing of the cart before the horse, something the GSD is trying to rectify. They’re not the only services district which made this error. In fact, the Weott District made a similar error, and LAFco decided (with one vote opposing) to approve the extension of the SOI after the fact. Don’t conflate the issues Ed.
March 31, 2013 at 2:27 pm
That Other Anonymous
The latest Times-Standard article on the HumCPR lawsuit to force the County to comply with the California Public Records Acts and disclose the costs of land use related litigation, puts the figure at $3.5 million for outside counsel (mostly for the Tooby Ranch lawsuit). The article notes that the amount of time (and therefore the costs) of staff attorney and other County staff time related to these lawsuits has not been disclosed, and that the County’s claim is that they can’t say, because they don’t know, because they didn’t keep track.
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_22910821/ten-years-3-5-million-lawsuit-fees-costs?source=rss
The article quotes Supervisor Rex Bohn defending the outside counsel costs and the way the County (doesn’t) keep track of staff time devoted to lawsuits. He laments the amount of money that has been spent on lawsuits, but makes reference to “frivolous” lawsuits filed against the County, which is interesting because the article says that the great majority of the costs for outside counsel have been related to the Tooby Ranch lawsuit, which the County initiated and pursued. (Notwithstanding the NCJ’s dark musings about HumCPR’s supposedly vast string-pulling capabilities, Bohn certainly doesn’t seem to be following the “party line” from HumCPR.)
Bohn also says that while the County could keep track of the time its staff attorneys spend on litigation, according to him that would be “somewhat of an imposition” on the staff. But the article also notes that Mendecino County does keep track of the amount of time their staff spends on specific lawsuits.
The article does not note that there are upcoming court hearings on whether the information the County has now provided is sufficient or not. As I recall, there is a preliminary hearing coming up in about a week, and unless the parties (the County and HumCPR) reach an agreement in the meantime, I believe there is supposed to be an evidentiary hearing a couple of weeks later.
March 31, 2013 at 3:28 pm
Ed Voice
Reply to Eric March 31, 2013 at 10:28 am ~
You are not quoting a record, its your own spin like always. lets stick to the facts, shall we!
As for the Weott CSD, they had one 0.596 acre (that’s less than one acre) parcel being served just on the east side of their SOI boundary.
Now, as to your claim about GSD and why Supervisor Fennell said what she said (“Yes, there is a checkered past – let’s call it that,”), it was because GSD has been serving more than 64 parcels that total more than 800 acres outside the GSD jurisdictional district service boundary, that also including the Community Park.
L’il difference between what WCSD has done and what GSD has been doing since before they purchased the Garberville Water Company.
You also forgot to include or mention that GSD was caught in violation of their State Water Rights, by serving water diverted from the South Fork Eel River to customers outside their Water Rights license and permitted place of use, receiving a Cease and Desist Order from the State Water Board. requiring them to Petition the State Water Board to expand their place of use, which includes the Community Park (400 + acres).
So you see Eric, you omitted most all the facts and information again. And because the Community Park wants to be included in the GSD jurisdictional district service boundary and State Water Rights place of use, it will be costing the Community between $20K to $25K just for the Park and only what the Park Board wants for its General Plan Amendment (GPA). I would call that a burden on the Community,
All my information can be easily confirmed by looking at public records from Humboldt LAFCo and GSD.online.
Now back to my Easter BBQ…….
March 31, 2013 at 5:15 pm
Forest Queen
Speaking of Easter,
One morning a blind bunny was hopping down he bunny trail and tripped over a large snake and fell, ‘kerplop’ right on his twitchy little nose.
“Oh please excuse me,” said the bunny. “I didn’t mean to trip over you, but I’m blind and can’t see.”
“That’s perfectly alright,” replied the snake. “To be sure it was my fault. I didn’t mean to trip you, but I’m blind too, and I didn’t see you coming. By the way, what kind of an animal are you?”
“Well, I really don’t know,” said the bunny. “I’m blind, and I’ve never seen myself. Maybe you could examine me and find out.”
So the snake felt the bunny all over, and he said, “Well, you’re soft, and cuddly, and you have long silky ears, and a fluffy tail, and a dear twitchy little nose. You must be a bunny rabbit!”
The bunny said, “I can’t thank you enough. But by the way, what kind of animal are you?”
The snake replied that he didn’t know either, and the bunny agreed to examine him, and when the bunny was finished, the snake asked, “Well, what kind of animal am I?”
The bunny felt the snake all over, and replied, “You’re cold, you’re slippery, and you haven’t got any balls . . . You must be a POLITICIAN.”
March 31, 2013 at 5:44 pm
Eric Kirk
Ed, it’s great that your cut and paste function is still working, but you’re dodging your original point which was to link Estelle’s “checkered past” statement with some imagined partnership between the GSD and the Park to deprive you of,… well, something or another. Let’s note your prior post.
Eric is new to the Park Board and may not know the extent and long private partnership between the Park Board and GSD.
As Supervisor Fennell stated at that LAFCo hearing on March 20th concerning GSD:
“Yes, there is a checkered past – let’s call it that,”
March 31, 2013 at 6:19 pm
Not A Native
A commenter here mentions the TS published a summary of the outside legal costs the county provided to CPR. Turns out, its mostly attributable to the the Tooby lawsuit. which the county won on appeal and now is in the penalty phase. Isn’t it likely that the Court will order the respondent to pay the county’s legal costs? I think thats pretty standard in civil litigation. Do you have an opinion Eric?
I’m really making the point that costs of defending regulations are a necessary part of enforcing the regulations. Just like costs of police and prosecutors is for criminal laws. Otherwise, the county’s laws would become hostage to anyone who makes a credible threat to aggressively bring suit. Laws would be enforced only for those who can’t/don’t threaten a costly suit. Some people think it already is that way, and its unfair and unjust.
March 31, 2013 at 7:22 pm
Ed Voice
Eric, I am not dodging or imagining anything when it comes to a private partnership between GSD and the Park Board. I didn’t make up what Supervisor Fennell said while discussing GSD and the Park Board’s past at LAFCo during public comment and testimony for GSD’s MSR and SOI.
You just have a hard time understanding and excepting the truth.
You can get a audio copy of the LAFCo hearing or ask Supervisor Fennell why she said what she said when she said it.
Maybe you should ask Herb Schwartz and he could fill you in with all the sorted details. If anyone can write a tell all book, its Herb.
March 31, 2013 at 7:33 pm
Anonymous
Eric, when is the park board going to apply for annexation to the Garberville Sanitary District?
March 31, 2013 at 7:56 pm
Eric Kirk
Ed – you’re going back and forth like a tennis ball. Why don’t you make up your mind as to what she meant, and get back to me?
7:33 – Certainly not until we’ve rezoned, and probably not until we’ve raised money to construct drinking faucets.
March 31, 2013 at 8:01 pm
Ed Voice
Eric had said;
“I was grateful for Mike Losey’s comments in particular, because it really is about blanket opposition to anything that just might, even at some future date, be of any benefit to the park”
So here is what Commissioner Losey said at that LAFCo hearing:
“I just want to say I really appreciate George’s comments there, again, as Commissioner Fennell pointed out, I think that this is the groundwork here. There’s a lot more to come if their annexations or addition decisions to be made are what the District wants to do and I just think that so many times, I’m hoping folks speaking against this have the best interests at heart about what they’re doing. And I think that that’s the case, but I have seen General Plan Updates that have been stalled, that have been prevented from moving forward, oftentimes with very, very special interests. So, I hope that’s not the case here”
Just so you know, Commissioner Losey and I emailed about your comment when you posed it.
So Eric, when did Commissioner Losey mention the “Park” or use the term “blanket opposition”. And you want me to explain the words you put in my mouth? In my opinion, anything the park Board gets involved with turns into a big controversy, with no help from me. I am the least of your concerns, its the Park Board you have to worry about.
March 31, 2013 at 8:06 pm
Anonymous
Oh good. We’ll hold you to that.
Do you mean drinking fountains? What kind of service is “drinking faucets?”
Not residential, I think, or multi-family.
March 31, 2013 at 8:30 pm
Ed Voice
Eric just posted: “7:33 – Certainly not until we’ve rezoned, and probably not until we’ve raised money to construct drinking faucets”
You think GSD is going to wait for the Park Boards GPA to be completed before moving forward? You should have attended the GSD BOD meeting on March 28th, GSD is moving forward on the District’s second IS/MND Annexation circulation, The GSD BOD voted to go forward with the Public Notice, should be out they said sometime in late April or first of May.
As you remember, the Park was included in the first GSD Annexation IS/MND back in March 2012, which cause all the controversy.
http://www.garbervillesd.org/ANNEXATION/Annexation%20pdfs/20120309-DraftISMND-Final.pdf
Remember, the park Board also made public comments, including Goldeen.:
http://www.garbervillesd.org/ANNEXATION/Public%20Comments/So%20Hum%20Community%20Park%20Comments%20GSD%20MND.pdf
http://www.garbervillesd.org/ANNEXATION/Public%20Comments/IS-MND%20Comments%20-%20Stephen%20Dazey.pdf
http://www.garbervillesd.org/ANNEXATION/Public%20Comments/Sanford%20Goldeen%20%20IS-MND%20Comments.pdf
March 31, 2013 at 9:52 pm
That Other Anonymous
“Turns out, its mostly attributable to the the Tooby lawsuit. which the county won on appeal and now is in the penalty phase. Isn’t it likely that the Court will order the respondent to pay the county’s legal costs? ”
Don’t know if that’s likely or not, but in light of the fact that the County claims it has not kept track of the time its own staff attorneys spent on the case, it certainly does raise the question of how they could make a claim for that portion of their legal expenses. Seems to me that they couldn’t, unless the court is willing to accept some kind of “guesstimate,” which seems highly unlikely. Of course, if, as they claim, they didn’t keep track of what was spent, then we’ll never know exactly how much taxpayer money they couldn’t recover due to their lax record-keeping practices.
As to the issue of the county attempting to recover their costs for outside counsel, which they apparently do have records for, I don’t know whether the county going after the defendant for those legal expenses would be legally permissible in this case or not, but as far as whether it would be just to demand that the defendant pay the county’s legal bills in this case, I’m very skeptical.
The county initiated the lawsuit against the defendant (it wasn’t, for example, a “frivolous” lawsuit that he brought against the county). The defendant says he believed he had a valid defense, and in fact the trial court ruled in his favor, which suggests to me that the defense he was relying on was not frivolous and without merit. Punishing him for defending himself and winning at trial certainly seems like it would be a rather absurd notion.
And then appealing that trial court decision to a higher court was the County’s decision, not the defendant’s. And it would be a bit strange to say that, having won at trial, the defendant shouldn’t have mounted a vigorous defense on appeal, and should be blamed for and charged for the costs incurred by the County in that phase of the proceedings.
Penalizing someone for defending themselves in a case like this would be a poor precedent, because if the County can charge you the costs of prosecuting you, and can run up huge bills in doing so, which will be paid either by the taxpayers if the County loses, or by you if you lose, you could end up in a situation where you are forced to surrender, even though you have good reason to believe that you have a good chance of prevailing — simply because you can’t risk having to pay for the County’s legal costs (which you have no control over), in addition to your own.
While it’s certainly appropriate to worry about the ability of wealthy people to potentially intimidate the County into avoiding costly legal fights, it’s also appropriate to worry about the potential for the County — which has financial/legal resources that far outweigh those of the vast majority of defendants — to bully less-than-wealthy people in the same manner.
April 1, 2013 at 7:23 am
Forest Queen
I can see where this is going, but need to be in the zone to get the full impact.
Corruption isn’t the problem. ACCEPTANCE of the corruption is the problem.
Man invented word, and calls it god. “The Word World,” imposed by the academic institutions, is synonymous with the Matrix’s induced “Dream World.” Both are most efficient mind enslavers, and humans know not their difference from “The Cubic World” – the creation principle of all that exists.
We’ve all seen the movie Matrix, right? Actually the induced night “dream world” is synonymous with the academic religious induced daytime “word world” enslavement of humans. Word has no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit, and fictitious value, to represent natural worth in Commerce. Unfortunately, human values have declined to fictitious word values. Unknowingly, you are living in a “Word World,” as in a fictitious life, in a counterfeit nation – which we could consider Matrix induced “Dream
World.”
Can you distinguish the academic induced “Word World” from the natural “Real World?” Beware of the change when your brain is free from induced “Word World” enslavement – for you could find that the natural “Real World” has been destroyed.
April 1, 2013 at 8:44 am
Cookie
Hi. After much thought about my comments Eric, I do not see that there was anything “inappropriate”. But that conversation I would like to address later? So now I have lots to say and catch up on. I will probably ramble and go backwards in time, hope I make sense. That Other Anonymous, if the decision in the Tooby Ranch case was opposite, if Bob McKee had prevailed in an “appeal’, you can bet your life he would expect the county to reimburse and pay all his court costs. That was one of the sticking points I believe in mediation. The appeals court reversed the part that said county had to pay McKee’s court cost, and said no the county pays Bob McKee nothing. Don’t know the legal language for this, bet Eric does though. As far as Kathleen Creager calling Eric’s radio show, and other shows, and not identifying herself, it’s unethical, and concerning her specifically, hypocritical. Way back when Estelle Fennell made her first run for supervisor, and Kathleen Creager was still the engineer for Thank Jah It’s Friday, KMUD was receiving a whole lot of complaints about Kathleen Creager abusing her position and “campaigning” for Estelle Fennell every Friday. There were a few instances of Kathleen Creager “mic-ing” people, turning down the volume on their line, and talking, the person on the other end would of course would be total silence, giving the appearance of agreeing with Kathleen Creager. On a couple of instances, where Kathleen Creager had “mic”ed the caller, she said “I have to let the listeners know that so and so is involved with the Clendenen campaign, so take everything they say with a grain of salt”, and then she would campaign for Estelle Fennell.
One of these callers, who had absolutely nothing to do with the Clendenen campaign, filed a complaint with KMUD. Kathleen Creager was muzzled after that, and not allowed to speak about politics. So for Kathleen Creager to try and “out” others, and incorrectly out others, for her to want others to disclose who they are, yet not disclose who she is, well, the words deceitful, sneaky, liar, deceptive, hypocrite are a few that spring to mind. For a politicians spouse, and a spouse who was/is heavily involved in the political campaign to not disclose totally lacks character, and really calls in to question ones moral fiber. WHEW! I have more to say about the personal relationship stuff, but will save that for another post. This one is awfully long, sorry.
April 1, 2013 at 9:06 am
Anonymous
That Other Anonymous @ 9:52, you’re describing a sequence of events out of context. The “defendent” is a specific person who unlawfully subdivided and sold specific land which was subsequently unlawfully “developled” in all kinds of ways. There’s permanent damage and all sorts of individual consequences involved that your generalizations don’t do justice. Money is not justice, corporations buy that kind of justice. Profit is not environmental prosperity, it’s an economic concept whose tangible aspects are almost exclusively associated with less nature. At some point you gotta call it like it is, and do something about it.
April 1, 2013 at 9:47 am
Cookie
And I forgot this part,That Other Anonymous, you said that you hadn’t listened to the call for awhile, maybe go back and do so, but you didn’t think she had a need to identify herself. The way I remember it, Kathleen Creager went out of her way to portray herself as a political newcomer. Saying things like “I really don’t pay attention to these sorts of things” “I just happened to be watching” “I’m not sure I understand this”. Again, lie. I will go back and listen, if it’s still on the KMUD archives, and correct myself if I am wrong. Perhaps you’ll listen and let me know if I am right or wrong?
April 1, 2013 at 10:37 am
Forest Queen
“I call,” ‘Career Criminal Racketeering.’
” . . . a political newcomer.” Yawn. She missed the boat.
April 1, 2013 at 12:02 pm
suzy blah blah
“The Cubic World” – the creation principle of all that exists.
-wow Forest Queen! For years on this blog, and elsewhere, when suzy’s had the chance, i’ve been to no avail, debunking the ignorant belief in the lie of the “Word” (in the beginning was the Word and the word was One…) and the lie of the “One” (we’re all ONE, etc.). And explaining to deaf ears how it has inflicted singularity upon Nature and that we need to rise above the singularity mentality. Glad to see you are with me. I’ve been living by the truth of the 96hr day for a long time … and now i think totally cubically.
April 1, 2013 at 12:54 pm
Forest Queen
So as goes syncronity, suzy . . . just a few nights ago I was reading along in “The Mayan Ouroborus,” Chapter on ‘The Egyptians,’ – and page, sure, 111, is The Conscious Levels are found in a relationship between the square and the circle – when the perimeters are the same, the Golden Mean appears.
Now that I am no longer sleeping, I can not pretend anymore to fit where I do not belong. (this is on a jpg)
April 1, 2013 at 2:59 pm
suzy blah blah
The Conscious Levels are found in a relationship between the square and the circle – when the perimeters are the same, the Golden Mean appears.
-as the paradigm shifts, the old method of defining the spirit’s relation to the physical, eg, the squaring of the circle, sometimes referred to as the god within, will become the circling of the square. And the spirit, or the god, will be manifest on the outside! The parameters will adjust themselves accordingly. Likewise, the curved will dominate the straight, the heart will eclipse the head, and the women will surround the men. And then we will take charge. Sorry boys, but women will be taking over politics, governments, religion, media, everything. Things are changing all over the world. A new female way of perceiving reality will soon be the norm. In fact, it has begun. Look at Estelle.
April 1, 2013 at 4:28 pm
Cookie
I don’t understand your posts suzy blah blah and Forest Queen. Could you explain them to a dunce like me? There have been other women in politics waaaay before Estelle Fennell. There have been other lesbians in politics waaaaay before Estelle Fennell. If you both think having someone in politics who is bought and paid for by the likes of Lee Ulansey, you two don’t care about nature the way you say you do.
April 1, 2013 at 5:40 pm
suzy blah blah
-sorry Cookie, but I didn’t even mention nature. What i said is that we are entering a new paradigm. And that means a new way of perceiving the reality. Is there something you’d like explained about Cubism? Or the eclipse of the head?
April 1, 2013 at 6:03 pm
Cookie
You said this at 12:02:
” And explaining to deaf ears how it has inflicted singularity upon Nature and …”
Can we start with the eclipse of the head?
April 1, 2013 at 7:16 pm
Not A Native
Other Anonymous its essential to know the specific fact in the ‘Tooby’ lawsuits and not simply generalize based on assumed hypotheticals. Thanks cookie for remembering some of them. I now remember that Eric wrote he has clients involved in the Tooby lawsuits. There are several lawsuits with different parties. So I don’t expect Eric will have an opinion here.
The multiplicity of lawsuits is just one reason the costs have grown. Neither of us are lawyers or versed in the legal principles here. But clearly, awarding legal costs in a civil suit isn’t a precedent, it happens all the time. As cookie notes, Tooby was awarded costs, overturned on appeal. Do you not think Tooby would have appealed if the District court had ruled against him? Since the facts and degree of litigiousness surrounding the issues are known to both courts, its not unreasonable to opine that the county could be awarded costs now just as Tooby was earlier.
And I think the image you’ve pictured of a arrogant county suing heavy handedly is false in this case. Remember this is a Williamson Act violation, not a Map Act violation(I think). And there are now zoning, code and permitting issues. I’m positive the county sent many letters and had many meetings explaining its position and possible remedies before suing. And during the suit there were many mediations where Tooby could have agreed to resolve the matter at less cost. The county made at least one offer of settlement that Tooby rejected.
I think a just result is to evaluate who caused the ‘fight’ regardless of who was in legal error. If the same entity who was in legal error also caused the ‘fight’,I think its just that they should pay the other party’s costs. The precedent should be that before you decide to fight, you should sincerely try to resolve the issues and aren’t spoiling for a fight to throw your weight around, intimidate or embarrass.
April 1, 2013 at 9:20 pm
That Other Anonymous
NAN,
You raise some good points. Certainly if one side is unwilling to talk and insists on litigation, that could affect my feelings about whether the losing side should pay the winning side’s legal costs. Unfortunately I don’t know what the County offered in terms of remedies before bringing the lawsuit, nor do I know what was discussed in settlement talks. So while I get what you’re saying, I’m not sure whether cooperativeness vs litigiousness factors into the way this case went or not, and if so, on which side(s) and to what degree.
But in any event, I still have a philosophical problem with the idea of penalizing the defendant for pursuing his case, especially given that he actually won at the trial court level. But I don’t know whether that makes any difference legally or not, or for that matter what other criteria a judge can/will look at in making their decision.
More interesting than the question of whether the defendant is ordered to pay some or all of the county’s legal fees, is what the judge will decide on as a remedy, what will happen with all secondary defendants, and what the final “on the ground” outcome will be. I guess we’ll see what happens.
April 2, 2013 at 7:51 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Litigation = Is usually not barred when a legal wrong has been commited, provided certain “requirements” occur within the proper legal time frames.
The government sector has an obstacle course set-up for a scavenger hunt in so far as the requirements prior to suing. If any future litigant has a chance in a suit, they must follow the procedure or the judge will hammer the litigant; and, if a litigant has gone through the obstacle course set-up for a scavenger hunt, well then, what does that imply about local people working as local government officials just doing their thing they were trained to do or else.
Sincerely,
HOJ
April 2, 2013 at 8:22 am
Forest Queen
Cookie @ 4:28,
Explain? For starters re-read my ‘Word World’ post – what don’t you understand there? For example; SoHum’s Park Debate talks about a SPHERE OF INFLUENCE. What good can come of adding more words of sep ar a tion to our already over-loaded vocabulary? Words from the purveyors of nonsense – nothing more. So, continue discussing the Planning Commission, or other chosen blood sucker topics, meanwhile, we’re being sprayed with toxins from overhead. Thinking about the wrong things, means you’re/we’re not thinking at all.
And, oh, BTW (by the way) WE ARE NATURE.
April 2, 2013 at 8:29 am
Cookie
NAN–you are correct it is a Williamson Act violation.
That Other Anonymous–would you please address the issue of Kathleen Creagher’s call to Eric’s show? You said at one point you didn’t feel she needed to identify herself, but if you read my posts up there from yesterday April 1 at 8:44 and 9:47 a.m., I feel she should. I really would like to know your thoughts? As far as I see it, Kathleen Creagher should ALWAYS disclose who she is when talking to someone or calls a radio show about politics. She is still part of Estelle Fennells campaign team.
As far as I understand about the mediation part of the Tooby Ranch lawsuit. Bob McKee still wanted the county to pay his costs, even though the appeal court said that because the ruling was overturned, I think the term was vacated? Anyway, the new ruling said no payment to Bob McKee. He would not mediate then. You say “I still have a philosophical problem with the idea of penalizing the defendant for pursuing his case”. Where in the heck did you get that? You mean all the fines that have accrued because of the illegal buildings and roads etc? No one has penalized Bob McKee but himself. I said this before, I’ll say it again, Bob McKee knew the county was going to sue him, he had money set aside just for the lawsuit, he believed he could out money and out lawyer the county. He didn’t think they would appeal. Truth won. Bob McKee finally got caught for all the years and years and years of this type of shenanigans.
April 2, 2013 at 8:35 am
Cookie
Forest Queen, you said-
“And, oh, BTW (by the way) WE ARE NATURE”
Boy is that true.
I agree with you that words are the purveyors of nonsense. I am a simpleton. I agree that we/nature/the earth are being poisoned at all levels, not just overhead, it seems politics are the only way left to try to deal with the issues. Have to get people who understand and see this in to office to try to change course.
April 2, 2013 at 10:18 am
Ed Voice
Since my cut & paste skills are not up to par and I had problems posting what was requested by Eric, I sent him the information to see if he could post it for me.
It would be interesting to see if Eric makes a comment about how the Park Board, Dazey and McKee have been continuing to burden the Community, by using the GSD ratepayers to fund their own development and infrastructure on their adjoining property’s.
The ultimate goal of the Park Board, Dazey and McKee was to use the Kimtu Waterline project and GSD Water Treatment Plant Project as a vehicle to get water for their own development plans, on the backs of the State, Community and GSD ratepayers. With these two new project down next to the Park, Dazey and McKee properties, this would save them the cost of new infrastructure, environmental review, studies, reports etc. Which to date has cost GSD $950K for a $6 Million Dollar Capital Improvement Project.
Had anyone else ever seen the movie China Town?
April 2, 2013 at 1:32 pm
Anonymous
Yes, Ed, I saw chinatown…it’s a great film that properly delivers the cold truth of such matters. (Did the salton sea exist when chinatown was made?) What you’re describing is probably the single most problematic issue in natural resource politics today. “Parks” are supposed to be about preserving and protecting designated areas of untampered nature. That’s what we were told by the government during our 20-odd years of governed schooling. However, the government isn’t prioritizing that basic mission of “parks”…instead forcing “parks” to participate in the government’s metaphysical system of economics. “Parks” have become a sort of corporate entity of their own, and like the rest of corporate america, they won’t even consider hiring into their ranks individuals who refuse to compromise the eternal sanctity of the nature world for monetary revenue.
April 2, 2013 at 3:55 pm
Not A Native
Other anonymous, my point in noting that the county offered a settlement is that the county negotiated, I don’t know that Tooby offered to settle for anything less than his initial position. Only the parties will know how the final outcome compares with offers. But there’s no doubt that the legal expenses are much larger than they would have been if there was a settlement. They still may settle…..
While I agree the legal costs shouldn’t be so important, the whole reason for this thread is that CPR is trying to make the county’s legal costs a big deal, CPR is trying to intimidate and deter the county from vigorously enforcing regulations.
Eric has noted how lax enforcement of regulations in HumCo since the 1970′s is a cause of misunderstandings and wrong understandings of permitted land use. And misunderstandings and lapse in enforcement have benefited some people, who are now upset that those benefits could go away. So legal costs are being used as a cynical political wedge issue, leveraging Tea Party Conservative blanket opposition to Government expenditures and Libertarian animosity of Government authority. In this way,CPR hopes objective weighing of the merits of land use regulations and subsidies is lost amid ideological fervor. Not to mention its a attempt to politically influence the outcome in the Tooby case..
As to your point about defendants paying legal costs, I think you’re confusing civil law with criminal law. There is no prosecutor or defendant in the Tooby case. It makes me think your philosophy is to identify and take the side of the “little guy” in a legal contest and you assume the little guy is the “defendant”. Well how about someone bringing a wrongful death suit against a hedge fund manager who killed their relative? In that situation the manager is the “defendant”(in your terms, not mine). Would you oppose awarding legal costs to the person bringing and winning the suit? If the manager won, would you support awarding legal costs to her? Tooby was awarded legal costs by the trial court. Was that fair? Or would you decide who has sufficient money(the big guy) that is available to pay legal costs?
April 2, 2013 at 4:19 pm
Cookie
I like you NAN. Someday I will be as eloquent as both you and That Other Anonymous, and Eric. I will be one smart Cookie.
April 2, 2013 at 5:47 pm
Ed Voice
Yes, and it was Bob McKee aka Buck Mountain Ranch LP, not Tooby. In fact it was also the way the Community Park was divided up Buck Mountain Ranch LP.
Here is that good ole boy explanation how land is obtained in SoHum, the McKee Way:
“Why Did the Community Park Need a Lotline Adjustment?”
“When the Park was originally purchased, the property consisted of four patent parcels. The sizes and shapes of the parcels were not ideal for a Community Park. We wanted the Park to consist of the prime bottom lands plus the forested hillside. As with many of the parcels that were sold as part of the Tooby Ranch and other similar Bob McKee subdivisions (like the Briceland Ranch and Whale Gulch), the parcels of land that were sold were initially divided up on topo maps and would need to have their boundary lines surveyed and realigned. It was a fairly standard practice when many of us bought land in Southern Humboldt in the early seventies and eighties only the process with the County Planning Department was less onerous in earlier decades”
http://www.sohumpark.org/faq.html#lotline
April 2, 2013 at 5:58 pm
Anonymous
Forrest queen is a moron…..no question about it.
April 2, 2013 at 6:31 pm
That Other Anonymous
“CPR is trying to make the county’s legal costs a big deal, CPR is trying to intimidate and deter the county from vigorously enforcing regulations.”
Let’s assume, for the purposes of discussion, that HumCPR’s motives are exactly as you describe. I can see how those motives would be cause for concern, but I don’t think that’s relevant to the question of whether the County should have released the information when the original California Public Records Act request was filed. They were either legally required to release the information, or not. The courts have found that they were.
Meanwhile, if county officials, including the Supervisors, feel that the money for these lawsuits has been well spent and/or that the expenditures were unavoidable, they should be glad to make that case to the voters, and their supporters should feel free to do the same.
Keeping the voters in the dark about the way their tax money is being spent, on the basis that releasing that information might make it easier for people to “intimidate and deter” their elected representatives into spending it differently, is not really defensible.
In a democratic system, the right answer is for all sides to make their case to elected officials, and to the voters, rather than trying to suppress information that might help one side make their case.
April 2, 2013 at 6:33 pm
That Other Anonymous
“As to your point about defendants paying legal costs, I think you’re confusing civil law with criminal law. There is no prosecutor or defendant in the Tooby case.
The party that initiates a civil suit is referred to as the “plaintiff” and the party being sued is referred to as the “defendant.” But perhaps it was my use of the term “prosecute” that made you think I was confusing civil and criminal law. I was not. Here is an excerpt from the County’s description of the county counsel’s role:
“County Counsel’s advice and representation includes preparing written and oral opinions, prosecuting and defending civil actions and administrative proceedings…”
http://co.humboldt.ca.us/cntycsel/
April 2, 2013 at 7:00 pm
That Other Anonymous
“Well how about someone bringing a wrongful death suit against a hedge fund manager who killed their relative? In that situation the manager is the “defendant”(in your terms, not mine). Would you oppose awarding legal costs to the person bringing and winning the suit?”
Not necessarily. My opinion about what I think would be fair would depend on a number of factors, as we discussed above, and even then, at best I could only tell you my personal opinion on what would be fair. What the law actually allows is another matter. As discussed above, in relation to the Tooby Ranch case, I don’t know what factors the judge is supposed to look at in making that decision, which of those factors is supposed to be given the most weight, how much discretion the judge has, and so on. Do you?
A quick Google search turned up, among other things, a number of brief articles, written in laymen’s terms. For example:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/attorney-fees-does-losing-side-30337.html
According to this article, and a couple of others I glanced at, it sounds like in the U.S. the general rule is that each side pays its own costs, unless otherwise specified by statute or unless previously agreed to by contract (some contracts include a provision stating that all parties to the contract agree than in any litigation arising from the contract, attorneys’ fees can be be awarded to the prevailing party — in other words, a “loser pays” provision).
One thing several articles noted is that even when a statute or contract specifies that the prevailing party can request that the court order the losing party to pay the prevailing party’s attorneys’ fees, judges generally have a lot of discretion in deciding whether to grant that request or not, and if so, how much to award. In other words, even when it’s allowed, it’s not necessarily required, it’s usually still left up to the judge to decide (which means that even if you and I knew a lot more about this topic, we might not be much closer to knowing what the actual outcome will be in this case).
As the Tooby Ranch lawsuit is based on a dispute over compliance with a Williamson Act Contract, one obvious question would be whether the Williamson Act Contract includes a “loser pays” provision? I don’t know the answer to that. If not, then the question would be whether there is a statutory basis for awarding legal fees to the prevailing party in this case, and if so, which statute? Here’s a website that lists California statutes that relate to the awarding of attorney’s fees to prevailing litigants:
http://www.calattorneysfees.com/statutes.html
I skimmed though it, and aside from the provisions that cover contracts that include “loser pays” provisions (and, again, I don’t know if Williamson Act contracts do or not), I didn’t see anything else that stood out as being clearly applicable to this case. But (a) I’m not a lawyer, and (b) I only skimmed it, so I could certainly have missed something there, or just not recognized that something was applicable because of specific details of the case that I’m not familiar with.
At any rate, if it’s accurate that the trial judge ordered the County to pay the defendant’s legal costs when he won at the trial level, then presumably the judge had some basis for that, either statutory, or contractual, and perhaps that same basis will apply now that the County is the prevailing party.
But again, from the little bit of research I did, it sounds like even when recovery of legal costs is an option, the judge has a lot of discretion over whether to grant a request for that or not, and over what the amount of the award would be.
“Or would you decide who has sufficient money(the big guy) that is available to pay legal costs?”
No, I certainly agree that it is not as simple as that.
April 2, 2013 at 7:12 pm
Cookie
Ok. I’ll just read from the sidelines and be ignored by you That Other Anonymous.
April 2, 2013 at 7:54 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
NAN @ 3:55 pm,
1) Lax enforcement is because of politics and where the money should be spent.
2) Lax enforcement has to do with creating issues down the road to keep employment and political wedge issues thriving, not resolved
3) Also. if Eric mentioned like you write about lax enforcement, then can you give a reason or two as to why Eric won’t reference what he allegedly said when it has to do with TPZ, the GPU process and Plan OptionD.
Seems HOJ is about the only blogger who has consistently argued that “unenforced laws” are no cause or justification to “change the laws” with regard to Humboldt County’s General Plan.
Sincerely,
HOJ
April 2, 2013 at 9:02 pm
Not A Native
First, the party named in a civil suit isn’t a defendant, its a respondent Second, the word prosecute as applied to the county counsel has the meaning to file and follow through suits to completion as a complaintant.
“In a democratic system, the right answer is for all sides to make their case to elected officials, and to the voters, rather than trying to suppress information that might help one side make their case.”
I agree. But transparency and disclosure for private organizations isn’t a legal requirement no regularly practiced. In fact privacy is protected by the Constitution(and Citizen’s United decision). Disclosure of corporations and private organization’s specific lobbying, political influencing methods, tactics, and strategies isn’t subject to voter referendum.
To bring it home, CPR isn’t accountable to the public and is legally entitled to conceal its supporters, activities, and objectives. CPR is a political entitynot required to follow Democratic principles.So your call for “rather than…supress information” ignores that CPR can and does suppress all manner of information about itself. Don’t equate politics with Democracy, they’re different.
The Democracy argument you make that CPR is bringing light to Government affairs is also flawed. CPR isn’t exposing poor County judgement in bringing and pursuing lawsuits. On a objective basis, since the County prevailed in the Tooby suit, the only lesson is that having rule of law can be very costly. War veterans remind us of that every day.
The honest question about the Tooby case should be something like: Should HumCo participate in Williamson contracts? Cost isn’t primary, the issue is policy, objectives, and respecting rule of law. By creating a phony cost issue, CPR is acting purely politically to distract from the longstanding practice of illegal land use in HumCo.
April 2, 2013 at 10:30 pm
That Other Anonymous
“First, the party named in a civil suit isn’t a defendant, its a respondent.”
Not sure where you’re getting your information, but here’s the actual wording from first page of the Appeals court ruling:
“COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT,
Plaintiff, Cross-defendant
and Appellant,
v.
ROBERT C. McKEE et al.,
Defendants, Cross-complainants
and Respondents;”
As I recall, the way the terminology works is that at the trial level, it’s “plaintiff vs defendant,” whereas at the appellate level it’s “appellant vs. respondent” And the respondent isn’t necessarily the defendant, it depends which side is doing the appealing.
None of which is particularly important to our discussion, but it did prompt me to take a minute and find the case online, which is something we probably both should have done earlier in this discussion.
In case you’re interested, you can find the appeals court decision here:
https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/article/county-of-humboldt-plaintiff-cross-defendant-and-appellant-v-robert-c-mckee-et-al-defendants-cross-complainants-and-respondents-linda-hill-as-assessor-etc-cross-defendant-and-appellant
By the way, the very last line in the decision says:
“County and Assessor are entitled to their costs on appeal.”
If I’m interpreting that correctly, that would mean that McKee would be ordered to pay the County’s legal costs for the appeal stage.
April 2, 2013 at 10:50 pm
That Other Anonymous
I don’t agree that the cost issue is “phony.” Perhaps if County resources were unlimited, it would be. They are not, so it’s not. Voters have every right to make up their own minds about whether this lawsuit was worthwhile and a good use of the tax money spent on it, and without the information on costs, weighing costs and benefits would be impossible.
Perhaps a better argument would be that there is no way to assess the actual benefits until the remedy has been determined (which hasn’t happened yet) and that therefore the public does not yet have an opportunity to weigh the benefits part of the equation and therefore does not need to know the costs yet either. However, the county tried that argument in the California Public Records Act case, and was shot down.
April 3, 2013 at 8:19 am
Cookie
Now you are getting to the place as to why the mediation between Bob McKee and the county didn’t work. Bob McKee does not want to pay the county or the assessor the costs on appeal. He still wants the county to pay his initially ordered decision county pays him costs. Just like he thought that because he bought the land from Mr. Tooby, somehow the Williamson Act contract reverted to the 1978 contract. Even though Mr.Tooby had been signing the new language contract (for something like 10 years) that stated land under contract could not be divided into anything less than 600 acre parcels. And the Williamson Act contracts run with the land, not the person applying for them.So when the the land is sold it is under contract. Bob McKee always boasted he knows more about the Williamson Act than anyone on earth, he should have known this. He also should know that contracts, once changed and signed, don’t revert to a previous contract just because something is sold.
That Other Anonymous, you are trying to make this a monetary issue only, tax payer money, it is about more, more than someone who broke a contract. And you are right that taxpayers have the right to make up our minds if the cost of this lawsuit was worth it. And HumCPR will be spinning all their propaganda to make sure they think it is not. How much did they have us believing this case cost? Somewhere around $8 million? What a crock That’s what McKee spent. The county looks like closer to $3 million.
P.S. I AM NOT ANTI LGBT! Most of my best friends belong to this group.
April 3, 2013 at 8:29 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Agreed TOA,
Creating a remedy (declaratory relief in part) prior to assessing any benefits (or not) does seem backwards, especially if a remedy is a “one-sided benefit”.
Sincerely,
HOJ
April 3, 2013 at 8:43 am
bob
TOA it would help us illiterates out here to follow you better if you’d identify just whose comments you’re responding to. as someone(you?) noted earlier in this thread, there might be several comments that pop up in between posts, and that can make it hard to see your point.
April 3, 2013 at 9:52 am
That Other Anonymous
Good point Bob — sorry ’bout that. All my comments yesterday were in response to comments from Not A Native.
April 3, 2013 at 10:21 am
Anonymous
That Other Anonymous writes: “Voters have every right to make up their own minds about whether this lawsuit was worthwhile and a good use of the tax money spent on it, and without the information on costs, weighing costs and benefits would be impossible.”
First off, that’s baloney that can be said of any lawsuit. Just because an entity (seldom an individual) can pony up tens of thousands of dollars for a lawsuit doesn’t mean any argument exists whatsoever. That’s tabloid thinking. That’s money buying politics.That’s what private party HumCPR is attempting to do via their lawsuit against the county. The lawsuit brought on by the county is to recoup damage already done by a private party. You continually ignore that fact in your arguments. It’s not in the county’s best interests to sue. It’s plain as day. Real estate investor(s) were caught swindling rural land in Humboldt and the county has to do something about it, as the environmental ramifications alone are permanent.
April 3, 2013 at 10:44 am
Anonymous
That Other Anonymous writes: “Voters have every right to make up their own minds about whether this lawsuit was worthwhile and a good use of the tax money spent on it, and without the information on costs, weighing costs and benefits would be impossible.”
First off, that’s baloney that can be said of any lawsuit. Just because an entity (seldom an individual) can pony up tens of thousands of dollars for a lawsuit doesn’t mean any argument exists whatsoever. That’s tabloid thinking. That’s money buying politics.That’s what private party HumCPR is attempting to do via their lawsuit against the county. The lawsuit brought on by the county is to recoup damage already done by a private party. You continually ignore that fact in your arguments. It’s not in the county’s best interests to sue. It’s plain as day. Real estate investor(s) were caught swindling rural land in Humboldt and the county has to do something about it, as the environmental ramifications alone are permanent.
Second, That Other Anonymous writes: “Meanwhile, if county officials, including the Supervisors, feel that the money for these lawsuits has been well spent and/or that the expenditures were unavoidable, they should be glad to make that case to the voters, and their supporters should feel free to do the same.”
Of COURSE it’s not money well spent, but the county shouldn’t have to sue in the first place. Just because the issue is over a lot of land and a lot of money, doesn’t mean the county should look the other way. On the contrary. HumCPR literally deals in large amounts of real estate, and they should not be allowed to walk all over the county literally and figuratively (the public’s money as you argue) just because they can finance political gridlock. In fact this specific issue was presented to the public in a local newspaper and HumCPR refused to participate, HumCPR aims to bolster their own financers’ wealth, not create charitable land use. That’s why they bought all that land in the first place. Lee Ulansey is not a meek hillbilly, he’s a very wealthy investor who knows exactly what he’s doing, and it’s not cool.
April 3, 2013 at 11:41 am
Cookie
That Other Anonymous, this will be my last post because of you. You think I am homophobic? I hope that is the right word. I am not. YOU are the one who is phobic.You misread, misinterpreted my comment on Estelle Fennell and used the word “hiding” to say I was doing gay-baiting smear. NOT TRUE. My point was about her morals and ethics. Eric got what I was trying to say, but you, like a typical HumCPRer spun it so as NAN said, the message about Kathleen Creagher disclosing who she is, got lost. In politics world wide, people in campaigns, when thanking their family members say such things as “I would like to thank my wife” or “husband” or “son” or “partner” , what did Estelle Fennell say? The two people I remember her thanking are Jim Ferguson and Kathleen Creagher. What did she say? “I want to thank Jim Ferguson for keeping the campaign message on track…” ” I want to thank Kathleen Creagher for all her work in every aspect of my campaign” Or words very close to that effect. Why didn’t she say Kathleen Creagher my wife (or partner)?
This is a deep moral and philosophical question.
My distaste and distrust for both these women runs deep, and has for a long time now. I know others feel the same.
April 3, 2013 at 4:28 pm
Not A Native
The cost of the McKee lawsuit is not meaningful as an indication of County expenditures on this issue because there’s now a precedent. The legal issues decided about Williamson contracts on broken off parcels won’t be litigated again, the county expense is a one off event.
Ignoring that fact is why CPR’s focus on the costs, as if they are ongoing and need close public scrutiny, is a phony issue. Of course, as a private political group CPR has every right to conceal, obfuscate, misdirect, and play dirty tricks. All those are permitted in politics, which is what CPR is engaged in.
And it’s nonsense to bring up any ‘benefits’ of the lawsuit as if they’re based on the specific resolution. McKee has incurred significant costs and some sanctions will be levied. The benefits of enforcing a civil law is obvious. The offender is punished and other persons are deterred from similar behavior. In the McKee case, clarity about Williamson contracts means no budding land developers will try to use the “McKee” loophole.
April 3, 2013 at 4:37 pm
That Other Anonymous
NAN,
Given all the benefits you named, I will just reiterate that county staff and elected officials should have been more than willing to make that case to the public, rather than trying to withhold information about the costs from the public.
April 3, 2013 at 6:50 pm
Not A Native
Other anonymous, Sure, and in hindsight McKee should have settled the issue earlier and saved the county a large expense. Elected officials aren’t obliged or well advised to answer every potshot made by politically motivated factions attempting to frame a discussion on their terms.
You easily suspect the motives of the county staff as being nefarious. But you also think they’re stupid. Knowing they’re required to supply public information, how would delaying it willfully serve their nefarious interests? Watergate and Clinton’s impeachment showed that its cover ups that have the greatest consequences. You think maybe it was staff’s rational concern to not prejudice ongoing litigation, personality conflicts, and fear of procedural error that mired the FOIA process?
And of course, while you’re certain county staff are stupidly nefarious, you’re just as certain that CPR is beyond reproach. Noble protectors of Democracy, without any political agenda. Gee, considering just the known facts about CPR that makes perfect sense(not)..
April 3, 2013 at 7:00 pm
Anonymous
That Other Anonymous, the people who run HumCPR are county staff and elected officials. They were asked, informally even, to participare in genuine public disclosure as their case(s) have generated a great amount of public interest on several local blogs. They are withholding information while simultaneously soliciting political support to permanently change the landscape of rural humboldt. They are using intentionally vague calling cards like “property rights” to push their much deeper agenda. Your inherent bias is obvious.
April 3, 2013 at 8:49 pm
That Other Anonymous
Well you’re just wildly misstating my position. I never said (nor would I) that HumCPR is “beyond reproach,” nor did I say that the county staff (or for that matter the supervisors) were “stupidly nefarious.”
You’re certainly correct that it’s well-known that “the cover-up is often worse than the disclosure,” but it’s also true that the fact that this is widely known hasn’t exactly stopped government officials from trying to delay/suppress information from becoming public knowledge, when they believe that the benefits of doing so outweigh the risks.
Not being a mind reader, and not having inside knowledge of the decision-making process, of course I don’t know for sure why the County tried to keep the costs of these lawsuits from becoming public knowledge, but I believe that each of the “rational concerns” you named (along with a few others that the county offered) were rejected by the court. Of course that doesn’t mean that they might not have constituted some (or all) of the County’s rationale, it just means they weren’t found to be legally acceptable rationales.
It’s also possible that politics may have played a role, as some folks may have wanted to at least delay the release of information beyond the last election, as they may have believed (and I think correctly so) that the release of that information might have been detrimental to the election chances of their preferred candidates. Not claiming to have proof, fully admitting that it’s just speculation, but since you asked, there’s a another theory that doesn’t require “stupidity” on the part of those withholding the information.
April 3, 2013 at 11:10 pm
Not A Native
“…hasn’t exactly stopped government officials from trying to delay/suppress information from becoming public knowledge, when they believe that the benefits of doing so outweigh the risks.”
Your implication is unreasonable delay for the benefit of ‘government officials’ not the public. Provide the evidence that validates your assertion, preferable something local that can be verified and not matters under executive prerogative, investigation, National Security, classified information, or statutory requirements.
“..I don’t know for sure why the County tried to keep the costs of these lawsuits from becoming public knowledge,”
Provide the evidence that “the County” acted unreasonably or maliciously in processing CPR’s FOIA request.
You continue to blithely repeat assumptions and innuendos as if they are proven facts. Well, the aren’t. Wha’ts your compelling evidence? Your statements are smears, akin to asking Have you stopped mistreating your children? In taking a prosecutor role, you have the onus, not county staff or elected officials. Put up or shut up.
April 4, 2013 at 12:26 am
That Other Anonymous
That makes no sense. You (falsely) asserted in your previous comment that I was assuming that the county acted out of nefarious motives and stupidity at the same time. I acknowledged that I don’t know what the specific motives of County staff were, and that the motivations cited in their defense might in fact have been their true motivations. But since you asked “Knowing they’re required to supply public information, how would delaying it willfully serve their nefarious interests?” I humored you by offering a plausible scenario — which I specifically noted was merely speculative — in which a political motive could have been involved and yet would not necessarily presuppose “stupidity.” So I really don’t get what you’re all bent out of shape about. If you don’t want speculation, don’t ask for it. Sheesh.
Meanwhile my evidence that the County acted improperly is quite simple and straightforward — they failed to comply with the California Public Records Act, and the reasons they offered for declining to comply with the request and supply the information were rejected by the courts. Whether the intent behind their stonewalling was “malicious” or not, I don’t know, but either way the outcome was that they withheld information that the public was legally entitled to, and their stated reasons for doing so were found by the courts to be insufficient justification for doing so. Those are the plain facts, and no amount of spin, distraction, or indignant affect does anything to change that.
April 4, 2013 at 8:14 am
Forest Queen
Anonymous @5:58
From my “moronic” perspective, you should run outside, get down on the ground, and hang on to the grass with all of your might – so that you don’t fall off the edge.
April 4, 2013 at 8:41 am
Not A Native
The point is your double standard, which indicates bias or prejudice. While you say McKee acted reasonably but erred, you “speculate” that the county acted out of wrongful ‘political’ intent. And remember, the trial judge in ‘Tooby’ was in error, his reasoning incorrect. His decision could have been based in bias too.
Of course, you’re perfectly free to have prejudice and bias, we all have them. But in deliberations others unlike us, bias and prejudice might be revealed as the basis of unfair conclusions.
The facts are both McKee and the County had judgements against them in court. The legal issues decided were important but won’t generate future county legal expenses. Policies land use and enforcing ordinances in HumCo are a issue, not transitory legal expenses.
April 4, 2013 at 9:08 am
Anonymous
“The facts are both McKee and the County had judgements against them in court. The legal issues decided were important but won’t generate future county legal expenses. Policies land use and enforcing ordinances in HumCo are a issue, not transitory legal expenses.”
great point…and the future of that land use will generate all kinds of issues, natural and financial. We, “the public”, don’t want to cater to a handful of profiteers at our ongoing natural and financial expenses. It’s not 1980 anymore.
April 4, 2013 at 10:41 am
Forest Queen
Wow guys – there’s no shortage of intelligence in Humboldt.
April 4, 2013 at 10:44 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Responses to the post by Cookie below:
1) If Eric got what you were saying, Eric would not have censored and erased comments on the matter from his blog. HOJ disfavors censorship, so no need to dispute the facts on what Eric resorted too.
2) Many politicians refer to, by name, their wife or husband, why should it matter at the local level that a name, as opposed to wife, husband, partner or gerbel, be referenced as such during the political “Thank You” sound bites?
3) You admit your disfavor for the two people at the center of some “bashing controversy”, thus raising into question your state of mind when “structuring the direction” of your comment that initialized the commencement of “bashing information”, as Eric generally put it, “keeping the bedroom politics out.”
Anyhow, reading the most recent post by Cookie does not “match-up” with past reality. Personally, it should not be wrong to reference sexual orientation so long as it is pertinent to the discussion at hand, but simply bashing just to get it out there over less than mundane feelings is a gamble prior to any possible backlashes. Anyhow, if the argument is because someone did not refer to another by “relationship position” as opposed to “by name”, then it seems to be a silly concern to be creating a “relationship issue” over.
Now, to turn the “searchlights” onto HOJ, is HOJ a HOMOPHOBE because HOJ don’t like getting massages by men?
Sincerely,
HOJ
April 3, 2013 at 11:41 am
Cookie
That Other Anonymous, this will be my last post because of you. You think I am homophobic? I hope that is the right word. I am not. YOU are the one who is phobic.You misread, misinterpreted my comment on Estelle Fennell and used the word “hiding” to say I was doing gay-baiting smear. NOT TRUE. My point was about her morals and ethics. Eric got what I was trying to say, but you, like a typical HumCPRer spun it so as NAN said, the message about Kathleen Creagher disclosing who she is, got lost. In politics world wide, people in campaigns, when thanking their family members say such things as “I would like to thank my wife” or “husband” or “son” or “partner” , what did Estelle Fennell say? The two people I remember her thanking are Jim Ferguson and Kathleen Creagher. What did she say? “I want to thank Jim Ferguson for keeping the campaign message on track…” ” I want to thank Kathleen Creagher for all her work in every aspect of my campaign” Or words very close to that effect. Why didn’t she say Kathleen Creagher my wife (or partner)?
This is a deep moral and philosophical question.
My distaste and distrust for both these women runs deep, and has for a long time now. I know others feel the same.
April 4, 2013 at 12:49 pm
Cookie
March 31, 2013 at 10:24 am
Eric Kirk
” I think Cookie was trying to raise an ethical question about what should be private or public about a politician’s life. I just don’t think this is a forum conducive to reasonable discussion about it. That comes from about seven years of hard lessons about the blog/Internet forum medium.”
April 4, 2013 at 12:54 pm
Forest Queen
My 10:41 post just above also includes the 4-5 posts @ 10:37 and 10:38 that aren’t posted above. WTPH Eric? One was to myself, and one was to suzy blah blah. Is this DiCK waving?
Yesterday’s posts were ‘held’ like 24 hrs.???
April 4, 2013 at 12:59 pm
Cookie
March 31, 2013 at 8:59 am
Not A Native
“Eric, I’m not clear on where your sensitivity starts but identifying someone as being a close family member of an official doesn’t seem inappropriate to me. An intimate family relationship is particularly germane when the relative speaks out about a current public matter or seeks an official position. Usually, disclosure is expected in those circumstances and nondisclosure is considered deceptive.
Are you saying that identifying a radio caller as being in Estelle’s family is inappropriate? Is identifying Johanna as being in Roger’s family inappropriate? Is identifying Matthew as being in Virginia’s family inappropriate? Is identifying Stuart as being in Caroline’s family inappropriate? Is identifying Billy(Carter) as being in Jimmy’s family inappropriate?
And finally, if such a relationship is known by political supporters and been acknowledged, is it inappropriate to divulge that information to the general public?”
April 4, 2013 at 1:17 pm
Eric Kirk
Sorry, I’m at my computer for the most part, but sometimes I’m away from it for even longer than 24 hours. And even when I’m online, I’m not always with time to come here.
But I’ll gladly refund any dissatisfied customer!
April 4, 2013 at 1:55 pm
Forest Queen
Oh well then Eric, why didn’t you just say so?! I can see how that (your side-step approach) has any relation to, “where are the four missing posts of this morning?” You have time to reply, and even offer a refund. More of the same.
April 4, 2013 at 2:54 pm
Eric Kirk
As far as I know, all the posts but one have been posted. I censored one of them, but it wasn’t really part of the conversation.
April 4, 2013 at 6:15 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
A problem with increased censorship is when the commenter anticipates censorship and must copy and paste the post comments page prior to that page’s comments being censored so that a before and after scenario (printable version on paper) can be presented to the rest of the social media at any given moment if any funny business is executed on someone else’s dime. Blogsites that censor have thus far lost enough participants, and in some instances, some Blogs were crucified.
Sincerely,
HOJ
April 5, 2013 at 7:13 am
Forest Queen
I’ll reply to Cookie’s comment of yesterday @10:38 that wasn’t posted.
No, no, no Cookie, my comment about the Purveyors of Nonsense is directed at the Slave Masters . . . NOT the words. “Word” is NOT a verb.
“Have to get people who understand and see this (that we’re being poisoned on all levels) in to office to try and turn this ship around.” Agreed!
April 5, 2013 at 2:27 pm
Cookie
Oh. I understand now. The Purveyors of NonSense. I wonder how many people fall into that category?
April 5, 2013 at 6:54 pm
Forest Queen
300 families – same as it ever was. Then there’s the 97% that glum onto the words AS IF they had value.
Womb/men don’t want to recognize that we have choices, especially when coming to that realization means that we end up having to make different choices from those which have become habit.
Breaking habits is difficult.
April 5, 2013 at 8:15 pm
Cookie
hmmm. I see, And then when we realize that we have to think and become conscious about our thoughts and actions. Once a person becomes conscious, raises awareness, you can’t go back to oblivion. I think that is why so many people do drugs and/or alcohol. Easier to stay asleep/ unaware if you are numb in body and mind. Yes, habits are difficult to break.
April 6, 2013 at 7:37 am
Forest Queen
So the solution is, Life, power and consciousness begins with the individual.
Don’t join in the crippled parade. Make your choices wisely.
April 7, 2013 at 2:19 pm
Ed Voice
To kinda get back on topic for this very long thread. I would like to know from Eric if the below statement made my the Community Park Board to LAFCo on March 20th, (that has Eric’s name on it) is socialism. That is, should the ratepayers of the Garberville Sanitary District pay the cost of an annexation process ($20K~$25K) for the Park Board?
“We are asking you to please accept this recommendation for the inclusion of the Southern Humboldt Community Park property within the Garberville Sanitary District’s Sphere of Influence and Annexation so that the public can have access to safe drinking water. In addition, we kindly request that you work to avoid requiring the Community Park to enter another very costly annexation process on the heels of our General Plan Amendment Process and Environmental Impact Report. Please do what you can do to assure that the Community Park remains within the GSD Annexation and SOI boundaries”
“We are not requesting GSD water for use in watering field crops. The Park has other sufficient water sources for those purposes. Once again, we ask that you please ensure that the Community Park property remains within the Garberville Sanitary District’s SOI as presented to you today and also within the annexation boundaries at a later date”
April 7, 2013 at 3:36 pm
Eric Kirk
To answer your question Ed, we were asking LAFco to forgo requiring an EIR which would be costly and completely redundant with the current EIR associated with the zoning change. We have spent, and will spend, tens of thousands of dollars on the EIR. What you were demanding was that we be forced to spend tens of thousands more to generate exactly the same data, make exactly the same reports, and go through exactly the same process all over again.
But you were there Ed. You know that. Or you should know that.
LAFco wasn’t deciding anything about who pays for what pertaining to the future annexation. You’re either deliberately taking the statement out of context, or you’re just not really paying attention to what’s going on around you.
April 7, 2013 at 4:58 pm
suzy blah blah
Can we start with the eclipse of the head?
- “The definition of insanity is repeating the same mistakes over and over”.
The heart eclipsing the head is a way of saying, “outshining the intellect”. What the eclipse of the head involves is really a cure for mass insanity (something this world is suffering from very, very, VERY badly btw) and so the challenge for those of us who are conscious is to dis-empower those (the insane that the definition of insanity quote above warns us about) who insist on going ahead with their crazy head trip again and again and again and again, see? It’s the old paradigm of the heartless cold repetitious scientific “minded” method, etc. But the new paradigm which is now manifesting around the globe, as the false boundaries which were embedded in our minds to force individuals apart dissolves * * * is that the head will be eclipsed, or if you prefer spiritual parlance, “transcended”, by the heart. Which is to say that it’s “brilliance” LOL, will be quashed. And it’s about time.
And so by focusing upon the heart, instead of insanely thinking all the time, we will be brought down off of our pathological ego-headed intellectual trip. Another way of saying it is that head will atrophy and the heart and will become the main instigator of planetary activity, which is why suzy’s criticism bypasses the intellectual faculty, which is quickly in these tremulous times becoming obsolete, and goes straight for the heart, the place of love, and other things. Follow me yet? Probably not Cookie, because i’m afraid that you will only be able to begin to understand these subtle concepts when you become willing to open up your heart WIDE . . . and at the same time shut your mouth
Blessings from the heart ; ) And let us know if there are any other questions?.
April 7, 2013 at 5:05 pm
suzy blah blah
-whoops, should’ve been … “the heart and love …
April 7, 2013 at 6:50 pm
Cookie
“Follow me yet?” Yes. A little. Especially the part about people with their crazy head trip again and again and again. I will keep listening with a wide heart and a closed mouth. :-I
April 7, 2013 at 7:06 pm
Forest Queen
George was basically unhappy. He was feeling unfulfilled, his life had become dull and boring; and he hated his job; his relationship with his wife had gone south; he couldn’t communicate with his children; he had no real life except working, eating, watching TV, and sleeping; he could count his real friends on one finger; and he saw no real way of changing anything, or making it any better.
More of a problem, George started sleepwalking. One night while George was sleepwalking, he fell into a very deep hole. When he woke up, he discovered he was lying on the bottom in just his pajamas. He looked up to see the morning sky above him. It was early spring, and a chill was in the air. He saw no one, but could hear voices. He knew he had to try to get out; but the walls of the hole were straight, slippery, and high. He started crying out for help.
A man’s face appeared and he was peering down at him from the top of the hole.
“What’s your problem?” asked the man.
“Oh thank God,” said George. “I’m stuck down here and I can’t get out!”
“Well then, let me help,” said the man. “What’s your name?”
“George.
“Last name?”
“Zimmermann”
“One or two n’s?”
“Two.”
“I’ll be right back.”
George wondered what was so important about the spelling of his name; and then the man was back.
“This is your lucky day, George! I’m a billionaire, and I’m feeling generous this morning.” The man let go of a small piece of paper, and it floated down into the hole. When George looked up, the man was gone. The piece of paper was a check for $1,000, made out in his name. “What the hell? Where am I going to spend this down in here?”
Then he heard another voice coming. “Please help me,” George yelled. George could see that this guy had on a clerical collar.
“What can I do for you my son?”
“Father, help me get out of this hole . . . please.”
“My son, I must perform mass at the church in five minutes, so I can’t stop now. But we will say a special prayer for you today.” Then he reached into his pocket. “Here, this will help, and he dropped a Bible into the hole before leaving. George picked it up and tried to imagine any possible way to use it to get out of the hole.
The next passerby was a woman. She could understand his predicament, so she threw down some organic vegetables, along with vitamins and supplements. “Eat only these,” she said.
A doctor stopped and donated some bottles of the sample medications he was being paid to peddle that week. A lawyer came by and talked for a while about suing the City for not putting a fence around the hole. He left his card. A politician promised to pass a law to protect sleepwalkers if George would vote for him in the election tomorrow, assuming he could get out of the hole.
By now George was shivering and starting to give up hope of anyone getting him out of the hole.
“I can help you get out.” He heard a strong, convincing, powerful, female voice. You just need to let go of your negative thinking, learn to visualize, and then use the “Law of Attraction.”
“But that’s exactly what I’m doing – trying to attract someone to help get me out of this hole!” George protested.
“You must not be doing it right, she replied. Then she tossed something thin and square down to George. He yelled back up to her, “But . . . wait!” There was no one there to answer. He picked up the DVD, and stared at the cover. The Teachings of Abraham Master Course DVD Program.
Soon after a Zen Buddhist sat down in a lotus position at the edge of the hole, wanting to teach George to meditate. “If nothing else,” the Master said, “if you practice long enough, you’ll feel better about being in the hole. You might even be able to levitate your way out in a few lifetimes.”
George was about to resign himself to being in this hole forever when he heard the voice
“Can you move over a few feet, out of the way?”
George looked up, “What?”
“Could you please move away from the center of the hole?” George took a few steps back. “Why?” he was about to ask, when the man jumped into the hole.
“Are you crazy?” exclaimed George. “Now we’re both in this hole together. Couldn’t you just throw me a rope or ladder or something?”
The man looked at him and said, “That won’t work.”
“How do you know?” George asked.
“I’ve been here before, and I know the way out.”
April 7, 2013 at 7:15 pm
Ed Voice
Well Eric from April 7, 2013 at 3:36 pm, you forgot to answer the question, but instead you twisted everything to your own liking.
I call BS on your answer, if you can call it that. The Park GPA EIR has nothing to do with what was in front of the LAFCo commission that day. The LAFCo commission was adopting the GSD MSR/SOI, and exempting it from CEQA, you were also there, you didn’t get that?
So to hear you in your last post above, what part of the Parks GPA EIR would have studied GSD’s MSR/SOI? Where is the redundancy between the Park Board’s rezone and LAFCo? The two have nothing to do with one another, do they! The Park Board in their written statement (above) was asking not to pay for their annexation, plain and simple. Why you were asking LAFCo, I don’t understand either, but never the less, that is what you asked.
If anyone has no clue what is going on its the Park Board, when it comes to LAFCo and GSD.
“LAFco wasn’t deciding anything about who pays for what pertaining to the future annexation” No $hit Eric!
But yet you and the Park Board were asking LAFCo to “avoid requiring the Community Park to enter another very costly annexation process” What did that mean Eric, you didn’t pay a dime for the first GSD annexation and you don’t want to pay a dime for this second go at it, do you! The billing records are crystal clear at GSD.
You know what, your attempt to answer the question above shows signs of McCarthyism.
I asked you, if what the Park Board asked for was in your view socialism, its a yes or no answer Eric, please be kind enough to answer the question.
I/m expecting this post will have moderation….
April 7, 2013 at 8:05 pm
Eric Kirk
The SOI wasn’t “exempted from CEQA” Ed. LAFco simply decided that an EIR would be redundant and unnecessary for park inclusion in the Sphere of Influence, especially since it has been served by the GSD already for years.
Ed, the rest of your questions reveal a deep lack of understanding of what is happening, and I don’t have the time or energy to educate you. You are the one who took the quote about costs out of context and tried to use it to suggest that the park was trying to force costs on the GSD. And now you’re mad at me for pointing it out. Annexation wasn’t even on the LAFco agenda. And you know it, or you should know it anyway.
April 7, 2013 at 8:53 pm
Ed Voice
Sure Eric, what ever you say, because you understand how the game is played and what it takes so you can look good. The only problem with your way of dealing with people and the truth, it doesn’t last for ever, it always catches up to you, and when it does, I hope I am right there……
April 7, 2013 at 9:20 pm
suzy blah blah
The man looked at him and said, “That won’t work.”
“How do you know?” George asked.
“I’ve been here before, and I know the way out.”
-Cubism.
April 7, 2013 at 9:27 pm
Eric Kirk
Sigh.
April 8, 2013 at 10:34 am
Forest Queen
When white is fraudulently conveyed to be black, not all will live in darkness Eric.
April 8, 2013 at 2:55 pm
Ed Voice
I thought it was:
“In absentia luci tenebrae vinciunt“
I can typing……..
April 8, 2013 at 9:57 pm
Anonymous
Ed you got caught fibbing. Don’t get made about it. Stop fibbing.
April 9, 2013 at 4:45 pm
Ed Voice
Fibbing? If I am fibbing, Eric is lying to everyone, not just me. That is the problem with making a point against the administrator of a blog. Just like an anonymous saying what you said, you have no clue, but you follow Eric like a sheep right over the cliff, hiding behind your screen, not accountable to anyone.
Come to the Park Board’s public meet and greet at the Park on April 20 @ 1pm, Kimtu parking lot, then we can talk in person, maybe Eric will show up, he talks differently in person with other’s, than on this blog.
Maybe Eric will post: “Guided tour at Community Park on April 20″
The Southern Humboldt Community Park is hosting a guided tour of the Park on Saturday, April 20 at 1 p.m. The tour will give community members the opportunity to experience, on the ground, the vision of the rezoned park.
Participants will visit proposed public activity spaces such as sports fields, the commons, celebration grove, and a specialty area. Participants will also walk through areas that will continue to be reserved for agriculture and ag projects, habitat and restoration, with trails.
The walk will begin at 1 p.m. The starting point is the Kimtu parking lot. After the walk refreshments and discussion will take place at the barn. Maps, diagrams and a project description will be posted for viewing.
A focused discussion on dogs in the park will take place at the barn at 3 p.m.
April 9, 2013 at 5:04 pm
Eric Kirk
Unfortunately, I am coaching a soccer team this year and I will be evaluating tryouts on the 20th. The date was set long before we planned the 20th. I will be posting the leaflet next week, but fliers are going up all over town.
As to the fibbing Ed, you are the one who put up a discussion about trying to avoid the costs of a redundant EIR while representing it to be a discussion about trying to avoid fees pertaining to an annexation which we will seek some time in the future. You quoted us out of context Ed, and now you’re embarrassed.
For the record, just so we’re clear, the Park is in the SOI. We were removed from the annexation. By remaining in the SOI, options remain open which you and the usual detractors tried to close. We can be annexed in the future now, and the cost won’t be cost-prohibitive. That will mean that we get drinking faucets. That’s a good thing for the community. .
April 9, 2013 at 8:07 pm
Isabelle Ringing
GSD says they are considering giving the park two multi-family hook-ups at the farm house only. How does that translate into “drinking faucets?”
Where does the park board plan to put these “drinking faucets?” Tooby park?
The proposed sports complex?
The boogie venue?
These are spread all over the park at every edge.
It will certainly make permitting multi-family housing easier, when the time comes won’t it?
So what is the plan?
April 9, 2013 at 10:24 pm
Ed Voice
I guess we shall see what shakes out Eric, the record speaks for itself. GSD records last year and this year show the Park Board owing for its part in the first GSD annexation process. They also show the cost for all the staff and consultant’s time for the up coming second GSD annexation process just for the Park Board’s part and legal preparation of the Letter of Intent between the Park Board and GSD, that the Park Board never signed.
These are all public record at GSD, during meetings 2012 and 2013.
So not one square inch of the Park property is included in this second GSD Annexation process? That would be great, but that is not what GSD staff said at the last GSD meeting. You have no clue what you are talking about Eric, no clue what so ever.
I will hold you accountable for what you just said, lets see how you twist out of that. The Park Board wants the GSD ratepayers to foot the Park’s Annexation cost. And what if I’m right and you have been lying Eric, will you care, will you be accountable for your actions?
What is the difference between a lawyer and a hooker?
answer in the movie “Rainmaker”
April 9, 2013 at 11:50 pm
Eric Kirk
Yes Ed, we’ll see what “shakes out.” What is going to shake out is the community is going to have a park to be proud of despite the efforts to shut it down. You can hold me “accountable” for that.
GSD says they are considering giving the park two multi-family hook-ups at the farm house only. How does that translate into “drinking faucets?”
You tell me. I imagine that’s a reference to the service which is historical, not the annexation for additional service. But I have no idea what that refers to since I wasn’t there. What we want from the inclusion into the SOI is the opportunity for drinking faucets and bathrooms if possible. But we’re a long way from that.
It will certainly make permitting multi-family housing easier, when the time comes won’t it?
Unfortunately for those who need affordable housing, that doesn’t appear to be in the cards as the area where we had thought it might be possible will probably be designated wetland. I don’t believe that we have viable alternative locations, which is a bummer.
Where does the park board plan to put these “drinking faucets?” Tooby park?
The proposed sports complex?
The boogie venue?
That will depend on community input and feasibility. Definitely Tooby Park. The other areas, who knows?
April 10, 2013 at 8:04 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Eric,
If you think it is unfortunate to be coaching a soccer team, then don’t be a coach so you won’t feel the need to bitch about it. The kids need adults to look-up to, not adults belaboring their moaning about being around kids.
It is like why do families have kids if they just bitch about their kids? Answer, Having kids IS a form of slavery as much as it is to further bloodlines, like owning pets. People have been trained as socities’eers that there is somethieng weird or abnormal if ya refrain from procreation.
Just ask the two party system proponents who believe in growing numbers that children are the responsibility of society, not the parents, then a bit of understanding of what and why things are so “whacked-out” in America and WHY bureaucrats use children as political tools on both ends of the spectrum and all points in between. Kinda sad that children are being used by adults in so many forms and then when adults have an opportunity to make positive change, adults feel it is “unfortunate”.
Sincerely,
HOJ
April 10, 2013 at 8:35 am
Forest Queen
“Having kids (you mean ‘children,’ I’m sure) IS a form of slavery.”
“Having,” as in ‘owning?’ You do NOT own your children.
“Having,” as in birthing? And you’ve given birth how many times H.O.J?
Communication breakdown.
Presuming you mean “having” as in placing a lesser value than yourself (your perspective it appears) on a child. . . there is a recent YouTube video, filmed of a 9-year old boy genius {discovered} in Washington.
What was observed, is that the parents were/are in ‘awe’ about their children.
April 10, 2013 at 9:11 am
That Other Anonymous
HOJ,
I don’t think Eric was saying that it was “unfortunate” that he was coaching soccer, he was just saying that it was “unfortunate” that the date of the soccer tryouts (on the 20th) conflicted with the guided tour of the Park (which is also on the 20th).
April 10, 2013 at 9:47 am
Ed Voice
“What is going to shake out is the community is going to have a park to be proud of despite the efforts to shut it down. You can hold me “accountable” for that”
We already have a Park the Community can be proud of. My efforts are to hold the Park Board accountable for their actions for grandiose (Golden Gate Park) development plans, that have nothing to do with the Community, other than to use the Community to pay for the Park Board’s agenda for development. Its all smoke and mirrors, and the Park Board likes it that way.
So you never answered my direct question, “So not one square inch of the Park property is included in this second GSD Annexation process?”
We know the entire 400 acres of AE SHCP is not going to be included in the GSD Annexation CEQA process, that fact would turn the GSD Annexation IS/MND into a EIR, like what stopped the first GSD Annexation IS/MND dead in its tracks back in April 2012. So here is what the GSD BOD has proposed for the Park Board in the up coming recirculated GSD Annexation IS/MND (#2) for next month, you didn’t you get the memo?:
1. SHCP would be given one new connection (3/4” meter) to rectify the condition that both the yellow house and the park are served off the same meter. This condition was created in 2009 when the Lot Line Adjustment was recorded and the property line was moved so that the
residential structures were split into two properties.
2. The SHCP will make application for this new service connection. The application will stipulate at which location the Park is proposing installation of the one new ¾” meter. The three possible locations currently under consideration are:
a. On Tooby Ranch Road near the property line between APN 222-091-014 (SHCP) and 222-091-011 (Buck Mountain Ranch) on the existing 1” line that currently serves the Park property.
b. On Tooby Ranch Road off the future 8” waterline that may be constructed as part of the Drinking Water Improvement Project. The project is currently unfunded for construction. If the project were to be constructed, the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) may need to approve service connection(s) on this new line. The Tooby Ranch Road connection location will not be available until or if the District completes the construction of this Project.
c. On Sprowel Creek Road off the existing 8” waterline that serves the Kimtu Subdivision. This location requires CDPH and LAFCo approval the connection to the Kimtu waterline. The approval from CDPH cannot be obtained until and unless the currently unfunded Drinking Water Improvement Project is completed.
3. No connection fee would be charged, but the SHCP would be responsible for all costs associated with the installation of the new meter, pressure reducer, and backflow preventer plus any associated appurtenances.
4. The one new ¾” meter is for residential use only and is not intended to be used to serve future development on the Property contemplated by SHCP in the application for a General Plan Amendment (and associated applications for a conditional use permit, the Operational Plan, and the CEQA Initial Study Checklist as submitted to the Humboldt County Planning Department by SHCP) currently on file with the Humboldt County Planning Department.
5. The usage for the connection is limited to 2,000 cubic feet per month. The usage will be monitored monthly in conjunction with the reading of the meters. The SHCP will be notified each time the usage reading is in excess of the 2,000 cubic feet per month limit. The meter will be shut off if the usage is more than 1.5 times (3,000 cubic feet per month) the allowable quantity for any 2 months in a 12 month period. If the meter is shut off, the SHCP will have to petition the Board for reinstatement of service and obtain approval from LAFCo if necessary.
6. As part of the application for the new connection, the SHCP will be required to enter into a legally binding agreement that will be recorded for the parcel agreeing to the stipulated types and quantities of use as well as the enforcement methods.
:
April 10, 2013 at 7:21 pm
Eric Kirk
You know Ed, I didn’t get the memo. The GSD matters are being handled by another Board member. But nothing in there has anything to do with us trying to stick GSD with annexation costs. Rather it looks like a proposal based upon the historical usage – the GSD doesn’t need to annex what is already in its service district. You’re either deliberately or cluelessly mixing apples with oranges, and flailing away to divert from your previous attempt to confuse the Laffco SOI hearing issues with the annexation issues.
I don’t know if you’ve cut and pasted a proposal from the GSD accurately. It’s really not on subject point. As to the details, we have a committee which will review and prepare a response. I’m going to leave it to them.
April 11, 2013 at 7:34 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
TOA @ 9:11 am,
Could be, but experiences with enough soccer parents and coaches in Humboldt is that the first sentence in the quote is accurate with regard to season because often, over-population has created many children participants, but very few adults who want to also participate. This is the “Great Divide” between child (kid) and adult .
Many adults want their kids to have this day care service or that daycare service, but want others to provide it so that the parents get some satisfaction. Then, when no others can or will provide “it”, the parents inevitably and unfortunately must either take-on the responsibility or explain to their child (kid) why it is that they don’t get to play soccer this season. Then, the fact that most refs are young adults (college and high school) because of the money (RARELY BECAUSE OF FUN!). Then, parents want to bitch, moan and groan that their child (kid) is receiving poor service or is under-serviced, etc …. Some parents (less than 10%), actually “step-up”, but it does not mean they enjoy it WHEN they are “pressured into” weighing their unhappiness to participate in their child’s (kid’s) life versus their child’s (kid’s) happiness of participation.
Ain’t sayin’ Eric is evil, but am saying too many parents moan and groan about the choices they make regarding their child (kid); and, that many children are smart enough to know who is lookin’ out for their interests!
When children (kids) are subjected to adults who don’t show interest, don’t care, etc…, then what type of human being will that child (kid) become as an adult?
Sincerely,
HOJ
Quote:
Eric Kirk
Unfortunately, I am coaching a soccer team this year and I will be evaluating tryouts on the 20th. The date was set long before we planned the 20th. I will be posting the leaflet next week, but fliers are going up all over town.
April 11, 2013 at 7:42 am
Ed Voice
“You know Ed, I didn’t get the memo. The GSD matters are being handled by another Board member”
Well thanks Eric, thanks for being honest and that would explain allot and why you still don’t know what you are talking about, when it comes to GSD, LAFCo and Water Rights.
“But nothing in there has anything to do with us trying to stick GSD with annexation costs”
Its a known fact over at GSD the Park Board asked forgiveness for the cost of their GSD Annexation, because they are a mutual Community benefit origination This goes back to April last year and the GSD Board voted in favor. If you or the Park Board would attended GSD meetings on a regular bases, you would know this, just ask Dennis or Rio.
“Rather it looks like a proposal based upon the historical usage – the GSD doesn’t need to annex what is already in its service district”
Here is where you shine Eric. First, if the Park was existing or had historic usage, why is GSD proposing a “New Connection” for the Park. And second, if you were already in the District service boundary, why are you included in the Annexation process.
“It’s really not on subject point. As to the details, we have a committee which will review and prepare a response. I’m going to leave it to them”
That’s sounds great Eric, there’s a 10% chance the Park committee knows more about it anyway.
April 11, 2013 at 10:11 am
Eric Kirk
The annexation would be for the areas of the park not historically serviced. I believe that due to physical problems with the system we haven’t actually received water for some time, although we’ve continued to pay for it. I’m assuming that this is a discussion about repairing the existing system. It’s not rocket science Ed.
We were removed from the annexation pending the rezoning, but not from the SOI. I don’t know what “costs of annexation” you’re talking about, except that they were at one point asking us for 16 thousand based upon us being in the annexation, but it became moot once we were removed. But I wasn’t an active participant in that discussion, so I don’t know what the 16 thousand was intended to represent. There have been some changes at the GSD.
The historical service has nothing to do with annexation. You “annex” something you don’t have. Again, you’re mixing the issues.
April 11, 2013 at 10:15 am
Eric Kirk
HOJ – It’s not “unfortunate” that I am coaching. I’ve coached for one of my kid’s teams, and sometimes both, for every year of the past decade. Plus I coach both of their Indoor Soccer teams in the off season. I love it.
The unfortunate aspect is that the tryout date conflicts with the guided tours, and I had agreed to help evaluate all of the kids in every age group, which means I’ll be in Eureka all day. I really want to be in both places, but I can’t.
Oh, and not that it matters but I didn’t procreate. My kids are both adopted.
April 11, 2013 at 5:25 pm
Eric Kirk
I just removed a post which contained some serious misinformation. If you want to try again, this time leaving out your speculations, I’ll be happy to allow the post through.
April 11, 2013 at 7:17 pm
Ed Voice
Eric, it’s mine, because I don’t see my comment from this morning in reply to your April 11, 2013 at 10:11 am post and sense you say it “contained some serious misinformation” it must be mine. Don’t know what happened, must have forgot to post it with my FB sign-in I guess, can you send it to my email? I’ll re-post it under my name?
April 12, 2013 at 11:35 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Thanks Eric for your response to “clear-up” your sentence structuring explanation. The way you wrote the response pertaining to the season (compared to conflicting arrangements) seemed a bit jaded. Anyhow, good to read you enjoy your time with your kids because even at “tryouts” for D1 – D3, coaches (who can be parents too) often still moan about being “at tryouts” when they already essentially know who they want on their club. Process to show integrity even though again, the coaches usually have an idea who they already want. Hope ya have green fields to play on in Southern Humboldt.
Yes, I figured you adopted since you have referenced that in the past. Good man you are for adopting.
Sincerely,
HOJ
April 12, 2013 at 12:08 pm
Anonymous
HOJ lectures on “sentence structuring.”
Irony abounds.
April 12, 2013 at 9:09 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Yep Anonymous, waited for ya to show-up with that retort (anticipation). Difference is that HOJ referenced specifically the area of the comment structure that was “confusing”, as opposed to just making a blanket, misapplied statement because it can be done.
Thank You very much and good night. The fat lady has sung.
Sincerely,
HOJ
April 13, 2013 at 8:03 pm
Anonymous
The source of HOJ’s confusion is located between HOJ’s ears. Either that, or somewhere between there and his keyboard. Or maybe some of both.
April 14, 2013 at 10:32 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Anonymous, no need to “pout”, but feel free to do so.
Sincerely,
HOJ
April 14, 2013 at 11:52 am
Anonymous
Pouting? On the contrary, your linguistic difficulties, muddled reasoning, and exceptional lack of self-awareness add up to comedy gold! The fact that you take yourself so seriously while looking so silly — that just adds another layer to the farce, kind of like a chimp in a tux.
April 14, 2013 at 2:56 pm
Ed Voice
Ok ERic, here is the email from Herb Schwartz, GSD Board Chair. And just to remind you, Herb resigned before his term was up in 2013. Please explain why you think Herb sent this letter and what he is trying to tell the Park Board. And as we both know, the Park is being included for this second Annexation attempt next month, again with the GSD ratepayers footing the bill for the Park Board and having so say in the matter.
From: HERB SCHWARTZ
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 4:11 PM
To: Kathryn Lobato
Cc: Carol Van Sant; Jim Truitt; Barb Truitt; Dennis Huber; Eric Kirk; Peter Ryce; Tim Metz; Jennie Short; Bill Stewart; Dennis Bourassa; Rio Anderson; Peter Connolly; Tina Stillwell; Virginia Graziani; Keith Easthouse
Subject: Re: SHCP and GSD Annexation Status–update adding the three missing attachments
Hi Kathryn,
I’ve attached my response. Annexation will be discussed and decided, I hope at our next board meeting on June 26th. We plan to place it for hearing at 5:30 PM. Be sure to check the posted agenda to confirm it will be at 5:30 PM.
Sincerely,
Herb Schwartz, Board Chair GSD
Interim District Administrator
Email Attachment:
Dear Kathryn, GSD Board, the SHCP Board, and the SHCP and GSD community and environs:
Thank you for your response of June 6th requesting that the entire park property remain within the annexation as per the vote of the Garberville Sanitary District on January 24, 2012.
Your June 6th note stated that after reviewing the documents and proposed costs that GSD provided, your Board has decided to seek legal and technical advisors to “better understand the obligations and the implications of these documents.” Your brief June 6th email requires a long explanation for the action I will recommend to the Board at our meeting on June 26th.
1. GSD sent out its draft of the Initial Study/Mitigation Negative Declaration (IS/MND) circa March 9, 2012 as per Board directive. The initial study included the entire main SHCP parcel for annexation with mitigations regarding quantity and type of use. After the issuance this environmental assessment, two major events happened: (a) We received about 14 comments that included individuals and governmental agencies, (b) GSD received the billing records from the Garberville Water Company. With this new information, the staff informed the board that it now had reliable data from the GWC billing records of historically served parcels. Staff further informed the board that our attorney and planning consultant was advising that annexing SHCP lands would likely require issuance of an Environmental Impact Report because providing water services to these lands would enable significant development which could include, and not necessarily limited to agricultural lands. Our annexation petition must go to the Local Agency Formation Commission. This agency was created to discourage urban sprawl and to preserve open space and agricultural lands. If GSD were to annex the lands of SHCP, LAFCo would require a complete analysis of all of the possible impacts that would be triggered by including those lands for water services. Under these circumstance, GSD staff advised the Board to limit annexation of the Park lands to the two single family residences (Farmhouse and Bunkhouse) that were connected at some point from the original meter near the main storage tank, and are on the lands now owned by SHCP. The rationale for the staff advice was several fold:
(a) GSD is not the lead agency for development of SHCP lands. The use of these lands is controlled by SHCP subject to county approval. SHCP has requested a change in the general plan land use designation and has specific plans that are embedded in an EIR to detail the impacts of their planned development and use. GSD is placed into an impossible position by annexing these lands over which they have no control and no planned uses. It would require a broad ranging EIR of possible impacts that will cost GSD tens of thousands of dollars to produce.
(b) The “tens of thousands of dollars” (the estimate is at least $75,000) is not financially available to GSD. GSD acquired a worn out infrastructure from the Garberville Water Company. The community was consulted at the time of acquisition and it was decided that the best way to hold and finance the continued operation and rehabilitation of the water system was to purchase it from the owners of the private water company. GSD continues to patch the system when there are water main breaks, replace meters, etc. The District’s first major water rehabilitation project, is the replacement of the existing water treatment plant and establishment of sufficient water storage to deal with winter storm water treatment issues and summer fire danger in the increasingly dangerous urban/wild lands interface between Garberville and its connected wild lands. (GSD has two more multi million dollar infra structure rehabilitation projects that need to be completed before our area will have a secure drinking water system.) We aren’t sure how these infrastructure projects will be financed because the pending drinking water improvement project has already maxed out the District’s financial resources. Garberville is designated as a financially disadvantaged community. Our rate structure was established based upon construction of this project, and our regulators will not allow us to increase the rates given the economic status of our rate payers. With these policy considerations in mind, the staff then made its recommendations to the April 24th meeting of the District’s Board of Directors to limit annexation to existing single family residences on the SHCP lands.
2. Notwithstanding the Board’s concerns, and recommendation of Staff, the Board, in the interests of a public collaboration with the supporters of the private SHCP board, agreed to meet with SHCP in temporarily protected “private” discussions to determine how GSD could work with SHCP to meet our respective constraints, concerns, and interests. A meeting of our “working group” that took place at GSD offices with Jennie Short, Kathryn Lobato, Jim Truitt, Carol Van Sandt, Rio Anderson, and myself on May 7th. After laying out the steps needed to be undertaken to determine if staff could recommend inclusion of the SHCP lands in a way that didn’t trigger an EIR and where costs were to be shared by or paid entirely by SHCP, Jennie conducted research, analysis, site visits, emails, and conversations with SHCP. On May 19th, GSD sent you four documents: A summary sheet of the two options and estimated costs to the District for annexation, two aerial figures showing the configurations of the options, and an updated list of the questions with answers that Kathryn and Jennie had developed. Jennie stated in that email, working with our contract engineers, SHN, GSD had already incurred costs of $6,000 of out of scope costs working on the engineering and environmental details of annexation presented to that date. SHN had previously submitted a $8,000 request for a contract amendment to cover out of scope items. Jennie was unaware at the time of the working group meeting, that such a high percentage of those out of scope costs from SHN were directly related to the Park annexation data collection and analyses performed by SHN. She mentioned that amount not as a bill for the Park, but a precursor of the assumption underlying this entire enterprise with SHCP, that SHCP would eventually share the overall cost of engineering annexation of SHCP lands with a prohibition zone that obviated the need for an EIR which was projected to cost about $16,000. At the Board meeting of May 16th, the Board was advised that the District must reserve all available funds for our water treatment and storage project or we won’t be able to get the project funded (constructed) by our funder: California Department of Public Health. Expending money for expansion of water service area and uses on SHCP lands will undercut the available funds available for our infrastructure rehabilitation project, which means we can’t do the project. Because of the conditions associated with the construction of the Kimtu waterline, if the new treatment plant is not constructed, the District may not be able to connect anyone to the new Kimtu waterline, which would include the SHCP parcel. The May 19th email asked SHCP Board to contact us after its Board meeting on the 24th to let us know how it wanted to proceed, and critically, responding to funding for the costs of annexation. We suggested, if necessary, another meeting of our “working group” on May 29th.
3. On June 1st I wrote to the SHCP Board again, reminding the Board again, that on April 24th, GSD set up a thirty-day period for the SHCP and GSD for a working group to meet on the request of SHCP to annex its entire parcel. The working group met. Katherine and Jennie walked the property, figures and cost estimates were prepared all of which was sent off to you on May 19th, in time for your May 24th board meeting. (Jennie and I work evenings often times to keep GSD running in the absence of a full time District Administrator to make sure this information was available by your board meeting). I explained that staff memos with graphic diagrams and cost estimates needed to be circulated by June 15th. The work that remains before the GSD Board meeting on June 26th is complicated…we needed to prepare a SHCP/GSD reimbursement agreement, a draft of the terms of the prohibition zone if we were to annex the entire park property, coordination with LAFCo and County Planning if the effort to annex the park lands with a prohibition agreement was going to have a chance of success; all before the deadline to post the staff report and agenda to the public to meet the Brown Act. We gave you a deadline of June 6th to let us know how we should proceed. You responded on June 6th but gave us no information on how to proceed and no commitment on the financial aspects nor the concept of a service prohibition zone.
4. To date, as far as the District knows, SHCP has no authorization to conduct any park activities on SHCP lands. The District was promised a letter from the County approving park activities on its parcel. We never received it. It is another critical piece of this development puzzle that SHCP has failed to produce. I appreciate that SHCP has taken on a huge project. Creation of a new park in this economic and political environment is a courageous effort. I personally support providing a park for the citizens of and tourists to Southern Humboldt. I have excluded myself from any discussions of how a Park should develop because it creates a conflict with my obligations as a member of the Board, Chair, and interim District Administrator. GSD has first claim on my loyalty and my time. Any other actions compromise my position. However, I must comment that SHCP can certainly provide park activities without any water. To enjoy SHCP as a birder, all you need is a water bottle. In the 2012-2013 issue of the Southern Humboldt Visitors Guide/Redwood times, at page 16, an article by Virginia Graziani describes Southern Humboldt Community Park as the place to go to observe as many as 140 species of birds many of which are considered uncommon or rare in this part of Northern California. I am not a “birder” nor am I an advocate for bird watching….though I do know that when our bioremediation ponds mature, I am told that our wastewater system will be an attractive nutritional spot for migrating birds along the Pacific flyway. The District fails to understand why the SHCP needs potable water for the current uses at the Park. Most parks of similar type don’t have public drinking water fountains and the park users bring the water they need with them. The water source for the existing residential homes functions as needed for private residences.
5. I will recommend to the Board, based on my analysis, that GSD exclude SHCP completely from annexation except for historical residential uses. Any half measure, like extending services for public drinking water purposes, exposes GSD with the responsibility of providing potable water for the public without any authority over its use complicated by the absence of any authority from any source to provide public drinking water.
6. As I have stated on more than one occasion, SHCP should retain skilled assistance to consider creation of a Park District, or a joint powers agreement with GSD, so that SHCP would have access to the governmental authority and possible umbrella funding for public monies to realize its vision. As it stands now, from my experience with SHCP, it has failed to show it has the wherewithal to realize its vision. This is not a critical statement. It is an assessment which I hope the SHCP considers as a remark that is made by a friend who is frank and direct and honest to another friend.
7. Eventually, and soon, I will retire, from GSD as I have publicly announced. Obtaining financing and construction authorization for our water filtration plant, storage tank, and associated pipe lines and facilities will be the point at which I will retire from the Board. It is my hope that point will have been passed before September 1, 2012 which is a new and final deadline for me to retire from the District. I then plan to retreat from public service for a period of time to spend time at home, finish up my law practice, and spend time in the Bay Area with my grandchildren.
April 14, 2013 at 3:46 pm
Cookie
Eric, could you please explain this in a nutshell? It sounds like GSD customers are getting screwed and footing the bill for the SHCP, which as mentioned here “…. of the “private” SHCP board,”
April 14, 2013 at 4:53 pm
Not A Native
That’s interesting Ed. You’ve done your homework. Clears up Eric’s uncertainty of what the $16,000 would be for. I expect he won’t have an opinion as to the objectivity of the memo, not being involved in negotiations.
Even though the memo is mostly about finances, it does give a point of view about what purposes the park could fulfill. Clearly, the ability to raise finances and the purpose of those finances are joined at the hip by priorities of the populace, as well as politics. From what I can tell from the memo, GSD is acting reasonably, prudently, and cooperatively. Neither a booster nor impediment to SHCP. That’s what I would expect from a public agency.
The GSD proposal mentions a “yellow house” while the memo references the “farmhouse and “bunkhouse”. I assume one of those is the yellow house, correct?
So is the GSD proposal to provide 2000 cubic feet (15,000 gallons) a month for use by one existing private residence? If so, that seems plenty. FWIW, average household domestic use of water is about 1000 gallons per person per month, which includes cooking, washing, laundering. How many people live in the house the new meter would serve?
Drinking fountains shouldn’t be a big water user and pit toilets are the norm at nature parks. But I gather from the memo that any public use of water from the new meter would require additional permitting, even if total use is less than 15,000 gallons a month. Is that right?
April 14, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Ed Voice
Not A Native, to answer your question(s)~
1. “The GSD proposal mentions a “yellow house” while the memo references the “farmhouse and “bunkhouse”. I assume one of those is the yellow house, correct?”
The “Yellow House” is owned by Bob McKee (aka Buck Mountain Ranch LP).
2. “How many people live in the house the new meter would serve?”
We have no idea, the 2000 cf per month is split between two houses (“farmhouse and bunkhouse”).
3. “But I gather from the memo that any public use of water from the new meter would require additional permitting, even if total use is less than 15,000 gallons a month. Is that right?”
Yes, given the best information we have and what GSD has documented for the Park Annexation CEQA IS/MND (re-circulation, second attempt).
4. “Drinking fountains shouldn’t be a big water user and pit toilets are the norm at nature parks”
The Park Board claims they currently have 48,500 visitors a year at the Park under its current County restrictions for usage until they complete their required GPA EIR. And the Park Boards GPA project description calls for “Bathrooms”, not pit toilets, being proposed at different locations across the 400 acres. .
In an email from Jennie Short (GSD Staff) from last week, she states:
—– Original Message —–
From: Jennie Short
To: Ed Voice
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 8:48 AM
Subject: SHCP and the Annexation
The District believes that the quantity of water being allowed is a sufficient measure to limit any development within that area to an insignificant level. The IS/MND will detail that.
If you have comments you can make them then, I am not going to go back and forth about this outside of the CEQA process. Unless it can be shown that a huge amount of development can be accomplished with 2,000 cubic feet of water a month and the existing zoning, I don’t foresee a need to change this. Any LAFCo approval will contain this condition so that the Board can not change the quantity without other’s concurrence.
The proposed development by the Park requires a Rezone and that is a separate CEQA issue from our project.
Thanks, Jennie
Garberville Sanitary District
~
You have to understand, there is a very long dark history between the Park Board, Dazey, McKee, Herb Schwartz and GSD, its dates back to 2000, before Herb Schwartz was on the GSD BOD and after in 2004. There were allot of non-publicly disclosed meeting and negotiations between the Park Board, Dazey, McKee and Herb Schwartz, when Herb was GSD BOD Chair. I can share those email as well if you want and Eric will allow.
I have had to file many CPRA requests with GSD, because the Park Board will not give you the time of day or any information concerning any communication it has with anyone, other than their 990 tax return and by-laws.
Hope that answers some of your questions, if not, please ask again. I have many documents that back up everything. Herb is covering his ass in that email, because of the information we obtained in some of our CPRA requests with GSD, showing how long this has been planned and by whom, why do you think he resigned, not retired from GSD at the end of September 2012
BTW, Eric did get that email/memo from Herb I posted above, he does know more than he lets-on about.
April 14, 2013 at 9:07 pm
Eric Kirk
This is typical of Ed, where he again mixes apples and oranges, taking old resolved issues and reconstructing them to play into current issues without proper context. And it’s a bottomless pit with Ed, because when you call him on one post he makes, he’ll deny he ever said it and move on to another topic, and then another, and another, before fully discussing any one of them. He’s got all the time in the world apparently, and there’s no way I can address all of this except to say that most of these issues were resolved with the understanding that for the time being we will remain in the SOI, and table any annexation issues for another time..
I also think it’s unfair to drag Herb into the discussion at this point because I’m not going to publicly criticize him over issues long resolved. He left the GSD under a lot of stress. A good portion of these costs and time spent by the GSD came in responding to the detractors’ constant and relentless prodding and pushing because they are desperate to kill the park in any way they can.
What is happening is that we are on the home stretch of the EIR and we will probably be rezoned by the end of the year. I’m going to expect frantic efforts from certain individuals to sidetrack us and bog us down, and we have far too much experience with these people to try to kick Lucy’s football again.
If you have any questions about the GSD’s plans, I suggest you contact them directly. But I don’t have the time or energy to respond to Ed’s endless cut and paste jobs.
April 14, 2013 at 10:15 pm
Ed Voice
“Apples and oranges”, “bottomless pit”, “He’s got all the time in the world apparently”, “detractors’”, relentless prodding”, “kill”, “home stretch”, “frantic effects”, “bog us down”, “kick Lucy’s football” and “endless cut and paste jobs”.
I think it was “they are desperate to kill the park in any way they can”, Who is “they” Eric? The 600 people in the community that are opposed to the Park Board’s agenda for rezoning and development at the Park?
Kill is a strong word Eric, one above hate.
First of all let me say I am not a PARK DETRACTOR, a derogatory label assigned by the park board to anyone who in anyway disagrees with their vision for their Park. And it is “their” Park. Remember that. This is not a public park as long as the board remains a private entity not answerable to the public.
Yeah, Herb had a lot of stress, stress about being in violation of the Brown act, stress about being in violation of Water Rights, stress of dealing with the Mark Bryant, stress about dealing with a $7 Million project that could bankrupt GSD and the stress of dealing with the Park Board and its L’il black rain cloud of constant controversy.
As a neighboring property owner, we are opposed to the Park Board’s plans and we are very concerned about the water we don’t have and where you want to get it from (South Fork Eel River). Maybe if you and the Park Board would have sat down and talked about it with your neighbors before all this started, none of this would have happened. Maybe if you had communication skills, calling your neighboring property owners detractors, that they are killing the Park, wow, I guess you reap what you sow.
Since the Park Board doesn’t want to talk to us in public, this is the next best way for us to deal with the Park Board, since you are on the Park Board. You know how to fix it, right Eric….
And by the way, I’ve got all the time in the world and your point was….
April 15, 2013 at 8:08 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Park Board + Proposal = Controversy
Controversy = environmentalism
No one ever said government was not going to build its base of environmentalists who use tax dollars for “pet projects”. Countless jurisdictions use ballot measures to raise revenues by raising property taxes too. As Fred complains that street trees in Eureka is not needed since trees are everywhere in Humboldt, so too with parks. The idea is not that there does not exist any outdoor space to enjoy, but that government wants it “in your face local” where the user can be seen by the masses to prove that government functions work and that government infrastructure is used. It is “eye candy” development, that is all.
Funny thing is, even though MOST OF US pay too much in taxes (often double taxed), participants are forced to pay to use state and federal parks, so why not local? Local politics is as bad or worse than state and feds, but local power trippers don’t want the voters to understand this. Ya see, structures and processes are similar, but the difference is IQ, intelligence, wits, common sense, etc… and at the local level, it is just as hard to elect candidates who can use brain power as opposed to “wallet power” using special interest money and leverages.
Voters are not used to “intelligence” when selecting their choices, and voters continue to make the same mistakes over and over again which is insanity. Voters are disillusioned with wealth, money, power, popularity, peer pressures and comparisons, etc…
Sincerely,
HOJ
April 15, 2013 at 8:17 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
April 14, 2013 at 11:52 am
Anonymous
Pouting? On the contrary, your linguistic difficulties, muddled reasoning, and exceptional lack of self-awareness add up to comedy gold! The fact that you take yourself so seriously while looking so silly — that just adds another layer to the farce, kind of like a chimp in a tux.
Response:: Funny how anonymous has an exceptional lack of transparency while attempting to be serious. Hey, should not we all be serious? Of course, a good laugh here and there is needed in life.
Anyhow, a chimp in a tux would be a cool feature, better than a donkey in blue or an elephant in red. Donkeys just grunt and groan while elephants use their trunks to eat their own dung.
Again, no need to pout anonymous if you really feel you made your point.
Sincerely,
HOJ
April 15, 2013 at 9:00 am
Cookie
HOJ @ 8:08a.m. Sometimes you make so much sense it’s scary. The proposed uses this private park board has in store are their ego’s, fame and glory, power trip. Jim Truitt said this morning the “community has mandated” the things at the park. I call BullShit. The board needs to come down off their high horses, humble themselves, and leave the park as a park. We don’t need another concert/party venue. We don’t need a huge sports complex with night lights and tons of cars parked leaking oil and other toxic fluids into agricultural soil. This is development destruction Eric. Don’t understand why you can’t see that.
April 15, 2013 at 9:38 am
Eric Kirk
Cookie – the demand for sports fields is huge. Every public meeting we’ve held on the subject has shown that, and even John LaBoyteaux, one of the park’s chief critics, is on board. He proposed the location at the west end before we did, and published in the papers.
Yes, there are downsides to such a development. There are downsides to everything we do. But the cars leak oil whether they’re at the park, in town, or at home.
But I’m not going to carry this conversation on an internet blog, as the discussions just feed on anger as some of the very long unproductive threads of the past have shown. As part of the EIR, there will be public hearings with plenty of notice, and I expect the same crowd of detractors to show up and make the same objections they make at every public meeting held by us or any public agency. But as has happened at the past meetings, there will be members of the public with their own visions, and there will be a large turnout for soccer and baseball fields.
And once we have been rezoned, we will then hold public discussions as to the details. If you think the plans are too grandiose, you may not be alone. Instead of proposing no ball fields at all, maybe propose something scaled down.
But it is going to happen, and there a numerous visions coming from many sectors of the community. We obviously can’t accomodate every vision, but the vision of keeping the park in current form is merely one among many visions. It’s all about balancing the various community wants and needs with environmental concerns, and we believe that we’re addressing them more than adequately.
We did some polling last year as to the priorities, and we are about to begin some polling again this year.
But again, this is not the best forum for discussion. It turns into a long thread in which only the most intense individuals hold interest, and I don’t have the time or energy for it. It’s much better in face to face discussion.
April 15, 2013 at 10:20 am
Ed Voice
“It’s much better in face to face discussion” Eric said, when is that going to happen. VanSant said on KMUD this morning, people coming to the ParK Board Tour would be split up into groups?
And Cookie, the Park Board is proposing asphalt parking lots, three of them at the Park, included in their current draft GPA Project Description.
I am open to hear what the Park Board is finely making public, but it sounds like they already made up their minds for everyone.
Have you spoke to John LaBoyteaux lately?
I saw the survey you had people fill out during Summer Arts last year, how come you have not made them public? Is the Park Board being self selective?
Southern Humboldt Community Park Survey June 2012
Purpose: The Southern Humboldt Community Park is in the process of preparing an application to Humboldt County for a General Plan Amendment. One goal of the project is to rezone about 96 acres for public space out of the 405 acres currently zoned Agriculture Exclusive.
This survey is designed to be one tool in determining the level of support for facilities and activities in the Public Space.
Please indicate your level of support:
1-none” 2= low 3=medium 4=high 5-very high
__Two Playground Areas (including Tooby Playground, which exists, but is outside of zoning compliance)
__Three Picnic Areas (including the existing one at Tooby)
__ Specialty Camping Area for schools or workshops (not open for general public use)
__ Small Events: weddings, memorials, Egg Hunt, small non-profit fundraisers
__ Sports Facilities Area: soccer, baseball, football fields for kids and adults
__ Skate Park
__ Adequate Parking for Everyday Use Adequate Temporary Parking for events
__ 1 Festival per year (similar to but not necessarily) the Summer Arts Fair
__ Mid-size Events, limited to 5 per year, like the Humboldt Hoedown or bicycle races
__ Dog Park
__ River Access for non-motorized water craft in one or two locations
__ Mountain Bike Park with skill building track
__ Use of existing structure for education center, office and meeting space
__ Labyrinth (already installed by Redwood Rural Community Health Care Center, but outside zoning compliance)
__ Disc Golf Course (already installed by a community club, but outside zoning compliance)
The Park proposes to keep over 300 acres in Agriculture Exclusive zoning, but with a new land use designation of Parks and Recreation to bring all current activities into compliance.
Please indicate your level of support for the continuation of these activities:
__Agriculture Activities: farming, grazing, food processing – open to community participation
__ trails for pedestrians __ streambed restoration & erosion control
__ trails for bicyclists __ trails for equestrian use
******************************************************************************************
ZIP CODE ____ YEAR of BIRTH____ GENDER____
April 15, 2013 at 10:22 am
Eric Kirk
Have you spoke to John LaBoyteaux lately?
Has he changed his mind again?
And we will make the poll results public once completed, in process.
April 15, 2013 at 10:38 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
True Eric,
Organized sports leagues need more “newer” facilities since schools have let theirs go to pot and less parents volunteer it seems.
Additionally, users of these “eye candy” developments based for perceived needs is that users pay for their uses, not homeowners, not sales taxes, etc… but by implemented direct user fees.
Of course, a problem still at the Arcata Sports complex is the occasional “doughnut circle” on all fields, dog walkers who let their dogs crap all over, vehicle uses that cause impacts and costs, even though the users of the vehicles may not be a registered athlete, but a family member or other guest.
Also, on a political level, local bureaucrats are on a mission to “increase water uses” in order to “retain water rights” so that additional river water is not diverted by aquaducts to metropolitan areas outside of Humboldt County. By retaining the rights, future water uses can be swapped for each other. The key is keeping the water here locally, not letting it go south.
See, that is the win-win scenario that is formulated, but it is false when all costs are not paid 100% by users. Simply spreading costs around as a tax base as opposed to a user based fee is local political theft and corruption to be blunt because “non-users” are used as a defacto example of support for the “eye candy development”.
Usually, it comes down to a “selective bunch of locally connected folks” who push political agendas by creating groups in an effort to build a minority consensus that makes false impressions of “majority support”, which is why “the vote” is used as the FAIR way to decide matters WHEN the information leading-up to the vote IS accurate.
A vote on lies, however, is mass neglect, but hey, The American voter lives off neglect.
Sincerely,
HOJ
April 15, 2013 at 10:59 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Ed Voice brings out a thought: What is the position of the Park Board, and for that matter, Humboldt County, with respect to the “Williamson Act”?
Why?
Well, since resource protection seems to be a “hot button issue”, whether it be TPZ or AE, it seems awefully “flip-floppish” and “double standardized” to “posturize” the “conversion” of a “natural resource zoned land use” for purposes of recreational development, suggesting recreational is MORE IMPORTANT than resource protection and resource uses, let alone more important than a private property owner building a home on the very TPZ or AE land to be maintained and used as zoned for.
For reasons not discussed openly, environmental impacts and mitigations have a “much easier process” during public agency applications than during any private development contractor application processes.
Why?
Those who make the rules for others never intended to include themselves. This is why there is government and people. One to make, the other to be told.
Sincerely,
HOJ
April 15, 2013 at 11:24 am
Anonymous
I “wonder” if HOJ’s “keyboard” has to “be replaced” every “year or so” due to “the frequent” and “seemingly” almost “random” use of the “quotation mark key?”
April 15, 2013 at 11:27 am
Eric Kirk
That could all be true HOJ. Or maybe parents just want a nice place for their kids to play soccer. With the increased interest every year, the Redway fields don’t provide enough space. As to the water use to maintain the fields, there are a number of suggestions about that. We’ll consider them all.
All depends on how you look at it I suppose.
The park doesn’t have a position on the Williamson Act. The park is not under a Williamson Act contract. And most of the park will remain ag zoned, with the exception of about 90 acres which will be used for recreation. That leaves a lot of space, most of which is being utilized, and was not being utilized at anywhere near the same level before the park purchased it.
April 15, 2013 at 8:28 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Eric,
increased interest means that registration is increasing or that more “out-of-area” teams want to come play up here for some proposed tournaments. Either way, a “perceived need” should be paid for 100% by its users in these types of “development situations”. There can be good and bad, but as you know, funding is a big issue for taxpayers and slamming taxes upon non-users is unfavorable.
As far as the “Park Board”, just thought it would be interesting “as individuals” what their stance is regarding “ideals of both TPZ and AE”. Why? Arguments ironically are flip-flopped when its the public agency attempting to “rezone”. Of course, nothing prevents conflicting ideals while local bureaucrats decide that a 90 acre development for rec use is less impacting than say a home on resource lands like TPZ or AE, or 2nd unit for cryin’ out loud. This is why too for thinking it would be interesting to see why such a huge divide in the justification reasonings used when any private property owners want to do something as opposed to a public agency doing something 45 to 90 times greater in size and impact as compared again, to a private property owner.
Double standards if the same tests used against McKee, Pacific Lumber and others to argue on behalf of county goals for AE and TPZ to then not argue for the same “impacts” when a public agency wants to do its “Tooby Ranch” development is very telling of those who are making decisions and how connections to get things done for one applicant (public agency) is vastly different for another applicant (private party).
Ya see, if a 90 acre development of AE land is good for rec uses, then all AE properties, and TPZ lands for that matter, are also good for a home and 2nd unit.
Finally, the best environmental option for the AE land is not to develop it for rec uses. So, to develop AE for rec use by more people than that which could be experienced while using a single family home or a 2nd unit also speaks to this idea or thought of “easy justifications” for public agency project support, but “unequal application of the laws and regs AND ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR for private sector application processes to rezone the same zoned lands”. Again, quite telling of the personalities behind all these AE and TPZ restriction issues, yet it is ok for the government to do opposite of what it demands of others.
Sincerely,
HOJ
April 15, 2013 at 8:33 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
April 15, 2013 at 11:24 am
Anonymous
I “wonder” if HOJ’s “keyboard” has to “be replaced” every “year or so” due to “the frequent” and “seemingly” almost “random” use of the “quotation mark key?”
Response:
Anonymous wastes time wondering ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Too funny,
HOJ
April 15, 2013 at 8:44 pm
Anonymous
HOJ’s concerned about time being wasted in comment threads?
Irony abounds again!
April 17, 2013 at 8:06 pm
Anonymous
Clarification needed regarding developers fees
Redwood Times
Posted: 04/09/2013 10:28:25 AM PDT
To the Editor:
As second district supervisor I want to set the record straight regarding what the supervisors actually voted on re: “developers fees” during one of our recent GPU meetings.
The Supervisors did NOT vote to “eliminate” or even reduce developers fees as has been reported. What was before the board for discussion was a new set of fees. There are many fees to cover infrastructure and other costs on the books and firmly in place that developers must pay for any development project that they want to bring forward.
What the supervisors DID do, was to take a straw vote on a proposed increase in fees. My straw vote was against the increase because it would also affect even small development (a minor subdivision is anything under five and even one lot split would trigger these proposed fees). It would also affect small businesses trying to get off the ground.
The proposed increase would be added on top of what they are already obligated to pay and given the state of our economy, would be a financial hardship for them to bring their small projects forward. At a time when we are pressed to provide more affordable housing I do not see how increasing fees across the board will accomplish anything but the opposite.
Any feedback or questions anyone would have regarding this please feel free to contact me at efennell@co.humboldt.ca.us.
Second District Supervisor
Estelle Fennell