To reconsider the “straw poll” decision of June 3 re the Guiding Principles.
Addendum: NCJ Blogthing coverage of the petition.
I didn’t realize that Hezekiah Allen, the author of the petition, is on the HumCPR advisory council. I bet there have been some angry phone calls over this!
Second addendum: Meanwhile, Judy Hodgson on the “most disappointing panel I’ve ever seen.”
Actually, here’s the link to her own piece.
Sohum Parlance II 
374 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 12, 2013 at 10:17 am
Anonymous
What happens to the petition? Does it get sent to the Supervisors?
June 12, 2013 at 2:03 pm
Not A Native
I’d like to add my name. But I live in the third district and don’t want to give aid and comfort to those like TRA, The Reasonable Anonymous and his other incarnations who shrilly exploit fears by pimping false wedge issues.
But I’ll gladly support a review of the legality of the supe’s action. Their authority doesn’t extend to acting arbitrarily and capriciously in creating policy. Abrogation of deliberate process isn’t an election consequence.
June 12, 2013 at 6:55 pm
Eric Kirk
10:17 – I’m not sure what happens with these things. Might be an explanation through the link.
June 12, 2013 at 7:21 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Signed-It and mentioned a few things, especially that a process should exist for public participation, not mute people out for very important language that the people will fall back on again and again when rationalizing any land development (whether new construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, restoration, etc…).
To make something “fly”, as opposed to just “wingin’-it on hope that few others catch-on”, is to fall back on language and craft in reasoning to rationalize doabilities or, more frank, exceptions to-the-rule.
Language and use of words is very important.
Soap Opera stuff,
Guiding Light As The World Turns,
Sitcoms,
HOJ
June 12, 2013 at 8:42 pm
Cookie
Is there a paper petition for folks that don’t have a computer?
June 13, 2013 at 11:51 am
Eric Kirk
I don’t think so Cookie. Computerless people should just use the phone or paper to make their thoughts known.
Here’s the NCJ blog coverage of the petition.
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/Blogthing/archives/2013/06/13/hezekiah-allen-assembly-candidate-launches-petition-asking-supes-to-revisit-guiding-principles
I didn’t realize that Hezekiah Allen, the author of the petition, is on the HumCPR advisory council. I bet there have been some angry phone calls over this!
June 13, 2013 at 12:24 pm
Anonymous
Allen is running for office. He wants to have it both ways.
June 13, 2013 at 12:32 pm
Eric Kirk
I went back to the petition page and took a look at the list of comments. As expected, most of them come from Eureka-Arcata-McKinleyville-Trinidad. However, there are some Sohum names in there as well, and Petrolia names, and Willow Creek.
The following comment I took from the list is pretty representative of the comments, although probably harsher in tone than most.
I am one of the estimated 2,000 people whe went to some of the meetings regarding the general plan – it only took three days (THREE DAYS!!) to completely disenfranchise me and everyone else. This is NOT democracy. Shame on those who wrote up the changes and shame on those voted for them.
June 13, 2013 at 12:37 pm
Cookie
Thanks Eric.
June 13, 2013 at 12:41 pm
Cookie
I wonder if Sanctuary Forest/Tasha McKee will sign the petition. She was very vocal in her support of Estelle and the belief of community dialogue. My partner won’t let us sign this petition ‘cuz she feels it will just be used for toilet paper by the supervisors. She would sign a recall petition for Estelle. So would I. Do you think this petition is a waste of time, and just democratic whining that will be followed by no action?
June 13, 2013 at 1:04 pm
Eric Kirk
If 500 people sign a petition, the Supervisors will pay attention. 3 of the 5 Supervisors are in office due to margins of fewer than 500.
June 13, 2013 at 1:32 pm
Eric Kirk
Judy Hodgson isn’t mincing words as to her thoughts. Yeah, I know. She’s just another “urban environmentalist.”
http://lostcoastoutpost.com/2013/jun/13/hodgson-supes-most-disappointing-panel-ive-ever-se/
June 13, 2013 at 2:46 pm
Eric Kirk
Here’s her actually piece.
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/humboldt/leadership-seriously-lacking/Content?oid=2282650
June 13, 2013 at 3:57 pm
Anonymous
Isn’t Judy supposed to be in Arkley’s pocket?
June 13, 2013 at 9:50 pm
Matt
I signed the petition. Here is what I wrote in the comments:
[i]To be blunt: Regardless of which side of an issue one is on, we should all consider any change of such magnitude without reasonable public participation and deliberation to be outrageous and unacceptable in a democracy.[/i]
June 14, 2013 at 9:38 am
Eric Kirk
Isn’t Judy supposed to be in Arkley’s pocket?
There was apparently a business relationship in which the NCJ was printed at the same place as the Eureka Reporter or somerthing. It was a non-sensical accusation.
June 14, 2013 at 9:52 am
Not A Native
Who’s Arkley again? Oh yeah, now I remember. He was the platform Eureka city council candidates ran on with the slogan ‘Balloon Track Now !”. Gee not much has been mentioned about that lately, has it? But its all good ’cause the right people are now in charge.
June 14, 2013 at 11:45 am
Go Judy!
Time to start reading the North Coast Journal again. (I’ve been boycotting it since the poorly reported Reggae Wars). Nice use of the community soapbox Judy! She is right on the pulse of the point.
June 14, 2013 at 11:49 am
Go Judy!
Judy is an interesting person. I worked with her in the 90’s. One thing undoubtedly is that she is community-minded and pro-business. Kind of a nice combo when you think about it. I’ve had issues with certain situations certainly but never had issue with the woman herself. She isn’t in anyone’s pocket–not her personality type.
June 14, 2013 at 1:38 pm
Cookie
Right on Matt. Folks should be appalled at what Estelle “community in put + lots of dialogue” Fennell did. Talks the talk, doesn’t walk the walk.
Jim must be awful busy writing words for Estelle, opinion pieces, damage control. Has anyone started a petition for her recall yet?
June 14, 2013 at 2:09 pm
Anonymous
Online petitions are a waste of time because anybody can sign them.
June 14, 2013 at 6:45 pm
That Other Anonymous
“I am one of the estimated 2,000 people whe went to some of the meetings regarding the general plan – it only took three days (THREE DAYS!!) to completely disenfranchise me and everyone else.”
What nonsense. Plenty of those 2,000 people were not happy with the direction the GPU was headed, and said so. For the writer of this comment to imply that all 2,000 people who went to GPU meetings were on the same side of the issues as the writer, — well they’re either being disingenuous, or are just plain clueless.
No one has been “disenfranchised,” quite the contrary — elections were held, the current board majority won, and so there has been a course correction in the GPU, which will now be somewhat less restrictive of development. Unless the writer of that comment was improperly prevented from voting, they weren’t “disenfranchised.” they were just on the losing side of some elections.
June 14, 2013 at 7:19 pm
Ed Voice
There is this update about who, what, why, when and where went into the Guiding Principles since 2000:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.672053206154235.1073741845.100000486843201&type=3
June 14, 2013 at 8:05 pm
Cookie
The new guidelines are a development free for all. Barnum owns about 16,000, someone told me they thought it was closer to 26,000 acres of TPZ land that start around the Ettersberg Junction and runs down to Piercy. He has been trying to develop that land into 40 acre parcels since Roy Heider. Estelle is a dream come true for Barnum$$$$ Now isn’t Barnum part of the Estelle team?
June 15, 2013 at 9:44 am
ED Denson
Eric said
If 500 people sign a petition, the Supervisors will pay attention. 3 of the 5 Supervisors are in office due to margins of fewer than 500.
Strictly speaking there are some logical faults here, which don’t take away from the principal point which is that 500 people is a substantial number. However the individual Supes only need to worry if most of the 500 are supporters from their district. If they are people who didn’t vote for the Supe to begin with, or people from another district, then nothing has changed. ;}
June 15, 2013 at 11:03 am
Jim
Following up on ED’s post, since a majority of the signers are from Mark’s voting block, the impact, even with 500, will not be that great. And to be honest, most of the signers wouldn’t vote for their sitting supervisor, except for Mark, in the next election anyway.
June 15, 2013 at 11:15 am
Cookie
“And to be honest, most of the signers wouldn’t vote for their sitting supervisor, except for Mark, in the next election anyway.”
Hopefully this is the beginning of a great big tidal wave.
Recall Estelle.
June 15, 2013 at 2:59 pm
Jane
Counter point. While there is some distinct differences between districts it would be foolish for any public figure to ignore a large response to any online petition. There are methods for eliminating multiple posts for any single person signing the petition based on IP address rather than email addresses. So this metadata can also be handed to the Supervisors.
If 500 people sign a petition anywhere in Humboldt County it would be foolish to assume that a district is so distinct and different that the petition was not representative of the potential trend within their own district. However it is a good method to try to discourage people from feeling an expression of their feelings would matter. If someone is really concerned they can try calling (and try getting through) or drop a note or email directly to the board of supervisors. Clerk of the Board: Kathy Hayes at Phone: (707) 476-2396 or Nikki Turner Deputy Clerk Phone: 707 476-2384 or
Tracy D’Amico Administrative Assistant to the Board of Supervisors Phone: 707 476-2390 Fax: 707 445-7299
Or here is Estelle’s email. efennell@co.humboldt.ca.us She is the most susceptible to negative public image in my opinion.
Disclaimer* Of course the Supervisors would have to be reasonable people who can do the math and the statistical models to be swayed. That is not and obvious set of skills in the group we currently have sitting in office.
June 15, 2013 at 4:39 pm
That Other Anonymous
I’m all in favor of more public input, and have no problem at all with the Supervisors revisiting the Guiding Principles. So I’d be inclined to sign the petition, except that it’s clear that my signature would be misconstrued as disapproval of the revisions supported by the Supes in their straw vote, and/or disapproval of the Supes taking that straw vote. So, I’m not signing.
But I do hope the signers get their wish, in the form of the Supervisors putting the Guiding Principles on the agenda again, and having another public hearing specifically on that topic. I doubt that there will be any real change in the proportion of public commenters supporting vs. opposing the direction that the board majority is taking, but it may be a useful exercise for the opponents to see that at another public hearing.
June 15, 2013 at 4:48 pm
Cookie
What a chicken excuse TOA. Sign the petition and state what you did here. If you truly believe and favor more input on the Guiding Principles. Otherwise the Supervisors all think what they did with this coup d’etat is just grand. Why is it that the people who screamed loudest about public input are now suddenly so okay with no public input?
June 15, 2013 at 6:24 pm
That Other Anonymous
500 signatures (not all of them even from Humboldt County) on an online petition seems like a pretty underwhelming goal, and drawing any conclusions from a few hundred signatures — in a county with a population of 135,000 people and with more than 75,000 registered voters — seems like, well, wishful thinking on steroids.
By way of comparison, the campaign to recall Paul Gallegos collected nearly 17,000 signatures of registered voters…and then went down to defeat in a crushing landslide.
June 15, 2013 at 7:11 pm
That Other Anonymous
Cookie, as usual, your penchant for exaggeration severely undercuts whatever point you are trying to make. Years of public input leading up to this point, several elections, and a 4 hour hearing on this specific subject just the other day does not even remotely equate to “no public input.”
And apparently you are unaware of the meaning of the phrase “coup d’etat,” which involves the extralegal (and usually violent) removal of a leader. Clendenen didn’t get his head chopped off, he lost an election.
June 15, 2013 at 7:33 pm
Eric Kirk
Ed – It’s a good mathematical point, but I’m just saying that in a county the size of Humboldt with three very close elections, 500 signatures can’t be casually dismissed.
There was a formula the Alinsky types used to toss around with regard to various expression of public opinion. If someone showed up to a rally, he or she represented about 50 people. If someone wrote a letter, he or she represented 100 people. If someone signed a pre-printed postcard and sent it in, it was something like 10 people. If you called an office holder it was 25 people. The lowest was signing a petition, which was 5 people. Perhaps signing an online petition is lower.
The numbers were different – none of them actually rounded to 10s. I’m estimating.
Plunket of Tammany Hall said something similar. He said that if you’ve got 50 people voting your way, you have a “constituency.”
But I think the current Board majority should be more concerned about the particulars. It was drafted by someone with HumCPR credentials, and some of the commenters, assuming that the names weren’t faked, are names who haven’t been on the Plan A list of usual suspects – and that may have more power than any strict numbers. Even TOA’s defense of the action is tepid. Looking at the online comments, I’m actually finding very few actual defenses of the way the matter was passed. Lot’s of counterattacks about perceived failings of the old process. But little by the way of substantial defense of the process on June 3.
June 15, 2013 at 7:49 pm
Jim
Why would someone who was happy with how things went sign the petition and leave a comment? Eric, you’ve got me confused.
June 15, 2013 at 8:03 pm
Cookie
Well Jim, your gal campaigned on lots of discussion and public input. And then re wrote the Guiding Principles behind closed doors. And had what, a couple days for folks to comment? And when folks asked for more time to comment, she said NO. I don’t remember meetings on these changes in the far flung reaches of the county. I don’t remember Clif doing anything behind peoples’ backs like this. Do you Eric? And Jim, what if Estelle had rewritten them to something you completely disagreed with? Behind closed doors, and gave you no time really to digest and comment on them.
June 15, 2013 at 9:32 pm
Not A Native
Jim, Eric can give his response but mine is that your questions assumed that all anyone cares about is tht things go their way, not that things went fairly. And I think Eric believes that fair play and deliberate process is important to some people, on all partisan sides.
You know, local traditional conservatives are always saying you have to respect your neighbors by getting along and acting fairly with them. Well, this is an opportunity for them to step up to that ethic.
As a practical matter, the very essence of liberalism(progressivism?) is to seek large consensus in making policies that affect everyone. That ethic condemns liberals to always being “soft”, trying to see the other person’s side and have some sympathy for their opinions. Its one reason that past “liberal majority” supervisor boards didn’t simply ram down a controversial General Plan even though they had the votes and electoral authority to do so.
On the other hand, neo-conservatives are convinced their ideas are justified by morality(often religiously based) and “realism”. Therefore they have a “hard” obligation to impose their ideas on everyone else because its “for their own good”. So those conservatives are eager to impose their ideas with even the barest of majorities, because other points of view are irrelevant and misguided(and immoral). That’s why the current board of supes actions are reasonably perceived as ‘power grabs’ and ‘coup d’etats’
June 15, 2013 at 10:01 pm
That Other Anonymous
Jim,
I think Eric was referring to online comments other than those attached to the petition.
Eric,
I agree that my response to the process on June 3 has been “tepid.” This is because I don’t have a very strong opinion on that one way or the other, aside from noting that the objections to both the revisions themselves, and to the process, seem to me to be vastly overblown.
As stated above, I don’t have a problem with people requesting that the Supervisors revisit the issue in a future meeting and with an additional public hearing. I doubt that the comments in that hearing will be much different from what we just heard from both sides on the 3rd. But maybe not, and if there is anything new to be said, I’d be happy to hear it.
June 15, 2013 at 10:51 pm
That Other Anonymous
Meanwhile, Eric, did you ever take the time to listen to the deliberations and straw votes on the Forest Resources section from the evening of the 3rd?
Interestingly, the vote on TPZ residences was 5-0, with Lovelace supporting the language recognizing a residence as a “principally permitted use” on TPZ parcels, and only requiring a ministerial permit process.
After the vote, Lovelace made a little joke about “all this time people thought I was against houses on TPZ,” and Fennell responded with something like “or maybe you just changed your mind.” Seems like Fennell must have been closer to the truth there, unless all along Lovelace secretly disagreed with his former employer, Healthy Humboldt, which fought tooth and nails for years against exactly the TPZ residence policy that Lovelace just voted for.
This means that, according to the rhetoric of the Plan A True Believers, Lovelace just voted to “convert timberlands to residential,” he voted to give an “unfair tax break” to TPZ owners, and he voted to consign the salmon to unavoidable doom. I wonder if he’ll be accused of recently “selling out” to the “greedy developers,” or if he’ll be accused of fooling his base all along, and only revealing his true fealty to the “unholy alliance” at the last minute?
Or maybe now that Lovelace has voted in favor of continuing to allow residences on TPZ, his followers will fall into line, and drop their opposition to TPZ owner-occupancy and all the over-the-top rhetoric they’ve been using to push that opposition for years, ever since the failed attempt to make the TPZ moratorium permanent? I can hardly wait to find out which will win out, their adherence to their cherished dogma, or their authoritarian desire to follow their Dear Leader unquestioningly? Okay, okay, I know I’m having too much fun with this, but after all the struggle over this issue, and then having Lovelace totally cave at the end, can you blame me?
By the way, it wasn’t just on the TPZ issue where there was more consensus than conflict. Lovelace made a point of saying that his dissenting votes on other Forest Resources items were not an indication that he couldn’t support the majority’s position on those items, and several times he stressed that his preferred language was only slightly different from that preferred by the majority.
Anyway, you’ve got to admit, it’s an interesting turn of events, especially given all the sturm und drang over the Guiding Principles a couple of hours earlier, Jennifer Kalt’s embittered rant, the hyperventilating “gone are all the protections” rhetoric from Ryan Burns, and Judy Hodgson’s newsprint meltdown of a few days ago. It seems that when it came down to the actual policies in the Forest Resources section, there was a whole lot more consensus than conflict, and somehow the supposedly game-changing revisions to the guiding Principles did nothing to prevent the shocking outbreak of common sense agreement just a few hours later.
Maybe that’s why the sky-is-falling alarmists seem determined to make a big deal over the revisions to the Guiding Principles — because the language there is vague enough that the Chicken Little herders can pretend it represents some kind of radical move to sweep aside all regulation, whereas with the actual policies contained within the GPU, it’s hard to avoid the fact that the revisions the current board majority has been making mostly amount to a somewhat less restrictive approach, as opposed to the “carte blanche for developers” and “open door to unfettered development” and “wholesale subdivision of resource lands” that the sky-is-falling alarmists are trying to portray to their uninformed followers.
June 15, 2013 at 11:08 pm
Eric Kirk
Why would someone who was happy with how things went sign the petition and leave a comment? Eric, you’ve got me confused.
I’m confused too Jim. What are you talking about?
June 15, 2013 at 11:17 pm
Eric Kirk
Actually TOA, nobody has objected to residences on TPZ property. I certainly haven’t. I believe that it’s appropriate in some cases. Not in others.
I’ve never been clear as to the precise difference between “ministerial” and “discretionary” processes, but if “ministerial” means that housing is to be approved on all TPZ parcels as a matter of course then I think that the Supervisors and Mark have made a grave error.
I will be curious as to the exact wording, and if environmental and conservationist groups aren’t happy with it then we will see Bill Barnums “disjunctive” theory as to the meaning of the word “or” tested.
June 15, 2013 at 11:19 pm
Eric Kirk
Oh, I get it now. Jim, TOA is right. I was referencing first the comments attached to the petition. Later I was referencing the comments on this blog and attached to the LCO and NCJ articles. I could have made that more clear. Sorry.
June 15, 2013 at 11:19 pm
That Other Anonymous
Eric,
I think when you wrote…
“Looking at the online comments, I’m actually finding very few actual defenses of the way the matter was passed”
…Jim may have thought you were referring to the online comments that were attached to the petition. Whereas I assume you were talking about online comments in general, including on this blog, the NCJ, LoCO, etc.
June 15, 2013 at 11:20 pm
That Other Anonymous
Oh, you figured it out.
June 15, 2013 at 11:20 pm
Eric Kirk
Jinx!
June 15, 2013 at 11:39 pm
That Other Anonymous
“Actually TOA, nobody has objected to residences on TPZ property.”
Sorry, but that’s just a ridiculous claim. First there was the attempt to make the TPZ moratorium permanent. And then there was the claim that state law does not define a residence on TPZ as a principally permitted use unless the residence could be proven to be not just “compatible” with timber management, but actually “necessary” to timber management (as a practical matter, probably pretty much never). Then there was the series of radio ads by Healthy Humboldt on the issue, including one falsely implying that TPZ owners got an unfair tax break. And of course yourself have argued, ad nauseum, that allowing residences on TPZ parcels amounted to “converting the parcel to residential” and that this would spell the end of timber production on most, if not all of these parcels, and that if people wanted to live on those parcels, they should be converted to residential zoning with no TPZ tax break. You seem to be suffering from a sort of convenient amnesia about the rhetoric that your allies — and you yourself — have been employing on the TPZ issue for years. Unfortunately for you, many of us are not going to fall for this “down the memory hole” strategy of pretending that no one was objecting to residences on TPZ.
June 15, 2013 at 11:40 pm
That Other Anonymous
Double jinx!
June 16, 2013 at 12:18 am
That Other Anonymous
“That ethic condemns liberals to always being “soft”, trying to see the other person’s side and have some sympathy for their opinions. Its one reason that past “liberal majority” supervisor boards didn’t simply ram down a controversial General Plan even though they had the votes and electoral authority to do so.”
LOL! Yeah, sure except that they did appear poised to ram their version through, even after Clendenen lost his election and Fennell and Bohn won theirs. The previous Board majority had voted to set a schedule for the Planning Commission to wrap up its deliberations and for the lame-duck Board to work their way through the entire GPU and approve it before the new board members were due to come onto the board in January. And their defenders on this blog insisted that it was not just their right, but indeed their duty to push it through during the lame-duck period.
The two things that actually stopped that from happening were (1) the Planning Commission essentially shrugged and said “we’ll get through it on our own schedule,” and (2) Jimmy Smith stepped down early, and as a result Bohn came aboard early.
Pretty funny to see the attempts at historical revisionism here. Almost as funny as the attempt to paint the current board majority as “neo-conservatives” (I bet Estelle Fennell would get a good laugh out of that one) and to say that it’s “reasonable” to perceive perfectly legal and entirely legitimate policy changes arising from the outcome of free and fair elections as “power grabs” and “coup d’etat’s.” What’s next — it’s perfectly reasonable to refer to the current board majority as a “military junta” because, ya know, neoconservatives and stuff?
June 16, 2013 at 8:18 am
Eric Kirk
And then there was the claim that state law does not define a residence on TPZ as a principally permitted use unless the residence could be proven to be not just “compatible” with timber management, but actually “necessary” to timber management (as a practical matter, probably pretty much never).
Two points.
1. I have not advocated the policy. It’s what the statute says unless you accept Bill Barnum’s strange definition of the word “or,” bad grammar which he argues is supported by case law.
2. There have been residences on TPZ property throughout history for caretakers and such. The requirement, which is in place in many other counties including Siskyou, is that you file a timber management plan prior to building any residences. It’s actually a very minimal requirement, but it reminds you that you have purchased resource land and it should be respected as such.
I don’t recall proposals for a “permanent moratorium.” That’s a contradiction in terms. What was being pushed was a moratorium for the duration of the PL bankruptcy. I didn’t think it was fair to collateral damage owners, but I don’t think anyone was talking about a permanent ban of residences. I think a more accurate adjective would be “indefinite.”
I do think there are way too many residences on TPZ lands, and years ago I posted a law review article about how farmland and TPZ lands are being lost due to parcelization and residential conversion. Nobody argued that this isn’t a serious problem statewide. They just argued that we need more regs for all those people, not us. We're stewards of the land. And one person read the article with glee because the author concluded that the states can do nothing about it because the patent parcel prohibits any regs or zoning which would require larger holdings.
The current Board is pushing much more than a "less restrictive approach." Mendocino County has a less restrictive approach, but they still have policy guidelines which favor infill development over spreading out further in low density development. Only in this county is that considered an insult or a stigma.
But this discussion in particular does reveal that the more recent elections were won against a caricature strawman rather than substantive policy. Perhaps the fault lies with those of us who have advocated conservationist policies in our communication. But Mark has never said that all residential development of TPZ land should be banned. Estelle has clearly heard the strawman, and not the man.
So I guess the question I would ask, and why I need to see the wording, is how under the new policy TPZ land would be treated differently from rural residential – other than the tax break.
June 16, 2013 at 8:29 am
Jim
Cookie: Estelle didn’t say “no” to more public comments. Four out of five members voted “no” to more public comments.
June 16, 2013 at 8:45 am
Cookie
Jim, if 4out of 5 members voted no to more public comment, that means Estelle voted no to more public comment.
Eric, TPZ is now de facto rural residential.
June 16, 2013 at 9:28 am
Anonymous
Eric, please don’t forget that Mark is what we called in schoolyards a pants-on-fire liar. He pushed for the 45-day TPZ building moratorium, then for a one-year TPZ building moratorium, then for conditional-use rather than ministerial zoning status for TPZ building in the General Plan Update, when conditional-use permits for TPZ building from his Planning Commission would be as rare as hen’s teeth. The fact that he didn’t and doesn’t acknowledge his goal of skid-stopping TPZ building should help you understand why so many people judge him by what he does, not by what he says. His duplicity is memorable, and of course his record is negligible.
It’s noteworthy that at best Mark only changed ordinances, not behaviors. His gestures of hostility and command had no effect on rural practices. Voluntary water catchment and late-summer forbearance programs bubbling up from the grassroots have changed a great many people’s behaviors, and are finally being discussed at the county level. Similar success was achieved awhile back with diesel education outreach. This doesn’t prove that laws are stupid or that we don’t need regulation. But it does suggest that marginalizing and insulting people is a poor basis for regulating them. I’m very glad rural policy discussions now include rural residents. What a great idea!
June 16, 2013 at 9:37 am
Anonymous
“Only in this county is that considered an insult or a stigma.
But this discussion in particular does reveal that the more recent elections were won against a caricature strawman rather than substantive policy.”
The point I was going to clarigy about the first sentence, you addressed with the second. Nobody’s being insulted and there is no stigma; it’s not personal and everybody knows it. It’s a matter of intelligent planning around natural resources etc. Say the word “propaganda” and bloggers respong with “tin foil” and such, but the propaganda is that people are being insulted and that there is a stigma. And it’s not a secret who’s responsible for the propaganda.
June 16, 2013 at 9:48 am
Anonymous
TOA (why anybody bothers addressing “that reasonable anonymous” at all anymore is beyond me) also refuses to address long term natural resource projections, and how projected development under the new guidelines is a far cry from sensible concerning environmental health…and not in some bullshit either/or way with regards to “infill” (the constant retort). It’s just dumb. And then there’s the myriad of options for impermanent housing available to people who want to live on TPZ land that are being left out of the discussion altogether. If there’s a cultural stigma between the haves and the have-nots in humboldt’s movers and shakers, it’s against people who want to live in yurts or trailers and such. The entire push of the policy is to construct new and permanent infrastructure on that land…that’s where the big money is for folks like Ulansey etc. VERY big money. That’s how they became multi-millionaires in the first place.
June 16, 2013 at 10:39 am
Anonymous
Bleh, reading through these comments is drech. The builders want to alter the argument altogether.
People always fly things like “until we stop driving cars, we’re gonna have to keep making gasoline” and “until we stop having children, we’re gonna have to keep accomodating more children”.
Until we stop tearing up undeveloped land, there’s going to be less and less of it. And this case presents a clear line of direction that can make all the difference in the world (literally) as to how much land gets torn up. Not only that, it’s entirely within our jurisdiction to decide the course of events to follow. Not only that, but the people who want to keep tearing up more land are in broad daylight. It’s lose/lose/lose/lose/lose to continue tapping more resources and paving nature. There’s just no arguing against that, that’s why developers want to create another argument altogether.
June 16, 2013 at 11:23 am
That Other Anonymous
Eric,
You’re right that “permanent moratorium” is a contradiction in terms. And yes, of course, technically no law — not even the U.S. Constitution — is “permanent,” since any law could be changed in the future. So, sure, you can argue that the most you can ever say about a law that is intended to have a lasting effect with no fixed end date is that it would remain in effect “indefinitely.” Okay, fine. I’m pretty sure you knew what I meant, but sure, if you want to say “indefinitely” rather than “permanently,” fine. So here’s a more detailed version of my recollection of how the Planning Department’s anti-TPZ-residence campaign unfolded:
The original moratorium that prevented the county from issuing any building permits on TPZ land was passed as an “urgency ordinance,” originally slated to last for 45 days, ostensibly just to address Hurwitz’s bankruptcy reorganization plan. But then after the Palco bankruptcy judge had already ruled against Hurwitz’s reorganization plan, (now-former) Planning Department director Kirk Girard — who insisted that the county faced an imminent crisis of a massive “land rush” of residential development on TPZ land — recommended that the Board extend the TPZ building permit moratorium for at least another 90 days (and, his staff report noted, potentially up to two years), and use that time to push through a new TPZ ordinance that would have caused any proposed residence on a TPZ parcel to require a conditional use permit and a finding that any proposed residence on TPZ land was “necessary” for timber management.
Girard advocated rushing this new TPZ ordinance through, and in the staff report supporting this move, some staff member (who, as far as I know has never been identified or held accountable) falsified the relevant CEQA guidelines that were presented to the Planning Commission, abruptly cutting off the text just before the section that directly stated that in order to amend the zoning ordinances, the county must comply with CEQA requirements. In the actual CEQA guidelines, there was a comma that separated the part of those guidelines that the staff was willing to let the Planning Commission see from the part the staff attempted to conceal from them — but in the falsified version presented in the staff report, that comma was changed to a period to make it appear that this was the end of the relevant part of the guidelines, and the inconvenient language following the newly added period was simply removed. This blatant attempt to mislead the Planning Commission and Supervisors was caught and revealed, leading to the Supervisors rejecting, in a 4-1 vote on Dec 11, 2007, Girard’s attempt to rush the new TPZ ordinance through.
Instead, the Supervisors returned the matter to the Planning Commission to be considered as part of the normal GPU process. Girard continued to push the newly concocted interpretation of the TPZ rules that would have allowed residences on TPZ to be considered a principally permitted use only if the residence could be shown to be “necessary” for timber management. That proposed interpretation, which was not initiated or demanded by the state, but rather an invention of county staff, was later rejected by the Planning Commission, over the objections of Healthy Humboldt and others who had advocated the bait-and-switch approach of parlaying the Palco-bankruptcy-related moratorium into new permanent restrictions (or in your preferred language, restrictions that would apply “indefinitely”) on TPZ residences.
But, as we both know, the anti-TPZ-residence campaign did not end there, as the Healthy Humboldt contingent continued to lobby for the new restrictions to be included in the GPU, and tried to mislead the public with a series of deceptive radio ads, including one that attempted to whip up resentment against TPZ owners by asserting that they got an “unfair tax break” — failing to note, of course, that any residence on TPZ land is taxed the same as any residence anywhere else.
And the disinformation campaign continued both here on this blog and elsewhere, with plenty of dark warnings about the “wholesale conversion of timberlands to residential subdivisions,” premised, of course, on the ridiculous notion that if a house is built on a TPZ parcel, the whole parcel somehow magically becomes “converted to residential.” This is the false narrative that the hard-line opponents of TPZ owner occupancy have continued pushing throughout the GPU debate, and which I suspect they will continue pushing even after the GPU is finalized and a new TPZ ordinance is then considered.
June 16, 2013 at 11:28 am
Anonymous
“The original moratorium that prevented the county from issuing any building permits on TPZ land was passed as an “urgency ordinance,” originally slated to last for 45 days, ostensibly just to address Hurwitz’s bankruptcy reorganization plan. ”
This isn’t the whole truth at all. The fact is a ton of land was sold and thus left hanging…had the moratorium been lifted after a mere 45 days, would have been void of resolve regarding the building explosion that would still have occured.
June 16, 2013 at 12:08 pm
Not A Native
Eric, the difference is you hire Bolothio to file a bullshit THP you never intend or are compelled to implement. The cost of the THP is made up by the tax savings(you might even finance it) and eventually recouped again in your increased price when you ‘cash out’ and sell your now developed property. Because you’re asking a residential price, you’ll have to sell to someone who is much more affluent than you were when you bought the property. People who are now like you were will seek cheaper undeveloped TPZ lands further away from services and develop their own rural dream investment. And in HumCo, the entire enterprise is supported by a current potential for illegal pot growing income that greatly exceeds the timber harvesting value.
Your tax savings also help defray the cost of bigger vehicles used over longer distances needed support a US standard lifestyle. Of course, all along the public pays the costs of extending civilization to you with extended roads, safety services, school buses. While the ‘environment’ pays the costs of wildlife habitat loss, and air/water/land erosion quality impacts.
June 16, 2013 at 12:55 pm
That Other Anonymous
“So I guess the question I would ask, and why I need to see the wording, is how under the new policy TPZ land would be treated differently from rural residential – other than the tax break.”
As I recall, the language that the Supervisors approved (unanimously) that night, recognized a single residence as a “principally permitted use” on TPZ parcels as long as it did not significantly detract from the potential to grow and harvest timber on the land.
Here is the document they were working from in their deliberations and straw votes on the night of June 3rd:
Click to access gpu%20ad%20hoc%20input144083.pdf
The policy in question is FR-P9.
In the left hand column are the two options forwarded by the Planning Commission — the top one being the one that got the majority support of the Planning Commission, and the bottom one being the Option A version supported by Healthy Humboldt and by a minority on the Planning Commission.
The middle column is the recommendations of the Ad-Hoc Working Group. The right hand column is the staff recommendation. I am not 100% sure as to what the final wording was, but I think it was closest to the staff recommendation version. It definitely was not the Option A version.
You may note the proposed “checklist” of requirements, listed under the Ad-Hoc Working Group’s recommendations, which are intended to ensure that the proposed residence would not “significantly detract” from the potential to grow and harvest timber on the land. The Working Group was apparently split on whether that “checklist” should be included in the GPU, or whether it should instead be part of a revised TPZ ordinance. The staff recommendation was to consider/develop such a “checklist” as part of the development of a revised TPZ ordinance, which would presumably follow the final approval of the GPU. The staff recommendations noted that the Forest Review Committee (FRC) had requested to be involved in that process. As I recall, the board concurred with the staff recommendation to consider/develop such a “checklist” as part of a revised TPZ ordinance.
If you read the items in the proposed “checklist” of standards that would have to be met for TPZ residences, I think you will find that it addresses many of your concerns, and contradicts Cookie’s (as usual) grossly exaggerated claim that “TPZ is now de facto rural residential.” The section on the Ad Hoc Working Group’s recommendations notes that the items contained in the proposed “checklist” are already included in other chapters of the GPU, but that they felt that reiterating them in the form of this “checklist” (either in the GPU itself, or, as the staff recommended, and the supervisors approved, in future revisions to the TPZ ordinance) would give greater clarity to both property owners and planning department staff.
I don’t think anyone could reasonably argue that either the specific section on TPZ residences, or the Forest Resources section as a whole, amounts to anything even remotely resembling Ryan Burns’ “gone are all the protections” hysteria, or for that matter any of the “carte blanche for developers,” “open door to unfettered development,” “wholesale conversion of timberlands to residential subdivisions” type rhetoric emanating from the Chicken Little crowd. (In light of that, it’s pretty funny to hear you complain about the use of “caricature strawman rather than substantive policy.”)
Since I can’t recall exactly what the wording was that was approved by the supervisors in their the straw vote (and as far as I can tell it’s not yet up on the county’s website) I guess we’ll have to table any discussion of the exact wording of the TPZ section as approved in the straw vote. But from the document I’ve provided a link to above, it’s clear that none of the options that were being considered would have treated TPZ exactly like rural residential, that none of them amounted to “sweeping aside all regulation” or any of the other sky-is-falling rhetoric. They supervisors did, however, unanimously (!) reject the more restrictive Healthy Humboldt approved Option A language, in favor of a more moderate approach that is, yes, somewhat less restrictive of TPZ residences.
June 16, 2013 at 1:18 pm
Yet Another
We should have more restrictions on residences in TPZ, not fewer. We should enforce building codes and zoning laws retroactive to date of construction, too. We have subsidized illegal and unwise rural development for too long already.
June 16, 2013 at 2:56 pm
Jane
Dear Jim. Let me see if I can help. You ask “Why would someone who was happy with how things went sign the petition and leave a comment? Eric, you’ve got me confused.”
It is called a job. Yes, voters have a job to do which doesn’t just involve their own self serving vote. It is a job to protect the process of how we get things done.
What has been grossly abused here is process. The taxpayers dime too but that is a different discussion. You have a duty to sign the petition regardless of your take on whether this change is in your self interest because what Estelle and Bohn and those who agreed with them have done with the process is in NO ONE’s interest but their own political power and ego trips.
Most people with a good eighth grade civic class would show better ethics and leadership in my opinion. And it is your duty, as a citizen, to ensure process whatever the outcome may or may not be.
June 16, 2013 at 3:29 pm
longwind
Jane, please. Gross abuse has characterized all 13 years of the GPU’s process, beginning with the foundational “Critical Choices” made in secret behind closed doors before the first public GPU meeting was announced. Those choices were highly unpopular. They were denounced by the vast majority at the first public meeting, and ever since. The GPU is not a just-sullied maiden.
In public comment I asked the Supes to take more time with their decision, and suggested that they incorporate Eric’s hippie-salmonid concerns as voiced by Scott Greason. Then a funny thing happened: they took more time, and they incorporated his concerns, and they took a straw vote on the changes. A coup d’etat built on a straw vote made in response to a hostile public request isn’t what Napoleon would call a coup d’etat. Further, I can’t conceive that the four Supervisors who ran and won with clearly expressed reservations about the GPU process and results wouldn’t feel obligated to make their work product reflect the desires that got them elected. If they’d taken another week, or month, to do what they were elected to do, would it be less controversial to those who ran the old railroad?
Now, we critics of the prior process should make the current one purer than Caesar’s wife, in theory; in fact, after 13 years of forgone conclusions leading to wholesale public rejection of those conclusions, I’m not sure we need another 13 years or even weeks to rectify the worse features of what went wrong. I’m not defending, I’m not even really arguing, just saying. However long it took, the General Principles were going to reflect the new direction of the GPU, which is already established. There’s no mystery what the will of the people is in this regard.
And on that note, Eric, your Supervisor lost by the same margin that Romney lost to Obama. Was that also a close election? Decided by only three and a half million votes? You shouldn’t kid yourself if you want to win.
June 16, 2013 at 4:43 pm
Jane
Longwind… the fact you believe something has existed before doesn’t make it less of a problem now. That is kind of the “He did it so I did it too” mentality. The point still stands in response to Jim’s question. We have a duty and obligation to process and correcting that process.
Not to mention the fact it took 13 years is more descriptive of a messy process than an outright power grab over the process.
Longwind did you work for or on the campaigns of Estelle or Bohn at any time? Just curious.
June 16, 2013 at 6:32 pm
Anonymous
“There’s no mystery what the will of the people is in this regard.”
How can we take anything you say seriously either when you write stuff like this? The public was clearly left out of the process, the public wasn’t informed of their electorate’s plans, the public really has no clue, but the public is definitely in full favor of resource conservation. The public is very wary of new development. The public is smart enough to know real estate profiteering when they see it.
June 17, 2013 at 6:47 am
Democratic Jon
Once more unto the breach dear friends, once more…
I’m sure you all know there is another GPU meeting scheduled for today at 1:25. I’ll be there if anyone wants to say hi. I’ll be the balding 45 y/o male with a burnt-yellow button down shirt and jeans.
http://humboldt.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=3
A couple of questions…
Erik – any way you could link to that law review article you referred to yesterday morning?
Also, I’ve notice 4 references to Mendo’s guiding principles in print or on the air locally. I think two were in this week’s Journal, one in a letter in yesterday’s T-S, and another referenced by the owner of the Journal in a KHUM interview the EK linked to. I first read about those here on what Erik said was his own original research. I myself referred to those principles when I got a chance to talk to Supervisor Bass at the monthly Democratic Party meeting. What’s going on here? Maybe those on us on the “smart growth” side of the GPU debate are even more dependent on EK than I originally thought.
June 17, 2013 at 7:42 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
After the vote, Lovelace made a little joke about “all this time people thought I was against houses on TPZ,” and Fennell responded with something like “or maybe you just changed your mind.” Seems like Fennell must have been closer to the truth there, unless all along Lovelace secretly disagreed with his former employer, Healthy Humboldt, which fought tooth and nails for years against exactly the TPZ residence policy that Lovelace just voted for.
This means that, according to the rhetoric of the Plan A True Believers, Lovelace just voted to “convert timberlands to residential,” he voted to give an “unfair tax break” to TPZ owners, and he voted to consign the salmon to unavoidable doom. I wonder if he’ll be accused of recently “selling out” to the “greedy developers,” or if he’ll be accused of fooling his base all along, and only revealing his true fealty to the “unholy alliance” at the last minute?
Or maybe now that Lovelace has voted in favor of continuing to allow residences on TPZ, his followers will fall into line, and drop their opposition to TPZ owner-occupancy and all the over-the-top rhetoric they’ve been using to push that opposition for years, ever since the failed attempt to make the TPZ moratorium permanent? I can hardly wait to find out which will win out, their adherence to their cherished dogma, or their authoritarian desire to follow their Dear Leader unquestioningly? Okay, okay, I know I’m having too much fun with this, but after all the struggle over this issue, and then having Lovelace totally cave at the end, can you blame me?
By the way, it wasn’t just on the TPZ issue where there was more consensus than conflict. Lovelace made a point of saying that his dissenting votes on other Forest Resources items were not an indication that he couldn’t support the majority’s position on those items, and several times he stressed that his preferred language was only slightly different from that preferred by the majority.
Anyway, you’ve got to admit, it’s an interesting turn of events, especially given all the sturm und drang over the Guiding Principles a couple of hours earlier, Jennifer Kalt’s embittered rant, the hyperventilating “gone are all the protections” rhetoric from Ryan Burns, and Judy Hodgson’s newsprint meltdown of a few days ago. It seems that when it came down to the actual policies in the Forest Resources section, there was a whole lot more consensus than conflict, and somehow the supposedly game-changing revisions to the guiding Principles did nothing to prevent the shocking outbreak of common sense agreement just a few hours later.
Response: So many valid points on rhetoric, showmanship, flip-floppish demeanor, telling little fibs, etc….. below. In fact, the utter slowness of the process has been encouraged by supes who are not that smart, but do stay at a Holiday Inn right down 5th Street. Maybe Lovelace will retract and redact this “over-blown” myth that marijuana grows creates illegal developments. Ought to be an interesting “escape maneuver”.
Any way ya slice it,
It cuts like a knife,
HOJ
June 17, 2013 at 7:54 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
June 16, 2013 at 11:28 am
Anonymous
“The original moratorium that prevented the county from issuing any building permits on TPZ land was passed as an “urgency ordinance,” originally slated to last for 45 days, ostensibly just to address Hurwitz’s bankruptcy reorganization plan. ”
This isn’t the whole truth at all. The fact is a ton of land was sold and thus left hanging…had the moratorium been lifted after a mere 45 days, would have been void of resolve regarding the building explosion that would still have occured.
Response: Hmmm, after years and years of environmental planning and review, a process, etc…
This “urgency ordinance” was a backdoor method to create a controversy where no controversy existed at all. Bonnie Neely (the most untrustworthy supe in HOJ’s lifetime) wanted to “mix and match” seperate issues having “no connections” because it was campaign re-election moves that were sought after. The controversy began when supes claimed “this land” would be turned into “:ranchettes”.
The supes at that time were,
Neely, Geist, Smith, Lovelace and Rodoni’s wife,
not all felt the same and the vote was (where is the record on county supe votes for any given issues?????????????
HOJ
June 17, 2013 at 8:06 am
longwind
Jane, I’m afraid you misunderstand me. I’m not suggesting we imitate the close-minded, closed-door manipulations that created the GPU shambles now being corrected. I regret giving that impression.
I mean to suggest that, after 3 decisive election cycles in which the shift of direction embedded in the edited Guiding Principles was discussed, debated, and endorsed by voters in 4 out of 5 Supervisorial districts, we don’t need another 13 years to plot the new, desirable direction for the GPU. The GPU was extensively debated in every electoral district.
Anonymous, with all due respect, it is you who are talking nonsense. Please pay attention next time we have an election, you may learn a great deal about controversial issues, and discover that elections are held for the purpose of checking in with the public about, for example, your silly assertions. It was precisely because the public was excluded from the GPU process that new representatives were elected to represent the public’s views. That’s happened. It’s a terrible shame the public wasn’t represented in the first place.
And Jon,what you’re missing about Mendo’s principles is that they weren’t written to correct systemic hostility to rural living, as our new principles had to be. You see, Mendo’s an authentically rural county. Humboldt is properly a micropolitan county, that’s to say its population overwhelmingly (more than 2 out of 3) lives in and near the small cities around Humboldt Bay. That population’s policy needs and interests are very different from Mendo’s. What’s more distinct and unfair up here is that our gerrymandered electoral districts dominated by urban majorities elect Supervisors who only actually govern rural areas, where most of the electorate doesn’t live. So it takes awhile longer for their misunderstandings and misdeeds to be corrected electorally. It’s surprisingly traumatic when that happens.
June 17, 2013 at 8:09 am
hillmuffin
here is longwind’s bottom line:
# All politics is local…
#Estelle is my next door neighbor…
#Hence i am the most enfranchised citizen in the county…
CCL
June 17, 2013 at 8:11 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
June 16, 2013 at 6:32 pm
Anonymous
“There’s no mystery what the will of the people is in this regard.”
How can we take anything you say seriously either when you write stuff like this? The public was clearly left out of the process, the public wasn’t informed of their electorate’s plans, the public really has no clue, but the public is definitely in full favor of resource conservation. The public is very wary of new development. The public is smart enough to know real estate profiteering when they see it
Response: Your correct about public participation, but it seems your also being a bit disingenious BECAUSE you won’t include “government tax collectors” for more taxes that are actually subsidizing portions of California State government’s operation. Profit is caused by “people” in government too. Maybe, you need to argue less population so that less resources need extracting. The only reason why forrests get logged and homes get built is to provide a place for “over-populationists” to live (this includes all-those-homes that mother nature destroys too and mankind lets dilapidate).
The problem is within the human mindset that the only way people become rich and famous is off the backs of others (including consumers). Humans just are not that content with being quiet, subdued, laid-back and simple. Humans have embraced fiction and what the mind allows us to think, say and do, even though there is no real connection to reality. Humans mop-up their sorrows in materialsims, rather than enjoy the beauty of all-things-life-on-planet-Earth. The older a humanoid gets, hopefully the real gifts of life will be better understood. For now though, both public and private sector depend-upon profit.
Remember, government logs your forrests too; government build’s those homes too, etc….all for tax dollar collections so government can grow larger and protect your interests less. Government is all about business in any manner or fashion, with some side arguments as a twist for show and tell politics. In the end, nothing sperates the developer/profiteer from the government/tax collector.
The Two Party System has many voters fooled,
Sincerely,
HOJ
June 17, 2013 at 8:20 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
June 17, 2013 at 8:06 am
longwind
Jane, I’m afraid you misunderstand me. I’m not suggesting we imitate the close-minded, closed-door manipulations that created the GPU shambles now being corrected. I regret giving that impression.
I mean to suggest that, after 3 decisive election cycles in which the shift of direction embedded in the edited Guiding Principles was discussed, debated, and endorsed by voters in 4 out of 5 Supervisorial districts, we don’t need another 13 years to plot the new, desirable direction for the GPU. The GPU was extensively debated in every electoral district.
Response: Longwind, if you maintain “voters in 4 out of 5 districts endorsed previously these guidng principle changes”, then can you “rack-off” a partial list of names? Why? Voters did not “discuss” Guiding Principles until recently in the capacity being now championed. Now, if you meant to connect “secret discussions between political insiders” as opposed to public comment, then do elaborate even more.
Extensive debate among mostly groups representing only two sides is not indicative of a process that seeks to serve all.
GPU foreplay,
HOJ
June 17, 2013 at 8:26 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Longwind is inaccurate here,
It was precisely because the public was excluded from the GPU process that new representatives were elected to represent the public’s views.
Response: The public was not excluded; however, certain areas were being under-served in the process. New representaives were elected because quite frankly, Bonnie Neely dried-up, Rodoni was killed by an HSU employee, Smith had health/cancer issues, Lovelace is still on-board, Geist/Duffy only was going to serve no more than two terms.
Nice rhetorical ploy though,
C’mon, be honest,
HOJ
June 17, 2013 at 8:43 am
Cookie
Yes HOJ, the “secret discussions between political insiders” equates exactly to the point of Estelle saying ‘she had been hearing from SEVERAL people. I am stunned that SoHum is rolling over for this. You could hear the drool on MMM this morning. Dennis and Eric must really be afraid to piss Estelle off because of the community park. And HOJ gave a very accurate picture of why this group of supervisors is in office.
If Clif had been more of a man, he would still be in office.
June 17, 2013 at 9:58 am
longwind
I love it when people understand me better than I do. It saves so much time.
June 17, 2013 at 10:12 am
longwind
Hench, many people voted on the basis of politics, not persons. Bonnie’s secret lurch to the opposite party, which no one voted on or even heard of until she became Mark’s third vote, cost her re-election according to all analysts but you. Smith was succeeded by someone less wishy-washy and accomodating. Geist/Duffy was succeeded by a clear choice between a Mark-man and an insurance agent (ie a developer according to the failed arguments of the day). Since each one of the winning candidates was similarly tarred (they were all evil developer-tools like me and Ryan Sundberg), you have a hard time arguing now that no one knew what opinions they represented. Their skepticism about the GPU process and outcome was as open as that of your McKinleyville service district’s.
June 17, 2013 at 10:23 am
Democratic Jon
Longwind,
Setting the hostility to rural living aside. Not what I nor Supervisor Lovelace nor anyone else I can think of is coming from, in fact it is the opposite….
.
My question was one more about the local press and voices active on the GPU issue. The question does not necessarily bode well for those that speak out with the same voice that I do on the GPU issue.
There was a Mendo “meme” for lack of better word that I think was started by some original research by Erik K. on this blog. I think it was particularly important to the GPU dialog because it demonstrates what I think are pretty basic ideas that should inherently and uncontroversial be a part of the general guidelines of any county’s general plan. Also, these guidelines came from a neighbor county which I grant has the differences you mentioned. We also have a great deal in common including that we are both ripe for rapid growth given the dense population south of us.
My question though is how did this meme grow to take over the pro-“smart growth” dialog. It is just interesting to me in the sense that it points to the importance of EK’s input and also seem’s to say that we possibly need more critical thinking on the “smart-growth” position as we seem to be dominated by one person’s original research. Unless of course someone else happened to do the same thing Erik did. Not really a huge or controversial issue. Just something I noticed being very interested in local media as well as politics and I was interested if anyone else noticed the Mendo theme and if anyone knew of a different source for it other than EK’s.
June 17, 2013 at 10:47 am
That Other Anonymous
“…ripe for rapid growth given the dense population south of us.”
I think that to a large extent, this gets to a key difference in points of view. Some folks seem to believe that we’re in the midst of, or at least right on the verge of, a massive land rush of people from the Bay Area that threatens to rapidly transform Humboldt into “another Santa Rosa.” Others think that concern is way premature, based on our distance from the Bay Area population center.
One thing I think is worth noting is that Mendecino is a bit closer to that population center, but still has a smaller population (about 88,000) than Humboldt has (about 135,000). Unless for some reason the Bay Area hordes were going to leapfrog Mendecino in favor of Humboldt, it seems like we would expect to see clear indications of a major “land rush” in Mendecino first, and would see their population numbers rapidly catching up to Humboldt’s. Is there a trend in that direction? I’m not sure, as I haven’t seen the stats.
June 17, 2013 at 12:59 pm
longwind
Jon, I don’t wish to be unpleasant. Please speak for yourself, not for those whose actions speak louder than your recently arrived words. Mark gave our community literal hours of assurances that he wouldn’t do what he spent the next 5 years doing. Your assurances are frankly annoying, as I respect your sincerity and don’t wish to insult your simplicity.
Just consider the words of Mark’s Planning Commissioner, who from the dias characterized a single house anywhere in the country as “urbanization,” which you’ll remember he seeks to zone out of the countryside. If anyone anywhere in the leafy zone is ideally to be extirpated, and Mark doesn’t clarify or correct such screwball ignorance of culture, history and economy, well, please just talk to yourselves.
Eric did not create a ‘meme,’ he created a ‘blog post.’ I’m not aware of anyone but you repeating it. It’s critically important to understand that no one in Mendocino County has declared that most of its citizens are “worse for the land than industrial logging,” pikers for living on TPZ land, or happier and healthier in town than country. These divisive Humboldt homilies affect execution as well as policymaking, whether you understand this or not.
TOA, we may see the beginning of Sonoma spilling into the Ukiah valley, as Marin spilled into Sonoma 20 years ago. Working-class bedrooms move north keeping pace with Bay Area retirees, and to judge by SMART train planning, workers often live a bit cheaper north of their jobs in the metropolitan counties. Initiatives to build big subdivisions on the old Masonite and other abandoned industrial sites near Ukiah have generated controversy over the past 10 years. This doesn’t mean the sky is falling 90 miles from Garberville, but expect to start hearing it soon.
June 17, 2013 at 2:46 pm
That Other Anonymous
Eric,
FYI, here’s the language on TPZ residences as unanimously approved in the Board of Supervisors’ June 3rd straw vote:
“FR-P9. Residential Construction on TPZ Zoned Parcels.
Recognize the right to construct a residence and accessory buildings on TPZ parcels under a ministerial permitting process subject to County standards consistent with other Elements of the General Plan when the use does not detract from the growing and harvesting of timber and associated compatible uses.”
Here’s the language on second units on TPZ, as unanimously approved in the Board’s June 3rd straw vote:
“FR-P9X Secondary Residential Construction on TPZ Zoned Parcels.
Second residential units may be allowed on TPZ parcels greater than 160 acres; and, may be allowed on TPZ parcel less than 160 acres as a conditional use only in the area already converted, intended to be converted, or that does not meet the definition of timberlands. Seconds units may be allowed on TPZ parcels less than 40 acres within Community Planning Areas.”
It seems like the key to how this would play out on the ground is what those “standards consistent with with other Elements of the General Plan” will be, which would presumably be spelled out in revisions to the county’s TPZ ordinance.
There is a proposed “checklist” provided by the Ad-Hoc Working Group. The AHWG was split on whether such a checklist should be included in the GPU itself, or developed as part of revisions to the county’s TPZ ordinance. Staff indicated their support for such a checklist, but recommended developing it as part of revisions to the TPZ ordinance, and noted that the Forest Review Committee had asked to be part of that process. The supervisors agreed to not include these requirements in checklist form in the GPU itself — noting that most (all?) are already included elsewhere in the GPU — but they indicated support for including this sort of checklist in a revised TPZ ordinance.
Here is the proposed checklist provided by the AHWG:
1. The residence and accessory structures and uses will not interfere with or detract from the growing and harvesting of timber.
2. Residences and accessory structures shall be located only in the area
converted and shall not encompass an area exceeding three (3) acres per parcel.
3. A right to harvest acknowledgement is secured for the property and
runs with the land.
4. The residence is found to be consistent and compatible with any
applicable Habitat Conservation Plan.
5. The residence and accessory structures are built in accordance with
firesafe standards.
6. In any watershed listed as temperature impaired, proof of sufficient
water shall be required to prevent the need for water withdrawals during
low flow periods.
7. Where water is being diverted, landowner will show proof of a 1600
agreement and/or diversion permit.
8. Demonstrate adherence to appropriate riparian buffer areas.
9. Incorporate appropriate setbacks from adjacent TPZ to accommodate
timber management activities including harvest and post-harvest
burning.
10. Demonstrate application of road construction and maintenance
standards consistent with the County’s grading ordinance.”
The “discussion” part of the AHWG’s comments on this noted that “While these standards are currently required and/or contained in other chapters of the General Plan Update, members of the ad hoc group felt that incorporating these standards as a checklist would give both landowners and planning staff greater clarity on the issue of residential development on TPZ lands.”
Does this answer some of your concerns?
June 17, 2013 at 4:28 pm
That Other Anonymous
In today’s meeting, discussion of the rules governing proposed subdivision of TPZ parcels. In the existing Framework Plan, it only allows subdivision (dividing up a current parcel to create new parcels, as opposed to just division of ownership along existing parcel lines) if the owner can demonstrate that subdividing the parcel would improve the expected timber yield from that land (and it seems like that would rarely, if ever, be the case). Just showing that the subdivision would not detract from the expected timber yield would not be enough to win approval for the subdivision. Bottom line: Under the existing Framework Plan, the subdivision of TPZ parcels is a privilege, and not a right.
While the Supervisors did not take a straw vote on it today (asking staff for some additional details, including what would count as evidence of expected improvement in timber yields), the majority seemed very clearly in support of maintaining the current standard more or less as it is in the existing Framework Plan, with Sundberg repeatedly aand forcefully stating his support for the concept that subdivision is a privilege, not a right, and Bass and Fennell backing him up on that (I missed Bohn and Lovelace’s comments, if any).
So it looks like yet another Chicken Little “squawking point” bites the dust — the myth that the current majority (and those who elected them) are hell-bent on allowing TPZ lands to be carved up into residential subdivisions. Clearly they are not.
June 17, 2013 at 5:38 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Also in today’s meeting, did supe Lovelace make an attempt at implementing enforcement/regulation measures @ 5:12 pm where all supes agreed. What was that specifically?
Additionally, someone was commended at the end of the meeting. Was that Martha Spencer and what for? Missed that at the end.
So it looks like yet another Chicken Little “squawking point” bites the dust — the myth that the current majority (and those who elected them) are hell-bent on allowing TPZ lands to be carved up into residential subdivisions. Clearly they are not.
Response: and to think a past board used this argument to create “that moratorium moment using that dastardly dupester Charles Horowitz’s asset Pacific Lumber and its associated, but also presumed, land for cash sales, ala McKee.”
Oh well, so much for a good Stephen King movie.
HOJ
June 17, 2013 at 6:06 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Longwind,
let us go over this sentence by sentence below:
June 17, 2013 at 10:12 am
longwind
Hench, many people voted on the basis of politics, not persons. Bonnie’s secret lurch to the opposite party, which no one voted on or even heard of until she became Mark’s third vote, cost her re-election according to all analysts but you. Smith was succeeded by someone less wishy-washy and accomodating. Geist/Duffy was succeeded by a clear choice between a Mark-man and an insurance agent (ie a developer according to the failed arguments of the day). Since each one of the winning candidates was similarly tarred (they were all evil developer-tools like me and Ryan Sundberg), you have a hard time arguing now that no one knew what opinions they represented. Their skepticism about the GPU process and outcome was as open as that of your McKinleyville service district’s.
Response by sentence:
1) No doubt, but you made reference to this June 17, 2013 at 8:26 am
“Henchman Of Justice”
Longwind is inaccurate here,
It was precisely because the public was excluded from the GPU process that new representatives were elected to represent the public’s views.
Response: The public was not excluded; however, certain areas were being under-served in the process. New representaives were elected because quite frankly, Bonnie Neely dried-up, Rodoni was killed by an HSU employee, Smith had health/cancer issues, Lovelace is still on-board, Geist/Duffy only was going to serve no more than two terms.
2) “according to all analysts but you” – hmmmm, Bonnie had served how many terms consecutively and wore out her welcome to someone nicer and less “strapped-in” to higher-up political whores. Besides, according to the media pundits, it was Bonnie’s darned fashion style wearing a denim jacket. Bonnie forced out by voters.
3) Smith was succeeded, yes, but his health problems seemed to dictate that, no matter how wishy and washy. Smith was not forced out by the voters.
4) Geist/Duffy was not running again; therefore, the voters had more choices to choose and it was very close. Geist was not foced out by the voters.
5) Since each one of the winning candidates was similarly tarred (they were all evil developer-tools like me and Ryan Sundberg), you have a hard time arguing now that no one knew what opinions they represented. Hmmm, “tarred versus knowing the opinions” is different than “tarred versus knowing the guiding principle changes”.
6) Apples and oranges to compare completely seperate functions of government in a discussion where you incriminated the process by saying people did not get to participate, It was precisely because the public was excluded from the GPU process that new representatives were elected to represent the public’s views.
.
Now looky look here with recent actions to not include the public, opposite of what you say the voters voted on behalf of…….participation..
HOJ
June 17, 2013 at 6:24 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Can anyone explain what difference is made on “second units” when the coverted area must be within a 3 acre area for which the primary residence would also be located. It seems simply by increasing the number of people by that of up to a normal family count is enough “impact” to encumber some argument that a second unit “detracts” from the non 3 acre harvestable timber lands.
If a house can be built, so too can a second unit without increasing “impacts” if the area converted is limited to 3 acres and the allownace for a home being “recognized as opposed to acknowledged” just goes to show how messes are created. IF TPZ land and AG land can be rezoned by the same people pushing unit restrictions on TPZ, then obviously these issues are a “mix and match wax job”.
To develop legally is to be “checked and balanced”; yet, when enforcement is intentionally lax, what is fine already is meant to look all wrong. Second Units should be allowed on all TPZ lands, with checks and balances of course.
HOJ
June 17, 2013 at 6:56 pm
Anonymous
“This “urgency ordinance” was a backdoor method to create a controversy where no controversy existed at all.”
That’s a ridiculous paranoid delision. Having read your comments over time you’ve practically flip flopped your view of yet another matter with no logical reason why. It’s like you argue so long about these things or something you just gotta argue….or something.
Present to “the people” the bottom line concerning resource consumption and the future physical state of humboldt’s landscape. Follow the money. Real estate profiteering, clear as it could be. Real estate moguls in government. Follow the timeline. This is all bullshit. You can change the semantics all you want…the pen is not mightier than the water supply.
June 17, 2013 at 8:55 pm
Cookie
“the majority seemed very clearly in support of maintaining the current standard more or less as it is in the existing Framework Plan, ”
Key words there being “or less’.
June 17, 2013 at 11:18 pm
That Other Anonymous
Apparently you didn’t watch the meeting. I did. Sundberg, Bass, and Fennell were very clear in their opposition to making it easier to subdivide TPZ lands. You were dead wrong in your earlier claim that “TPZ is now de facto rural residential” and you’re dead wrong with your snarky “Key words there being “or less’” comment.
Instead of continually embarrassing yourself by making these demonstrably false claims, which appear to be based on nothing more than pessimistic speculation flavored by your cynicism and fueled by your obviously deep personal hatreds, perhaps you might want to consider a different approach — actually learning the facts, and commenting on those. Sure, it’s a lot more work, and perhaps less fun, but at least you won’t end up being so wrong, so frequently, and so dramatically.
June 18, 2013 at 8:21 am
Democratic Jon
Longwind,
First I missed that you were a contractor or developer until just this AM. I don’t use the word evil (or tools) in politics so let me be the first to defend you from you own characterization of developers like you and Supervisor Sunberg. However, I do think that as a person whose livelihood depends on development we will have many fundamental disagreements on the GPU. Do you think there are any developers or contractors in the area that would be for “smart growth” or a strong county voice in regional planning? The developers certainly showed up in force to back the 4 supervisor’s stance on the new guidelines.
Let me also say that your background may help to explain the tone of you 1 pm comment yesterday. Commenters in this post are savvy enough to know the drill. Politics is so rarely about policy (especially in the comment section), more often it is about ad hominem attacks – imho much more so from the right, but both sides are guilty. Forgive me if “recently arrived” and “simplicity” were not meant to put me and/or my ideas in their place.
a) regarding Supervisor Lovelace’s stance on… Rural- For or Against? Here is most of his email response when I emailed a thank you for his position in the June 3rd meeting. I hope he doesn’t mine me publishing it here.
“There has been a strong fear campaign to scare people into thinking that the new plan will somehow prevent people from being able to live a rural lifestyle or, worse, force them off their land and into the cities. Such statements are absurd. The primary goal of the General Plan has been to focus future development into those areas that already have water, sewer and other services so that the rural areas can stay rural, protecting residents’ rural lifestyle. Conversely, CPR’s focus on property rights above all else ultimately threatens our rural character and quality of life with increased density and development in our rural areas.”
I think that is really well said and true. Your point about Mark’s Planner is kinda a stretch I think. I shouldn’t put words in Mark’s mouth, but you can put words in his mouth via another person because they weren’t words but actions maybe? I don’t know.
b) Point of fact on my observations of the incestuousness of the local media which you definitively dismissed. I included the general references in my original post, but so we can both possibly at least agree on the facts of this decidedly apolitical issue here are the precise references.
1) pg 4 of 6/13 NCJ editorial cartoon.
2) pg 4 of 6/13 NCJ letter to the editor “Be Like Mendo”
3) pg 4 of 6/14 of the TS letter to the editor “Shame on county supervisors”
4) at 7:30 of the interview with KHUM EK linked to earlier Judy Hodgson said “I was not aware that Mendocino County had as strong a policy as they do, but that is something to admire and adhere to.”
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/Blogthing/archives/2013/06/13/hodgson-issues-call-for-supervisor-challengers-in-khum-interview
With the caveat that it may be that one or all of these independent references to Mendocino’s guidelines was discovered… independently….
I believe EK’s post had become a meme for those like myself against the guideline changes. On one hand, it does not reflect well on our cause as it kinda demonstrates a tendency to follow one voice and not do one’s own homework. (As I mentioned soon after reading EK’s post, I also used the Mendo reference when I had Supervisor Bass’ ear at the Democratic monthly meeting.) On the other hand, the reference to Mendo’s guidelines was an important example of what a similar local county was doing and how different their values were from ours when put down in legalish print. More than anything though, I think the meme demonstrates the tenuousness of our local media and buttresses my original post in Sohum Parlance that EK’s voice is critical here.
I hate to get in the weeds with you on this, but I definitely favor policy discussion over verbal strong-arming. I think your post that I would characterize as a [diminish – contradict – QED] was not only unpleasant as you acknowledged, but wrong. When I am guilty of similar in the future, as I sure I will be, I too would appreciate a nudge back to policy or topic rather than personal. Here’s to constructive disagreements (and maybe some agreements) in the future.
June 18, 2013 at 8:40 am
Cookie
TOA, all words yesterday. Notice the fact there was no straw vote? Why?
“Bass, and Fennell were very clear in their opposition to making it easier to subdivide TPZ lands”. Yep. Just like Fennell was very clear while campaigning about community in-put. Then voted no when asked for more time for community in put about her re written Guiding Principles.
Democratic Jon, get used to longwind/Charley being “strong-arming”, rude, and pushy. He is like that all the time.
June 18, 2013 at 10:51 am
longwind
Hey John,
I’ll scroll through responses to your post:
Intro: I’m not a developer, not a contractor, I’m not even evil to the best of my knowledge. I was acquainting you with the labels I earn by disagreeing with your friends. I’m not a conservative either, in fact I’m a charter member of the group I now criticize for its myopia, narcisissm and unwillingness to deal honestly with communities it disapproves of.
I have no idea whether local developers might sign on to SmartWorld sloganeering in their promotions. The place I mean to put you is into context: you haven’t participated in local discussions and failures long enough to hear the emptiness of your words/platitudes/emails from Mark. You’ll get there. I don’t say this to disparage you. I say it to disparage what hasn’t worked, and won’t work.
a) In my last post I gave you a factual summary of Mark’s Planning Commissioner really truly thinking that country living is illegitimate. I ticked off 3 true memes invented by Mark’s merry band to stigmatize rural residents, which were endlessly repeated in the media before you got here. You respond by ignoring the memes, and citing the authority of someone who has little authority outside of his fire-eating cult, to dismiss my arguments that have in fact carried the county (which, not to be unpleasant, is populated with people who’ve been here longer than you have). Mark does put words and thoughts in his representatives’ mouths, incidentally. That’s why they’re called ‘representatives.’
b) I’m sorry, this may be a weakness of mine, but Judy Hodgson . . . let’s just say I won’t go read Judy to chit-chat with you. Life’s too short and she’s too foolish. I realize this may sound like arrogant smugness, which generally characterizes the left, not the right–so think of it as my bona fide of provenance.
Finally, I don’t think it’s a personal attack to say you don’t have much information to go on, when in fact you don’t. Please take this into account. All you know is what one shriveling side tells you. After 5 years of arguing with my own friends about how to improve my own county, I’m not getting better at arguing with them, and I am getting sicker of it. Yet the county gets the argument, and fewer and fewer last-ditchers remain to argue with. But a trickle more keep moving north . . .
I missed the Mendo mentions in the papers, thanks for pointing them out. I think Mendonesian Principles by themselves aren’t meaningful for us because again, there’s no controversy about living in the Mendo countryside. There’s no county sanction against people trying to. A much higher percentage of people there do, without being told they’re worse for the land than industrial forestry. That’s the defining difference between Mendo and Humboldt–and you’ve ignored that simple fact too.
Our changed Guidelines reflect our county’s political changes, which in my opinion were driven by the overreach of a faction unwilling to respect or work with communities they wanted to control. It didn’t work out well for them. Is this lesson worth learning?
June 18, 2013 at 11:15 am
That Other Anonymous
Democrat Jon said: “First I missed that you were a contractor or developer until just this AM.”
I think you misinterpreted Longwind’s phrase “…evil developer-tools like me and Ryan Sundberg.” I don’t believe he was saying that he and Sundberg were developers, but rather was making fun of the oft-expressed idea that anyone not supportive of a full-on Option A-style GPU must be a “tool” of developers.
By the way, did you attend the Board of Supervisors meeting yesterday? If so, did you notice that, contrary to the dark warnings that our forest lands were at risk of being subdivided left and right, the majority was instead very clear in opposing the subdivision of TPZ parcels?
Did you notice that, contrary to claims that all the protections are being stripped away from our rural timberlands, leaving developers with “carte blanche” for development, in fact the GPU’s Forest Resources section, as approved by the majority in their straw votes, is actually chock full of protections for timberlands?
Did you notice how many items were passed unanimously, and how many of those involved consensus positions hammered out by the Ad-Hoc Working Group, which includes both Healthy Humboldt and HumCPR (as well as a number of other groups)?
In short, did you notice that the actual process and product does not even remotely resemble the propaganda offered by the North Coast Journal, where the board majority is portrayed as bent on shoving through a radical, anything-goes, doors-wide-open-to-unfettered-development approach?
Just curious as to whether, now that you’ve attended a meeting, it’s starting to dawn on you that the reality of how the plan is shaping up — the actual language of the actual policy provisions — just doesn’t at all match up with the scaremongering “they’re giving carte blanche to developers” propaganda that has is being promoted by political opponents of the current board majority, and bounced around the NCJ / LoCO / SoHum Parlance echo chamber.
June 18, 2013 at 12:13 pm
That Other Anonymous
On the original subject of this thread — the online petition — it appears that even after two weeks, they still haven’t been able to reach their very modest goal of 500 names. They have about 450 names as of now, some of which are not even from Humboldt County residents (and new names of actual Humboldt County residents seem to have slowed to a bare trickle). According to an e-mail I got from a supporter of the petition yesterday, they were pushing to try to reach the goal of 500 signatures before yesterday’s Board of Supervisors meeting. It appears that they came up well short of that, even if you count the many signatures that aren’t even from Humboldt County residents.
That’s right, in a county of about 135,000 people, with about 80,000 registered voters, they haven’t been able to find even 500 of them to add their names to an online petition — probably the single easiest, least-demanding form of expressing support for an idea. And this despite the numerous recent propaganda pieces in the North Coast Journal, promotion of the petition effort on the Lost Coast Outpost, here on SoHum Parlance, and on KHUM, and through the social networking efforts of various organizations and individuals who support the petition.
Of the names that they did collect, it appears that many are not even from Humboldt County. At the moment, of the currently displayed 10 most recently added signatures, not a single one is even from Humboldt County!
Recent signatures:
Paul Jefferson LAWRENCE, KS
1m
Julia Carter HUNTSVILLE, AL
2m
Michael Predmore STANFORD, CA
3m
Janine Lovell CLAY, NY
4m
Edward Rengers WOODSTOCK, NY
4m
James Mulcare CLARKSTON, WA
7m
Alice Artzt PRINCETON, NJ
9m
RACHEL SEUNG MOUNT POCONO, PA
15m
jerry anning DEARBORN HTS, MI
17m
PAOLA REINHARDT NEUQUEN, AL
18m
So if the idea of this petition was to demonstrate that a large number and broad range of folks here in Humbolt County were outraged by the actions of the Board of Supervisors on June 3rd with respect to the Guiding Principles, and/or are generally dissatisfied with the direction that the Board was going…well, it seems that it has actually demonstrated the opposite — that their numbers are small, and mostly concentrated in the Arcata area.
June 18, 2013 at 12:20 pm
Cookie
TOA, Clif was not a full-on option A guy. Yet Estelle and Kathleen and the HumCPR gang used the meme he was. They also used the fear mongering that the county was going to kick all rural people off their land. Never was true. I want to know is Estelle voting for the same things Clif would have? If the plan is following the old Framework Plan, business a usual over the past 20 years, it is carte blanche to the developers, again and still. Remember Estelles campaign promise of less regulations and less restrictions.
June 18, 2013 at 12:28 pm
Cookie
TOA, I just went to look for the names you have posted there and found none of them. These are the names and places I saw of the latest 10 names:
Don Christensen,Eureka
Tim Keefe,Eureka
Patricia Atwood,Eureka
Russell Cole,Arcata
Paula Yoon,Bayside
Terry Badner,Garberville
Carol Ryder,Arcata
Mitch Farro,Trinidad
Patricia Rose,Garberville
June 18, 2013 at 12:29 pm
That Other Anonymous
Now the signatures are really rolling in…but, unfortunately for the organizers, again not a single new name of a Humboldt County resident:
Recent signatures
Holly Rollins SMYRNA, GA
3m
Paula Gene Trapp HONOLULU, HI
3m
Wayne Cole WOODLAND, WA
3m
Faiza Ikram BRIDGEVIEW, IL
4m
Greg Larson SEATTLE, WA
4m
Bill O’Connell ALBUQUERQUE, NM
5m
john eschen GRAND COULEE, WA
5m
Carmen Cid TUCSON, AZ
5m
Stephen Wayles PHOENIX, AZ
5m
Gerald Kelly HOUSTON, TX
6m
So now it looks like they should have no trouble meeting the goal of 500 names…but it’s also pretty clear that a whole lot of those names are of random non-Humboldt residents who haven’t got a clue about any of this.
June 18, 2013 at 12:38 pm
That Other Anonymous
Yup, as they close in on the goal of 500 names, once again, it’s all out-of-area folks:
nancy matthews SEDONA, AZ
0m
Ariane Frenz GERMANY
0m
Keith Turner CAVE CREEK, AZ
4m
Sonja Stahlhut DURHAM, NC
5m
Carol Winkler LAS CRUCES, NM
5m
norma laborie SAINT OUEN, AL
6m
sam eisenbach MECOSTA, MI
7m
Joel Finley OGDENSBURG, NY
9m
Judy Buchsbaum PHILADELPHIA, PA
10m
lynda leigh SANTA CRUZ, CA
10m
News
I guess if you can’t come up with 500 supporters in a county of 135,000 people, you have little choice but to pad the numbers by sending out an appeal to all your Facebook friends across the country. Astroturfing at its best!
I expect I’ll see the triumphant “We did it! We got 500 signatures!” e-mail hit my in-box within a few hours. Followed by fawning coverage on the North Coast Journal’s Blogthing, the Lost Coast Outpost, here on SoHum Parlance, and a Judy Hodgson victory lap on KHUM, all trumpeting their stunning success in rounding up so many signatures, “proving” that Humboldt residents are up in arms about the June 3rd revisions to the Guiding Principles.
June 18, 2013 at 12:44 pm
That Other Anonymous
Surely somewhere here there MUST be an actual Humboldt resident…
Recent signatures
Reola Buckins LB, CA
0m
Robert holgate SAN FRANCISCO, CA
0m
beth muller ROME, GA
1m
michael baker LYNN, MA
4m
Clifford Spencer PORTLAND, OR
5m
Judy Allen VANCEBORO, NC
6m
Tim Hagaman LAKEWOOD, CO
7m
Lisa Cate AVA, MO
7m
Benjamin Schlein NASHVILLE, TN
9m
nancy matthews SEDONA, AZ
10m
…Nope, not a single one. This is getting sad.
June 18, 2013 at 12:49 pm
That Other Anonymous
No lack of clueless non-Humboldt residents willing to add their names to a petition on an issue they almost certainly no nothing at all about:
Recent signatures
Shirley Gonzalez ,
4m
Constance Engle HENDERSONVILLE, NC
5m
Andrew Katsetos AUSTIN, TX
5m
Reola Buckins LB, CA
6m
Robert holgate SAN FRANCISCO, CA
6m
beth muller ROME, GA
7m
michael baker LYNN, MA
10m
Clifford Spencer PORTLAND, OR
11m
Judy Allen VANCEBORO, NC
12m
Tim Hagaman LAKEWOOD, CO
13m
Only 16 more needed!
June 18, 2013 at 1:04 pm
That Other Anonymous
Oops, some overlap in those last couple of lists. Looks like the flood of Facebook friends has slowed down. But only 12 more needed — come on now astroturfers, that sister of the friend of your cousin’s roommate in Florida — surely she ought to weigh in with an opinion on the process of revising the Guiding Principles for Humboldt County’s General Plan!
June 18, 2013 at 1:07 pm
That Other Anonymous
Miracle of miracles — an actual Humboldt County resident add her name!
Recent signatures
Pamela Brown ARCATA, CA
4m
William Ronald HAMMOND, IN
7m
Linda Kilby PHILA, PA
14m
Massey Cindy LITTLETON, CO
16m
brian karlovetz FREMONT, OH
18m
June 18, 2013 at 1:19 pm
Eric Kirk
Does this answer some of your concerns?
Some, although almost all of those on the list are already mandated by state law, and only one of those items addresses resource land specifically. But I would like to see a study or comparative survey over the past few decades as to how many parcels with homes constructed have later had harvests as opposed to those without homes – focusing on holdings under 1000 acres. My theory about the ultimate fate of subdivisions about home would be proven or disproven with data that should be available in Humboldt and Mendocino County. My concern, one which you dismiss, is that once a neighborhood or subdivision becomes residential in nature, it ceases to be functionally resource land. Nothing in that list would mitigate that problem if it exists.
A friend in Santa Cruz tells me that it happened in Davenport and Boulder Creek – very little resource extraction once the money moved in. I don’t know how accurate it is, but it’s worth a study and discussion. It won’t happen anytime soon.
Maybe the next time around, with a different Board.
June 18, 2013 at 1:27 pm
Eric Kirk
On the original subject of this thread — the online petition — it appears that even after two weeks, they still haven’t been able to reach their very modest goal of 500 names. They have about 450 names as of now, some of which are not even from Humboldt County residents (and new names of actual Humboldt County residents seem to have slowed to a bare trickle). According to an e-mail I got from a supporter of the petition yesterday, they were pushing to try to reach the goal of 500 signatures before yesterday’s Board of Supervisors meeting. It appears that they came up well short of that, even if you count the many signatures that aren’t even from Humboldt County residents.
That’s right, in a county of about 135,000 people, with about 80,000 registered voters, they haven’t been able to find even 500 of them to add their names to an online petition — probably the single easiest, least-demanding form of expressing support for an idea. And this despite the numerous recent propaganda pieces in the North Coast Journal, promotion of the petition effort on the Lost Coast Outpost, here on SoHum Parlance, and on KHUM, and through the social networking efforts of various organizations and individuals who support the petition.
It’s a good point, and it either suggests that there is overwhelming support for the county’s action, or at minimum disinterest. Or people haven’t caught up. I tend to agree that it should have filled up right away if there is significant outrage.
I do get the feeling that many have thrown in the towell. I spoke to an attorney this morning had just read Judy’s column and said that he wishes that marijuana would just be legalized so that it would clear out that whole economic/political element of power, even if it means economic downturn locally in the short run. He isn’t going to sign the petition, nor contact the Board during this process. Thinks it’s a waste of time.
June 18, 2013 at 1:46 pm
longwind
That research can’t be done until the forests have recovered from the last vast harvest. I’m sure it’s not easy to get a Timber Harvest Permit in upscale Boulder Creek anymore, or economically necessary, but that’s not here nor there. What we don’t know is how our residents will treat the increasing value of their forests in decades to come. The value isn’t there yet, and of course the market isn’t either. We simply don’t know what the future holds–we can’t even guess whether we’ll become richer or poorer, let alone whether that will change smallholders’ forest management practices. But Eric, begin by understanding that 40-year timber rotation norms dictate that most of our rural residential lands aren’t ready for re-harvest anyway. It wouldn’t pay even if there were mills and markets for timber now, and permitting wasn’t so expensive. So this is a great time to do your study!
June 18, 2013 at 1:49 pm
longwind
“I spoke to an attorney this morning had just read Judy’s column and said that he wishes that marijuana would just be legalized so that it would clear out that whole economic/political element of power, even if it means economic downturn locally in the short run. He isn’t going to sign the petition, nor contact the Board during this process. Thinks it’s a waste of time.”
I agree on all points except reading Judy.
June 18, 2013 at 3:20 pm
That Other Anonymous
Eric,
I’d be all in favor of a study along the lines you have described. But it would have to take into account a number of important variables. For example, the parcels being compared would have to have been last harvested at about the same time, with similar forest types, and have about the same amount of merchantable timber on them at the time of the comparison. As we all know, a lot of TPZ parcels in SoHum were logged over, then sold, then a residence was built, and there is just not nearly enough mature timber suitable for a new harvest yet. Comparing those to no-residence parcels that may have more timber that is ripe for harvesting would obviously make for an invalid comparison. And no doubt there are numerous other variables that would have to be controlled for. I’m not at all saying that a valid comparison could not be done, just pointing out that it’s not quite as simple as comparing all parcels with residences to all parcels without residences.
Meanwhile, from my point of view, I would hope that a valid comparison would show that owner-occupied TPZ lands are harvested somewhat less frequently, and more selectively. In my view that would be a good thing. The whole idea of the TPZ program was to prevent people from being forced to harvest at the first possible opportunity, just to pay their annual taxes on their timberland. As far as I know there’s nothing in the state TPZ law that requires people to harvest as soon as possible, or for that matter even within their own lifetime. Which only makes sense, considering the number of years after the last harvest that it takes for some of our forest types to reach a point where they are worth harvesting — much less the amount of time before they reach a point anywhere near their true “mature” state.
My guess is that plenty of the parcels that you’re worried might never again be logged if there are a couple of residences on or near that parcel, will in fact be logged when (a) the timber on them is mature enough to harvest, and (b) when prices for timber go back up to the point where it’s more profitable to do a harvest. A couple of other factors may be (c) when the price of ganja dips far enough that some of those who own TPZ land but currently get by by growing pot realize they can’t really make a living at that any more, but are sitting on some (now more mature) marketable timber, and (d) if/when the environmental review and permitting process is made more efficient and cost-effective for owners of small and medium sized timber holdings to do “light touch” selective logging — something that could be on the horizon for many of our watersheds, and is already under way as a pilot project in one of them in the form of the Mattole Restoration Council’s PTEIR program:
http://www.mattole.org/content/mattole-forest-futures-pteir
Basically, the idea is very similar to what is currently being proposed (or maybe even is already moving forward, I’m not sure) for increasing oyster farming in Humboldt Bay — pool resources to do the environmental review and permitting for an overall area, so that smaller operators can use that work in preparing their own plans, and don’t have to do a lot of costly, inefficient, redundant work on their own. In the case of the PTEIR program in the Mattole, what makes it even better from an environmental standpoint is that in exchange for the significant savings the PTEIR process provides to the landowner (compared to the cost of preparing a standard THP on their own), the landowner agrees to follow a set of “light-touch” logging guidelines aimed at restoring the health of the forest and its ability to provide all the important “ecosystem services” of providing high quality habitat, healthy watershed function, etc.
Seems like a win-win to me — and I bet that some of those folks that you are concerned won’t want any harvesting on/near their property, may be more much more open to the idea when the logging in question is specifically designed to be especially sustainable and ecologically beneficial. In fact I know several people with parcels that are partly or mostly timber who have heard about the PTEIR program, but are not in the Mattole watershed — and wish they were, because they have timber that is, or will soon be, suitable for harvesting, but given the current low price of timber, and the high cost of preparing a THP, at the moment it just doesn’t pencil out for them to do any harvesting, at least not without having to log it all, really hard, all at once, to pay the costs of preparing the THP. These folks are not opposed to logging their land, in fact they’d very much like to do so at some point, but they don’t want to have to clear-cut the crap out of the whole thing just to pay for the THP and the cost of the logging itself, and then barely (if they’re lucky) break even. But if the price of a board-foot of timber goes up a bit, and/or the price of meeting the regulatory requirements goes down (which apparently does, and quite significantly, with the PTEIR approach), these folks are more than ready to do some harvesting — with the jobs going to locals, and the timber going to local mills.
I believe the MRC’s PTEIR program only actually got underway a little more than a year ago, but if it’s successful (or can be made successful with some fine tuning) I’d love to something similar done in other watersheds.
The bottom line is that we don’t have to stand passively by and wait for worst-case scenarios to develop, we can innovate and problem-solve. In the case of wanting timber harvesting to remain viable — and to actually be practiced — on small-to-medium sized TPZ ownerships, we don’t have to choose between severely restricting residences on those parcels, and hoping that this approach will force timber harvesting, versus not restricting residences on TPZs and doing nothing more. We can choose to allow a somewhat less restrictive approach to TPZ residences (which, again, I submit is reasonable description of what the current Board has approved in their straw votes in the Timber Resources section of the GPU), and at the same time actively encourage, facilitate, and provide incentives for timber harvesting to continue to take place in these areas.
June 18, 2013 at 3:47 pm
Eric Kirk
I’m not at all saying that a valid comparison could not be done, just pointing out that it’s not quite as simple as comparing all parcels with residences to all parcels without residences.
Actually, more specifically, I would like a comparison not just of homes on the parcels, but subdivisions – where there are “neighborhoods.” We have no data, yet you and I have spent much time in conjecture.
I think there would be vehement opposition to the Planning Department even conducting such a study.
I agree on all points except reading Judy.
LW, as I read into his points, he was making in softer terms the same point Shane Brinton made at the big meeting. From what I’ve heard, you didn’t agree with Shane.
As to Judy, it is interesting how political perceptions turn around. She was once perceived as an Arkley-backer, though the perception was based on very lame evidence. I met her once at a party. She doesn’t come across as the radical leftist, but I guess impressions can be deceiving.
June 18, 2013 at 4:43 pm
That Other Anonymous
“I do get the feeling that many have thrown in the towell. I spoke to an attorney this morning had just read Judy’s column and said that he wishes that marijuana would just be legalized so that it would clear out that whole economic/political element of power, even if it means economic downturn locally in the short run. He isn’t going to sign the petition, nor contact the Board during this process. Thinks it’s a waste of time.”
This is a predictable result of all the sky-is-falling scaremongering rhetoric that has been constantly pumped out at these people leading up to and following the last election, and then amped up again in recent weeks by the collective freak-out over the revisions to the Guiding Principles. Having put all this effort into persuading your base that the current board is hopelessly “bought and paid for” by developers and that those board members are incontrovertibly committed to giving developers “carte blanche” for “unfettered development” a significant portion of your base may have swallowed that propaganda hook, line, and sinker, and is now wallowing in despair and inadvertently-manufactured apathy. The cold, hard truth is that it’s a bit of a “you reap what you sow” situation. Yes, people are always a bit discouraged when “their side” loses an election, or for that matter a legislative struggle, or a court case. But they don’t usually just lie down, curl up in the fetal position and give up. No matter how badly they got beat, their opponents can’t make them do that — only their own opinion leaders can, by constantly signaling them that the worst has come to pass, the other side has taken full control and is both utterly corrupt, and completely uncompromising, and therefore absolutely nothing else they do has any real hope of having any real effect. At that point, the fetal position starts to seem like a pretty reasonable response.
Going all-in with a message that contains way too much fear, and nowhere near enough hope tends to do that to people. This has long been recognized by smart campaigners. For example, while campaigns to encourage people to quit cigarette smoking must, of course, include a good deal of (accurate) fear-inducing information about the damage smoking does to your lungs, you may note that modern quit-smoking campaigns generally also make a big point of communicating that some amount of that damage can be un-done, and that the sooner you quit, the more can be un-done.
If you want to both make a difference on some issues even while your side does not have as much bargaining power as you want, and also keep your base engaged in hopes of winning more bargaining power in the future, you’re going to have to do a better job of balancing the fear and hope parts of your message. This will necessarily include dialing back on some of the overblown “all is lost because they changed some words in the Guiding Principles” rhetoric, which judging by the outcome with this online petition, is an approach that has failed anyway.
That doesn’t mean that you have to throw up your hands and just walk away until the next election (which is a poor strategy even for making progess in that election, much less having any positive impact in the meantime). Instead you can look to try to work toward some achievable goals, for example perhaps getting the phrase “salmonid habitat” back into the Guiding Principles — and probably more importantly, getting your folks to participate in the public comment that is accompanying the ongoing deliberations and straw voting that is taking place with respect to the actual specific policy provisions of the GPU. And perhaps picking out a few specific things to try to get changed from the straw votes they’ve already done — because as you know, none of the language anywhere in the GPU is carved in stone, until they take their final vote on the GPU as a whole…whenever that might be.
It was astonishing to see how little public comment there was on last night’s discussion of requirements for subdividing TPZ parcels. Thankfully, it is clear that, contrary to what your side has so effectively convinced your base, none of the supervisors are actually at all interested in making it easier to subdivide TPZ parcels. But if a couple of them had been, and it looked like it was going to be a close vote, some public involvement by people making it clear that they cared about the issue and didn’t support making it easier to subdivide TPZ parcels could have been helpful — heck, maybe even decisive. But having already convinced your base that there’s no point, because the current board is hellbent on removing virtually all restrictions on development, and in particular development in rural areas and resource lands, why would your supporters bother to waste their time? Based on the rhetoric they’ve been hearing, removing restrictions on subdividing timberlands and throwing the doors wide open for massive development of those lands — this thing that hasn’t happened, and isn’t going to happen — has, as far as they know, probably already happened, and if it didn’t it’s pretty much inevitable that it will happen eventually.
We’re damn lucky that the current majority is nowhere near as radically anti-regulation and pro-development and don’t-give-a-crap-about-the-environment as your side’s hyperbole makes them out to be, because having fostered so much cynicism and despair, and therefore disengagement and apathy in your own base, you’d be in a piss-poor position to oppose them, or even to get people on the record to show that anyone had offered an alternative vision.
I haven’t heard anything further about your proposed project to try to “re-boot” a progressive movement in Humboldt, but in addition to ditching some of the dogma, I think you folks do need to seriously take a look at both your message and the behavior of your messengers. Here’s a couple of free tips: (1) More strident does not necessarily equal more persuasive, and (2) More fear does not necessarily lead to more participation. I could go on, but if the past is prologue, this advice is probably falling on deaf ears anyway.
June 18, 2013 at 5:32 pm
That Other Anonymous
“Actually, more specifically, I would like a comparison not just of homes on the parcels, but subdivisions – where there are ‘neighborhoods.’ We have no data, yet you and I have spent much time in conjecture.
I think there would be vehement opposition to the Planning Department even conducting such a study.”
Well, so are you put forward a proposal and make your arguments, and rally your supporters — and, imagine this, reach across the aisle to try to bring in some support from some of the TPZ owners that your side has the past x number of years pushing away — and try to see if you can get something going? Are you willing to consider the idea that if you broadened your study to also include other elements, such as a survey of TPZ landowners on what factors, other than a lack of residences, might increase the feasibility of conducting harvesting on their land (such as the PTEIR approach), you might have better luck drawing broader support for your study and that broadening it a bit might help dispel concerns that the only reason for the study would be to justify restrictions on residences?
If there’s a logical place in the GPU for language supporting such a study (and I see no reason why there couldn’t be), it seems like an idea that one or both of the Working Groups that has actively been looking at and commenting on the Forest Resources section of the GPU (the Ad-Hoc Working Group and the Resource Lands Working Group) might be interested in discussing and perhaps recommending to the board. Both the supervisors, and the planning department staff have been very welcoming to the input of both these groups, and the board has adopted, in many cases unanimously, a lot of the language hammered out by one or both of the groups. Are you open to the idea of trying to come up with something that one or both of the Working Groups would be willing to throw their weight behind?
Or are you going to dissipate your energies in more shotgun blasts of broad-based doomsaying and cynicism that may fill your hard-core True Believers with the thrills of righteous indignation, but which leave a good deal of the rest of your potential supporters quivering in despair and apathy, while at the same time turning off moderates who see little relationship between all the sky-is-falling rhetoric, and the reality on the ground?
The first approach is one that might possibly yield results that your supporters can find hope in and a reason to engage in the short-term, or at least lay down a marker for a renewed effort in the future. The second approach is a recipe for a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure and continued learned helplessness and the apathy that breeds.
June 18, 2013 at 6:07 pm
That Other Anonymous
Meanwhile, the flood of out-of-area names on the online petition has suddenly dried up, leaving them just 7 names short of the 500 name goal (though crossing that goal now seems somewhat meaningless with so many non-Humboldt residents filling the ranks).
Apparently the effects of whatever e-mail blast or Facebook share or whatever prompted the big surge of out-of-area names has run its course, and even that didn’t put them over the top. But, on a brighter note, all three of the three new names that have been added in the last hour appear to be actual Humboldt residents:
Rita Carole ARCATA, CA
20m
Judy Arday ARCATA, CA
22m
Laura Wellman ARCATA, CA
50m
With Pamela Brown of Arcata from the last list I posted, that makes four actual Humboldt residents in a row! (Granted they’re all from Arcata, but hey, beggars can’t be choosers.)
C’mon Humboldt, you can still finish strong (well, you know, relatively speaking). All you need is 7 more signatures to hit the 500 mark. If all 7 are from Humboldt, that would mean that after 50 or 60 out-of-area names in a row, at least the last 11 in a row would be actual Humboldt residents.
Surely, there must be at least seven of you out there who would like to see the Supervisors revisit the Guiding Principles and take more public input on them — seven Humboldt residents that both feel that way, and aren’t hopelessly curled up in the fetal position, awaiting the apocalypse promised by Burns and Hodgson?
For an added bonus, how about at least one name of a Humboldt resident from somewhere other than Arcata? That. Would. Be. Awesome!
If you can push past that goal of 500, and the petition then goes to the supervisors, then you’ll be able to see the total number of how many of the 500 were actually from out of the area, and then you can try to get enough additional Humboldt names to be able to truly claim 500 local supporters for your position.
My guess, based on what I saw today, is that probably at least 100 of the names on the petition are going to turn out to be from people who don’t live in Humboldt, so coming up with the additional local names to make up for those will, at the current pace, probably take another week or so. But maybe 2 or 3 weeks if Hodgson decides to “help” some more.
June 18, 2013 at 7:04 pm
That Other Anonymous
Cookie, the list of 10 most recent names added to the petition kept changing, and I didn’t see the same names you did. Just wanted to let you know I wasn’t cherry-picking, those are really all the names that appeared every time I checked.
At first I thought maybe it was a glitch, and it was showing names for some other petition. But the new names added each time I checked exactly matched the total number added to the Humboldt petition each time I checked. So, it wasn’t a glitch.
By the way, it’s still stalled out at 493 names. 7 to go. C’mon people, don’t make me add my name out of pity!
June 18, 2013 at 7:19 pm
Eric Kirk
The cold, hard truth is that it’s a bit of a “you reap what you sow” situation. Yes, people are always a bit discouraged when “their side” loses an election, or for that matter a legislative struggle, or a court case. But they don’t usually just lie down, curl up in the fetal position and give up.
Oh, I think you miss the point. I think there was some hope early on that there might be some compromise. But it’s looking like the present majority is going to rule as if they can never lose another election. So I think as of last week, the prevailing impulse is to pull back from the process – let the majority own it totally, and focus on recruiting some good candidates to run in the next election, and the one after that.
June 18, 2013 at 8:21 pm
That Other Anonymous
Cookie said: “I want to know is Estelle voting for the same things Clif would have? If the plan is following the old Framework Plan, business a usual over the past 20 years, it is carte blanche to the developers, again and still. Remember Estelles campaign promise of less regulations and less restrictions.”
So it appears that you actually have no idea whatsoever of what the Supervisors have actually been voting for, though this hasn’t stopped you from making brash declarations about what you guess/assume/imagine they’re voting for. Again, I invite you to put a bit more effort into learning the facts before continuing to guess and assume and imagine.
To help you get started, here’s the document they’ve been working from on the Forest Resources section over the last two meetings, in other words on the evening of June 3rd, and then yesterday, June 17th:
Click to access attachment%20b%20forest%20resources144763.pdf
It can be a little confusing at first to understand what you’re looking at, so here’s a little primer:
In the left hand column, you will see the Planning Commission recommended language.
In the center column, in red, you will see the recommendations and/or comments by the Ad-Hoc Working Group (which includes both Healthy Humboldt and HumCPR, as well as a number of other groups). And also in the center column, in blue, you will see the recommendations and/or comments by the Resource Lands Working Group.
In the right hand column, you will see the most recent straw votes by the Supervisors for items that have already been straw voted recently (along with staff recommendations and comments), and for items that had not yet been straw voted recently (until last night) you will see any previous straw votes by the lame-duck session of the Board last fall, as well as staff recommendations and comments for use last night.
On the evening of June 3rd (later the same day as the Guiding Principles deliberations early that day) they made it all the way up through FR-P10. So for all the stuff above that, you can see the options they were looking at, and you can also see, in the right-hand column, highlighted in yellow, the results of the Supervisors’ straw votes that night.
For example, FR-P9 “Residential Construction on TPZ-zoned parcels.”
In the left-hand column, two options forwarded by the Planning Commmission — on the bottom, the one that got minority support at the PC (the Alternative A, the most restrictive version), and on top the one that won majority support at the PC (Alternative B, the somewhat less restrictive version). The least restrictive options, Alternative C, and Alternative D (the current framework plan version) aren’t even on the chart, because they got no support on the Planning Commission, nor from either of the Working Groups, nor from the staff. So the two least-restrictive (most pro-development) options were already eliminated, and what you’re seeing there in the left-hand column are the most restrictive version (Alternative A, the one on the bottom) and the somewhat less restrictive version (Alternative B, the one on the top).
In the middle column, in red, the Ad Hoc Working Group’s proposed language, and their comments, plus a proposed checklist of specific requirements for TPZ residences, which the group was split on whether they wanted to see in the GPU itself, or in the county’s TPZ ordinance. Also in the middle column, in blue, the Resource Lands Working Group’s recommendation, which was to support the PC Alternative B language.
And then in the right hand column, under the the yellow-highlighted heading “BOS 06/03/13 Action” what the Supervisors unanimously (!!) supported, which was the Ad Hoc Working Group’s recommended language, with a small change recommended by staff. [And note that, at the meeting, the staff recommended, and the Supervisors agreed, that a checklist similar to that proposed by the AHWG was desirable, but that the appropriate place for something with that level of specificity would be in the county’s actual TPZ ordinance, not in the General Plan.]
So, now you know how to read the documents, and you won’t have to rely on guessing, or taking your cues from NCJ propaganda, or for that matter taking my word on anything — you can find out for yourself exactly what they do at each meeting.
This gives you the ability to fact-check claims before you make them, or before you repeat claims made by others. For example the claim that “TPZ is now de-facto rural residential.” Look at the section I just pointed out, FR-P9, and all the other Forest Resources sections that deal with restrictions and requirements for TPZ, and see whether you think, taken as a whole, there is any truth at all to the notion that “TPZ is now de-facto rural residential.” (Spoiler Alert: It’s not.)
Also, full video footage of the meetings themselves are archived on the Board of Supervior’s website, and you can watch them for yourself and see exactly what kind of discussion led up to their decisions.
Here’s the link for the archived videos of all the recent Board of Supervisors meetings:
http://humboldt.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=3
Last night’s meeting is up there, so you can watch that and find out exactly how they voted on all the items they voted on last night, and how their discussions went. So, for example, you can fact-check your own comment, made in response to my statement about the section they discussed last night dealing with restrictions on subdividing TPZ parcels, when I said that “the majority seemed very clearly in support of maintaining the current standard more or less as it is in the existing Framework Plan,” to which you snarkily offered your uninformed opinion “The key words there being ‘or less.'” Well, watch the discussion for yourself, and then come back and tell me where you find them proposing or supporting “less” restrictions on subdividing TPZ. (Spoiler Alert: You won’t find any such thing).
And the meeting from June 3rd is up there, so you can watch that and follow along on the document that I linked to above, and see all the discussion leading up to the decisions that you see referred to, highlighted in yellow in the right-hand column of that document up through FR-P10. Note that for the June 3rd meeting, the first 4+ hours are devoted public comment on the proposed changes to the Guiding Principles. So you can listen to that first if you want, and get at least a tiny hint of why the hyperbolic claim that they took “zero public input” before making the changes is such a laughable claim. And then continue with the evening session, where they work through those Forest Resources policies up through FR-P10, and see whether all the restrictions they discuss bear any resemblance to your claim of “carte blanche for developers.”
So, I have pointed you to the tools you need to find out for yourself what has been proposed, what the discussions were, and what was decided in the straw votes. You are not at my mercy, or anyone else’s to discover the truth of who said what, and who voted how. The power is in your hands.
So, have fun reading and watching. And just so you know, that woman who is seated behind the nameplate that says “Estelle Fennell” — that’s actually Estelle Fennell. The ogre you’re looking for isn’t there, because the ogre is a figment of your imagination. Be prepared to be pleasantly surprised (or disappointed, depending on your motivation) by the thoughtful discussion carried on between the supervisors, the staff, public commenters, and members of the two Working Groups. Also be prepared for the shocking truth that on many items, Lovelace mostly agrees, or wholly agrees with the Forest Resource policies favored by the other supervisors, including the policy on TPZ residences. If you’re expecting to see the Board shredding protections for our timberlands, prepare to have your expectations unmet.
(Okay, I’ve painstakingly led the horse to water…now will it drink?)
June 18, 2013 at 8:49 pm
That Other Anonymous
“Oh, I think you miss the point. I think there was some hope early on that there might be some compromise. But it’s looking like the present majority is going to rule as if they can never lose another election. So I think as of last week, the prevailing impulse is to pull back from the process – let the majority own it totally, and focus on recruiting some good candidates to run in the next election, and the one after that.”
No, I understand perfectly. The problem is, you’re living within a demonstrably false narrative where “it’s looking like the present majority is going to rule as if they can never lose another election.”
I invite you to do the same as I have invited Cookie to do — read the actual policies, watch the actual meetings. What you will see is a good deal of compromise and consensus, pretty much the opposite of “ruling as if they can never lose another election.” So if that’s the premise you’re going on, your entire strategy is built on a phantom foundation.
I fully understand the “impulse” to pull back, throw up your hands, and march away in a huff. It’s a perfectly natural human impulse — but an infantile one. And given that in all liklihood the GPU will be completed before the next election, it’s an impulse you will likely come to regret. But it’s your prerogative, of course. Just remember that those who defeated your candidates last time never gave in to that impulse, even when the previous majority was declaring that they were going to push the plan through and finish it up, even if that meant doing so during the lame-duck session, and even if it meant relying on a just-defeated candidate. No, they pressed on, making their arguments, rallying their troops, and trying to have whatever influence they could, even when it looked like they would be out-voted on many points. And in so doing, they kept their base engaged and active. This didn’t prevent them from also recruiting candidates for the next election, and making their case to the public. It’s not a matter of either fight on in the current climate, or get ready to try to change the climate. If you want to be successful in politics, you have to be able and willing to do both.
But, again, I suppose this is all falling on deaf ears, and that you’ve probably already made up your mind that your interpretation of what’s going on in the TPZ deliberations and straw votes is correct, even though you’re no longer paying any attention to any of that. Okay, fine, to quote our president “proceed, governor.” But if you’re going build your electoral strategy on that phantom foundation, don’t be surprised when the whole thing collapses beneath you. That’s often what happens when your rhetoric is just way too far disconnected from reality, which is the corner your side has painted itself into. But, you know, keep painting…there’s still at least a few feet of that corner left before you end up painting your own feet.
June 18, 2013 at 9:01 pm
That Other Anonymous
Two more names both from Humboldt County, and breaking the streak of Arcatans, one is actually from Garberville!
HERB SCHWARTZ GARBERVILLE, CA
27m
Elizabeth Johnson ARCATA, CA
1h
So, only 5 more manes to go! Let’s make them Humboldt names!
C’mon, I’m rootin’ for you now! (Just can’t help myself, I’m always a sucker for the underdog.).
June 18, 2013 at 9:04 pm
That Other Anonymous
Make that “five more names,” not “manes” — no lions allowed (out-of-area is one thing, out-of-species is quite another)
June 19, 2013 at 4:37 am
Jane
TOA, sadly I believe you misconstrue the last election results to suggest that a majority of people in Humboldt voted. The vote was a representation of the majority who voted. Check the turnout records.
As for the preceding political environment having one person, whether it is you or another, assign to the rest of us the motive push behind our action to get things wrapped up and done is a guess at best and misleading overall. Plus suggesting that those of us who worked ardently to try to keep people we felt were intellectually and, potentially, emotionally unqualified to decide these things out of office is a bit nauseating in its own insulting way. Although your words are combed quite prettily and put forth in good form.
White-washing what has happened so the general public will swallow the poison pill of elected officials undermining process is pretty disingenuous in my opinion. We are all aware we have to work with this Board for a while but that certainly doesn’t mean we have to jump on board and rubber stamp what they are doing. Some of us are not political rubes and intellectual sixth-graders when it comes to this whole process. We aren’t jumping onto the Estelle/Bohn ship so we make it pleasing and comfortable for them to continue their current trends in running their own politicized and personalized agenda for small interest groups and their own careers.
The assumption we can’t read or haven’t read or haven’t participated isn’t going to win you any big awards either. But again just my opinion.
June 19, 2013 at 4:57 am
moviedad
Wow, hundreds of comments on multiple threads. Haven’t seen this degree of response since the “Reggae” controversy. I’ve been reading the comments off and on for a couple of weeks, and I keep going back to my time as a reporter for the Hoopa Newspaper, back in 96′-97? I attended three different meetings hosted by Kirk Girard on the “General Plan Update.” My most lasting impression of those meetings was how the planning department came out with a pre-determined list of issues that the locals needed to sign off on. I remember friends and neighbors voting away their rights to decide what color their trash cans could be painted. What colors their houses could be painted. And yes, they even talked about limiting development in rural areas.
I live in a rural area, so I’m biased. But that’s not my point. What is amazing to me is how many meetings, how much work done by the county staff; is just thrown out the window. Are they going to spend another twenty years on a new plan? And what about all the businesses and new construction that were permitted (Willow Creek/McKinleyville) on the condition that they comply with the new “General Plan,” which is now defunct?
This process that allows each new administration to throw out the policies and laws of the previous administration has got to stop. What’s next, is a new executive branch going to throw out the Constitution because those “hemp-growing, wig-headed liberals” were all “anti-business?” Yeah, yeah; I know, they were anything but.
Anyway, I don’t have the answer. I’m glad that new administrations did away with laws that allowed for the murder of Native people, or enslaved tribal people; but it all changes when it goes the other way. When they do away with laws and policies that reflect the progress that we, as a nation; have made.
June 19, 2013 at 6:21 am
hillmuffin
and there is the rub: all evil development or whatever that befalls us we deserve because we didn’t vote, well most of us didn’t…
(self-centered, apathetic people just interested in the next orgasm or deal or whatever…)
Remember Longwind’s Bottom Line:
“All politics is local, Estelle is my next door neighbor, hence i will ride that boat to my legal compost shitter…”
(All politics is shit, i just want to take a crap)
June 19, 2013 at 6:59 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Jane,
remember there exists multiple types of processes where any citizen can be affected negatively by “undue process”. The focus MUST SHIFT into the realm of reality THAT INDIVIDUALS also get a “process”.
Examples:
Public Process = GPU bullshit
Individual Citizen Process = Tax Assessment Appeal
Now, FYI, individuals are defrauded and corrupted of their processes too. Unfortunately, too many folks don’t understand that “process” applies to more than just the general public.
Individual Processes being manipulated to avoid GUILTS by public agencies, employees and elected officials.
HOJ knows much about local corruption in politics because of the plethora of examples and incriminating evidence against public agencies, employees and officials.
BTW, when Bonnie (the most untrustworthy elected official known to HOJ) Neely was in office, she commonly duped citizens of their processes, and the general public too. Her evil insincereness even made grown men on the dole speaking at the podium cry. Heartless she was, but a great political bull-shitter who wore many faces out in the crowd.
White sheep, white sheep, have you any wool,
Yes Bonnie, yes Bonnie, six pence full,
HOJ
June 19, 2013 at 7:14 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
HOJ call’s this bullshit rhetoric below,
I invite you to do the same as I have invited Cookie to do — read the actual policies, watch the actual meetings. What you will see is a good deal of compromise and consensus, pretty much the opposite of “ruling as if they can never lose another election.” So if that’s the premise you’re going on, your entire strategy is built on a phantom foundation.
Response: Compromise and consensus between special interests that represent a collective total (The Collective Commune hipocrits). What HOJ see’s is 5 supervisors who really are clueless and need help. Yet, help is only “accepted” when it is by the “special interests” which, ironically, also like to help fund campaigns.
Estelle clearly knows the most about the GPU process, then Lovelace, but up to this point, Lovelace has been a manipulator on enough issues that he can’t be trusted to understand “development” in all its intensities and false accusations. Yet, in the other hand where it is easy to recognize legal violations as covered in past and present guiding principles, Lovelace still has yet to get serious about the “enforcement to campaign victory” agenda he used over four years ago during his first term election.
HOJ expects that Estelle and Lovelace should be able to go back and forth on issues, helping to steward the other 3 supes who are clueless on the GPU process.
Bohn – may not know much about the GPU, but knows the most people
Bass – may not know much about the GPU, but is well known, connected to insiders and liked by many
Sundberg – may not know much about the GPU, but is a career politician who understands politics and that’s about it.
Publicly educated too,
HOJ
June 19, 2013 at 7:34 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
TOA laments this below in one hand,
That’s right, in a county of about 135,000 people, with about 80,000 registered voters, they haven’t been able to find even 500 of them to add their names to an online petition — probably the single easiest, least-demanding form of expressing support for an idea.
Response: Yet, in the other hand, TOA refrains from the discussion of how easy it is to get less than 1-2% of that 135,000 people to be included in a GPU process. Special Interests stay close-at-hand while going door to door misrepresenting the issues with slight, but actually not slight, tweaks in explanations.
People can be easy listeners who do little to no research too. These are the worst type of voters – those who vote without knowing what they are voting on or for. The non-vote is much safer when the voter is uneducated, naive, stupified, dumbed-down, etc….
No coincidence America is uneducated and falling further and further internationally.
Damn, Americans are dumb,
HOJ
June 19, 2013 at 7:35 am
Anonymous
Yes my life is boring, but it’s not that boring. I wipe my hands of this unmovable discourse. My hands?
High compliments to TOA for stubbornly seating discussion upon reality, if only for townmuffins to poop on. In the long run it helps reality grow.
June 19, 2013 at 7:47 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
TOA,
“protections = enforcement”
“County Counsel says no funds for enforcement, what happens?”
Answer = No enforcement
If no enforcement, then the words on government paper mean jack shit, just like yesterday, the day before, and the days before that.
The book of laws (if 12 inches thick) can be parsed down to that of a few pages because enforcement is lax and willfully declined. Any law that is to be enforced but can’t or won’t be enforced is not a law at all; AND WHEN unequal applications of the law occur, the victim need only prove it by showing other violations and breaches of law which puts into question the integrity of “Due Process” for an individual being subjected to the application of an enforcement process when in the macro environment, the administrative obligation is to apply equally upon all citizens all laws and its enforcements. The county picks and chooses its victims, often politically motivated. HOJ is a political victim with much evidence to unload in the future.
More reasons why the GPU process has been a waste of time and not worthy to lead any community with transparent clarity where the “political game of interpretations” is challenged.
Without interpretation, Government does not get half of what it thieves, steals, extorts, launders, colludes, conspires, rackateers, etc….
Local People exist that can’t bet trusted too, just like AL Quaeda members
No Joke,
HOJ
June 19, 2013 at 7:50 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
TOA,
BTW, the current majority is against “clarity” and “specificity”, but very open to vaguenessess and interpretations. As a citizen, wouldn’t you want to know for yourself what you just read; or, woud you rather have someone else tell you what you can’t figure-out for yourself? Interpretation is the name of the political game and this GPU process is all BULL-SHIT!
Bullshit,
HOJ
June 19, 2013 at 8:41 am
Democratic Jon
“No, I understand perfectly. The problem is, you’re living within a demonstrably false narrative where “it’s looking like the present majority is going to rule as if they can never lose another election.”
I invite you to do the same as I have invited Cookie to do — read the actual policies, watch the actual meetings. What you will see is a good deal of compromise and consensus, pretty much the opposite of “ruling as if they can never lose another election.” So if that’s the premise you’re going on, your entire strategy is built on a phantom foundation.”
TOA,
As a new commenter, it is sometimes difficult for me remember who said what. I think I have agreed with much of what you have written recently. I did however react strongly against your post this morning about the necessity of attending a meeting to prove TOA’s version of what happened.
Firstly, I would love to be able to read everything, I would love to be able to attend all the meetings. Just recently I chose to be unemployed and have more time to devote to unhealthy passions like the GPU which I wouldn’t otherwise have while working. Not everyone gets that luxury.
Also, you are so right to mention narrative. That means you get it. I only recently got it. It is all about narrative. We are creatures evolutionary dependent on them and we all have our own personal ones that create our personal worldview. I still disagree with you’re version of “compromise and consensus” and I’ve been to those BOS meetings. If there is consensus, it is based on what one of the first public speakers said at the June 3rd meeting – we voted 4 of you in, now do your job.
Here is my narrative from one who has had time to attend. Contrary to his name longwind is decidedly effective and pithy in his attacks. One of these is the declaration of Mark’s “merry band”. I guess he’d classify me as one of them. I’ve notice from attending the meetings that despite the disparaging, Supervisor Lovelace may know more about the GPU universe than anyone else in the room. He can hold an argument and sway debate on his own. I was particularly impressed with the – I can’t remember, the 3 letter acronym now – it involved receiving and sending and he wanted to make sure that the language included sending. I’m sure I would agree with him, but he was on his own and without him it wouldn’t have been discussed or included.
I’ve also noticed that with the one exception of subdividing large timber parcels, the Resource Land Working Group guy has such a strange voice of authority in the proceedings. His voice is only balanced by the working group which seems to have included various interest groups in the community. Their voice seems oddly biased by who happens to be attending. For example Supervisor Bass was wondering what a realtor’s opinion would be on this or that and they were not there.
It’s not that I’m going to believe or support everything that Supervisor Lovelace says – it’s that he is the only one I believe to be attacking this issue from a perspective I can appreciate. One that is learned, experienced, and with an eye to the future, not just our children’s future, but their’s as well. The consensus that you refer to is one that I believe is already baked in the cake.
My point is this. We can read policy, comment on blogs, attend meetings till we are blue in the face, given all that we will undoubtedly still probably have opinions that jibe with our pre-existing narratives. I cite as an example the Supreme Court. These are 9 people who pour over everything in incredible depth and are all incredibly schooled in their profession, however you can pretty much know where they are going to stand on most issues based on who opposed them during their nomination process.
I don’t think we should disparage people of goodwill who may not be able to spend the time we have the luxury to spend at these meetings. I also believe if we did give people this luxury. If we gave them time to look at the issue from the developer’s side, the consumer’s side, the economist’s side, the historian’s side, and dare I say it – the scientist’s and environmentalists side … in other words, if we guaranteed all of our citizens a strong and shared public education and allowed for more time to involve ourselves in public policy (ie maybe with s a 30 hour work week and a standard of 4 to 6 weeks of annual vacation) I personally believe that we would have a much more constructive civil discourse, one that is not as susceptible to moneyed interests, and one in my opinion that would have Supervisor Lovelace in the majority instead of sidelines. (no matter how many people vote admittedly largely meaningless petition – that I signed)
Having said all that, I do appreciate the information you laid out on the issue as we should try to get as much information as citizens as we can. I also believe that we should never give up. It’s just sometimes we depend on others, ie trusted reporters or elected officials, or interest groups to do the leg work for us and then we shout and scream from the benches. Given how pressed most of us are and how little most of our livelihoods have to do with many civil responsibilities we may care about I think a little screaming without complete and detailed knowledge is ok too. And it is probably the same thing we’d do after we spent hours indoors in front of a computer screen.
And when I get a chance I am going to visit that link and try to learn more about all those darn 3 letter acronyms starting with TPZ.
June 19, 2013 at 8:55 am
Cookie
June 18, 2013 at 8:21 pm
That Other Anonymous
>Cookie said: “I want to know is Estelle voting for the same things Clif would have?”So it appears that you actually have no idea whatsoever of what the Supervisors have actually been voting for, though this hasn’t stopped you from making brash declarations about what you guess/assume/imagine they’re voting for. Again, I invite you to put a bit more effort into learning the facts before continuing to guess and assume and imagine.<
Sorry you misinterpreted or misunderstood my question. I meant is Estelle voting like Clif would have in the straw votes as far as yes or no? I know what they are voting on as I have a printed copy of the GPU. I know Clif would never have re written the Guiding Principles by himself like Estelle did. What I would like to know about is the differences or similarities in her voting compared to what his would have been. That was my question. Guesstimating I suppose.
Democratic John, TPZ is Timber Production Zone.
June 19, 2013 at 9:52 am
That Other Anonymous
Cookie,
None of know how Clif “would have” voted (except, possibly, Clif). We could speculate on how he might have voted, and you are free to do so, but given how vague he was about his intentions, I’m not inclined to speculate.
On the other hand, the question of how Estelle actually IS voting on things, is a matter of public record. In other words, not speculation, but actual <i facts I have pointed you to the documents and archived meeting videos that would allow you to learn these facts. Again, I invite you to access those facts for yourself, and learn exactly how she, and the other Supervisors are voting.
Of course learning those facts would force you, assuming you want to be honest, to modify your demonstrably inaccurate claims about what Estelle and the other Supervisors are doing. They are not providing “carte blanche” for development, they have not made TPZ “de facto rural residential.” But again, you don’t have to take my word on it, you can look at the actual documents, watch the actual deliberations and straw votes, and find out for yourself.
Or you could ignore those readily available facts and instead continue furiously attacking Straw Men. It’s your choice.
June 19, 2013 at 10:05 am
Anonymous
Eric please read…you write: >>”As to Judy, it is interesting how political perceptions turn around. She was once perceived as an Arkley-backer, though the perception was based on very lame evidence.”
I dunno how you’ve concluded that, everything I’ve ever read of hers always and often seemed like the sole voice of dissent within the staff when it comes to traditionally conservative politics. She’s very pro-business, as I think you’ve said, but when it comes to government she’s definitely big on nature. Humboldt Business banks on it. To suggest she’s pro-“arkley” is 100% blog blather, really, and what was regurgitated over and over again by the likes of TRA…er…TOA and other resident trolls on the humboldt herald etc. whenever the journal published anything critical of the “development community” like an editorial etc. The Journal’s insights into the candidate’s business affairs, political party flip-flopping etc., for example, was so severely lacking during every election I’ve paid attention to (going on four or five) they might as well have just handed the win to whomever paid for the biggest advertisements. But judy herself rarely chimed in.
>>”I would like a comparison not just of homes on the parcels, but subdivisions – where there are “neighborhoods.” We have no data, yet you and I have spent much time in conjecture.
I think there would be vehement opposition to the Planning Department even conducting such a study.”
I would hope so, as it would be a monumental waste of time and money when the bottom line of the issue remains the same. Falling into “show me the lines in the sand” territory when it comes to fresh development is very dangerous. While you repeatedly write that Humboldt will never be like Santa Rosa, the activities of the “development community” are like those of Santa Rosa in the late 60’s/early 70’s when Santa Rosa looked like McKinleyville did up until the mid 90’s. For example the realtors’ crying that “only” three acres will be developed per parcel…per big ol’ hunnert acre parcel…then ten or fifteen years later, after the same constant battery of political bullshit and the immigrant landowners are complaining that TPZ’s aren’t conforming to their needs enough to steward the land or some shit and the county needs to allow them to further subdivide and pour even more foundations…”only” another X# of acres….etc. plus demand for urban service upgrades and etc. and everybody becomes stuck in a courtroom headlock over the word “or” in some legal document. And the BOS changed a lot more than just the word “or” in the planning guidelines rewrite.
…and in ten or twenty years, where you you think the water tables will lie? What do you really think the majority of people living in humboldt county right now think about developing even more rural space, when everybody knows undeveloped land is the prize of the region? Does anybody think the county is going to just magically manifest more funds to go around?
Anyway…the situation is being talked to death. Existing development OK, but to go any further is more than counterproductive, it’s destructive. Environmentally, financially, socially.
June 19, 2013 at 10:13 am
That Other Anonymous
Jane said: “TOA, sadly I believe you misconstrue the last election results to suggest that a majority of people in Humboldt voted. The vote was a representation of the majority who voted. Check the turnout records.
I never suggested that every single Humboldt resident voted, or even that every single registered voter voted. We all know that’s not the case. But of those who did bother to vote, the majority voted for the current board majority. And that’s the way elections work — those who can’t be bothered to vote forfeit their influence. Sure, you can say that because some people didn’t bother to vote, Estelle didn’t get a true majority of all possible eligible voters, and you could say the same about Obama, and about nearly any elected official. But that also means that Clif got an even smaller minority of possible eligible voters, just as Romney did. That doesn’t mean that Obama and Estelle don’t have an electoral mandate. So, basically, I don’t really see what your point is, other than trying to de-legitimize Estelle’s victory (in a rather unconvincing way, IMO).
“As for the preceding political environment having one person, whether it is you or another, assign to the rest of us the motive push behind our action to get things wrapped up and done is a guess at best and misleading overall.”
Fair enough. But just know that many of us feel likewise when your side assigns all kinds of nasty motives to the current majority, just as you did in your comment above.
. “We aren’t jumping onto the Estelle/Bohn ship so we make it pleasing and comfortable for them to continue their current trends…”
I certainly did not say that anyone should “jump onto the Estelle/Bohn ship so we make it pleasing and comfortable for them to continue their current trends.” In fact in my comments directed to Eric, I suggested the opposite — that those who oppose the “current trends” should stay engaged, make their arguments, go on the record on the specific policies in the GPU, rather than throwing up their hands and walking away, as Eric has said is the main “impulse” of people on that side at this time. So I’m suggesting just the opposite of making it “pleasing and comfortable” for the current majority. I’m suggesting holding their feet to the fire where you feel they are going the wrong way — rather than pulling out and “throwing in the towel” as Eric put it.
“The assumption we can’t read or haven’t read or haven’t participated isn’t going to win you any big awards either.”
I don’t assume that everyone who disagrees with the overall direction of the current majority must not be reading the documents or following what’s going on in the meetings (I certainly acknowledge that reasonable people can reasonably disagree), but I do assume that Cookie hasn’t been reading the current documents and watching the current meetings — and I base that assumption on the demonstrably false claims that she’s been making. I guess I could go with the other possible explanation — that she’s reading the documents and following the meetings, and therefore is aware of the falsehoods of those claims but chooses to lie about them. But that would be rather ungenerous. So I choose to assume that rather than intentionally lying, she just hasn’t seen the facts. Which is why I went out of my way to direct her to where she could find those facts for herself.
June 19, 2013 at 10:13 am
Anonymous
Start a petition to develop more rural land. See how well that flies.
June 19, 2013 at 10:27 am
That Other Anonymous
Democratic Jon said: “I don’t think we should disparage people of goodwill who may not be able to spend the time we have the luxury to spend at these meetings.”
Well you make a very fair point that many people don’t have the time for all of that. But (and I understand you may not have this context if you’re new to this blog) Cookie seems to have plenty of time to repeatedly make nasty personal attacks against Estelle Fennell, including attacking Estelle’s spouse, accusing Estelle of specific acts of alleged ethical and legal wrongdoing — and doing so anonymously, and without any evidence to back up those accusations. And Cookie seems to have plenty of time to repeat, over and over, demonstrably false claims about what the Supervisors are actually voting to include in the GPU. So I feel that it is more than fair to invite Cookie to spend at least a portion of that time learning the facts, rather than just continuing to spend so much time spewing personal attacks, noxious, unsubstantiated, anonymously-launched accusations, and demonstrably false (non)factual claims.
And note, too, that I did not just demand that she go find the facts without providing any help on how to do so — I put considerable time and effort into telling her exactly where to find those facts, how the documents are formatted, and which meetings and documents and specific policy items related to specific false claims I am asking her to fact-check for herself.
June 19, 2013 at 10:36 am
Anonymous
“But of those who did bother to vote, the majority voted for the current board majority.”
“Bother” to vote, right. And voting for life long flag-waving republicans who presented themselves as true blue democrats and such, with websites and pamphlets that said absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER of those affiliations or their decision making plans. AKA GRADE A++ PRIME BULLSHIT. The current BOS is BS.
June 19, 2013 at 10:50 am
Anonymous
I voted for Estelle twice and I want to vote for her again, but there should have been more notice before that meeting.
June 19, 2013 at 10:52 am
Just Watchin
HOJ says….”People can be easy listeners who do little to no research too. These are the worst type of voters – those who vote without knowing what they are voting on or for. The non-vote is much safer when the voter is uneducated, naive, stupified, dumbed-down, etc….”
I must say, I’m surprised to see Jeffrey in agreement with Rush Limbaugh. He has been saying for some time that low information voters do tend to skew election results negatively.( sorry if I don’t refer to myself in the third person like the cool kids do).
June 19, 2013 at 10:55 am
Cookie
>”While you repeatedly write that Humboldt will never be like Santa Rosa, the activities of the “development community” are like those of Santa Rosa in the late 60′s/early 70′s when Santa Rosa looked like McKinleyville did up until the mid 90′s. For example the realtors’ crying that “only” three acres will be developed per parcel…per big ol’ hunnert acre parcel…then ten or fifteen years later, after the same constant battery of political bullshit and the immigrant landowners are complaining that TPZ’s aren’t conforming to their needs enough to steward the land or some shit and the county needs to allow them to further subdivide and pour even more foundations…”only” another X# of acres….etc. plus demand for urban service upgrades and etc. and everybody becomes stuck in a courtroom headlock over the word “or” in some legal document. And the BOS changed a lot more than just the word “or” in the planning guidelines rewrite.”<
TOA, these are not my words, but are the same thought as de facto rural residential. So others feel as I do. If the Supervisors approve principle permitted structure status for 160 acre TPZ, that is in my view de facto rural residential. Just asking for rural sprawl. We are well on that path.
I also told you that you could call any RID BOD, probably should call the RID BOD President, if you want the facts about the phone call one RID BOD made to Estelle.
June 19, 2013 at 11:03 am
Cookie
I would also ask you TOA, do you really believe that folks on TPZ land are going to stick to that 3 acres only of development? Shit no. They will have greenhouses and outdoor grows and outbuilding all over the place. Sucking up water water water, killing wildlife, putting in roads. Destroying habitat etc.
June 19, 2013 at 11:34 am
That Other Anonymous
Democratic Jon said “I was particularly impressed with the – I can’t remember, the 3 letter acronym now – it involved receiving and sending and he wanted to make sure that the language included sending”
I believe you’re referring to the proposal (which I believe the Supervisors eventually unanimously approved in their straw vote on that item) to research and if feasible create a “Transfer of Development Rights” (TDR) program. This incentive-based program is a response to the proposition that there can indeed be some advantages to concentrating development in proximity to existing services, and some downsides to new development in the most remote rural lands.
Roughly speaking, I believe the TDR program would work like this: Let’s say you have a remote piece of land, and you already have a legal right to build a house on that land (assuming you meet all the legal requirements to do so) if you so choose. And you would like to build a home, but you aren’t hell-bent on building it way out on that remote piece of land. The TDR program would allow you to “transfer” your “development right” to a property in town / closer to town / within areas with exisiting infrastructure and services (depending on whatever the defined “receiving area” is). In so doing, you would be giving up your right to build a house on the remote piece of land, which is in the “sending area” (which could either be only certain specific remote rural parcels as defined on a specific map overlay, as Lovelace was advocating, or could be any remote rural parcel that meets a given definition, which is what some of the other Supervisors weren’t ready to rule out).
The program can provide an incentive for you to do this “transfer of development rights” from your remote rural parcel to the building site in the “receiving area,” by allowing for a “density bonus” that will allow you to build that house even if adding your house there in that county-approved “receiving area” creates a somewhat greater density of homes than the zoning would normally allow in that “receiving area” in town / closer to town / within areas with existing infrastructure (however the “receiving area” is defined). And I’m not 100% sure about this, but I think the program could also be designed to allow the rural landowner to sell that development right to someone who has property in the “receiving area.” Which would mean that the owner of the remote rural property would be giving up their right to build a house on their remote rural parcel, and would be getting some compensation for it from the person who is benefiting (the person who wants to build a home with the “density bonus” within the defined receiving area).
In other words, it’s an attempt to provide a mechanism and incentive for people to do exactly what the “Smart Growth” folks say they want — to have less development in remote rural areas, and more in or near existing towns. And it attempts to do so on a voluntary basis, by providing incentives, and to do so in an equitable way, by having the person who is directly benefiting from the increased density in-town / close to town (namely, the in-town / close-to-town property owner, home builder, and/or home buyer) compensate the person who is giving something up (the owner of the remote rural parcel) — rather than by simply stripping the rural property owner of part of the value of their land, and handing over, free of charge, more development rights to owners of properties in the areas closer to town. If designed well, it seems like it could be a win-win to me — and all without heavy-handed mandating and right-stripping. What do you think, Democratic Jon, does it sound like a decent idea to you?
The Supervisors appeared to all be in favor of the idea, and the only small disagreement — which is what you referred to — is whether just the “receiving areas” would be specifically mapped out, and the “sending area” could be any remote rural parcel that fit whatever defined description they come up with as they develop the program, or whether, as Lovelace appeared to be suggesting, the General Plan item supporting the study of and possible establishment of this program should specify that only certain specific remote rural parcels should qualify, and that those areas should be mapped out and defined as the only areas in which parcel owners could participate in this program.
Lovelace seemed to be making the case (and not an unreasonable one, in my opinion) that perhaps some remote rural areas might be more important than others, in terms of wanting to incentivize parcel owners in those areas to give up their right to build on their rural parcel, in exchange for transferring that right to a parcel closer to town — and that therefore those more important areas should be defined and mapped and only those areas should be allowed to be potential “sending areas” for this program. The other Supervisors didn’t seem sure that was the best approach, especially given that the program is entirely voluntary, and limiting it to those areas would do nothing to guarantee that landowners in those areas would actually use it any more than they would use it if it wasn’t exclusive to their areas — and meanwhile limiting it in that way would exclude landowners in other remote rural areas (that for whatever reason were not included in the defined “sending areas” from) from using the program — the result of which might be more of those landowners choosing to build a residence on their remote parcel, since they wouldn’t be allowed to transfer the development right to a “sending area.” And if that happened, that would seem to be counterproductive to the stated goal of the TDR program, and counterproductive to Lovelace’s overall stated “Smart Growth” goal of encouraging more development in/near existing towns, and less development out on remote rural lands.
So I think the Supervisors were wise to not put any final commitment about how the “sending areas” would be defined into the General Plan item — which, after all, just calls for the idea to be researched, and if feasible, developed into a program with further involvement of the planning department staff, the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors and the public (in other words, the program would of course require the development of an ordinance, and planning department regulations governing how exactly it would work, which specific areas would be the “receiving areas” and so on, so the question of how to define the “sending areas” would presumably be part of that process as well). As staff pointed out, there will be ample opportunity to explore the pros and cons of structuring the program one way or the other as they move forward, and there’s no need to tie their hands now as to what the design should be, before the idea has even been researched, and before they’ve even decided if it’s feasible. At the GPU level, they’re basically just saying that the idea seems desirable, and should be researched, and if found feasible should be brought back to the Board (and presumably the Planning Commission) for further development.
The bottom line on that discussion seemed to be — as was the case with many of the Forest Resources policies — broad-based agreement on the overall concept, including not just the 4 other Supervisors, but Lovelace, too. With only a small disagreement about one detail, and in this case a detail that certainly didn’t need to be included in the item in the General Plan, but will more logically be explored later, when it can be discussed in a more meaningful way, in the context of more information and a more fleshed-out proposal.
June 19, 2013 at 11:48 am
That Other Anonymous
“Voting for life long flag-waving republicans who presented themselves as true blue democrats and such, with websites and pamphlets that said absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER of those affiliations or their decision making plans.”
Nothing in that rant even remotely reflects the reality of Estelle Fennell’s election to the Board of Supervisors. Estelle is and has been a Democrat for decades, Her position on the General Plan was pretty well known, and if anything quite exaggerated by her opponents.
Sweeping overgeneralizations are easy, and perhaps spouting them is fun. Dealing with facts requires a good deal more effort, but yields a far more meaningful discussion. Relying on sweeping generalizations when specific facts are available, is a lazy, avoidant approach. But, of course, taking the easy way out is always a choice people can make, and it’s not an uncommon approach.
June 19, 2013 at 12:06 pm
That Other Anonymous
“Start a petition to develop more rural land. See how well that flies.”
I think a petition to allow “carte blanche” for “unfettered development” of all rural lands would draw very little support. I also think that a petition to not allow even a single new house in any rural area would also draw very little support. I think a petition to support allowing TPZ owners to build a single house on their existing TPZ parcel, subject to various restrictions and requirements, would draw quite a bit of support, as evidenced by Estelle’s election to the Board of Supervisors.
Having won election by a solid margin, on a platform that she was very open about — not restricting rural development as much as the Healthy Humboldt / Alternative A version would have done — I think she and her supporters probably feel (and, in my opinion, with good reason) that she has a mandate to follow through on her platform.
So the onus of proving otherwise is with her opponents. Apparently they can’t even get a tiny proportion of the voters in the whole county (the petition goal of 500 signatures, versus the number of registered voters in the county, which is about 80,000) to even add their name to an online petition demanding that the Supervisors revisit their June 3rd revisions to the Guiding Principles — so I seriously doubt they’d have better luck with a petition demanding that the Supervisors change the whole approach to one that would allow zero new homes allowed on any rural lands (which, assuming you’re the same Anonymous, seems to be what you were saying with your statement that “Existing development OK, but to go any further is more than counterproductive, it’s destructive.”)
That being said, I have no problem with the idea of them revisiting the Guiding Principles section of the GPU and taking more public input on it, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they do so despite the clearly unimpressive outcome of the petition effort.
June 19, 2013 at 12:14 pm
That Other Anonymous
By the way, since yesterday one additional signature has been added to the petition. So it’s up to 496.
I’m almost tempted to add my name, and get three friends to add their names, just to get to the 500 mark so that it will be forwarded to the Supervisors and we can then see how many of the 500 are actually from Humboldt residents. From what I saw yesterday, clearly at least 50 or 60 aren’t. But I’m curious whether that was just a fluke, with someone sending out an appeal to a large e-mail list an/or on Facebook — or whether in fact a very large number of the names are not from Humboldt County. I also wonder how many of the signatures are from Lovelace’s district (I;d be willing to bet those account for the largest number).
I guess I’ll wait and hope that 4 more people sign it. But if that doesn’t happen in a few days, I may round up those last 4 signatures myself, just so that it makes the goal, and gets sent on to the Supervisors, and that in this way we can get to see all the names.
June 19, 2013 at 1:25 pm
Democratic Jon
So much to say. So little time. Let me just add that Estelle’s candidacy was not endorsed by the HCDCC in 2012. (The Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee- The hub of all things Democratic in Humboldt County.)
Like Estelle I am a life long Democrat. Being a Democrat is a complicated thing. You get to say what you are – and then after majority rules. At the time there were not enough votes to get the endorsement.
Personally, as a non-voting member I will do what I can to keep Democratic endorsements Left-of-Center where they belong in a Blue County in a Blue State (I said it and stand by it!). Still, the seismic shift in the GPU is going to happen with 3 nominal Democrats at the helm. A fact that cause me a great deal of consternation and I feel for the sentiments of Anonymous 10:36 and disagree with TOA 11:48. I’m finding this a great deal with your posts TOA. I agree with you technically but….
TOA, the TDR was exactly what I was talking about, thanks, I’ll catch up on that post later.
Reference on the lack of endorsement…
http://samoasoftball.blogspot.com/2012/04/humboldt-county-democratic-central.html
surprise cameos by HOJ and EK. Hurray!
June 19, 2013 at 1:38 pm
Democratic Jon
I think the internet or NSA ate my post! To summarize. Democrats did not endorse Estelle. This is meaningful but not necessarily important.
I agree mostly with TOA’s facts but also mostly with Anonymous 10:36’s narrative. I am finding this more and more – I’m growing concerned about the facts you choose TOA, but thank you’s for the TDR primer.
June 19, 2013 at 2:43 pm
That Other Anonymous
Democratic Jon,
Well I’m certainly open to a discussion of whether I’m over-emphasizing certain facts, and under-emphasizing or ignoring others, because at least then we’re talking about facts. Narratives are obviously important, but only helpful when they are founded on facts, and not just sweeping generalizations founded on other sweeping generalizations and thus just kind of floating around as clouds of rhetoric.
To be fair, I will agree that Anon 10:36’s comment rings true to me in relation to some recent candidates, but not at all with respect to Estelle. I think virtually everyone who voted for Estelle knew pretty much who and what they were voting for, and in particular had a pretty good idea where she stood on the issue of rural residency.
June 19, 2013 at 3:15 pm
That Other Anonymous
“Democrats did not endorse Estelle. This is meaningful but not necessarily important.”
Well, it’s true that the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee (HCDCC) did not endorse Estelle, but I think there’s a real question as to whether the HCDCC really does a good job of representing the full range of rank-and-file Democrats in Humboldt — as opposed to just one somewhat narrow faction.
For example, this is the same HCDCC that just last year moved to expel Richard Marks, a lifelong Democrat and longtime union organizer (amusingly, the same Richard Marks that progressives recently supported for appointment to the NCRA board). Marks’s alleged misdeed was supporting Rex Bohn for Supervisor. At the time when Marks committed to support Bohn, Bohn had only weak opposition from the candidate who ultimately came in a distant third, Annette DeModena. Cheryl Seidner had not entered the race, and didn’t do so until the very last minute, at which point she got the HCDCC endorsement, and apparently it was the postion of the HCDCC that Marks was then supposed to rescind his support for Bohn — which would have basically been dishonest.) Meanwhile, some of the same HCDCC members that thought Marks should have been expelled for supporting someone other than the HCDCC’s (very late-arriving) endorsed candidate, were folks who themselves had, in the recent past, supported other non-HCDCC-endorsed candidates, including non-Democrats, who had been running against Democratic candidates. including HCDCC-endorsed Democratic candidates. So there was some pretty glaring hypocrisy by some of those who were attempting to enforce a gag rule against HCDCC members supporting anyone other than the HCDCC-endorsed candidate.
So I suspect my interpretation of the meaning and significance of the HCDCC’s non-endorsement of Estelle Fennell may differ from yours. Estelle has been a Democrat for many, many years, has very “progressive” views on just about any issue you could name, with the exception of development (and that’s only assuming that you define a “somewhat less restrictive” approach to development as not progressive enough). So to me, the HCDCC’s non-endorsement of Estelle said more about the drift of the HCDCC toward mostly supporting only one narrow faction of Democrats, which for lack of a better term, I’ll call “Green Dems,” and overemphasis on one particular area of policy — land use and specifically the GPU. Just about anywhere else in the county, and certainly in DC, Estelle’s positions of the vast majority of issues would be considered extremely “liberal/progressive.”
Which reminds me of the old joke about the way the Chicago Democratic machine was said to work: ‘
“Question: What do you call 99.99% loyalty?
Answer: Disloyalty.”
While admittedly a bit hyperbolic, I think it does nonetheless reflect a dynamic that the HCDCC is going to need to wrestle with, unless they want to continue to marginalize themselves as a strident but small faction way over on one side of the spectrum. If, in the view of the leadership of our local Democratic Party, there isn’t just room for folks like Estelle Fennell and Richard Marks, then the party’s local leadership is way out of touch with its rank-and-file, which presents real problems both for that leadership, and for the party as a whole.”
Food for thought.
June 19, 2013 at 3:25 pm
That Other Anonymous
“I would also ask you TOA, do you really believe that folks on TPZ land are going to stick to that 3 acres only of development? Shit no. They will have greenhouses and outdoor grows and outbuilding all over the place. Sucking up water water water, killing wildlife, putting in roads. Destroying habitat etc.
No doubt some will, and we already know some already are. However, those things are just as illegal now as they will be no matter which version of the TPZ residence rules is adopted in the GPU and in subsequent revisions to the TPZ ordinance.
So while I agree with you on what some of the problems are that we’re facing, I don’t see how more strictly limiting legal, permitted, responsible behavior would help with in any way to deal with illegal, unpermitted, and in particular, irresponsible behavior. If anything, that would seem likely to just encourage more people to simply ignore the rules (as many are now). Better to accommodate and incentivize responsible behavior (water storage, erosion control, etc,) and focus enforcement on the worst offenders of the irresponsible behavior.
June 19, 2013 at 3:28 pm
Democratic Jon
TOA (and Forest Queen from a couple of days ago)- I am also a fact’s guy. I like to refer to them as numbers, that way I can create a blog called numbers ‘n narratives and retire from all the proceeds.
Not to stray too far from all things GPU, I believe the most fundamental fact or number of our time, the one that underlays all politics, including the GPU update is the one that charts the percentage of wealth owned by the 5 5ths of our population. The link below is my favorite representation of that chart as it also demonstrates the power of the right wing narrative to hide this fact from us. The danger for our country in the next 50 years is not from Sharia Law, terrorists, gun grabbers, undocumented immigrants, or the Federal Reserve. The danger is we might lose any semblance of a middle class and become Mexico ourselves. The struggle for the next 50 years will be to regain our middle class. To do this, those of us who believe this are going to have to recapture the narrative of our times.
Click to access outofbalance.pdf
June 19, 2013 at 3:30 pm
Anonymous
The reason Estelle wasn’t treated favorably by the DCC is simplicity itself: our county enviros and progressives realized how easy it was to pile onto the monthly meetings and take over the platform of county Democratic politics. But there’s a rub: it’s just as easy for any other off-brand Democrat to come aboard too. The Democrats are a great Party that way; I suppose it’s why they haven’t gone extinct.
If you think I’m unfair to the folks who came in just before the RINOs, here’s a picture for you: A couple dozen Headwaters activists and grassroots groovies are in the living room of the NEC’s founder and rock, Tim McKay. We’re haggling over strategy in the summer of Bill Clinton’s re-election campaign, when Headwaters will be one of the 4 stunning achievements that will prove Clinton–who neutered Al Gore, and never said a word about the environment–is a heartfelt environmentalist, until he’s re-elected. Tim and his assistant pass around Clinton/Gore bumper stickers and buttons, and insist we take them. Each of us makes a face or unpleasant sound–but because this is coalition politics, we politely don’t throw out the garbage until we leave.
That’s how local environmentalists related to the Democrats before they decided to take them over. Like so many other ‘organizations,’ including Earth First!, the Democratic Party is whoever shows up. Estelle was treated like the new girl in school, and Party stalwarts who didn’t chugalug the new bosses’ organic Kool-Aid got similar treatment. So the pissy politics were neither meaningful nor important; they may only signify that some kids just don’t play well with others. I hope this helps.
June 19, 2013 at 3:42 pm
That Other Anonymous
I would just add that, judging by the Google Earth images posted at LoCO a while ago, most of the really massive grows have no permanent residence on site, and therefore preventing residences from being permitted on TPZ lands, and other rural lands, will do nothing at all to address that issue.
Whereas I believe that, in general, many of those who do actually reside on their land, who are developing a well-rounded homestead (of which pot growing may be one part), and appear committed to living here for the long haul, tend to have a lot more respect for the land and wildlife, more involvement in the community, and are more open to working together to find solutions like storing more water in the winter so that they can reduce/eliminate dry-season water withdrawls. Making it harder, or impossible, for those folks to work with the county and bring their places up to code, get them permitted, etc., seems, to me, like it would be extremely counterproductive.
By contrast, it’s my impression that most of those those just setting up shop for the growing season and then leaving after the harvest — and in the more extreme cases setting up giant grows on remote timberlands that they don’t own, or in national forests or other public lands — don’t give two shits about the GPU, TPZ residences, or anything else.
It’s kind of a situation where we don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but it’s not super-easy to take the baby out of the bathwater, and the bathwater itself is really hard to throw out, so instead we end up just throwing out the baby, cursing at the bathwater, and pretending we’ve done something good.
June 19, 2013 at 3:43 pm
That Other Anonymous
Just to be clear, my 3:42 comment was an additional response to Cookie, not a response to Democratic Jon.
June 19, 2013 at 3:55 pm
Not A Native
Its absurd to claim that legitimizing development on TPZ lands will reduce illegal development. Just like the 215 laws are used as a ‘cover’ for illegal pot growing, legal development will be used to cover illegal operations going on. Once people are there, they have additional opportunity(and motive and means) to conduct illegal activities free of enforcement..
The new forest service new rules are a good example. They’ve banned transporting grow supplies on forest roads because their only use is illegal grows. They can do that because habitation isn’t permitted in the forest. But with legal development on TPZ lands, anybody hauling supplies has a great cover story, “its all for my TPZ property, officer. I have a perfect right to grow tomatoes on my 3 acres”. .
June 19, 2013 at 4:01 pm
That Other Anonymous
Democratic Jon,
I’m totally with you, 100%, on your 3:28 comment.
By the way, I’m pretty sure Estelle Fennell would be too. Feel free to ask her, I think you’ll like what she has to say on the issue. Which is another reason why it’s a so ridiculous the way she’s been demonized and portrayed as a “right-winger.”
And to relate this back to the GPU, and in particular rural residency, I would also invite you to consider the fact that in a rural county like Humboldt, rather than just Maxxam or Green Diamond-style vast, corporate-owned timber holdings, which may send their raw logs wherever labor is cheapest to do the milling, certainly send their profits to their corporate sharholders elsewhere — the ability to have a healthy mix of homesteads and small, local timberland ownerships (including, yes, some owner-occupied TPZ parcels) on some of our rural lands is part of what can help foster a healthy local economy and middle class.
I have a real hard time with supposed “progressives” who seem hell-bent on keeping as much of our land as possible in giant ranches owned by wealthy families, and giant out-of-area owned corporate timber ownerships, equate decentralization of land ownership to a larger number of smaller owners as somehow a “right-wing” position. I guess I’m an old-fashioned sort of lefty in that way, in that I just don’t see concentration of the ownership of land in the hands of a relatively small number of wealthy families and big out-of-area corporations, to be compatible with a “progressive” vision for our county’s future. Thoughts?
June 19, 2013 at 4:36 pm
That Other Anonymous
What NAN doesn’t seem to understand is that there are lots of private inholdings within our national forests in this area, so it’s not the lack of plausible legal destinations for those vehicles that makes it legal for Forest Service law enforcement to do those stops. What makes that legal is the fact that these vehicles are traveling on Forest Service roads. The fact that someone is heading to or from their own perfectly legal, privately-owned inholding does not make them exempt from such stops, as many have recently learned.
There are also numerous existing homesteads and ranches in our private rural lands, so even putting aside the fact that in this case we’re not talking about Forest Service roads, NAN’s scenario just doesn’t hold water. Meanwhile, if trucks full of grow supplies are observed headed in and out of large, remote private timber holdings like that of Green Diamond (where a few years ago a “guerrilla grow” of hundreds of thousands of plants and covering many acres was busted), the cops already have all the probable cause they need to investigate, and will generally do so with the enthusiastic blessing of the timber companies — who are often the ones to alert law enforcement to the situation in the first place.
The problem facing law enforcement is not that it’s hard to find huge illegal grows in remote timberlands, both private and public (Google Earth, helicopter flyovers, and ariel photographs make that pretty easy), their problem is that they don’t seem to have the resources to address the majority of even the biggest, most blatant ones.
Diverting more of those resources to hassling some folks who are headed out to their own 3 acre homestead on a TPZ parcel would just further divert those law enforcement resources, and in a particularly inefficient way. And even if we went all police-state and had the cops start making random stops on ranch roads and timber roads in areas where there are homesteads (and leaving aside the obvious illegality of that) finding someone with a load of soil or greenhouse plastic, or whatever, would not give the cops a right to seize those items, nor would it amount to probable cause to investigate the person any further, so it would be pointless, except as petty harassment.
NAN’s comment just re-emphasizes the stunning ignorance of basic facts and on-the-ground dynamics that underlies some of these more fanciful assumptions about what would and wouldn’t be likely to help with some of the problems we face with big, out-of-control grows.
June 19, 2013 at 4:57 pm
That Other Anonymous
And by the way, NAN, the new forest service rules only apply to those grow-related items when they are visible, for example lying in the back of an open truck bed. So I have my doubts that those rules will make much of a difference once the word gets out about the details of those rules — other than to probably increase the sales of tarps and bungee cords a bit..
To be clear, I’m no fan of the assholes who set up massive grows on our public lands, cause all kinds of ecological damage, and then leave their huge heaps of garbage for the taxpayers to clean up. So I have no problem with them trying this approach, I just have a lot of skepticism that it will put any kind of real dent in the problem, given the profits involved and the fact that those pulling the strings are almost certainly not those driving the trucks.
And I worry that feel-good / do-little measures may delay us from facing up to the only two solutions that I can think of that could actually make a real difference — either giving law enforcement the massive increase in resources needed to actually go after the giant public-land grows — which after all, tend to be right out in the open and not at all hard to detect from the air — or better yet, to admit that, given resource constraints, even that is not likely to really put a stop to the problem, and to face up to the urgent need for full legalization, which would immediately remove the incentive to have all this growing on remote lands, public or private.
June 19, 2013 at 7:17 pm
Anonymous
That Other Anonymous has commented 49 times thus far in this thread, not once discussing his prediction of the future of natural and financial resources, let alone related to new developments in rural areas.
Build build build! Pave pave pave! The sky goes up forever, and the earth is a bottomless well. The water will never run out, and the money will keep pouring in!
June 19, 2013 at 7:32 pm
Anonymous
I think the incentives for development reoccure during proposed developmental resource litigation regarding efforts to undermine substantial litigation in and around proposed reflex actions over due process, especially over and about land value due to pending enforcement of infatuous mitigating circumstances, not altogether founded on the basis of uncomforting balances of principles determined to be forthright about the balance of new development and the consequences of internal affairs during and after said decisions within the governing parties due to decided the matters at hand. If not for the money related to financial resource distribution the overall balance of power would befall an otherwise neglected forum of individuals who either do or do not (as decided by a third party party) divert funds to aid the assistance of assited assistance. Were it not for the impartial diversions of litigious interest, the matter would no doubt fall, if not completely bottom out, of the public view altogether, and the democratic voices, whether conservative or liberal, would hold in their minds the flavor of the week that is the matter of rewriting the constitution of the united states, but not to do with local economic concerns concerning the concerned concerts.
Build build build! Pave pave pave! The sky goes up forever, and the water will never run out!
June 19, 2013 at 8:06 pm
Anonymous
>>Not to stray too far from all things GPU, I believe the most fundamental fact or number of our time, the one that underlays all politics, including the GPU update is the one that charts the percentage of wealth owned by the 5 5ths of our population.
I think an infinitely more important number would be all to do with natural precipitation, to which new development has a permanently negative effect. You disagree? Rich or poor, last man standing.
June 19, 2013 at 8:24 pm
Anonymous
What the premis surrounding the narrative that surplus budgeting of communal resources falling into separate categories is has nothing to do with the fact that democratic resolution of a much more sophisticated parcel allowance despite fundamental contradictions above and beyond the call of duty, and to which the efforts of those individual policies do not reflect within any parameters regarding differentiated mitigation. The fact is, despite overwhelming support from the past backing of such nuanced decrees, there is no way that utilizing compatible paperwork will alter what is ultimately the un-navigable terrain beyond speculative assumption, despite every case that has been detected which can, in fact, police necessary change. BLAME THE MARIJUANA GROWERS!!! RAAAARRRRR!!!!!
June 19, 2013 at 8:39 pm
hillmuffin
people blather endlessly here…
why don’t you make your point in 9 words or less?…
easier to hide behind your effusive obfuscations?…
data dumps aren’t communication…
long live the community park,,,and eric…
June 19, 2013 at 8:43 pm
That Other Anonymous
Checked back on the petition. One more name added since this morning. Still 3 names short of their goal, and that’s even counting all the out-of-area names. I believe there’s been about 3 names added in the last 24 hours. Looks like it’s basically dead in the water.
All in all, a pretty spectacular failure. But somehow I have a feeling we won’t hear about that in the pages of the North Coast Journal. Nope, we’ll probably read how the whole county is rising up, pitchforks and torches in hand, outraged at the Supervisors for their “power grab” or “coup d’etat” or… whatever.
June 19, 2013 at 9:05 pm
hillmuffin
the NCJ is way more relevant and right on than you TOA…
(IMHO)
June 19, 2013 at 9:21 pm
That Other Anonymous
“Build build build! Pave pave pave! The sky goes up forever, and the earth is a bottomless well. The water will never run out, and the money will keep pouring in!”
Great job spewing more meaningless hyperbole that bears absolutely no relationship to what anyone here is saying, and certainly does not even come close to representing my views..
Want my prediction on water supply? O.K., my prediction is that here on the North Coast we will continue to get about a zillion metric shit-tons of rain in the winter, and hardly any in the summer, and that if we don’t store a lot more of it then over the next 10-15 years we’re going to have big problems with water supply and watershed health in SoHum and other inland areas of the county that are very dry in the summer, and that if we do store a lot more of it, we’re not going to have much of a problem with water at all.
June 19, 2013 at 9:30 pm
That Other Anonymous
“why don’t you make your point in 9 words or less?”
Because oversimplified, bumper-sticker-type sloganeering rarely communicates anything meaningful.
That concise enough for ya?
June 20, 2013 at 8:22 am
"Henchman Of Jiustice"
JW says this below,
June 19, 2013 at 10:52 am
Just Watchin
HOJ says….”People can be easy listeners who do little to no research too. These are the worst type of voters – those who vote without knowing what they are voting on or for. The non-vote is much safer when the voter is uneducated, naive, stupified, dumbed-down, etc….”
I must say, I’m surprised to see Jeffrey in agreement with Rush Limbaugh. He has been saying for some time that low information voters do tend to skew election results negatively.( sorry if I don’t refer to myself in the third person like the cool kids do)
Response: Is it accurate or not about low-information voters because what an effective way to lead a nation at a high idiocy rate after misleading the voters to think inaccurately on any given issues, that is all HOJ asks in 3rd person, It is like asking a non-engineer to engineer a building or bridge and people wonder why there is failure; and then, we can discuss the “actual engineers” who thought what they said and did was right, but obviously those thought collapsed once their egos came crashing down, killing people.
Did Rush include the republicans and democrats in his theory; or, was Rush STILL protecting the Two Party System shammers? Ya never know with Rush which side of his arse is lathered in Crisco baking oil.
Coolio,
HOJ.
June 20, 2013 at 8:28 am
Not A Native
No the true answer is that The Other Anonymous writes long, repetitive and self justifying posts because he’s obsessive and compulsive. Most all of the points are simply redundant and tiresome poundings away at a few assumptions. The length and often irrelevant divergences serve to hide the fact that there’s little real data behind his opinions. When presented with facts that disprove his ideas, his posts get longer and more frequent, as if to drown out uncomfortable truths. Clearly he thinks putting out ever more voluminous and repetitive posts increases the credibility of his assumptions. But in truth, its is the opposite. The fact that he’s unable to alter to become more persuasive is the symptom of his malady.
In my personal experience, his communication pattern is associated with people who have long term use drug use, as well as mental illness. A need for obfuscation is seen in that he doesn’t keep one pseudonym, but needs to change them(The Reasonable anonymous, TRA, and now The Other Anonymous). For a good while, he was absent and its my belief is that it was due to personal or legal issues around involvement with illegal pot growing. But once again his symptoms are in full bloom, like HumCo Summer flowers.
June 20, 2013 at 8:49 am
"Henchman Of Jiustice"
TOA’s following paragraph that singles-out one minor sub-issue but when reading, the reader may just come to the notion as to why what TOA says staff and supes were wise for, well, it sure seems that they only decided not to “jump the gun” like on many other “singled-out sub-issues”; or, is it all about “programs and interpretations, again”?.
Were the Supes not wise on prior decisions to finalize, TOA?
So I think the Supervisors were wise to not put any final commitment about how the “sending areas” would be defined into the General Plan item — which, after all, just calls for the idea to be researched, and if feasible, developed into a program with further involvement of the planning department staff, the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors and the public (in other words, the program would of course require the development of an ordinance, and planning department regulations governing how exactly it would work, which specific areas would be the “receiving areas” and so on, so the question of how to define the “sending areas” would presumably be part of that process as well). As staff pointed out, there will be ample opportunity to explore the pros and cons of structuring the program one way or the other as they move forward, and there’s no need to tie their hands now as to what the design should be, before the idea has even been researched, and before they’ve even decided if it’s feasible. At the GPU level, they’re basically just saying that the idea seems desirable, and should be researched, and if found feasible should be brought back to the Board (and presumably the Planning Commission) for further development.
Now, this program and time = does this equate to a GPU “style” process too, where the General Public gets to comment again and again and again, comparing recommendations, options, Ad Hoc Group portfolio style deliberations, etc… prior to going back to the supes for “clueless wisdom”?
So how much more of what the Supes have already unaccomplished could have been “kicked-back” to the Planning Commission, thereby extending the GPU process even longer.
Ya see folks, TOA just don’t like to be fully accurate, transparent or clairvoyant on what the Supes are doing and for whom. (special interests)
As far as the creation of ordinances, well guess what, many developers are still waiting for the county to use development fees already paid to create no-parking ordinances, infrastructure improvements and row agreements, , etc… relative to onsite development project impacts, as well as, off-site impacts. Instead, the money paid for by the developer for his/her project is being siphoned into other county pet-projects.
So, for those environmentalists who clamor that development does not do this or that – remember, county government takes money from the developer to do what many people clamor over, but because the county don’t really care about the words in ink on paper they expect us to follow, then don’t expect to blame developers for something caused by the government local backstabbers who abdicate their livlihoods to all-things-government-protected and subsidized, especially a job and career!
Inbreds don’t whistleblow, society needs more whistleblowers
HOJ
PS. Does staff get elected too; or just hired and fired folks? Think! SUpes change but Staff remains the same. These problems from regime to regime are Two-Party System maneuverings.
June 20, 2013 at 8:52 am
Eric Kirk
In my search for data on de facto conversion of TPZ, I came across this pdf article about actual permitted conversion, which focuses on our region. Still looking for data on de facto conversion. There doesn’t appear to be a wealth of information or thought on the subject, though there is lots of anecdote and speculation.
Click to access timberland_conversion.pdf
June 20, 2013 at 8:56 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
NAN,
BUT TOA is anonymous and can’t get a special thread explaining a sub-set of rules only for TOA. Notice also, no complaints by others as to how long the posts are which suggests that the posts are ineffective because who would complain about an “effective posting”, lola.
Laughter aside, TOA does bring something to the table, but be careful not to choke while eating at the table.
Too funny these anonymous hide and seekers,
What’s up puddy cat, whoa, whoa,
What’s up puddy cat, whoa, whoa,
HOJ
June 20, 2013 at 9:02 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Thanks for the link on conversion, Eric.
Humboldt County Building Department stats for new construction permits verifies this reference below,
Prior to 1980, the main purpose of conversion was grazing. Since then,
conversion to subdivisions has been the main purpose. The impact of conversions on
timber supply is not significant, but in many local areas, conversions are a major land use
issue.
In sohum, conversion is also used for subdivisions of AG land, but the political maneuver is to invent a word (overlay) while explaining multiple uses so as to make the word (development) seem “lesser” WHEN the “real issue” is loss of prime AG lands no matter which way ya slice-it-up.
HOJ
June 20, 2013 at 9:05 am
Cookie
Thanks Eric. De Facto rural residential and rural sprawl are words I think we really need to start using when it comes to rural development.
June 20, 2013 at 9:08 am
Eric Kirk
Democratic Jon said:
So much to say. So little time. Let me just add that Estelle’s candidacy was not endorsed by the HCDCC in 2012. (The Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee- The hub of all things Democratic in Humboldt County.)
Like Estelle I am a life long Democrat. Being a Democrat is a complicated thing. You get to say what you are – and then after majority rules. At the time there were not enough votes to get the endorsement.
Personally, as a non-voting member I will do what I can to keep Democratic endorsements Left-of-Center where they belong in a Blue County in a Blue State (I said it and stand by it!). Still, the seismic shift in the GPU is going to happen with 3 nominal Democrats at the helm. A fact that cause me a great deal of consternation and I feel for the sentiments of Anonymous 10:36 and disagree with TOA 11:48. I’m finding this a great deal with your posts TOA. I agree with you technically but….
TOA, the TDR was exactly what I was talking about, thanks, I’ll catch up on that post later.
Reference on the lack of endorsement…
http://samoasoftball.blogspot.com/2012/04/humboldt-county-democratic-central.html
surprise cameos by HOJ and EK. Hurray!
Jon, that was discussed in detail here and on several other blogs. Some of Estelle’s supporters have argued vehemently that Estelle was denied the endorsement because she got blackballed by the progressive clique and not because of her policy positions. apparently excluding the possibility that if she was “blackballed” it was precisely because of her policy positions. At the meeting I visited, Syd Berg expressed anger that Estelle wasn’t endorsed, and argued that a registered Democrat should always receive the committee endorsement regardless of his/her policy positions.
The fight for the soul of the Democratic Party continues at those meetings, with progressives seeing a “hostile takeover” by closet Republicans realizing that their old party affliation is a political dead-end, and with the more conservative wing claiming persecution by a “radical left” Arcata-based “urban environmentalist” cabal with a narrow agenda.
I’ve deliberately framed both points of view in caricature form because I think the issues are much more complicated than the prevailing memes.
June 20, 2013 at 9:12 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
See, here TOA makes a valid point below,
Want my prediction on water supply? O.K., my prediction is that here on the North Coast we will continue to get about a zillion metric shit-tons of rain in the winter, and hardly any in the summer, and that if we don’t store a lot more of it then over the next 10-15 years we’re going to have big problems with water supply and watershed health in SoHum and other inland areas of the county that are very dry in the summer, and that if we do store a lot more of it, we’re not going to have much of a problem with water at all.
Response: It seems that storing water that falls from the sky is a “no brainer” in an over-populated society where our local rivers get dammed-up so that OUR RESOURCES suffer extensively while bigger whigs make profit on water transferrences and energy creation while manipulating out water supply infrastructure, which is a natural infrastructure being man-manipulated for profit, control and power, especially at the urban level of society that needs to steal and thieve from rural residents.
So, effectually, what we have is a WAR BETWEEN Urban and Rural based upon the needs for natural resources that are not “plentiful or perpetually infinite in existence”.
Development that is appropriate and enforced is the only development that should occur anywhere in today’s society, but unfortunately, enforcement is lax for a reason or few. (taxes and profit that seperates people into classes and types)
June 20, 2013 at 9:22 am
Eric Kirk
Cookie, I’m glad you said that, because it made me go look for the phrase “de facto conversion” and it took me to this old Herald post about a Healthy Humboldt Ad. It goes back to a recent topic as it establishes a record regarding TOA’s and others’ strawman about homes on TPZ land and Estelle’s claim that Mark’s position is a recent conversion.
Specifically:
PERSON 2: Well ok, but they also say I won’t be able to build a house on my own property.
PERSON 1: That’s not true for most property owners. If you’re on timberland, yeah, there’s some limitations — there have been for years — because you get a huge tax break for being in timber and not residential. But you can still have a home on your land, maybe even a couple if you chose to conserve parts of it.
The post is dated June, 2010.
June 20, 2013 at 9:31 am
Anonymous
Thanks, NAN! I once read an internet blog on Personality Profiling (for protection in on-line dating, so it’s totally appropriate here) and your analysis of TOA deserves repayment in kind. I’ll categorize you in three areas, Personal, Cultural and Societal, which is more than I’ve ever done for LiveChat! Here goes:
Personally, you are an willfully blinkered blubberer. I can’t find this category in my DSM, but I suppose that’s because you’ve avoided professional scrutiny, which does cost money. So fearful are you of contradiction to your faith system that you cannot engage with evidence, except that which you create, often by pseudo-magical means. Symptoms quite similar to ignorant fundamentalists, but you lack a Bible to source your peculiar beliefs to, having only the ravings of the William Randolph Hearst of Humboldt County, Judy Hodgson and her hard-worked hacks to draw from, with Jesuitical adumbrations and annotations from failed cult leader Mark Lovelace.
Culturally, you embody the “What, me fallible?” extreme of vocable liberalism, whose characteristic smugness is externalized by unenforceable dictats that all citizens must be like them, even if they can’t understand them, or suffer stigmas that, in your ideal world, will underpin sanctions against them.
Societally, you fit in the “University Town-Gownie” milieu of precious self-regard that valorizes arcana ideally both unavailable and unmeaningful to populations focused on useful information. The more your kind knows that the despised demos does not, the hautier your disdain for those who think life is to be lived, rather than to be brayed about. Communal relations in your society created the apothegm “Why are academic politics so vicious? Because the stakes are so low.” This is why, in attempting to raise stakes, you so characteristically elevate viciousness instead.
I do hope this helps. You are not alone.
June 20, 2013 at 9:42 am
That Other Anonymous
True to form, NAN retreats to argumentum ad hominem. How sadly predictable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement1.svg
On the other hand, at least I can always count on getting a good chuckle from NAN’s unintentionally hilarious attempts at psychological analysis.
June 20, 2013 at 9:43 am
Jim
The HCDCC has always been a weird duck. I remember when we took Measure M (anti-GMO) before them for an endorsement. Rather than endorse, the chair, Milt Boyd, spent the entire time alloted nit-picking the language and how badly it was written and they did not even endorse the concept even if they had problems with the proposed ordinance.
June 20, 2013 at 9:55 am
Not A Native
I agree that the defacto frame might help put holes in the shroud that CPR has put over their agenda for unplanned and unregulated development.
There’s a linguistic parallel with the racial equality struggle(but in this instance its the environment and future humans) with the understanding that defacto policies subvert honest discussion and their purpose is to promote unfairness.
June 20, 2013 at 10:16 am
Eric Kirk
Is it “de facto” or “defacto?”
June 20, 2013 at 10:29 am
Jim
505 signatures. The site shows 495 more needed. Are they going for 1,000?
June 20, 2013 at 10:33 am
Eric Kirk
I think it just automatically sets a new milestone until it gets discontinued. Originally it told us how many sigs were needed for 250.
June 20, 2013 at 10:52 am
That Other Anonymous
Nice try Eric, but as we all know, Healthy Humboldt supported the Alternative A language that was aimed at severely restricting TPZ residences. It’s a matter of public record, and dredging up their misleading radio ad can’t erase that any more than Lovelace’s little joke the other night can obscure the fact that he abandoned the Alternative A approach and sided with the 4 other supervisors on far less restrictive language.
At the the Board of Supervisors’ meeting on the evening of June 3rd, that Alternative A language was still on the chart of options for the the Supervisors to consider (there was a split vote at the Planning Commission level, and a minority supported the Alternative A version).
Here is that Alternative A language that Healthy Humboldt supported, and which was one of the options that was still on the table at the recent June 3rd meeting:
“Residential Construction on TPZ Zoned Parcels.
Preserve continued viability of timber production on TPZ
zoned parcels by requiring demonstration of active
management for timber production prior to issuance of new
residential permits and by mitigating the impacts of
residences on water resources, biological resources, wildland
fire potential and public services. Residential uses shall be
limited to individuals employed on the premises for lands
planned Industrial Timber (IT) or necessary for the management
of timberlands on lands planned Timber Production (T).”
At the June 3rd meeting Lovelace did not even present a case for why he and his former employer and their allies had pushed for that language. Instead he just made his weak little joke, and gave his blessing to the same language as the other 4 Supervisors:
“Residential Construction on TPZ Zoned Parcels. Recognize
the right to construct a residence and accessory buildings on TPZ
parcels under a ministerial permitting process subject to County
standards consistent with other Elements of the General Plan when
the use does not detract from the use of the property for the
growing and harvesting of timber and associated compatible uses.”
So his little joke about “and people thought I was against residences on TPZ” avoided the reality that his previous position had been that TPZ residents should be restricted only to timber company employees or others who could prove that residing on the land was specifically necessary for timber management. (Something that of course was not mentioned in Healthy Humboldt’s misleading radio ads, which made no mention of the new restrictions they were attempting to push through, and referred only to restrictions that had been in place for “a long time.”)
Now of course there’s absolutely nothing wrong with Lovelace changing his mind and moderating his position — or for that matter, simply acknowledging that he didn’t have the support to push through the policies that he and Healthy Humboldt, and the rest of the Alternative A crowd had previously supported. But to try to imply that there was no real change between the very significant new restrictions that he and Healthy Humboldt had been pushing previously, and the language that he ended up voting in favor of, is quite misleading, and the fact that he apparently felt the need to try to gloss over that issue is, I think, quite revealing. As is your attempt to try to re-write the history and try to make it appear as if he’d been fine with this language all along. Sorry, dude, but that Memory Hole just ain’t working the way you apparently hoped it would. Better luck next time.
June 20, 2013 at 10:59 am
That Other Anonymous
LOL! Yeah, maybe if you throw the phrase “de facto” in there, people will buy into the claim that a 3 acre homesite will somehow prevent the rest of the parcel from ever being harvested. Good luck with that.
June 20, 2013 at 11:04 am
That Other Anonymous
Hey, so they finally made it over the 500 name goal for the petition! So will the petition now be forwarded to the Supervisors so we can see how many of those signatures are from actual Humboldt residents? Judging by what I saw the other day (documented above) they’d better wait until they have 600 or 700 signatures if they want to have a better chance that at least 500 of them are actually Humboldt residents. At the current pace that new names are being added, that should only take a few more months.
June 20, 2013 at 11:23 am
Eric Kirk
TRA – This is where you sometimes get a little goofy. Nobody supported “Plan A” in toto. It was a framework designed to represent a far end of the spectrum, with Plan C representing the other end. This is why Clif said he was A-/B+ when asked, and originally Estelle said she supported Plan B as it was drafted in 2008 (a position which she has long since abandoned, as she learned that it wasn’t a straight up kind of thing, and since she has adopted a much more conservative position on land use regs).
The wording you bold is taken not from Healthy Humboldt or Mark, it’s taken directly from 51104 as one of the compatible uses.
“A residence or other structure necessary for the management of
land zoned as timberland production.”
You and HumCPR conveniently try to make it look like some wording environmentalists dreamed up. The staff simply pulled the wording out of the statute. The new version, understandably, doesn’t tempt fate with Bill Barnum’s “disjunctive or” theory. It avoids the statutory language altogether.
As to what would have been deemed “necessary for the management,” and how much flexibility that leaves the county, well, we’ll find out, but your assumption as to Healthy Humboldt’s publicly stated position as of June, 2010 isn’t supported by any fact except for your blanket statement about their support for “Plan A.”
In other words, you’re so invested in the straw man that even their public statements of three years ago mean nothing. Their secret position was to ban all residences on TPZ land. HH never said that. Mark never said that.
June 20, 2013 at 11:27 am
Eric Kirk
And hey, here’s my challenge. Why don’t they put the exact statutory language into the GPU? “Other structure” after the presumably disjunctive “or” and see how it’s received by the developer crowd, and let Bill Barnum calm them down.
I dare the Board majority to do that. I double dare them.
June 20, 2013 at 11:41 am
Jim
Back to the HCDCC and their failure to endorse life long Democrats.
I remember back before she had made her official announcement, Estelle and I were at the Democrat of the Year function in Eureka. As has been mentioned, Estelle has been a Democrat all her life along with being an active member of the HCDCC. She had made no secret of her intention to run against Clif and that I would be helping her in that quest. I had barely gotten into the room when I ran into Richard Salzman, whom I had known for maybe 10 years at that point, and his first words were “I see you’ve gone over to the dark side.” To say I was offended is an understatement. Who is he to question who I support? And I thought extremely telling. The fact she did not get the HCDCC endorsement was not a surprise.
Like Estelle, I’ve been a Democrat my entire life and come from a Democratic family. So much so, when I was growing up in L.A., my parents took me to the Ambassador Hotel in 1968 to hear Bobby Kennedy celebrate his winning of the California primary. The horrific tragedy that night, his killing and the aftermath, reinforced my resolve that we must get out there, participate, work for and elect the best candidate for the office. And let me reemphasize that – the best candidate. Not the one some small, self-important clique has decided we are required to support, but the one who will do the best to make our country a better place, a more fair place, a more equitable place.
I was proud to help get Estelle elected and I still think, even with all the “controversy” generated by a vocal few, she was, and is, and has been the best person for the job.
June 20, 2013 at 12:05 pm
Eric Kirk
But the question for the committee isn’t how long she’s been registered. The question is whether her candidacy reflects the values and preferred policies of the Party. In some counties such as Shasta or Orange counties, her policies would probably be consistent with the Party as it exists there. In the Bay Area or Mendocino, Clif’s policies would be more consistent. Humboldt is obviously kind of in between.
Which faction is more representative locally? Well, we have no way of knowing for certain how the Second District votes went. I strongly suspect that Estelle drew more Republican votes, but there are more Democrats in the Second than Republicans. Perhaps Clif took all of the independent votes, but I doubt that. The Green Party votes, based on my phone banking experience, were split along Fortuna/Sohum lines. I’m willing to bet that Clif took more Democrats than Estelle.
Does that mean that Estelle shouldn’t have received the endorsement? No. There are a number of factors that would account for the breakdown, including the mere fact that Estelle was getting the big name Republican endorsements, which might have turned off some Fortuna Democrats who have been on opposite sides politically – there’s always a down side to every endorsement.
But it might also be her policy statements and her association with a property rights organization, which in most counties would put you into the conservative camp.
I think the committee ought to hold a forum on these issues and whether “property rights” advocacy in policy context can be deemed consistent with DP values and endorsed policies. Establish some guidelines which can be referenced in endorsement discussions.
But being a “lifelong registered Democrat” alone means nothing to me. Neo-Nazi Tom Metzger was also a lifelong registered Democrat, as were many segregationists – until they weren’t. I mention them not to draw any comparisons, but just to emphasize that endorsements should be based on three things: policy, policy, and policy.
June 20, 2013 at 12:35 pm
That Other Anonymous
Wow, you’re really flailing now. It’s a matter of public record that Healthy Humboldt supported the Alternative A language for FR-P9, and it’s a matter of public record that they in fact wanted to add even more specific requirements and restrictions, including specifically requiring a Conditional Use Permit.
Their recommendation of the Alternative A version of FR-P9 is contained in their written comments to the Planning Commission on March 9, 2010 (Had their position changed by the time they put out their June 10 radio ads? You tell me.). Their demand for a Conditional Use Permit is contained in their comments on FR-P8 in the same written comments.
Meanwhile their Harry and Louise style radio ads make no mention of the additional restrictions they were pushing for, and only say “yeah, there are some restrictions — there have been for years” and then quickly moving on to imply that TPZ owners are getting a big “tax break,” not mentioning, of course that TPZ pay the same taxes on their house and homesite as everyone else.
The fact that their radio ads failed to mention the increased restrictions they were demanding doesn’t mean that those demands were “secret” — those demands were a matter of public record. It just means that they were being dishonest in their radio ads.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad Lovelace abandoned the Alternative A language and supported the version that passed. I just think it’s funny, and kind of revealing, how he felt the need to pretend he hadn’t changed his position. I’m also amused by your attempt to argue that Healthy Humboldt’s smooth-talking PR version of their position as reflected in their radio ads is what we should pay attention to, rather than their actual recommendations to the Planning Commission, made just a couple of months earlier.
June 20, 2013 at 12:45 pm
Democratic Jon
Writing is particularly difficult for me today for some reason, most likely cause I have so much else to do on this beautiful day. Just would like to add that I am appreciating and digesting these thoughtful views on the HCDCC.
June 20, 2013 at 12:59 pm
Eric Kirk
Again, the “Alternative A language” is just the statute TRA. You’re in denial about that.
The CUP requirement is not a ban. CUPs are mostly granted as long as they conform to the criteria. You can set up a “ministerial” process for a CUP.
Is that all you have? I really thought you had some statement they had made about a blanket ban on residences on TPZ.
And again, if the current Board majority feels that they have to dodge the statutory language because it implies a “discretionary” rather than a “ministerial” process, then we have a very serious problem if anyone files a lawsuit, because the statute is going to trump the General Plan and the Board is tacitly admitting that the GPU does not conform to statute. The only other reasonable interpretation is that they understand that the Plan A wording was statutory, but that they need to appease their own constituency.
June 20, 2013 at 1:08 pm
Eric Kirk
LOL! Yeah, maybe if you throw the phrase “de facto” in there, people will buy into the claim that a 3 acre homesite will somehow prevent the rest of the parcel from ever being harvested. Good luck with that.
Again with the strawmen. It’s not the “3 acre homesite.” It’s the practical conversion of the entire parcel that’s at issue. Whether people who want to buy those 160 acre “kingdoms” Palco proposed would want their kingdoms marred by harvests. Whether the practical effect of allowing residences which are not related to timber management has a practical effect.
You’re assuming that it doesn’t, that there is no de facto effect. Perhaps you’re right. But I’m trying to remember the last time I saw logging trucks come out Briceland Road, and I know there’s a crapload of TPZ property up that way – and not all of it young growth.
June 20, 2013 at 1:13 pm
Jim
Remind me. Wasn’t Clif a decline to state?
June 20, 2013 at 1:49 pm
That Other Anonymous
“Again, the “Alternative A language” is just the statute TRA. You’re in denial about that.”
Again, the Alternative A language said:
“Residential uses shall be limited to individuals employed on the premises for lands planned Industrial Timber (IT) or necessary for the management
of timberlands on lands planned Timber Production (T).”
That’s not what the statute says. I don’t know where the first part comes from. The second part is from the statute, but the way it is used here presupposes your interpretation of what that language means (as opposed to Bill Barnum’s interpretation), and sought to establish your interpretation as the county’s rule.
June 20, 2013 at 2:00 pm
Cookie
Yes Jim. Clif as far as party affiliation a decline to state. So am I, and a lot of people I know. Estelle should be a registered Republican.
June 20, 2013 at 2:04 pm
Cookie
Barnum wants to develop all his “out Briceland Road, and I know there’s a crapload of TPZ property up that way – and not all of it young growth.”
into 160 acre McMansions. He has been trying to do this since Roy Heider was in office. I posted somewhere it’s like 26,000 acres from Ettersberg Junction down to Piercy.
June 20, 2013 at 2:15 pm
Eric Kirk
Jim – yes, that’s why he didn’t get the DP nomination. But I’m pretty certain he got the majority of the Democratic Party vote.
TOA – The only difference is that “other structures” was removed, which I don’t believe is of any consequence. However again, my challenge to the Board majority – put it into the GPU exactly as the statute reads.
It won’t happen.
And again, nothing in the language, or in the desire for a CUP process, amounts to a ban of residential development on TPZ property. That’s a strawman.
June 20, 2013 at 3:01 pm
Jim
So, Eric, the sole Democrat in the race doesn’t get the endorsement of the HCDCC, of which she is a member, because some her supporters coincidentially happened to be Republicans? And even though most of her positions, except on property rights, were chapter and verse Democratic?
The Green Party has what are called the “10 Key Values”. The Republicans have the “Tea Party Values”. Here in Humboldt, we have the “HCDCC Values”, even though none of us voted for them, nor necessarily agree with them in their entirety, but are expected to mindlessly follow like lemmings.
And remember, the rule of thumb is, the first one to mention Nazi loses. And whether you meant it or not, using a racist like Metzger to make a point about endorsements is extreme, even for you. And if you think policy should be the sole determinant for endorsement, not policy and electability, that’s very sad and totally out of touch with reality.
June 20, 2013 at 3:37 pm
Eric Kirk
No Jim, read a little more carefully please. I said that she may have lost some Democratic Party votes in Fortuna, not the endorsement, due to her support from Republicans.
And no, Godwin’s Rule does not apply the mere mention of Nazis, but only the attempt to compare the opponents characteristics to them. Since I clearly stated otherwise, it doesn’t apply, since the point was made simply to emphasize that being a “lifelong Democrat” is meaningless for endorsement purposes.
And as to “electibility,” I think that should play a very minor role in the endorsement process. If someone has some serious negatives, then fine, they should be considered. But politics is, or should be, about policy, not personality.
And again, I’m willing to bet that the majority of Democrats did vote for the “HCDCC values.” It’s just that the Republicans are a much more solid bloc.
June 20, 2013 at 3:47 pm
Cookie
“So, Eric, the sole Democrat in the race doesn’t get the endorsement of the HCDCC, of which she is a member, because some her supporters coincidentially happened to be Republicans? ”
No Jim. she didn’t get the endorsement because of her job as executive director of HumCPR which had to many issues the HDCC didn’t believe in or support. At least that is what I remember the HDCC saying. It was awhile back.
June 20, 2013 at 4:07 pm
That Other Anonymous
“TOA – The only difference is that ‘other structures’ was removed, which I don’t believe is of any consequence”
(1) Where did the language saying “limited to individuals employed on the premises” come from? Is that in the statute?
(2) The statute reads:
If I’m recalling past discussions correctly, your argument is that the “shall include, but not be limited to” language in the statute means that if the residence was both “compatible” and “necessary” then no CUP would be required, but that if, on the other hand, the residence was “compatible,” but not “necessary,” then a residence could still be potentially be allowed, but would require a Conditional Use Permit.
Am I correct in stating your position on that? If so, then for the sake of argument, let’s say your interpretation of the statute is correct. Now read the language the way it reads in the Alternative A version:
Note the use of the phrase “shall be limited to” — not “may be limited to” and not shall be limited to…unless a Conditional Use Permit is obtained.”
So wouldn’t the Alternative A language have gone even further than your interpretation of the statute, and disallowed the county from permitting any residences not “necessary” for timber management, even if they were “compatible” with timber management?
“However again, my challenge to the Board majority – put it into the GPU exactly as the statute reads. It won’t happen.”
I don’t understand what the point of that would be. The language is already in the statute (and in the statute, it’s in its full, proper context), so if you’re confident that your interpretation of its meaning is the only reasonable interpretation possible, what difference would it make whether it’s repeated, word for word, in the GPU?
“And again, nothing in the language, or in the desire for a CUP process, amounts to a ban of residential development on TPZ property. That’s a strawman.”
i never said anyone was proposing a total ban. So you just employed a strawman argument in your attempt to accuse me of making strawman argument — a sort of compound fallacy so silly that as far as I know no one has bothered coming up with a name for it yet!
June 20, 2013 at 4:21 pm
That Other Anonymous
Eric said: “TOA – The only difference is that ‘other structures’ was removed, which I don’t believe is of any consequence”
(1) Where did the language saying “limited to individuals employed on the premises” come from? Is that in the statute?
(2) The statute reads:
If I’m recalling past discussions correctly, your argument is that the “shall include, but not be limited to” language in the statute means that if the residence was both “compatible” and “necessary” then no CUP would be required, but that if, on the other hand, the residence was “compatible,” but not “necessary,” then a residence could still be potentially be allowed, but would require a Conditional Use Permit.
Am I correct in stating your position on that? If so, then for the sake of argument, let’s say your interpretation of the statute is correct. Now read the language the way it reads in the Alternative A version:
Note the use of the phrase “shall be limited to” — not “may be limited to” and not “shall be limited to…unless a Conditional Use Permit is obtained.”
So wouldn’t the Alternative A language have gone even further than your interpretation of the statute, and completely disallowed the county from permitting any residences not “necessary” for timber management, even if they were “compatible” with timber management?
“However again, my challenge to the Board majority – put it into the GPU exactly as the statute reads. It won’t happen.”
I don’t understand what the point of that would be. The language is already in the statute (and in the statute, it’s in its full, proper context), so if you’re confident that your interpretation of its meaning is the only reasonable interpretation possible, what difference would it make whether it’s repeated, word for word, in the GPU?
“And again, nothing in the language, or in the desire for a CUP process, amounts to a ban of residential development on TPZ property. That’s a strawman.”
i never said anyone was proposing a total ban. So you just employed a strawman argument in your attempt to accuse me of making strawman argument — a sort of compound fallacy so silly that as far as I know no one has bothered coming up with a name for it yet!
June 20, 2013 at 4:24 pm
That Other Anonymous
Sorry for the botched or missing “close italics” tags in the 4:07 comment. I’ve posted the corrected version at 4:21. Feel free to delete the 4:07 one.
June 20, 2013 at 4:26 pm
Cookie
I pulled this one sentence out of a paper written by a guy Tom Daniels, a professor at the Dept of Geography and Planning at the State University New York. The sentence says: “Farming and Forestry are industrial uses. They should be kept as separate as possible from rural residential development.” Yep.
June 20, 2013 at 5:03 pm
That Other Anonymous
Cookie said: Barnum wants to develop all his “out Briceland Road, and I know there’s a crapload of TPZ property up that way – and not all of it young growth.” into 160 acre McMansions. He has been trying to do this since Roy Heider was in office. I posted somewhere it’s like 26,000 acres from Ettersberg Junction down to Piercy.
But wait, according to you, the status quo under the existing Framework Plan has already been “carte blanche for developers.” So, if Barnum’s been “trying to do this” since Roy Heider was in office, why hasn’t it already happened?
June 20, 2013 at 5:41 pm
Cookie
But wait, according to you, the status quo under the existing Framework Plan has already been “carte blanche for developers.”
When did I say that? I thought I said that the new Guiding Principles the way Estelle wrote and changed them, and the principle permit of a house on 160 acre TPZ was de facto rural residential. I think someone else used the term carte blanche.
June 20, 2013 at 5:46 pm
Anonymous
Here’s whatcha do…in plain english so all y’all can stop your innercircle jerking and get a faceload of reality instead…
The North Coast Journal and the Times Standard and the Arcata Eye and the Tri-City Weekly and Savage Henry and the Isis Scrolls and every piece of paper that gets distributed en masse around the county contains within…publishes the simple language of Ye Olde Original Options A through C and asks readers: CHOOSE.
And prepare thyselves…because the real majority of people don’t give a fuck about new development, the real majority of people fully comphrehend the decline of natural and financial resources, and the real majority of people aren’t seeing their daily lives get any easier on account of you wannabe’s stroking eachothers’ egos on our dime. Fucking morons! So far out of touch it really is insane.
June 20, 2013 at 5:49 pm
Anonymous
…I mean really…publish the original options in their stated language for 6 consecutive months to give everybody lots of time to choose andt think about it and maybe even change their mind. If it’s that important an issue, and it obviously is, dedicate all of a half page per issue of humboldt’s free and dime rags to let the REAL MAJORITY know simply the simple words of the simple decision that has to be made. You’re all a bunch of internet wankers who have been rubbing elbows with the same clique for so long bla bla bla arkley bla bla bla lovelace bla bla bla…the public is paying for this shit? W….T….F.
June 20, 2013 at 6:12 pm
Anonymous
So what TRA and proponents of HumCPR keep saying is, the word changes aren’t significant, followed by full on assault style decrees of how important the language of said politics are.
And in ten years, what percentage of the world will be in severe drought?
June 20, 2013 at 6:39 pm
Anonymous
““Compatible use” is any use which does not significantly detract from the use of the property for, or inhibit, growing and harvesting timber, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the following, unless in a specific instance such a use would be contrary to the preceding definition of compatible use: (1)…(6)A residence or other structure necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production.”
Paved foundation homes? Three acres of “development”? Not necessary whatsoever, in fact cumulatively having a negative effect on the environment (less vegetation = less precipitation, more wells = decreased watershed etc), case closed a very long time ago.
June 20, 2013 at 7:11 pm
Anonymous
I “wonder” if “toa” has seen “outside” in “the” “past” “month”. Because “there” is no “doubt” that he’s “been staring at” a “computer screen” an “unhealthy” amount of “time”.
June 20, 2013 at 7:21 pm
Anonymous
“And no, Godwin’s Rule does not apply the mere mention of Nazis, but only the attempt to compare the opponents characteristics to them. Since I clearly stated otherwise, it doesn’t apply, since the point was made simply to emphasize that being a “lifelong Democrat” is meaningless for endorsement purposes.”
You’re a lawyer for chrissake…you pulled a fuggin Godwin and you know it, dumbass/ Simply stating that you didn’t doesn’t mean you said it not to mean it. I think the government of the united states is adjectival to nazis, but I don’t mean that as a comparison. I mean that the neo-nazi government is bad, yet any argument to follow should strike the adjective I used from context….???? You’re a joke of your own kind. Bla bla bla…
June 20, 2013 at 8:40 pm
That Other Anonymous
Anonymous 9:31 said: “Thanks, NAN! I once read an internet blog on Personality Profiling (for protection in on-line dating, so it’s totally appropriate here) and your analysis of TOA deserves repayment in kind. I’ll categorize you in three areas, Personal, Cultural and Societal, which is more than I’ve ever done for LiveChat! Here goes:…”
You might enjoy this:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/therapist.htm
June 20, 2013 at 9:44 pm
Eric Kirk
You’re a lawyer for chrissake…you pulled a fuggin Godwin and you know it, dumbass/ Simply stating that you didn’t doesn’t mean you said it not to mean it. I think the government of the united states is adjectival to nazis, but I don’t mean that as a comparison. I mean that the neo-nazi government is bad, yet any argument to follow should strike the adjective I used from context….???? You’re a joke of your own kind. Bla bla bla…
That people can be so dense never ceases to amaze me. I have to believe it’s by choice.
June 20, 2013 at 9:52 pm
That Other Anonymous
TOA said: “But wait, according to you, the status quo under the existing Framework Plan has already been “carte blanche for developers.”
Cookie replied: “When did I say that?… I think someone else used the term carte blanche.”
Someone else did. And then so did you:
Cookie said (June 18, 2013 at 12:20 pm): “If the plan is following the old Framework Plan, business a usual over the past 20 years, it is carte blanche to the developers, again and still.”
You know, if you didn’t make so may hyperbolic claims, maybe you wouldn’t have such a hard time keeping track of them. Just a suggestion.
June 20, 2013 at 10:05 pm
That Other Anonymous
For “Anonymous”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Something to reflect on. Note the chart on the right hand side, and especially the lowest two categories on that pyramid.
June 21, 2013 at 1:08 am
Democratic Jon
Carte blanche sounds like some crap I would say – what an idiot. I find it little disconcerting tho that quotes are being used over and over again here for their gotcha effect, but what are you going to do? Mayhaps EK isn’t the only lawyer here, TOA seems like he is using this as practice for his next court appearance.
TOA. Your Honor, it is definitely not a blank slate the developers have. There are some rules. I contend Democratic Jon and others using this term must therefor light their pants on fire.
Judge. Case closed! You all are guilty of not only being huge lairs, but also using French *slams gavel*
Democratic Jon. Mercy your Honor.
Also…
Humboldt on the front page of the NYT again today (tomorrow). Any guesses why? Oyster Fest review? DCHCC internal politics? GPU guidelines debacle? Oops, the answer is in the link. That was too easy.
Insomnia tonight, little silly.
June 21, 2013 at 7:27 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
In reference to TOA who makes a valid point, It is ALSO interesting how many “outsiders and their money” get recruited during political campaigns for elections who are connected to those Casinos which are built locally BUT owned by other sovereign nations of people not even classified as American citizens, but live in North America they do. Who are these outsiders? Apparantly, Native American Indigenous people.
No shit,
HOJ
June 21, 2013 at 7:37 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
June 20, 2013 at 11:04 am
That Other Anonymous
Hey, so they finally made it over the 500 name goal for the petition! So will the petition now be forwarded to the Supervisors so we can see how many of those signatures are from actual Humboldt residents? Judging by what I saw the other day (documented above) they’d better wait until they have 600 or 700 signatures if they want to have a better chance that at least 500 of them are actually Humboldt residents. At the current pace that new names are being added, that should only take a few more months.
Response: Here is the TOA post referenced @ 7:27 am as cyber thieves and gremlins must have been harfd at work this am at Java.
Tech gliches, yack
HOJ
June 21, 2013 at 7:48 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Eric states facts at 11:23 am and 11:27 am. Yet, don’t forget about Option D and that PC deliberations concocted a mixture of all options when opining changes or alternatives.
TOA connects “Healthy Humboldt support” to Plan A (as a whole), but in a later post, backtracks to only a single portion of Plan A (FR-P9 is not whole, but in part). It is true that Lovelace LIED, FIBBED, BACKTRACKED TOO on what he previously manipulated people with. Anyone who thinks Mark Lovelace is a “stand-up guy in politics” is vastly mistaken. Mark is not alone though and stands with aid and abetment from the other 4 political spokepersons who have yet to seperate themselves from each other in style and character.
Spoonfed babies,
HOJ
June 21, 2013 at 8:15 am
That Other Anonymous
Democratic Jon,
Thanks for your 1:08 comment, which demonstrated both integrity, and a great sense of humor.
In return, I will note that there have been plenty of flaming pants on the other side of the issue as well, with exaggerated claims calling the opposition “no-growth,” dark, paranoid warnings about county government being captured in secret Agenda 21 conspiracies to round up all rural residents and force them into concentration camps in the cities…or whatever. And yes, yours truly has been known to engage in exaggeration and hyperbole in moments of weakness and/or overenthusiasm, and has the charred legwear to prove it. At the moment, it seems (at least to me) that we’re seeing more smoldering pants over on the side of those who are furious with the direction the current board is going — but that’s to be expected, as whatever side is out of power and feeling frustrated is usually the one that cranks up the rhetorical heat. So there has been plenty of overinflated rhetoric on both sides, no doubt about that — now if only we could harness all that hot air with some kind of hyperbolic generator, we’d have a seemingly inexhaustible source of energy!
As to the New York Times article, there’s a good discussion of it over at the Lost Coast Outpost:
http://lostcoastoutpost.com/2013/jun/20/ny-times-thinks-marijuana-growers-suffer-identity/
June 21, 2013 at 8:19 am
Anonymous
“but that’s to be expected, as whatever side is out of power and feeling frustrated is usually the one that cranks up the rhetorical heat. ”
over a third of all posts and occupying well over half the screenspace….the winner is….TOA!!!!
June 21, 2013 at 8:25 am
Anonymous
So what TRA and proponents of HumCPR keep saying is, the word changes aren’t significant, followed by full on assault style decrees of how important the language of said politics are.
And in ten years, what percentage of the world will be in severe drought?
June 21, 2013 at 8:35 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
During the PC process and hearings, one reference in the “proposed language” at some point in past time involving county “principles and guidelines????”
WAS THAT
population controls were “schemed” into the language, just as some Agenda 21 folks mentioned.
Then, public outrage ensued thereafter and the BLOGS covered-it.
Still can envision the guy at the podium in disbelief that such outrageous language could be submitted for approval.
HOJ laughed because most people were calling the few cooks, but it was the so-called cooks who were precise and accurate.
Funny how blogging arguments, styles and personas have changed over time to match-up with a higher level of competetive discussions, and that some of the former bloggers who were so very deceptive, lost their way and figured they did not want to be exposed for who they really are
BACKSTABBERS,
HOJ
June 21, 2013 at 8:39 am
Anonymous
““Compatible use” is any use which does not significantly detract from the use of the property for, or inhibit, growing and harvesting timber, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the following, unless in a specific instance such a use would be contrary to the preceding definition of compatible use: (1)…(6)A residence or other structure necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production.”
Paved foundation homes? Three acres of “development”? Not necessary whatsoever, in fact cumulatively having a negative effect on the environment (less vegetation = less precipitation, more wells = decreased watershed etc), case closed a very long time ago.
June 21, 2013 at 9:10 am
Democratic Jon
Continued thoughts on the HCDCC…
Here is hillmuffin’s abstract starting, now …
Local Democrats rightfully prioritize issues related to money.
First of all, I’m so glad that EK reprinted my post in full. I thought that had disappeared. Still new to this commenting thing. Also new the productive politics thing as opposed to yelling and shouting while listening to right wing radio. So my usual neophyte caveats remain for now. Also, my thoughts on the HCDCC in no way reflect those of the organization as a whole. Duh, right?
To the post…
1) Erik and anonymous 6/19 3:30. I don’t want to knit pick like everyone else as I appreciate thumbnail sketches – but I think progressive would be a better description than environmentalists. I think they are environmentalists only in the sense that they are progressive from what I’ve seen. Check out the resolutions they’ve made over the past couple of years as an example. Very progressive with a hint of environmentalism. I would count myself and bike-rider extraordinaire with the tag environmentalist over progressive. Small point, but I think there is a difference.
Also, there is a strong progressive voice from all districts. Arcata does get the most Democrats of any of the 5 districts with 6 members, but this is still just 6 of 22. We are all over, mu ha ha *mustache twirl*.
2) To Jim’s point about the Democratic Party and who should be endorsed. I think that is an effective point to use on the campaign trail as it goes to the unfairness of the issue. People will feel the unfairness of that viscerally. Very emotional, and I actually feel it too. That is one of the extreme difficulties of having this new reverse-schism. These are people you like and agree with on many issues.
However, as I’m sure you know as a lifetime and politically active Democrat… (Oh that reminds me – Ambassador Hotel? Holy crap, that is crazy! I think that’s called burying the headline) endorsements are a three step process. First become an active associate member Democrat. Very low bar in true democratic fashion – be a registered Democrat (I think thats how they check) – for a certain amount of time and then get voted in. These votes are a formality. I was voted in for example and I don’t think anyone knew anything about me. Second step is to become a member of the HCDCC. You do this buy winning an election of registered Democrats. Third, these members then decide on endorsements – majority rules.
That’s the process, I’m sure you are aware, I wrote that not for your sake but for context for those who might not know. And I agree with anonymous 6/19 3:30 it’s a simple system that probably accounts for the Democrats being around for so long. It is also, btw, why I am girding for a struggle going forward.
Having said that I will admit I just happened to read this am that prominent in Article 1 of our by laws…
1.2 Purposes: The purposes of This Committee are:
(c) To support actively Democratic candidates for elective office;
but, just as prominent in our platform…
Adopted February 21, 2006
I. Democracy and Participation
We believe that…
A. Our democracy must be based on:
Honest, transparent government with a reliable and verifiable voting process.
Equal access to the political process for all members of the community.
3) I think that is where the rub is with Supervisor Fennell and possibly my new friend Supervisor Bass too. It’s a question of whose interests are you voting for – your constituents or your donors. IMHO those HCDCC members where balancing those two principles when voting for Estelle’s endorsement. It’s a really tough call especially when you know the people involved as friends.
Like EK said it is not personal. I think you know that and your dismay at Mr. Salzman’s comment was more emotional than rational. I think his obviously light hearted remark holds water though. Estelle is walking a fine line on the dark side of politics. I don’t want to question her motives, that is not my job. Sometimes though, the proof is in the pudding. It’s just something everybody knows.
I’ll refer again (I think) to the gentleman in red who started off the public comment period of the guidelines portion of the June 3rd BOS meeting by saying “we voted the four of you in now do your job”. BTW, I’m not sure if this is what he meant, but he seems to think he will now be able to build a sea side restaurant or something like that on his property? I don’t know. Another data point in my suspicion is that the one exception that both you and TOA concede to Estelle’s progressiveness (which I agree with btw) – land/development/property rights issues – happens to be the progressive principle most financially lucrative to abandon in this area. Also, I would argue that issue surrounding the GPU are the most politically significant and charged issue that Supervisors have or will face over the past decade (s?). Finally, Estelle isn’t taking a moderate stance on the GPU, she appears to be to the right of Supervisor Bohn based on her tone and votes during much of the GPU proceedings (possible exaggeration). Neither Rex nor Supervisor Sunberg had to step up much at all during last week’s meeting, she took the lead for the right on this issue. Thus allowing the consensus that TOA touts.
Also, to another one of TOA’s points. This fine line that Estelle is walking invites those unsubstantiated narratives others are writing. I do not condone people to make things up or passing on rumors -personally, I do not digest gossip. However, those points of interest I mentioned above give credence to what may be completely spurious narratives. As I’ve mentioned before this is why it is so crucial to have either a working press – which is impossible in such a small market, or a strong two-party system. Otherwise we are doomed to be a county where everyone is a Democrat and corruption is just part of politics. (Like Philadelphia or Pittsburgh or somewhere according to “On the Media” last week)
For the record, if I lived in Chris Dodd’s district or any other Democrat that takes advantage of their position in government to aid organizations largely opposed to democratic ideals for personal gain, I would not vote for him/her either. Money in politics is something the Democrats need to adamantly stand against.
I think that distinction where the Democratic Party did not endorse is important going forward for our Party. It is a hook we can hang our hat on to show liberal members of our Party that all is not lost – keep voting and please don’t go Green. Many of the younger voters today may not have been old enough to have digested the lessons of Bush v Gore.
Remember, it will be the Democrats who are responsible for any changes in the GPU. Not to mention that they will be responsible for the incredibly undemocratic method the mission statement of the GPU was originally straw voted (that will change as there has been too much public outcry).
Again, apologies to hillmuffin,
Dangerous combination of the muse and something to say.
June 21, 2013 at 9:13 am
Cookie
TOA, I forgot I had said that. I think I saw someone else use the term so I did too. It was after that I started the term de facto rural residential. Which is closer to the reality of what the BOS/Estelle had done with the changes to the GPU. Sorry I forgot. I don’t keep track of what I say. Glad to see that you are TOA.
As for the question you asked why hasn’t Barnum developed his “crap load of TPZ”. I believe it was because of Roger Rodoni, the BOS, planning commission, and the citizenry of Humboldt and the General Plan. Not sub dividing large parcels of land was a passion of Rogers. Not having all of Humboldt look like Rancho Sequoia is important. I believe the sub dividing of land was one of the reasons Roger won as BOS. Now with this BOS, and the de facto rural residential status of TPZ land, well, I guess we’ll see. Good bye rural lifestyle as we know it.
June 21, 2013 at 9:37 am
Democratic Jon
I appreciate that link TOA and the kind words. Interesting conversation over there. Another fun fact, either 1st or 2nd time “SoHum” used in the NYT ever according to an archive search on their site. Few mentions over the years – especially the late 1800’s and early 1900’s as names. Are we going to change the name to SoHum Parlance? How long till “SoHum” or “Sohum” makes it to the OED. Also that annoying sohum yoga place in France always comes up first in my Google searches necessitating more mouse movement. So frustrating! Also, correction – I ENDEAVOR not to digest gossip.
June 21, 2013 at 9:42 am
That Other Anonymous
“Now with this BOS, and the de facto rural residential status of TPZ land..”
If this were true, you might have a point. Since it isn’t, you don’t. For what seems like the umpteenth time, I invite you to read the actual wording of the GPU’s Forest Resources section as it’s being discussed and voted on in recent straw votes. I have provided the link to the document above.
They are not making it easier to subdivide TPZ lands. Continued claims that the current BOS is turning TPZ into “de facto rural residential,” and that they’re pushing for easier subdivision of our rural lands — claims being made despite plenty of readily available evidence to the contrary, are just as false as claims that the old General Plan, or for that matter the way the new one is shaping up, amounts to “carte blanche for developers.”
June 21, 2013 at 9:48 am
That Other Anonymous
“So what TRA and proponents of HumCPR keep saying is, the word changes aren’t significant, followed by full on assault style decrees of how important the language of said politics are.”
What I’m saying is that the wording changes in the Guiding Principles are being over-interpreted and their meaning is being exaggerated, and that in any event the language there is not anywhere near as relevant to what actually happens “on the ground” as the actual wording in the specific goals, policies, and implementation measures contained within the body of the GPU. Just like the actual provisions of any law are usually a whole lot more important, on a practical basis, than the lofty wording of the law’s preamble. You don’t get arrested on the basis of a preamble, you get arrested based on the actual, specific provisions of the law.
June 21, 2013 at 9:50 am
Democratic Jon
Oops again, lots of mistakes in that last post – especially grammatical. It’s ok though right? Its the comment zone. The bike rider I was referring to is (former) Mayor Michael Winkler.
June 21, 2013 at 9:57 am
That Other Anonymous
Democratic Jon,
I wouldn’t hold my breath on the OED thing. But we might be able to at least get the meaning of SoHum as Southern Humboldt into the Urban Dictionary. At the moment, the proposed meanings aren’t real favorable:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sohum
And by the way, while it’s best not to swallow gossip in the first place, we all do from time to time, and at that point it may actually be better to “digest” that gossip, as opposed to the other alternative — regurgitating it.
😉
Anyway, wanted say again that I’m appreciating your style, and looking forward to more conversations in the future.
June 21, 2013 at 10:19 am
That Other Anonymous
Demomcratic Jon said: “Estelle isn’t taking a moderate stance on the GPU, she appears to be to the right of Supervisor Bohn based on her tone and votes during much of the GPU proceedings (possible exaggeration). Neither Rex nor Supervisor Sunberg had to step up much at all during last week’s meeting, she took the lead for the right on this issue. Thus allowing the consensus that TOA touts.”
Well of course I disagree that her stance isn’t moderate, but I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on labels, and perhaps instead speak to specific facts? What specific policies did she support or oppose in that meeting that you don’t agree with.
And I think you may have misunderstood my point about “consensus.” I wasn’t touting the consensus among just the majority, I was pointing out that on many items — including the language on FR-P9, the section on TPZ residences — there was consensus among all 5 supervisors, including Lovelace. And on many other issues, there was only minor disagreement.
There appears to be a true consensus, for example, against making it easier to subdivide TPZ parcels. This is no surprise to me, because it’s seemed pretty clear to me all along that claims that the new board majority were going to throw the door wide open to the wholesale subdivision of our TPZ land, were simply unfounded, simply false claims. If you watched the Supervisor’s discussion of this issue the other day, it would be pretty much impossible to continue to believe that’s what they’re aiming to do.
Now I haven’t seen all the straw voting on every section of the GPU that they’ve reviewed in this round (since Bohn and Fennell joined the board), and maybe it’s been quite different in some of the other sections. But I did listen pretty closely to both the recent meetings dealing with the Forest Resources section, and have reviewed the language of the provisions that were approved in the straw votes on the night of the 3rd, and what I heard in the deliberations, and saw in the outcomes was — especially on some of the most important policies — way, way more agreement than disagreement. And, again, I’m not just talking about agreement between Bohn, Bass, Sundberg and Fennell, I’m talking about agreement between all members of the board, including Lovelace, on a fair number of important items — and relatively small disagreements on many others.
It just isn’t anything like the “4 right-wing pro-developer radicals vs. 1 environmentalist” scenario that some are trying to portray. Not even close.
June 21, 2013 at 10:36 am
Cookie
“There appears to be a true consensus, for example, against making it easier to subdivide TPZ parcels.”
If I remember correctly there was no straw vote when it came to the TPZ issue. I believe this is because of all the flak the BOS got on Estelles re written GP section. So for now the consensus is only talk. Just like Estelle talked about the necessity for time and space for community in put, then voted no when asked for more time for community in put. Actions speak louder than words.
June 21, 2013 at 10:40 am
Anonymous
My appologies, TOA, for coming across as brash in earlier posts. I assure you I was being partly sarcastic and primarily drunk. You bring a lot to the discussion. In fact, you bring so much to the discussion it’s like another discussion has taken precedence altogether! Your breath smells lovely as well. In any event, you wrote:
“in any event the language there is not anywhere near as relevant to what actually happens “on the ground” as the actual wording in the specific goals, policies, and implementation measures contained within the body of the GPU.”
.,..and here is the language: ““Compatible use” is any use which does not significantly detract from the use of the property for, or inhibit, growing and harvesting timber, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the following, unless in a specific instance such a use would be contrary to the preceding definition of compatible use: (1)…(6)A residence or other structure necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production.”
…and “on the ground”…Paved foundation homes? Three acres of “development”? Not necessary whatsoever to maintain TPZ, in fact having a negative effect on the environment thus production (less vegetation = less precipitation, more wells = decreased watershed etc etc etc), cumulatively even moreso…case closed a very long time ago.
June 21, 2013 at 10:50 am
Anonymous
Democrat Jon…just kidding, I know you place importance on the suffix! ROTFLMAO!!! Your thoughts are fascinating on this and all subjects you comment on, as well is appreciated your concise consistency. Anywhoozle…You have politely taken the time to communicate the following to all, be we plebe or pro:
Democrat Jon says “”Also that annoying sohum yoga place in France always comes up first in my Google searches necessitating more mouse movement. So frustrating!””
I know how much that sucks!!! IT’s like when you’re looking for doggystyle porn but all the videos turn out to be anal sex! That’s just not the same thing! I onlyhave so much time to myself over here!!! Me thinketh you’re retarded!!!!!!!!! OH Snap! My wireless mouse is running out of juice! Today was almost perfect!!!!!!! LOLOLOL!!!! Peace be with you, my dear friend.
June 21, 2013 at 11:34 am
That Other Anonymous
“If I remember correctly there was no straw vote when it came to the TPZ issue”
Well there certainly were straw votes on TPZ issues, including on FR-P9, the section on TPZ residences. But if you were referring to the policy on the subdivision of TPZ parcels, you are correct, they didn’t finish the discussion and hold the straw vote it yet. I believe it’s supposed to be on the agenda for the next meeting.
If, as I expect (but concede that I cannot guarantee) they do go ahead and follow through on their very clear statements as expressed at the most recent meeting, and their straw vote reflects that apparent consensus to prevent easier subdividing of TPZ parcels I hope you take note and adjust your rhetoric appropriately. If not, you can expect me to point it out.
Likewise, if it turns out that their statements at the last meeting were indeed “all talk,” and they do go ahead and throw the doors wide open for subdividing TPZ parcels, it will be entirely fair for you to point that out. So we’ll see what happens, and let the chips fall where they may.
June 21, 2013 at 11:57 am
That Other Anonymous
“My appologies, TOA, for coming across as brash in earlier posts. I assure you I was being partly sarcastic and primarily drunk. You bring a lot to the discussion. In fact, you bring so much to the discussion it’s like another discussion has taken precedence altogether! Your breath smells lovely as well.”
Thanks for the change in tone. I appreciate the humor, especially the self-depracating part you aimed at yourself, but even the mildly mocking part that comes at my expense. (Actually, those are the two kinds of humor I like the best — no need to feel guilty that the joke is at someone else’s expense).
…”and ‘on the ground’…Paved foundation homes? Three acres of “development”? Not necessary whatsoever to maintain TPZ, in fact having a negative effect on the environment thus production (less vegetation = less precipitation, more wells = decreased watershed etc etc etc), cumulatively even moreso…case closed a very long time ago. ”
Well, if you really view it as “case closed” that implies you’re not really interested in any dissenting views, which is part of why I didn’t bother trying to address it before. But since you’ve now repeated this passage several times, it’s a bit of a mixed message, and now I’m thinking maybe you are open to a discussion. If so, let me know. A few points I might elaborate on are that the 3 acres of development don’t mean “anything goes” on those three acres, that there are ways to mitigate watershed impacts, like storing more winter water rather than withdrawing it during the dry season, and that many of our local rural residents have done, and are continuing to do, significant forest restoration work and with the right incentives and removal of roadblocks, more could be. So in my view, it’s not nearly as simple a situation as every rural residence automatically making the situation in the watershed worse.
And, by the way, I’ve spent, and continue to spend, lots of time out in rural Humboldt — and from what I’ve seen, most of the homesites are in existing clearings. So even the footprint of the house, shed, greenhouse, or whatever, is usually not displacing forest. In those cases it’s displacing mostly grass and other low ground cover, and in many cases the homesteader actually plants more trees than they remove. If you’re interested in discussing these specifics, and others, I’m game. But if it’s a matter “case closed” and you’re just looking to repeat your broad claim without being contradicted and without delving into the details, that’s fine too. I guess I’ll wait and see how you respond before investing a lot more effort in my own response.
June 21, 2013 at 1:03 pm
Anonymous
”
without being contradicted and without delving into the details, ”
3 acres developed in a TPZ is no longer a TPZ. Details beyond that obvious fact: paved foundations, wells, residential traffic, urban ammenities and the entire future of such activities is, in complete and absolute fact, harmful to the environment and cumulatively exponentially moreso, and generationally is all that begat the problems of the changing climate in teh first place.
You neglect to seriously address the future of natural resources as well as financial resources except to sarcastically claim the pacific northwest will continue to be deluged wtih a shit ton of rain. You neglect to seriously address the future of financial resources. You neglect to seriously address the growing population within TPZ residence. You neglect to seriously address who has put what on the table concerning the devgelopment specifically, namely the financial interests of Lee Ulansey, the completely misleading information they’ve circulated to the public about their goals, etc etc etc etc etc. You have written paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of nit-picking wordage only to refute the importance of wordage when convenient to your argument. You are a very fucked up individual and if this were my blog I’d just ban your ass perma-style, as I keep looking, hoping that somebody else has chimed in but who would care to at this point, just like the HH intelligence has been successfully replaced by totally tangent bullshit. (you know waht HH stands for, right? Of course you do, yo’re a career blogger). The argument to allow new construction in undeveloped areas is about “property rights”…bullshit. It’s about money. The argument to allow new constructin in undeveloped areas is about “choice”…bullshit, it’s about money. The effects of new construction in undeveloped areas speak for themselves. They are blight. At some point the insanity has to be seen for what it is and it needs to be stopped by real life human beings, just as real life human beings are making hundreds of millions of dollars every year at everybody’s expense. And there’s eric who says “people say judy hodgson is pro-arkley”…based on the blather of people like yourself and perhaps ten people he genuilnely associates with in those regards. You could walk around town all day mentioning judy, be lucky if one of every thousand people know who she is let alone what she does. The reality has been lost in the discussion. The material world isn’t a blog headline. The land and the climate are changing and it is within our jurisdiction to prevent real estate profiteers from doing to humboldt county what has fucked up way too much of the nation already. Today we look back in contempt, and nothing is changing within the status quo. It’s PAINFULLY obvious what’s in store for the future.
Crisis is constantly precipitating change, because natural precipitation is constanly in crisis. And your argument amounts that in the future, we can all drink from the emperor’s new water supply! Because the rain will just keep on falling. Those damn marijuana growers have already caused the upper klamath basin to be off limits, and Los Angeles is constantly demanding we export more water because of all the damn marijuana growers down there. And all those damn marijuana growers in napa grow so much water they can also water tens of thousands of acres of vinyards. It’s a lucid snafu that no amount of touchy feely “everything’s gonna be alright” talk will change unless and until the cause and effects are seriously dealt with.
You, That Reasonable Anonymous aka That Other Anonymous, are an idiot.
Talk of how things need to change, existing urbanization needs to be severely revamped and existing areas of open space need to be left alone to do as the living planet does: keep everything and everybody alive. Lord knows they’re not dealing with it as much as they need to in china! Alla be praised it’s not happening in the middle east! Ubuntu Kwanzaa, south america isn’t slowing their roll. And in the US, real estate moguls have worked their way into Humboldt County’s government and are attempting to make millions of dollars through new contruction. It’s a very very very stupid thing to allow.
June 21, 2013 at 1:28 pm
Cookie
Amen.
June 21, 2013 at 1:33 pm
Cookie
Drought Causes River Levels to Drop to Near Record Lows. Northern California is currently experiencing a moderate drought but much of Humboldt County is now reaching severe drought conditions. While rainfalls were above normal at the beginning of the rainy season during November and December, the rest of the season was very dry. As a consequence, area rivers and streams are near record lows.
According to Reg Kennedy, a hydrologist with the National Weather Service in Eureka, “The streams are running low mainly because of our below level precipitation, January through May.” This is effecting the flow of several rivers. Kennedy explained, “Bridgeville is one of the lowest ones…. The Van Duzen is running really low…. It is almost like we are in the month of July…We could really see extremely low flows by August. The snow that feeds the rivers is pretty much done for. Some rivers could increase flows by using reservoirs but rivers like the Van Duzen don’t have any reserves to draw on. Basically it is going to be low all summer.”
The waterflow of the Eel River at Scotia, though not close to the record low set in 1924, is also at levels usually seen only in the later half of the next month. The Eel River at Miranda is at levels normally seen only in very late July.
Redwood Creek near Blue Lake is flowing at 18 cubic feet per second only one foot off its minimum set in 2001. Again the water flows at levels usually only seen in late July. The Trinity River at Hoopa is also at late July levels.
June 21, 2013 at 1:38 pm
hillmuffin
hey TOA…
yes there are a lot of overeducated people out here in the hills…
how smart are you, really?
can you tell us in 9 words or less why Estelle is a good supervisor?
cut to the chase, man…
(same question to you Longwind…)
June 21, 2013 at 6:54 pm
That Other Anonymous
“Can you tell us in 9 words or less why Estelle is a good supervisor?”
She represents her constituents well.
That took only five. Are you happy now?
June 21, 2013 at 7:02 pm
That Other Anonymous
Anon 1:03,
That’s quite a rant. Hope you enjoyed writing it as much as I enjoyed reading it.
SInce I’m a “very fucked up individual,” and an “idiot,” and ought to be “banned,” I guess there’s no point in responding, because clearly you’re not interested in any kind of discussion, you’re just interested in ranting, scolding, and name-calling. Not surprisingly, you’ve got a fan in Cookie.
Maybe you should start your own blog (it’s free you know) where people with views like mine are banned, and you and Cookie can just hang out with those who already totally agree with you, spew sweeping generalizations and sky-is-falling hyperbole, and pat each other on the back. Judging by your contributions here, that seems to be what you’re looking for.
June 21, 2013 at 8:42 pm
Anonymous
We don’t need public process anymore. Everyone knows what the public wants. The people have spoken! And now they should shut up and let Estelle do what she wants.
Err. What the people want. Because that’s what she wants.
June 22, 2013 at 8:37 am
Cookie
“She represents her constituents well” NOT.
.
Would that be the constituents from Eureka that bank rolled her campaign?
She does not represent me or the rural lifestyle I know, love and cherish.
June 22, 2013 at 9:42 am
Democratic Jon
Anon 6/21 10:50.
Can’t use -ic? I see where you’re coming from. (TM)
and it’s nine words! zing.
Also, really? Guess I’m not going to invite my mom to check out Sohum Parlance. That’s a shame.
June 22, 2013 at 10:22 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
TOA’s last paragraph @ 11:57 am on June 21st is beautiful in form here below,
And, by the way, I’ve spent, and continue to spend, lots of time out in rural Humboldt — and from what I’ve seen, most of the homesites are in existing clearings. So even the footprint of the house, shed, greenhouse, or whatever, is usually not displacing forest. In those cases it’s displacing mostly grass and other low ground cover, and in many cases the homesteader actually plants more trees than they remove. If you’re interested in discussing these specifics, and others, I’m game. But if it’s a matter “case closed” and you’re just looking to repeat your broad claim without being contradicted and without delving into the details, that’s fine too. I guess I’ll wait and see how you respond before investing a lot more effort in my own response.
My Response: Equally applicable reasoning for the marijuana culture too, and both may or may not practice with the uses of chemical agents in its production to harvest model.
No joke,
HOJ
June 22, 2013 at 11:19 am
Democratic Jon
Longwind (from 6/18)-
Sorry this response took so long, I was distracted by life and other posts and needed some cool-down time to be more constructive.
I defer to you and your knowledge and expertise on the history. I think though, if I would have had the time or motivation to spend on paying more attention (I’ve been here since 2002 ish) I probably would still disagree with you as vehemently as I do, so I think it is kinda moot.
Having deferred on that point, I wonder if you would defer your dais-like position of categorizing and ignoring people and narrative because as a developer, you have a vested interest in the outcome of this civic debate. I’m not asking you to recuse yourself from the conversation, just approach it so we can be equals. Kinda like one person, one vote.
Of course on all things GPU this is not the case. Developers and property owners have only one vote like the rest of us, but they get to also influence others with money and power. Whether that is directly with jobs up and down the developer/property owner complex or indirectly by an aggressive multi-level influencing campaign, people with vested interests in all things GPU do have an upper hand in controlling narrative.
I know a good argument could be made from your position too that the left on this issue has money coming in from local environmental groups, vested governmental agencies (I guess), intellectual elites from HSU, etc., (not to mention the U.N. and George Soros) (couldn’t help it).
I would discount that argument, I don’t think it is equivalent as these groups are not coming from a position of self-interest, but instead with a community or civic perspective.
I know you are not going to agree, but this is my way of politely appeal for a a conversation. If you are going to ignore Judy completely and contend that Supervisor L. is the Svengali-like leader of duped Arcata elitists (not to mention “the place I mean to put you” – why thank you Longwind, this is a nice place), then a meaningful conversation ends and it becomes a shouting match. Which is ultimately, probably the point, right?
I hope going forward you continue to engage, I do appreciate your interaction and you point of view – especially as a developer. Most would, or seem to,hide behind the CPR’s deriding opponent’s position as radical and be done with it. I do wish we could engage constructively though.
Also, I don’t know what 3 memes your talking about – let me know again and I’ll respond. As for Mark’s Planner’s urbanization comments – I’m not sure how that connection to Mark works as 1) Mark isn’t an executive (didn’t pick him on his own), 2) the Planning Commisioner’s words are his own, not Marks and 3) I would like to here is point of view on what he meant. I’m sure it has a less provocative meaning in context. (ie to me it seems like you are pulling a TOA gotcha with this one).
Finally, what is this non-conservative myopic group you helped start? Inquiring minds and all that.
June 22, 2013 at 12:20 pm
Cookie
“And, by the way, I’ve spent, and continue to spend, lots of time out in rural Humboldt — and from what I’ve seen, most of the homesites are in existing clearings. ”
TOA, this is very true. Especially with land that Bob McKee sub divides and then develops/sells. He cuts as many sell-able trees as he can before he sells the land. More profit. Sell trees, sell land. Did it at Seely Creek, Perry Meadow, the community park, etc. So some/most of the existing clearings are not due to “meadows”.
June 22, 2013 at 2:36 pm
longwind
Jon, it’s bad for my manners and morals to keep repeating things I’ve iterated beyond counting for years beyond caring. This isn’t your fault; though it would become you to read what’s just been written before asking me to write them again. TOA and I both told you I’m not a developer; I’ve twice listed 3 leading lie-memes of your cohorts already in this thread; I don’t enjoy having to repeat such monotonous basics as the out-of-state funding of what you call local environmental groups; and etc.
I thank God for the electrons TOA plays upon, and commend you to his industrious graces. I realize you feel I should listen to you attentively as you recite the rosary of accusations debated and debunked by so many voices for so many years; someone has to keep investing in this endless dialog of the deaf, but with no offense intended, I’ll just have a nice day, thanks.
For future reference, you make an unpleasant invitation to rake between mistakes of fact (eg Mark does appoint his own Commissioner) and mistakes of tact (eg do you really think I get out of bed in the morning hoping to spend the day shouting with you?), all in a solicitous voice that’s perhaps no more constipated by cross-purposes than my own. Judy deeply offends me with her keenings that inspire assassination threats and rabid discourse. If you’ve been here 11 years, and you don’t even know who and what Faust is, let alone Judy, you’re unlikely to learn much from me, nor I from you. Let’s enjoy the rain!
June 22, 2013 at 7:21 pm
Democratic Jon
Oh, I misread that sentence a hundred times. I thought it read “I’m a developer not a contractor.” I guess that’s an example of seeing what you want to see.
As my penance I’ll go back, try to find those 3 memes and study up on Mark’s commissioner. Will it be difference in kind or degrees to the appointment of former HumCPR staff to public positions? For the record, I will not subject myself to a careful reading of TOA’s filibusters. That would just be cruel and unusual.
As I go back and do this, how much of it is going to be disingenuous baloney like connecting Judy’s article or voice with the despicable assassination threats? You have super-human communication skills, I wish they were not so self-serving.
You also nailed me on solicitous I think. It’s not one of my everyday words but Google says “eager and anxious” and I’ll own up to that on our exurb and suburb pattern of development. I think planning for development is best done by the public sector retaining a strong hand in development concerns until the private sector can get serious about the future. Your earlier pejorative SmartWorld will work too. I look to the Danes for an example of what I’m talking about. We need to increase – not work back- the public’s influence in sculpting our lands in a sustainable way for the future – and the GPU seems to be the best hope toward that goal.
If Supervisor L. played some political maneuver, I think that is par for course in politics. I am not shocked. The thing people forget is that what he does and the rest of the board for that matter is in public. That is what is so great about it. That means people who care about stuff get to judge and vote to change things if we like. In the private sector, not so much. I know I’m fighting an uphill battle here given our current national conversation regarding public v private not to mention our myopic and potentially disastrous 70 year record of development, but we’ll figure it out.
Apologies if that last thought is considered fear mongering, I just consider it it the truth.
I’m fighting for an open and honest conversation. If we can achieve that things will eventually work out. That tends to be America’s record for the most part. We’ll make some horrible blunders, but we seem to be heading in the right direction.
Did you watch that Mother Jones video that the NYT linked to? The denuded mountain top grow sites and scar-like roads are depressing beyond words – do you agree?
June 22, 2013 at 7:57 pm
That Other Anonymous
“For the record, I will not subject myself to a careful reading of TOA’s filibusters.”
Not filibustering, nor playing “gotcha,” but citing facts and offering my opinions. By the way, your posts aren’t exactly a model of conciseness either — but I’ve read them and answered you civilly. If you can’t be troubled to read what I have to say, and simply seek to dismiss me with insults, why should I bother considering what you have to say? I guess maybe I shouldn’t?
June 23, 2013 at 6:54 am
Democratic Jon
TOA
1) reread my quoted sentence carefully (hint) then read your 3rd sentence. Using just the facts, if you still agree with yourself, then I will debate it further with you in another forum. Point me to your blog or create one and I’ll happily debate it there. I don’t want to bother these nice people in minutia.
2) thank you for using the word “gotcha” to illustrate my point of gotcha techniques. I appreciate the symmetry.
3) If you want to persuade people of the truthfulness of you position I recommend not using the word fact so often. I find there is an inverse relationship between the usage of the words truth or fact and the actual truthfulness of what is being said. If you are reliable, people will get the idea on their own. See also…Fair and Balanced, Glenn Beck’s Real News, ad infinitum
4) I hate that you are making me use Longwind’s tone, but to be civil you don’t have to be ingratiating.
Moving forward…
a) A filibuster not only is lengthy, but it connotes speech without purpose. Could you have made the same point about the online petition in 9 or possibly 18 words?
BTW, the Republicans have converted what was once a procedure used infrequently to convert the Senate from majority rule to 60 % rule. IMHO it is one of the most prominent (of many) abuses of procedure that they use to prevent the government and democracy from working smoothly. As an added bonus they can then go about campaigning again on how badly the government runs. It’s a great boondoggle until people catch on.
b) On the same subject of Government – for or against?… I find this whole conversation about the BOS so strange. You didn’t seem to disagree with my contention that Supervisor Lovelace arguably knew more about the GPU universe than anyone else in the room last week (or did you? I forget). Isn’t that what we should be striving for? A BOS that can argue for the County’s position against lawyers or specialists from large private concerns? You were at or watch the June 17th meeting. Were you not concerned with the authority that the Working Resources Lands Guy was given? It seemed so strange to me.
c) Finally, on our great moment of agreement – the critical nature of the distribution of wealth in this country. You mentioned that Supervisor Fennell would probably also believe this is true. Do you think she used her opportunity to speak to the local Tea Party a couple of months ago how important a stronger progressive tax system would be. What about global warming? I wasn’t there, but I’m going to guess no. If you know better and she was a firebrand for democratic values, then I would gladly set my pants on fire again.
d) One more thing. While we are speaking civilly about the nuances of the GPU, when/if I do a careful reading of the GPU, we agree that this sounds fair, that doesn’t, what does that matter? We are not lawyers (at least I’m not). The GPU will be a document that will be much more important for all the law stuff that happens not for nice people in a chat room who agree to this or that trade that provision for this provision, etc. I’ve tried to make my point over the past couple of weeks why I think strong regional planning should be a part of the GPU. The only place an amateur with limited time can approach this subject is the guiding principles – the mission statement as Judy called it. This is where law and layperson can meet. What do you think about Estelle’s changes? Are they significant? Will they help or hinder our ability to promote a sustainable pattern of growth. Was there a great opportunity lost?
e) Can’t help myself, one more… Longwind’s prose makes much more sense with a little clue from Cookie. Fact or not I don’t know, but its a narrative that works and helps me understand the lay of the land. I still have no idea what your point is other than Estelle is awesome. I agree she is an awesome person, but her politics are at best deeply contradictory. What is the point other than defending Estelle against all comers? Is there any context there? What is your dog in the fight? After all context helps for a civil discussion, no?
f) On review, I guess I just consolidated my two weeks of ramblings into nine words…I’ll repeat them for hillmuffin.
The GPU should include proactive sustainable regional planning. Zing.
Here’s to obsessive/compulsives – the last ones standing in the comment zone – cheers and happy Sunday.
June 23, 2013 at 8:47 am
longwind
” “And, by the way, I’ve spent, and continue to spend, lots of time out in rural Humboldt — and from what I’ve seen, most of the homesites are in existing clearings. ”
TOA, this is very true. Especially with land that Bob McKee sub divides and then develops/sells. He cuts as many sell-able trees as he can before he sells the land. More profit. Sell trees, sell land. Did it at Seely Creek, Perry Meadow, the community park, etc. So some/most of the existing clearings are not due to “meadows”.”
Stone cold wrong, Cookie. Bob skimmed whatever merchantable timber was left on marginal cattle ranches. What that meant was plucking out firs standing without low branches in the mixed-conifer/hardwood forests surrounding them, and us. It was selective skimming throughout–that’s why the land remained beautiful when he subdivided, often shortly after two rounds of logging. I thought you’ve been hear longer than to make up such elementary misinformation. Look at doug-fir forests. Go find one that’s monocrop naturally. They don’t exist. And please note how your made-up non-facts get absorbed into unfactual narratives amidst protests against over-use of the word ‘fact.’ Facts are actually important.
For addition grins, go read the blog comments to Judy’s screed last week at the NCJ website. Note the censorship that redacted Jean Doran’s ravings on assassination, then her denying what she said, then the censorship of her denial because it contradicted basics facts readers had just read. Then consider the spate of death threats following Judy’s article that two Supervisors mentioned after her ravings went public. Then decide whether you want to learn anything, or just insult anything you don’t like, and jack up the rage when reason runs out. Ask yourself why you would do this, when you could be enjoying the rain?
June 23, 2013 at 10:20 am
Just Watchin
democrat jon…… you make it sound like the filibuster is exclusive to the Republican Party. If you research the history of the filibuster, try to take your own advice and only “see what you want to see”. Typical libtard.
June 23, 2013 at 10:25 am
Democratic Jon
longwind. I agree with you completely on that. Full Stop. Narrative extirpated.
Also agree on the importance of facts – thank you for your precise summation of my argument.
Am I proud or a little saddened to be make the invisible third person list, not sure. Passionate (but rage-free) non-agreements follow after some garden work.
Oh yeah, if you can deign to address the lowly unwashed urban Mark-o-phile. What was up with the Faust comment? You got it, totally over my head. I’m a left brainer and pretty inept in all things literature. I thought my friends were the ones calling you evil? I’m confused, after you dry off from the rain can you let me know?
June 23, 2013 at 11:11 am
Cookie
Democratic Jon, Ralph Faust was a planning commissioner. Check it out. Then you will see all the connections of Mark Lovelace and beyond.
June 23, 2013 at 11:17 am
Democratic Jon
Jay Dubs, you’re back!
I do know the history. Democrat’s are not saints either. But the ledger of clotures definitely weights heavier on the Republicans. During the Obama years it has been at record highs.
Have I written this before? When I think of politics, I think of the symbol for Tao, that black and white symbol with each side having a little of the other in it. No party is blameless, and once a tradition is broken, all hell is going to break lose. That’s what has happened since the early seventies. Thankfully the Democrats lowered the filibuster to 60 total votes in the mid-seventies or we would not have Obama Care. Could you get your Republican friends to vote to bring it down to 55? I bet we could muster up enough Democratic support.
Here’s a good summary on the filibuster or they say more accurately should be called the ’60 vote requirement’. Even though it is from a lib**** site, it seems pretty fair.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-history-of-the-filibuster-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html
Me and the rats really got to get to the garden now. Peace out.
June 23, 2013 at 11:32 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Longwind on Facts,
Now, the media is saying that questions regarding the truth of TWA Flight 800 may not be the facts as we know them.
Fact = Truth, Truth = Fact
Turth can’t be “what we know as fact” , and vice versa….fact is fact and truth is truth and they both are the same, nothing more, nothing less. Truth is fact, nothing more, nothing less. Often what is passed-off as fact is hyperbolic rhetoric molded into what people want to believe…….hence 911, still.
If it changes, then it was not fact.
Enjoyed that response of yours,
HOJ
June 23, 2013 at 11:48 am
Janelle Egger
“it’s bad for my manners and morals to keep repeating things I’ve iterated beyond counting for years beyond caring. ”
longwind, Perhaps you could briefly summarize your thoughts on the changes to the Guiding Principals and the perfectly legal process used to change it?
June 23, 2013 at 12:17 pm
suzy blah blah
-a description of the truth isn’t the same thing as the truth.
June 23, 2013 at 1:12 pm
That Other Anonymous
Democratic Jon said:
“1) reread my quoted sentence carefully (hint) then read your 3rd sentence. Using just the facts, if you still agree with yourself, then I will debate it further with you in another forum. Point me to your blog or create one and I’ll happily debate it there. I don’t want to bother these nice people in minutia.”
I did as you asked (read your quoted text, and my third sentence), but I don’t understand what you’re hinting at. Perhaps you could just make your point explicitly rather than hinting at it mysteriously.
I don’t get the second part either. You say you’d be happy to debate elsewhere, and don’t want to bother “these nice people here” with “minutae.” And then you go on to make 9 numbered and lettered points, some of which seem quite “minute.” Am I supposed to respond to your points here, or am I supposed to start a blog of my own to do so? I’m getting mixed messages from you here. If what you wanted was to just make your points and have them stand unchallenged, then you may simply skip the rest of this message and we’ll leave it at that.
“2) thank you for using the word “gotcha” to illustrate my point of gotcha techniques. I appreciate the symmetry.”
Do you see how your item #2 also comes off a lot like a “gotcha?” As does this reply? We could go into an endless loop here. But I submit that very little of what I have written in this thread amounts to meaningless “gotcha” statements. If someone zings someone else for some little mistake that has no real importance to what is being discussed, that’s what I consider a meaningless “gotcha” statement. But simply refuting someone else’s argument successfully, and quoting them as part of that, doesn’t make it a meaningless “gotcha.” Sometimes people make poorly reasoned, and/or factually inaccurate arguments, and are called out on those and their point is effectively refuted. Dismissing the response as a “gotcha” does not negate the refutation, it simply dodges it.
“3) If you want to persuade people of the truthfulness of you position I recommend not using the word fact so often. I find there is an inverse relationship between the usage of the words truth or fact and the actual truthfulness of what is being said.”
That’s certainly true in many cases, but I’m sure you would agree that it doesn’t follow that the use of the words “fact” or “factual” automatically means that what is being said isn’t a fact (any more than it automatically means that what is being said IS a fact). If you have an example where I said that something was a fact, and you think it isn’t, then go ahead and point it out. Otherwise, it seems like you are trying to avoid discussing facts, as opposed to debating what is and isn’t factual.
“A filibuster not only is lengthy, but it connotes speech without purpose.”
Actually, it connotes speech that has a specific purpose — to use up time. That is not my purpose, just an unavoidable aspect of having a substantive discussion, as opposed to just trading bumper-sticker slogans. My purpose is to get my points across, back them up with facts and logic, and try to uncover where the participants in the discussion actually disagree philosophically (if indeed they actually do) as opposed to just talking past each other, or trading insults, or shouting slogans.
” Could you have made the same point about the online petition in 9 or possibly 18 words?””
Perhaps, and that’s a legitimate complaint (and I admit I was, in effect, “gloating” at the fizzling of the petition). I admit that am not very good at being concise. With all due respect, you don’t seem to be much better at it, and therefore it comes off as a bit odd for you to lecture on it. But, be that as it may, I don’t buy into hillmuffin’s “9 words” thing, because that usually leads to not very helpful sloganeering — simply making a claim without any support. So I can say “Estelle represents the majority of her constituents well,” and Cookie can say “no, she doesn’t,” and that’s all very nice and concise, but nothing has really been communicated other than that we disagree, which we already know. That’s not debate, or even discussion, it’s just contradiction.
Ideally there’s some happy medium between that kind of rather meaningless “sound-byte” trading on the one hand, and on the other hand posts that are too long for most people to bother reading. I will certainly concede that I haven’t achieved that happy medium, at least insofar as the preferences of most blog commenters. Personally I do favor reasoned arguments grounded in cited (and here’s that dirty word) facts and/or logic, even if that means longer posts. Some folks are happy just contradicting each other and never exploring the details of where and why they disagree. To each his or her own, I suppose.
“On the same subject of Government – for or against?”
To me, that’s not really the question. I have no problem with having a government, I’m not an anarchist. I would like to see the government do more helpful things, and less unhelpful and counterproductive things.
“You didn’t seem to disagree with my contention that Supervisor Lovelace arguably knew more about the GPU universe than anyone else in the room last week (or did you? I forget).”
I don’t think that there’s any question that Mark is very knowledgeable about the GPU process and the language in the general plan. He has been in office longer than any of the others, and was working full time on the issue even before that. I definitely respect his level of understanding of the language of the plan. I think Estelle’s understanding matches, or comes close to matching his, and I think the fact that they are both there, agreeing on many points, and disagreeing in a knowledgeable way on others is very helpful and healthy. I think Sundberg is very sharp, and generally seems to grasp what is at issue in these discussions. My impression is that Bass and Bohn are not as well versed in the details, and are at times struggling to keep up. At least in the discussions I’ve seen, that’s the way it’s looked to me. I think that they are all doing their best, and that the actual language they are approving as they work their way through the straw votes is pretty good. I keep trying to bring the discussion back to that, because there have been a lot of accusations (here on this thread and elsewhere) that the current majority is pushing through a plan with few or no regulations on development and few or no protections for the environment, and that’s just not what I’m seeing in the actual language that they’re approving in these straw votes.
“You were at or watch the June 17th meeting. Were you not concerned with the authority that the Working Resources Lands Guy was given? It seemed so strange to me.”
I guess I didn’t have the same interpretation of those interactions as you did. What I saw is that the Supevisors listened to the input of the Resource Lands Working Group, and the input of the Ad-Ho Working Group, and the input of the staff, and looked at the language forwarded to them by the Planning Commission, and looked at the straw votes made during the lame-duck session of the Board of Supervisors last fall, and discussed all the options and made their arguments, and took their straw votes. Some of the straw votes accepted the RLWG’s suggestions, some followed the AHWG’s suggestions, some accepted the language as approved by the Planning Commission, some accepted staff’s recommendations, and some were modified versions of one or more of those options. To me, it seemed like they weren’t inappropriately influenced by any of those groups, but were taking it all in and making their decisions. So while I certainly agree that no one interest group or “stakeholder” group should have undue influence, it didn’t appear to me that this was the case.
“c) Finally, on our great moment of agreement – the critical nature of the distribution of wealth in this country. You mentioned that Supervisor Fennell would probably also believe this is true. Do you think she used her opportunity to speak to the local Tea Party a couple of months ago how important a stronger progressive tax system would be. What about global warming? I wasn’t there, but I’m going to guess no. If you know better and she was a firebrand for democratic values, then I would gladly set my pants on fire again.”
I wasn’t there either, so I don’t know what she said, but I doubt she made a point of lecturing them on progressive taxation, because that would have been kind of pointless. It’s not really an issue that the local Board of Supervisors has any input on, as our local taxes are property and sales taxes, not income taxes. And just as back when Mark Lovelace was working for Humboldt Watershed Council and made a number of presentations to timber industry folks in the Fortuna area, he didn’t go in and lecture them on the spotted owl and marbled murrelet, he spoke to them about an area of potential mutual agreement — that Maxxam’s business practices and shell-game extraction of profits while setting the company up for bankruptcy was screwing the workers and the local community. Would you fault him for speaking to a group on an issue where they might find common ground, rather than lecturing them on an issue where they would be likely to simply ignore his message? I think you’re holding Estelle to a rather unrealistic standard if your position is that she should have gone to the Tea Party group and used the opportunity to lecture them on progressive taxation and global warming.
“d) One more thing. While we are speaking civilly about the nuances of the GPU, when/if I do a careful reading of the GPU, we agree that this sounds fair, that doesn’t, what does that matter?”
Seriously? It matters because those are the actual provisions of the plan, and looking at them can help to confirm whether the generalizations people are making based on the Guiding Principles — which are very general and open to widely different interpretations — are accurate generalizations or not. In other words, whether the GPU is shaping up as a radically pro-development, anti-environment document, or as a document that strives for (and in my opinion, to a great extent achieves) an appropriate balance among goals that everyone says they’re for — protecting the environment, while also respecting people’s property rights and not unnecessarily curtailing options for housing and economic development.
And I haven’t demanded that you analyze every single detail of those specific policy provisions, but I have pointed to several high-profile issues, including TPZ residences, and subdivision of TPZ parcels, where I believe the majority has done a good job of balancing those issues. I pointed to these specific provisions because commenters here have made claims that I don’t believe are accurate, based on the actual discussions and/or straw votes that have been taken. I have invited you, or anyone else, to indicate whether you agree with my take on those, and have mostly received no response, or sweeping generalizations, or contradictions absent any evidence to back up those contradictions, or responses that avoided the issue and changed the subject. So to me, it appears that when people respond that way, they are indicating that they want to make their claims, but not back them up, and not consider any evidence to the contrary.
“I’ve tried to make my point over the past couple of weeks why I think strong regional planning should be a part of the GPU. The only place an amateur with limited time can approach this subject is the guiding principles”
Well, I just disagree with that. It would not take long to read the language the board approved on TPZ residences and offer an informed opinion. it’s not rocket science, and I’ve made it even easier by providing a link to the relevant document, and an explanation of where in that document to find the information on what options were considered and what they approved in their straw vote.
“What do you think about Estelle’s changes [to the Guiding Principles]? Are they significant? Will they help or hinder our ability to promote a sustainable pattern of growth. Was there a great opportunity lost?”
I think most of the Board’s revisions are fine, that they do not rule out or undermine environmental protections within the actual language of the GPU, and that they achieve what they were intended to achieve — to communicate to the voters that the Board is seeking a “balanced approach,” which I think they are, but which I certainly acknowledge is a matter of opinion. I’d just rather see the opinions that are offered backed up with more specifics, rather than just conjecture based on a one-sided interpretation of the revisions. The Guiding Principles, as revised, clearly reference both protection of natural resources, and respect for property rights. If the argument is that we should ignore the former, and pretend that the Guiding Principles, as revised, only provide support for the latter, I find that quite unconvincing, and especially so in the absence of citing supporting evidence from within the GPU itself.
“e) Can’t help myself, one more… Longwind’s prose makes much more sense with a little clue from Cookie. Fact or not I don’t know, but its a narrative that works and helps me understand the lay of the land.
That’s where I prefer that facts be checked, as a safeguard against false narratives. Cookie has not proved a reliable fact-teller, and her narratives, while attractive to you, are likely to lead you astray.
I still have no idea what your point is other than Estelle is awesome. I agree she is an awesome person, but her politics are at best deeply contradictory. What is the point other than defending Estelle against all comers? Is there any context there? What is your dog in the fight? After all context helps for a civil discussion, no?
I don’t find anything “deeply contradictory” about Estelle’s politics. They don’t all fit into neat left-right pigeonholes, but to me that’s an indication of someone who has thought things through for themself, rather than blindly accepting the orthodoxy of some particular “team.” Like I said, above (in response to hillmuffin’s 9-word challenge) I think Estelle does a good job of representing the concerns of the majority her constituents in the 2nd district. I’d say the same of Mark — that he does a good job of representing the concerns of the majority of his constituents in the 3rd district. I think it is helpful that we have both of them on the Board.
Meanwhile, I’m not committed to defending Estelle against all comers, no matter what. It’s just that the actual criticisms from the likes of Cookie, are in many cases grossly inaccurate, unfair, and seem to be based in an irrational and unhealthy sort of all-encompassing cynicism about Estelle’s character and motives. Those kind of attacks tend to generate defensiveness among those who disagree with them, I think that’s only natural. If someone disagrees with Estelle’s position on a given issue, fine, let them say which issue, and why, and we can talk about it. For example, as discussed (way upthread, or maybe it was in the previous thread) I don’t think it was necessary or helpful to remove the phrase “salmonid habitat” from the Guiding Principles. I was troubled by the Board’s reluctance to approve clear language discouraging residential construction in flood-prone areas. So I’m not unwilling acknowledge that not everything Estelle or the current Board has done or said is perfect. I just object to the exaggerations and sweeping generalizations, and the unwillingness to go beyond the very-open-to-interpretation Guiding Principles in trying to get at how the GPU as a whole is shaping up.
“f) On review, I guess I just consolidated my two weeks of ramblings into nine words…I’ll repeat them for hillmuffin.
The GPU should include proactive sustainable regional planning. Zing.”
And my concise response to that is:
It does. Just not quite as restrictive a version of that as some would prefer.
June 23, 2013 at 1:17 pm
Jim
Does anyone know if they are going to turn in the petition on Tuesday?
June 23, 2013 at 1:23 pm
That Other Anonymous
Demmcratic Jon,
You brought up the filibuster, and in particular the Republican’s (ab)use of it. I have some comments on that, in case you’re interested. I separated them out of my last comment since they’re kind of off-topic. Anyway…
“BTW, the Republicans have converted what was once a procedure used infrequently to convert the Senate from majority rule to 60 % rule. IMHO it is one of the most prominent (of many) abuses of procedure that they use to prevent the government and democracy from working smoothly. As an added bonus they can then go about campaigning again on how badly the government runs. It’s a great boondoggle until people catch on.”
I totally agree, but I would just point out that the problem there is not that they are actually doing real “talking” filibusters, (which could either include making real, relevant arguments about a particular policy, as Senator Sanders famously did a couple of years ago, or could include just reading the phone book into the Congressional record, which is just raw time wasting intended to gum up the works). The problem is that the Seante (under both Democratic and Republican leadership, I might add) has made it so that the minority can invoke that 60 vote threshold without actually doing the real “talking” filibuster — in essence, they’ve created a “virtual” filibuster. That makes it way too easy to block things that have majority support, including judicial and executive branch nominees. If they actually had to do a real “talking filibuster” (like that conducted by Sen. Sanders a couple of years ago, or Sen. Paul earlier this year) I’m pretty sure that the filibuster would go back to something that is only very rarely utilized.
Unfortunately, when the Democrats have been in the minority, they too have insisted that the “virtual” filibuster be continued, so that they could block legislation or nominees that they strongly opposed, even when the legislation or nominees in question had majority support — and meanwhile the Republicans who controlled the majority threatened to end the filibuster altogether, but didn’t. And when the Republicans have been in the minority, they have insisted on maintaining the “virtual” filibuster, while the Democrats have threatened to end it, but haven’t. It seems pretty clear that even when in the majority, both parties are always looking ahead to a time when they might be in the minority, and might want the “virtual” filibuster to be available to them as a tool for them to block the will of the majority.
Just to be clear, while I have seen both parties switch their positions on this in depressingly predictable self-serving ways as they went from minority to majority and back again, I am not claiming that they have abused the filibuster equally. The Republicans have abused it far more, with their current blocking of so many judicial and executive-branch nominees being the clearest examples.
I’d like to see the “virtual” filibuster scapped, and go back to the “talking” filibuster. And if one or both parties start abusing that all the time, too, I’d really have no problem scrapping that too. I doubt it would come to that, because there is a real cost, both in terms of public relations, and in terms of not moving forward with other things that the filibustering party does want to move forward with. So I think requiring them to actually hold the floor and keep talking in order to keep the filibuster going would be enough of a disincentive to frequently abusing that power. But if not, at least the public would then see the ridiculous spectacle of too many talking filibusters, and this would provide public support for scrapping the whole thing, which, after all, is just a rule the Senate made up for itself — it’s not in the Constitution.
June 23, 2013 at 1:41 pm
That Other Anonymous
Jim asked: “Does anyone know if they are going to turn in the petition on Tuesday?”
I don’t know. I guess the person to ask would be Hezekiah Allen, who initiated the petition, and presumably would be the one to decide when to forward the names to the Supervisors.
They’re up to 524 names on the petition, but given how many out-of-area were pouring in at one point, they clearly don’t have 500 actual Humboldt names yet. But the more recently-added names are all from apparent Humboldt residents, so if they wait a while longer they would be more likely to reach 500 names from actual Humboldt County residents.
On the other hand, the slow rate at which names are being added means that they might have to wait quite a while to build up that safety margin. And even if it’s only 400 Humboldt names, that’s not an insignificant number and does indicate that there is at least a significant minority of people who want them to revisit the Guiding Principles again, as a specific agenda item. Which I think would be fine, and I doubt they’ll object to doing. As they noted at the time of making their revisions, it was a straw vote, just like all the other straw votes they’ve been taking, and nothing is final at this point.
June 23, 2013 at 1:49 pm
Jim
There is a rule of thumb when hand gathering valid signatures of actual voters when circulating petitions. You want at least 50% more than you really need, and 100% more is best. I think those percentages are valid in this case also.
But of more importance, IMHO, than how many are actually in the county, are where they are located within the county. If 50% or more come out of Mark’s district, that will not be nearly as effective in causing the other supervisors to reconsider as if they were evenly spread out across all the districts.
June 23, 2013 at 1:56 pm
Anonymous
The hypocrisy from the Estellistas on this very forum when it comes to public process is astounding.
June 23, 2013 at 2:00 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Kudos to SBB too on TRUTH versus description (script)
Police Reports are untruthful and unfactual, unless audio and video can corroborate the “script” manipulations.
HOJ
June 23, 2013 at 2:04 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Estellistas? What about Estelleaficianadas o Estelleaficionados?
Si’? No?
En espanol since English is slang,
HOJ
June 23, 2013 at 2:35 pm
That Other Anonymous
Jim said: “If 50% or more come out of Mark’s district, that will not be nearly as effective in causing the other supervisors to reconsider as if they were evenly spread out across all the districts.”
My guess, just based on checking “the recently added names” a number of times, and a looking at the list of those who added comments to their names, is that the number of names coming from Lovelace’s district won’t be as high as 50%, but will be way more than the 20% that would reflect an even distribution among the 5 supervisorial districts. In other words, I think there will be a disproportionate number of names from Lovelace’s district, but not an actual majority. My guess — it”ll probably turn out to be 35-40% of the names. Just a guess, though.
In any event, there’s no getting around the fact that they they had plenty of publicity about their concerns, and about this petition effort, and yet the response to the petition just hasn’t been very impressive, which I assume is why they didn’t turn it in at the last meeting, as they had originally planned to (according to several emails I received from supporters, urging me to sign it). If lots of Humboldt residents were as concerned about the revisions and the process surrounding them as Judy & Co. thought we should be, then, as Eric noted above (way above), the petition should have filled up right away. The fact that the response to the petition has been rather anemic doesn’t mean the Board majority should just completely ignore these folks’ concerns…but it does mean that they probably aren’t too worried that they’ve offended a significant number of their constituents.
Perhaps the best thing would be to put it on the agenda for a meeting in September, since that way there would be plenty of time for people to plan on attending if they want to, and there won’t be grounds for a complaint that it was intentionally scheduled for a part of the year when lots of people are on vacation (July and August) and therefore can’t attend.
June 23, 2013 at 2:58 pm
suzy blah blah
Estellistas?
-LOL! did you make that up HoJ? That sounds funny. I’m not sure if there’s any truth in it or that it makes any sense though –not suzy’s forte. But the fact is, it’s catchy, and i wouldn’t be surprised if the evil Hank Sims has already stolen it from you.. I expect to see it in a LoCo headline soon.
June 23, 2013 at 3:36 pm
suzy blah blah
-eeeep! sorry HOJ, suzy sees it now. You made up the other two.
June 23, 2013 at 4:30 pm
Eric Kirk
In any event, there’s no getting around the fact that they they had plenty of publicity about their concerns, and about this petition effort, and yet the response to the petition just hasn’t been very impressive, which I assume is why they didn’t turn it in at the last meeting, as they had originally planned to (according to several emails I recfeived from supporters, urging me to sign it). If lots of Humboldt residents were as concerned about the revisions and the process surrounding them as Judy & Co. thought we should be, then, as Eric noted above (way above), the petition should have filled up right away. The fact that the response to the petition has been rather anemic doesn’t mean the Board majority should just completely ignore these folks’ concerns…but it does mean that they probably aren’t too worried that they’ve offended a significant number of their constituents.
One cautionary note – the same could probably have been said around the TPZ moratorium when it first happened. Probably wouldn’t have generated much response. There is a lag time involved for people who aren’t activists to catch up. And these things have a way of percolating.
Also, I don’t really know much about the dynamics of online petitioning. Would there be more signatures if someone was holding it on a clip board outside various stores? Could someone get 500 or 1000 signatures in Sohum on the lack of public process alone?
I don’t know the answers to these questions. But while Hezekiah may have been premature in his optimism, there are still many many people who don’t yet know what happened.
What I do know is that I’ve spoken to maybe 3 individuals who will say outright that there was enough public process for the decision and will deny that it was rushed. The primary defense I’m hearing from HumCPR ciricles is, ‘Well, it wasn’t ideal, but we all know from recent elections what the public will is anyway, so why go through so much trouble and time to get the input we know we’ll get?”
Isn’t the arrogance of such a presumption precisely the issue they have with the old process? Maybe what was generated in Plans A through C wasn’t truly reflective of the input – I would have to review the record much more closely to ascertain that, but at least they bothered to hold 120 meetings to obtain that input.
In fact. as the rewrites are happening and the straw polls being taken, I have to wonder precisely what public input is being used. It seems like the Supervisors are too often referring to “people I’ve spoken with” having completely rejected the staff’s analysis of the input which was actually generated.
Virginia’s response to Mark was that times have changed since 2008, implying that there is no reliable data of public input being relied upon at this point. Peter Childs should be screaming bloody murder if he is really concerned about process as much as substance.
I heard a rumor that the Guiding Principles are going to be revisited once again, but I don’t know anything about why or what process/public notice will be given.
As I said before, I’m finished investing anything into the process. I’ll wait until the final product is approved and judge it then. If groups like Healthy Humboldt make a call to provide input, I’ll submit something in writing for the record. But my energy is going to be focused on rebuilding the Progressive coalition which was winning elections up until a few years ago, with strategies designed for elections and affecting the narrative between elections.
June 23, 2013 at 5:12 pm
Janelle Egger
— Further, I can’t conceive that the four Supervisors who ran and won with clearly expressed reservations about the GPU process –Longwind at June 16, 2013 at 3:29 pm
–I mean to suggest that, after 3 decisive election cycles in which the shift of direction embedded in the edited Guiding Principles was discussed, debated, and endorsed by voters in 4 out of 5 Supervisorial districts, we don’t need another 13 years to plot the new, desirable direction for the GPU. The GPU was extensively debated in every electoral district.
…It was precisely because the public was excluded from the GPU process that new representatives were elected to represent the public’s views. That’s happened. –Longwind at June 17, 2013 at 8:06 am
And so we should accept changes to the GPU Guiding Principles being made on 72 hours notice? I don’t think so.
I could not make the meeting and had no time to review the changes, so I wrote asking about the nature of the decision and expressing concern about the short notice.
Estelle provided a long explanation which ended: Supervisor Bohn and I could have waited to bring our ideas and suggestions forward at the meeting and there probably would have been far fewer in attendance as has been the norm.
I continued the conversation: Yes, you could have brought them up at the meeting, but knowing that this is the heart of the controversy you also could have made them public at the end of the prior week’s meeting, or even made this public and requested it be on the agenda in two weeks to give people time think and to adjust their schedules.
At the June 17 meeting there was discussion about more notice and outreach the next time the Guiding Principles are on the agenda.
I signed the petition and give it credit for allowing many voices to be heard.
June 23, 2013 at 6:25 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
SBB,
HOJ responded to an Anonymous who brought-up Estellistas. Credit goes to Anonymous on “Estellistas”.
HOJ
June 23, 2013 at 6:27 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Eric,
But the TPZ Moratorium was closer to an election cycle wasn’t it?
HOJ
June 23, 2013 at 6:36 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Eric,
Staff loses credibility when it “pusses-out” from enforcement or won’t enforce land use codes/laws that would otherwise protect the property rights of those which staff despises because “those people staff despises” are the people who question staff’s integrity at implementing their duties and carrying-out their responsibilities under the equal protections of the law for all citizens to benefit from, not the pick and choose variety lunch box chip pack.
In the other hand, staff refrains temporarily (mid to long term ranges) from enforcing land use codes/laws sooner rather than later because they want to “trump-up” the charges against those they despise.
So in one hand, don’t do enforcement for those despised folks that would benefit from enforcement, and in the other hand, don’t do enforcement for the general welfare of the public in order to exascerbate the situation to trump-up charges against the folks who have done wrong and deserve quicker punishment with less tax dollars going to a process meant for political public relations over “issues”.
Staff is as incriminated as elected officials who maintain the status quo of results no matter what shifts take place at the electorate stage of politics.
HOJ
June 23, 2013 at 7:22 pm
Democratic Jon
TOA
I’m new to Sohum P. and I live in NoHum so I feel a little presumptuous about my own extended comments. I appreciate the detailed response to my queries and has happened in the past I agree with much of what you say. You can’t make up that genuinely democratic tone – for example on the filibusters. There would be added value for me to continue my comments on another forum, but despite your concerns, I do believe this extended dialog on minutia (ie my responses to your responses on my responses) is detrimental to this particular blog. I even get bored reading my own entries not to mention your thorough answers (sorry). So the offer remains. You have had your response, send me somewhere else where the minutia is on topic. (ie start a blog or whatever) cause I’d love to respond in kind.
****
So back on topic…When we agree on so much, how can we disagree on the contention that at best Supervisor Fennell’s are deeply contradictory? As a progressive, if my life had brought me to a place where I was working for HumCPR and then coincidentally I also had a position to run for and win a position on the County Board of Supervisors, I would recuse my self from all matters HumCPR and I would definitely not have appointed HumCPR members to county positions. In a word it is unethical. I wish we had laws on the books that would prevent such things, but I’m not sure how that would be practical. Having said that I think I’ve heard of such statutes in other countries.
Your right about assigning motives. If you notice my language I try to avoid that as I don’t want to impugn Estelle’s character. This becomes so much more important when one becomes involved in the process and gets to be in the same room fighting for the same causes. As you get to know these people your humanity kicks in and it difficult to ascribe such malicious intentions to your friends.
But money is the heart of it. It is what runs our political system, and it removing it (as much as possible) from politics should be a fundamental principle of the post DLC, post Citizen’s United Democrats. The Democratic BOS majorities’ action’s just don’t compute without this difficult-to-discuss context.
That divide between money and politics is something that I am interested in discussing with you in this forum. It goes to the heart of the matter I believe, not to mention it is one area I have enough expertise to know what you are talking about.
I have made my passion behind this subject clear. I still don’t get yours. Why you take the great effort to create something that resembles a Model BOS (like the Model UN’s from my youth) on the internets. I get ducking it out with EK or others on specifics, but why drag us laypeople in? We can pretend to understand this or that, but it is going to take a grade A lawyer or someone who knows what s/he is doing to really understand the implications of the language. As an example take “honor”. That was so nicely put by Supervisor Lovelace. “Honor” sounds fine to me, I might have agreed if Estelle thought it was important – ah what the heck- lets change it.
What is your motivation?
Here is an extended quote from On the Media (my second plug sorry, I love this podcast)
Regarding the industry response to the Fracking story in the media…
“Its a full scale war. .. a sophisticated public-relations campaign. You see this in extensive sponsorship for NPR for example, full page ads in the national newspapers for the natural gas industry. A whole host of NGO’s or lobbying groups that didn’t even exist before…You have gas industry representatives trolling on web sites, contributing to chat threads, you know, aggressively participating in public hearings.”
Abrahm Lustgarden- Propublica
On the Media Two days ago
I only bring this up because I heard this literally (actually literally) moments before reading you’re post. I mean put yourself in my shoes. Here is a blogger, TOA that shows super-human patience and willingness to engage and educate previously unknown bloggers (which is greatly appreciated). His (definitely not her) identity and more importantly passion behind his writings is closely guarded despite being a part of a tiny community of activists in a small community hidden behind the redwood curtain.
What would you think if you were in my position trying to figure out where TOA is coming from. What chances would you place on TOA being paid for his contributions? As I pointed out by making a fool of myself while misreading a sentence by longwind and then posting another novelette based on that mistake – context counts, it helps to define our motivations which helps us to speak to each other.
Don’t you think its possible that the stakes are high enough for HumCPR to smooth the public opinion by priming online debate a little? BTW a related question – how high do you think the stakes are for developers?
Finally, what did you think about that Mother Jones video that the NYT article linked to? Is it devastating to you too? What can/should the BOS do about it?
Also thanks Cookie, I’m embarrassed again. I Faust was a reference to a bargain with a devil or something. What a maroon.
June 23, 2013 at 7:22 pm
That Other Anonymous
“One cautionary note – the same could probably have been said around the TPZ moratorium when it first happened. Probably wouldn’t have generated much response. There is a lag time involved for people who aren’t activists to catch up. And these things have a way of percolating.”
That’s a fair point. I suppose that the overall narrative that the current majority on the Board is out of touch with the majority, acting rashly, and pushing through a radically pro-development, anti-environment plan might still gain traction over time. And correct me if I’m wrong, but that is the narrative, right? Personally, I doubt that narrative actually will gain much traction, other than among those who were already strongly inclined to that belief. The reason that I don’t think that narrative will gain much traction is because I don’t think that narrative is well-grounded in reality.
But that doesn’t mean that the petition-signers won’t get what they’re requesting in terms of the Supervisors revisiting the issue, taking more input, etc. To that extent, the petition is asking the Supervisors to do something that they’ve already said they’re willing to consider doing.
Of course if they hold another hearing and the ratio of support to opposition is similar to the last hearing, it seems likely the majority will see that as a stamp of approval for their June 3rd revisions, rather than as a rebuke. And if that’s what actually happens, it would be hard to blame them for making that interpretation.
June 23, 2013 at 8:00 pm
Eric Kirk
I think there should be a town hall meeting in each of the five districts. These are the guiding principles of the GPU which has been a factor in every Supervisor race since 2008. It would still be far less that the process which led to the first draft, but this is a very important discussion. If you’re going to jettison everything that’s come before, let’s give voters in all five districts an opportunity to clarify the mandate being claimed by the current board majority.
I actually believe that despite the recent election results, the first draft of the Guidelines would be more popular in Southern Humboldt than the revisions. I don’t believe that they will show up in Eureka, but they might show for a meeting at Redway School.
But you’re right. They won’t do that. They will hold another Eureka meeting. The usual suspects will have their say. The Board majority will make another tweek or two, and be able to claim they listened to the people. Maybe progressives will get a turnout, but they will mostly be “urban.”
June 23, 2013 at 8:09 pm
Cookie
Maybe Dennis Huber should have the balls to press Estelle as hard on this issue tomorrow, and about having a meeting in Redway about the proposed Guiding Principles changes, as he was to Clif about Tooby Ranch aka Bob McKee.
Most people from SoHum can not show up to Eureka. Oops. Except those who always show up aka Bonnie Blackberry, Charlie Custer et al.
June 23, 2013 at 8:36 pm
That Other Anonymous
Democratic Jon,
“But money is the heart of it…The Democratic BOS majorities’ action’s just don’t compute without this difficult-to-discuss context.”
Just because you are having trouble computing something, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t compute. The problem may be with your software. 😉
I don’t buy that the current majority on our Board of Supervisors only won because of having more money. Neeley had just as much money as Bass, and Neeley lost big to Bass. Karen Brooks raised a good deal of money, and lost big to Lovelace. Seidner raised money at a good clip once she got into the race against Bohn, but she started at the last minute — I believe it was literally on the last day allowable to enter the race. Cleary and Clendenen were both well-financed, but lost. All of these candidates had ample opportunities to make their overall philosophies and their positions on specific issues known to the voters, and the voters made their choices. Issues still matter more than money in our local elections, IMO.
In general though, I agree about money in politics, particularly the farther you get away from the local level, where people have more of a chance to get to know the candidates. It tends to be a very small factor at the local board of Ed or community services district level, a bit bigger at the municipal and county level, a much bigger factor at the state and national levels. It’s a tough problem, especially given the Supreme Court’s unhelpful equating of money with speech which goes back well beyond Citizen’s United (See Buckley v Valeo 1976) . It’s a bit of a chicken-egg dilemma, since it wouldn’t be such a problem if income inequality weren’t so extreme (with a relative few having lots of disposable income to spend on politics, and so many having to squeeze every penny just to survive), yet it’s hard to see how income inequality will be narrowed without major changes in public policy that run counter to the pecuniary interests of those currently dominating the funding of the political campaigns of those who would have to make those changes in public policy.
One of the most promising approaches I’ve seen to threading this needle, while also dodging the mighty flyswatter of the Supreme Court, is the “Clean Elections” (aka “Fair Elections”) model a number of states have adopted. If you aren’t familiar with that approach, I think you’ll enjoy checking out this video:
http://www.publicampaign.org/video
The basic idea in the Clean Elections systems is a “voluntary public financing” approach where candidates gather a certain number of small contributions (typically $5) in order to qualify, and after that take no further contributions, and are instead given a certain amount of funding for their campaign. It’s not a perfect system, and candidates can still opt out at the very outset, and raise as much money as they want privately. And I believe recent court decisions have struck down provisions that gave publicly-funded candidates additional funds to match privately-financed candidates (on what basis, I don’t know). It’s probably too early to tell whether the Clean Elections systems will continue to function well despite that, or whether more candidates will “opt out” and significantly outspend the publicly-funded candidates, or whether the states will come up with effective ways to counter that.
Anyway, its an interesting model which doesn’t totally eliminate money from the equation, but does level the playing field significantly. If you aren’t familiar with the Clean Elections model and have a few minutes, I encourage you to watch the video — it offers a much-needed glimmer of hope in the otherwise bleak post-Buckley v. Valeo, post Cititzen’s United world of money in politics.
June 23, 2013 at 8:51 pm
That Other Anonymous
Eric,
As we’ve discussed previously, I’d be all for some town hall meetings in each of the districts, though I disagree with your premise that they’re “jettison(ing) everything that’s come before.”
I’m not sure you’d really be able to limit the input at those meetings to the Guiding Principles (once they take the mic, people are going to pretty much say what they want until their time runs out, unless you want to try judging which things relate closely enough and cut people off if their comments are deemed too far off topic, which would probably not be well received, to say the least).
But I think it would be fine to make the Guiding Principles the main focus and stated purpose for those meetings. Would the current Board majority be open to that? I don’t know, but it couldn’t hurt to ask. Maybe the petition should have been more specific about what type of process the backers and signers of the petition would deem acceptable.
June 23, 2013 at 9:27 pm
Anonymous
There is no way that Estelle will hold a Redway meeting on the subject. There is no political upside for her and plenty to lose. Her handlers will not allow it to happen.
June 23, 2013 at 10:17 pm
That Other Anonymous
Democratic Jon said:
“What is your motivation?…I mean put yourself in my shoes. Here is a blogger, TOA that shows super-human patience [aww, shucks,] and willingness to engage and educate previously unknown bloggers (which is greatly appreciated) [thanks!]. His (definitely not her) [thanks for letting me know!] identity and more importantly passion behind his writings is closely guarded despite being a part of a tiny community of activists in a small community hidden behind the redwood curtain.
What would you think if you were in my position trying to figure out where TOA is coming from. What chances would you place on TOA being paid for his contributions?”
I can understand why you might think that, but it is not so. Of course as an anonymous blogger, unfortunately I have no way to prove that to you. Just as you have no way to prove to me that you’re not a paid employee of the Resources Legacy Foundation, or Healthy Humboldt, or the Humboldt Watershed Council, or Baykeeper, or the NEC or whatever. I choose to take you at your word that, like me, you’re someone who simply loves Humboldt County, as I do, and wants, just like me, to see it both prosper and remain a great place for both humans and non-human flora and fauna to survive and flourish — but that you just have a different take on what that entails in terms of the GPU. I assume that your different take does not arise from selfish interests, but rather from having different experiences and being exposed to somewhat different information and therefore having a different point of view.
Without telling you my name or occupation (which is not developer or contractor or builder or anything else that has any kind of direct financial interest in the GPU) I will try to give you some idea where I’m coming from. In the past, I have lived in other parts of the country — urban, suburban, and rural — but have been living in Humboldt for many years now. I have been a paid and unpaid environmental campaigner in the past, but never a property rights campaigner or conservative activist, paid or unpaid. I own no TPZ land (or for that matter any other land to develop) and have no plans to. Where I live is a permitted dwelling on a legal parcel in an agricultural area, but not far from town. So I have no real financial dog in this fight.
I had been aware of some of the problems with the Planning Department going back many years, having heard plenty of horror stories of people being given the run-around on one thing or another, with different answers and seemingly made-up-on-the-spot requirements from different planning department staff (which, when challenged, sometimes proved to be without legal basis). But some years ago, it started to seem like more than a bit of random unprofessionalness, but rather part of a developing patterns. There was the TPZ moratorium, ostensibly to deal with the Maxxam bankruptcy plan, which then morphed into attempts to greatly restrict TPZ owners from being able to live on their own land. Then there was the (most recent iteration of) the Code Enforcement Fiasco, with out-of-control armed goon squads running rampant and terrorizing people over graywater systems and the like (and I watched as the previous Board of Supervisors made a big show of convening a Code Enforcement Task Force and then unceremoniously dumped its finding in the circular file, never to be seen again). In a less serious, but equally absurd case, there was the planning department staff member who insisted that a child’s tree house required a building permit (which created an outcry and apparently required a site visit from both the Planning Director and a County Supervisor to determine that — who would have guessed — a child’s treehouse did not require a permit). I watched as a loud and self-misinformed NIMBY group in Arcata freaked out over and destroyed a proposal by a well-respected, homegrown, good-neighbor business to locate a (gasp!) goat dairy on (gasp!) agricultural land!
Meanwhile, somewhere back in there I became well aquainted with a number of people facing harassment and ill-treatment at the hands of the Planning Department even as they were trying to work with the system and do all that was asked of them. I personally know of two people who gave up on their plans to live on and farm their perfectly appropriate not-far-from-town farmlands, due harassment and threats of legal action from well-heeled “progressive” NIMBY neighbors, accompanied by inconsistency / uncertainty from the planning deparment (ironically, both these people moved to more remote parts of the county to be away from that NIMBY pressure, exactly the opposite of what the Smart Growthers say they want). In one case the NIMBY harassment extended to holding a neighborhood meeting to excoriate the evil would-be farmers, and even extended to someone taking pictures through the window of their shed to show their children’s clothing hanging there — supposedly for the purpose of “proving” that they were illegally “residing” on their land while farming it, before having a legal residence there. (I’m not sure if it is creepier if the NIMBY photobug was sneaking up and taking the picture through their window at close range, or if they were using a long lens to take it from a distance…either way, pretty creepy).
I also have a good friend who owns a property of 200-some acres that has two longstanding main structures on it. In trying to do the right thing and get the structures permitted, he was told by the Planning Department that (for reasons they could not or would not document the basis of) he couldn’t have a residence and a mother-in-law unit on the parcel, and that he would have to rip the plumbing out of one of them in order to get a permit for the other one (and then, it was not-at-all-subtly hinted by a county official, once he had his permits and the Planning Department was no longer involved, as a practical matter there would be nothing to stop him from putting the plumbing back in the other structure, wink-wink). This, in my view, was just plain idiotic.
I could go on and on — all the people who bought perfectly legal parcels and then were told they were “shaded” on a map by some unidentified staffer for some reason that was never recorded anywhere, and that despite doing nothing wrong, they’d have to pay the county a bunch of money to investigate and “unshade” the parcel before they could even apply for a permit. And so on…
I don’t claim that all these issues and incidents were orchestrated, on purpose, by one cohesive group of people who were meeting secretly somewhere and coordinating an overarching campaign aimed at “stopping everything.” I haven’t met too many people, other than a few couch-surfing Earth Firsters, who would actually say that they are truly against any and all development. And I don’t even blame this all on one ideology — for instance from what I have heard, much of the opposition to the proposed wind farm on Bear River Ridge was not from progressives, but local conservatives. But there do seem to be enough people who are against anything new or different ever being done anywhere near them, that the cumulative effect threatens to become something approaching NIMBY gridlock.
At any rate, perhaps this gives you some idea where I’m coming from. I’m a reluctant proponent of property rights, having been dragged in that direction by a series of outrageous overreaches in the other direction. I think you would find a similar story from many folks who had become concerned with the behavior of the Planning Department and the direction that the previous Planning Director and previous Board of Supervisors had seemed to be headed.
I hope this helps to give you some kind of idea where I’m coming from.
June 23, 2013 at 10:41 pm
That Other Anonymous
“…if my life had brought me to a place where I was working for HumCPR and then coincidentally I also had a position to run for and win a position on the County Board of Supervisors, I would recuse my self from all matters HumCPR…”
If you were working for Humboldt Watershed Alliance and Healthy Humboldt, and funded by a deep-pockets out-of-area outfit like the Resources Legacy Foundation specifically to get certain policies into Humboldt’s General Plan, and then you ran for Supervisor, would you recuse yourself from everything your former employers/funders were advocating on, notably the General Plan? Lovelace doesn’t. Is that unethical?
I don’t think so, because I don’t think he took the job with Healthy Humboldt to line his pockets, and I don’t think he votes the way he does on issues in order to “repay” his former employer. I assume he took the job because taking that job allowed him to work on an issue he cared about, from a perspective that he already agreed with. I think the same is true of Estelle. I realize there are those who would like to portray her as “selling out” by accepting the job as director of HumCPR, and that she’s “repaying” her former employer with her votes and appointments. I think she took the job with HumCPR because their concerns overlapped substantially with hers, and it was an opportunity to devote full time to working on issues she was concerned about, from a perspective that she already agreed with.
It’s always tempting to dismiss our adversaries on political issues as some kind of corrupt self-serving Boss Tweed wannabees — and let’s face it, when it comes to politics, sometimes that is the case — but most of the time that just isn’t how it is. And if we yield to the temptation to buy into demonizing oversimplifications of cause and effect, we risk playing right into the hands of people who do want to divide and manipulate us for political gain.
June 24, 2013 at 5:26 am
Democratic Jon
Cookie-
I can walk to the courthouse – if you or another person you know need someone to read their statement as a proxy, I’d do it. I would imagine that would be within rules, no?. I still don’t have much to say (at the podium anyway) (sorry y’all, plenty to say here) as I want to learn more first so I wouldn’t be giving up my time.
TOA-
Now we are talking. Now I know where you are coming from and can understand what to me are continental shifts in you logic, I will read your posts carefully too. That was the point btw, I wrote I would read your posts -just not carefully. You took another meaning from my sentence and that was my point about the language within the GPU. It is going to take lawyers to decipher the language. The Working Land Resources Guy is going to make sure that language is as vague as possible in areas he is interested in and extremely specific in areas that hamper his goals. For example you will remember the exchange where Supervisor L. wanted to keep “ecoblah blah” language as well as the “natural resources” language. Working Resources Land Guy did not like this but agreed it would work as long as the terms are defined. Right. Wouldn’t want to err on the side of caution, I know.
12 lines of minutia, moving forward…
On identity, it is not difficult to figure out who I am. I’m not hiding my identity per se, it is just a nice norm for this forum to have a creative name too. In my case my name has been very effective in starting some interesting conversations.
Thank you for your background story, I really think this is important for political conversations. It helps us understand where we are coming from. (don’t answer this if you don’t want to, but did you used to take City Cab regularly? I used to drive for them and you remind me of a person we use to pick up.)
”Just because you are having trouble computing something, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t compute.’ The problem may be with your software.” Touche. I also enjoyed the continuation of the digest gossip analogy a while back too- so true on both counts.
On your point about money and recent elections. Well taken. But small market teams also win the majority of World Series. That doesn’t mean that the the richest teams don’t control the market and in the end win the greatest number of World Championships. That is the genius of the socialist NFL. Working class Green Bay or Pittsburgh can compete in the long term with the snobby urban NY Giants or Chicago Bears. LA doesn’t even have a team for goodness sake. And it means when you have a paradigm-changing idea like Bill Walsh had – you can tally up that ring count.
Money has as much effect, if not more at the local level compared to the National or State. The influence of money waxes and wanes and is balanced in our county by HSU. Snobby, intellectual, non-local elites the lot of ’em. And HSU is why I believe we are rightfully a blue county in the same vein as Mendocino. I just have to do more work with Linda Atkins on getting out the vote in Eureka.
Right now money’s influence is waxing locally. It has the perfect storm of a subtle yet pervasive media voice exemplified in my media exposure by Sunshine for Humboldt and it has a strong and highly organized offshoot of a national populist movement The Tea Party. Oh yeah, and it also has figured out that it can use Democrats who happen to share much of the same perspective on money’s single most important political issue.
It is exactly analogous to the influence of money in Washington. Somehow this person, President Obama that shares so many of my beliefs began his presidency with Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner on his staff? Just one example of so many that Thom Hartmann and Bernie Sanders could list off by rote. How is it we continue financial policies that have proven, over and over, to be catastrophic for the entire nation without allowing for the power of money?
Money exerts it’s power in exactly the same manner here. Like I tired to explain before, a little nudge on the cogs of governmental policy on this one issue (GPU) promises, more than anything else the BOS has this kind of influence over, the greatest amount of profit on the other side. I don’t know if you see and consciously or subconsciously choose to ignore it or just don’t see it at all. (Please clean up that 2nd sentence structure if you plan to use it – I don’t know how to. I hope the point comes across though) This is why even though Supervisor Fennell and I agree on 90% of other matters, it is this one issue that rightfully should mean she doesn’t get the Democratic endorsement. I think it also means she is more properly a Republican in the context of our local politics. Property rights are a valid, important constitutional issue, they need to be argued in that context or else the entire system breaks down. Quote me on that if you like, I could go on forever.
I don’t know the other side of the McKinleyville goat issue you bring up, but I do know Sunshine for Humboldt was on the same page as you and made sure I knew about the issue too. I’m sure there is a great deal that even I would agree with on rural land issues in our county with you and Supervisor Fennell and CPR – maybe even the goat deal. The problem is the Faust, sorry devil, is in the details. While we streamline necessary problems with the Building and Planning Departments within the county – I know the conflicts first hand too – again much we can agree on – we will be allowing the other, less discussed issues through the same gate.
You know those pesky visionary regional planning ideas I and many others share that would make for a much simpler, cheaper and sustainable county. We will allow developers to continue to build not for a free market (i.e. the consumers)- this does not exist – but for profit, and the cheaper the home and land, the greater the profit. It will be a de facto status quo regional development plan. And we can’t do that anymore for social, economic, and environmental reasons. We can’t … but will, and we will be the poorer for it. Poorer financially, aesthetically and in quality of life up and down the economic spectrum. And global warming…. All because of the power of money to blind us. Perhaps the closer you are to money the less obvious it’s influence.
I think this is my response to a careful reading of the first third of the first of your posts – I skimmed the rest. More later after further careful reading.
Also, EK, if you happen to make it down to this portion of the post, I love the idea of town meetings. I’m sure you are aware, the politically active populace is primed by the Tea Party and others. Unfortunately, I don’t think that these meetings will bring out a substantially greater number of people who are not approaching this issue strictly from a property-rights aspect. Having said that, it is important to get out there as much as possible on this issue.
next time… social welfare, Supervisor Lovelace, and the IRS 501(c)(4) exemption….
Enjoy the actual rain today. A nice summer surprise in Eureka.
June 24, 2013 at 8:12 am
Forest Queen
“It’s going to take lawyers to decipher the language.” I couldn’t disagree more.
June 24, 2013 at 11:31 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
06-23-13 @ 10:17pm, 35d paragraph of comment referencing Democratic Jon,
In a less serious, but equally absurd case, there was the planning department staff member who insisted that a child’s tree house required a building permit (which created an outcry and apparently required a site visit from both the Planning Director and a County Supervisor to determine that — who would have guessed — a child’s treehouse did not require a permit).
Response: You either forgot to mention as a free spirited pro-enviro, don’t know all the facts or intentionally are trying to mislead the tree (Stump) House explanation.
FACT IS that the location was described as being located within a Streamside Management Area/Zone which (these are state certified too), by matter of written law, is a legal violation (land use violation as dictated by the State, not the county of Humboldt). Now, in your defense, the issue was one of those which neither property owner or the government really wanted to make a big deal about after the initial story broke and the facts about the laws in effect were understood by the law breakers.
Streamside Management Areas are for the protection of critical habitat that fronts “waterways”. When you or any other persons decide that it is ok to develop in a Streamside Management Area under the false notion that the area “not apparantly developed within the SMA” is somehow gonna not be trampled upon, walk-upon, humanized in effect, etc…., then impacts become cumulative and pronounced, common sensibly impacted if you will (forget about test tube kits and dyes, core samples and such, think top ground cover, shading effects, verticle grasses, bushes, shrubs, etc… than keeps that certain “flora and fauna protected”) – surprised to read your comment as being hipocritical so close in proximity to your coment that you used to describe your character as wanting to enjoy the flourishing of flora and fauna, blah, blah, blah……in one hand absurd, in the other, not absurd, but claims contradiciting personal stances just clarified or implied is artistic rhetoric to deceieve or speak out of context due to being misinformed, under-informed, etc…. on the Stump House matter, and for that matter, other sub-issues you have been incorrect upon or contradictory
in explanation.
SMA’s = Off-limits
IOW,
Stay the frack off that part of the land, period (end-of-discussion); otherwise, don’t cut deals with government or title companies to buy for development or ownership of residence on any land encumbering SMA’s IF you want or think your allowed to use all of your land the way you believe you can without affecting other property owners and the Public/State agreements already in place. Now, just think about how many “filed State documents that the county of Humboldt submitted” are falsified.
Aaron Newman just got charged with perjury partly when he purportedly submitted false information on documents that are filed with higher-up agencies – so, ya think the County of Humboldt wants that allegation on their dinner plate? Re-do paperwork, surveys, engineerong, habitat reconstructions/restorations, legal paperworks up the yang and the ying, etc….Get it yet?
Of course, if the government lied about the “Stump House” area being a SMA, then absolutely absurd issue created by government lies.
So, the facts are the facts,
BUT, only as we know then to be,
FYI,
Sincerely,
HOJ
June 24, 2013 at 11:40 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Democratic Jon was misinformed/misled by TOA on the “Stump-House” issue.
Will Democratic Jon do his “due dilligience” and research for the “Stump-House” facts which equals truth; or, just blindly agree with TOA based upon trust?
Hmmmmm,
HOJ
June 24, 2013 at 12:23 pm
That Other Anonymous
I hope Democratic Jon does look it up, because I think it’s a great example of NIMBY-mania, and our (at least until recently) Planning Department Gone Wild. In fact I’ll make it easier for him to find the story. Here’s the first mention of it:
And here’s an interview with the evil treehouse developers:
http://lostcoastoutpost.com/2012/feb/1/illegal-treehouse-family/
I believe there was a follow-up story somewhere too — I thought it was in the Times-Standard, but I couldn’t find it.
Anyway, the final outcome was that (now-former) Planning Department Director Kirk Girard (six-figure salary) and Supervisor Lovelace (salary in the high five figures) went out and did a site visit, and subsequently the Planning Department dropped it’s objection to the treehouse (or “stump-house” if you prefer), and after conferring with county counsel, determined that a child’s treehouse amounts to, at most, a “de minimus” impact on the Streamside Management Area, and therefore did not require a permit.
But you know, thank heavens for the obnoxious neighbor who objected to the impact on their precious “viewshed,” and the common-sense-impaired planning department staffer who sided with the obnoxious neighbor and insisted that the treehouse amounted to an illegal building. Because clearly there aren’t any more serious issues that a county planner, the Planning Director, a county Supervisor, and the county counsel could have been spending their time on.
June 24, 2013 at 12:28 pm
That Other Anonymous
Okay, here’s the brief Humboldt Herald article on the outcome:
June 24, 2013 at 12:32 pm
That Other Anonymous
Here’s the Times-Standard’s coverage. They include a mini-slide show with photographic evidence of the pint-sized development mogul, and his co-conspirators, engaged in some of their nefarious activities, and featuring a clear view of the stump-based abomination under construction.
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_19847521
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_19926501
The latter article referred to changing the ordinance to make the exception clear. Not sure if they ever did that, or determined that wasn’t necessary.
June 24, 2013 at 12:37 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
TOA got called-upon and drawn-out (anticipation)
AND
All decisions only need “di minimus” then because apparantly staff can’t speak to facts or argue “for the State” or “on the State’s behalf”, kinda like when people file a state lawsuit over a federal law, DUH!!!!!!
Why did you not include the SMA area TOA?
Answer: tried to decieve and HOJ set the truth back into motion, and justice for all
TOA made a mistake in judgement,
It happens,
Sincerely,
HOJ
June 24, 2013 at 12:38 pm
That Other Anonymous
By the way, the treehouse is 85 feet from the stream.
June 24, 2013 at 12:53 pm
That Other Anonymous
HOJ said: Why did you not include the SMA area TOA?
Did you stop reading after “de minimus?”
My reference to the SMA is only a couple of words after that:
“de minimus” impact on the Streamside Management Area…”
Or did you mean I should have said how far the SMA extends? I believe it;s 100 feet from the stream. A treehouse at 85 feet from the stream — impact negligible, if any. De mininus.
June 24, 2013 at 1:08 pm
That Other Anonymous
“All decisions only need “di minimus” then because apparantly staff can’t speak to facts…”
That just makes no sense at all. Here is one definition of “de minimus”:
“of trifling consequence or importance; too insignificant to be worthy of concern; – a reference to the phrase de minimis non curat lex.”
Synonyms:
” inconsequential, insignificant, meager, moderate, modest, negligible, of minor imporrance, of no account, paltry, petty, obscure, scanty, slight, trifling, trivial, unworthy of serious consideration”
The idea that the concept of something being only a “de minimus” violation could somehow be applied to “all decisions” just makes no sense. If, rather than a treehouse, the family had been trying to put a septic tank, or a driveway, or make any other actually significant impact within the SMA, trying to argue that the violation was only a “de minimus” one would have been laughed out of court.
In this case, the “de minimus exception” clearly applied, and it’s just silly (and kind of sad) that it took the intervention of a Supervisor and a department head to correct the overzealous attitude of the overreaching planning department staffer.
I wonder of the cranky NIMBY neighbor is still seething every time he or she glances in that direction and sees the offending treehouse — or, worse yet, hears the laughter of children playing in it?
June 24, 2013 at 1:42 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
TOA (A con artist???) never described the SMA or mentioned it @ 10:17pm, the post that HOJ referenced. That last comment @ 1:08 pm is gonna be indicitve of how the “Guiding Principles” get interpretated whenever and however staff wants too to save their little hineys or to allow somebody a special exception that really is invalid……..!
Does TOA have a voice activated device that transforms words into writing on the screen because TOA seems to be willfully blind or won’t see to read facts?
As far as “di minimus”, your attempt to rationalize a decision by colluding officials during an election campaign, while attempting to de-popularize SMA laws that do exist regarding set-back areas versus building codes and any structures with walking areas above 30 inches above the ground, is laughable, but seriously, sad state of affairs for a desperate person who lives at the keyboard and can be “coerced out of silence at any point by HOJ.
TOA, do tell HOJ where HOJ can get “free inspections for building structures that require inspections because the laws governing health and safety dictate that a permit is required AND if HOJ must pay inspection fees, then HOJ requests free fees or fee waivers too. Last HOJ checked, The CDS Director is not an expertise in State Building Laws and Codes, but does have the power to make unequal protections of the laws, apparantly.
Girard misused the “Di Minimus” bail-out tool,
Oops,
Damn Straight,
HOJ
PS HOJ believes that if SMA’s are allowed to be “unequally protected based upon political public relations for campaign purposes”, then the SMA’s should not exist at all. Either enforce All SMA’s equally, or get rid of the SMA protections. If TOA loves flora and fauna, then SMA’s need to be implemented. If TOA believes that flora and fauna will exist without SMA’s, then TOA should lead the fight to do away with SMA’s.
Whenever mankind enters a critical habitat, merely being there onsite is an impact, unless hovering is an option. As far as the nieghbor, too bad it reads as if they don’t have a contract for a view easement in that area either, something HOJ has for his “publicly approved devlopment” along and encumbering an SMA. Plus, HOJ had the opportunity to get up-close-and-personal with Director Girard and his family, so HOJ has no need to taint one way or another.
June 24, 2013 at 1:57 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
The Supes that TOA apparantly supports are too deceptive and colluding to want to have “Guiding Principles” that are clear.
To have clarity is to avoid situations like the StumpHouse, but politicians and staff don’t want to “not have the ability to create a cause and effect situation involving chaos and confusion where interpretation is allowed to be manipulated to the advantage of the more powerful”.
TOA, unfortunately, you just are not an honest person.
HOJ
June 24, 2013 at 1:59 pm
Cookie
TOA said “Cookie has not proved a reliable fact-teller, ”
The shoe is on your foot now TOA.
June 24, 2013 at 2:00 pm
Cookie
“TOA, unfortunately, you just are not an honest person”
My thoughts exactly. And the same can be said for the people he supports.
June 24, 2013 at 2:24 pm
That Other Anonymous
You having a differing opinion, does not make me dishonest. Don’t feel bad, though, it’s a pretty common mistake.
In keeping with the phrase de minimis non curat lex (“the law does not concern itself with trifles”) I will endeavor to do likewise.
Feel free to have the last word, if you want.
June 24, 2013 at 4:04 pm
That Other Anonymous
Democratic Jon said: “Money has as much effect, if not more at the local level compared to the National or State.”
While that may be true in some cases, particularly when the “local” level is in a densely populated area with a large pool of voters for local races, I would maintain that the usual pattern is that the larger the population of the district is — for example, the entire population of the U.S., for the U.S. Presidential race, as opposed to a few thousand voters in an Arcata City Council race — the more reliant those voters are on campaign ads and media coverage to form their opinions of the candidates.
Why, because in a place like Humboldt, with a relatively small population, more people will have had occasion to meet the candidates, or see them speak in person, or know someone who knows them, or in some other way be acquainted with their reputation in the community. People are also more likely to be personally acquainted with some of the candidate’s supporters and endorsers, and/or their reputations in the community, and can incorporate that information into their judgement of the candidates. So while money isn’t irrelevant, it generally isn’t as big a factor in a place like Humboldt, as it is in larger cities, or more populous counties, or statewide or nationally, where voters have little to know direct knowledge of the candidates, and their indirect knowledge is mostly filtered through highly scripted campaign events, almost always insipid and frequently obnoxious campaign ads, and mostly-horse-race-obsessed media coverage. That’s what I was trying to get at.
June 24, 2013 at 4:04 pm
Janelle Egger
“Just curious as to whether, now that you’ve attended a meeting, it’s starting to dawn on you that the reality of how the plan is shaping up — the actual language of the actual policy provisions — just doesn’t at all match up with the scaremongering “they’re giving carte blanche to developers” propaganda…”
TOA, I saw scaremongering coming from both sides.
This from the HumCPR website: “The current Guiding Principles restrict the right to live on rural land… It is very important our Supervisors hear that our community values very much include protecting our rights to live on our land. It is essential… that we are not forced into urban settings. …Social engineering is unacceptable. We need to insist that rural property rights are included in the Guiding Principals. …”
Personally, as HumCPR was born on the heels of the county stepping into stop Maxxam from using the bankruptcy process to sell off some more timberland, I admit to a preconceived bias against them. I didn’t think the breaking-up of timberland was what this county needed if timber was going to continue as part of our economy. (Remember, the real estate bubble burst after this, at the time prices were climbing.)
So when HumCPR claimed to be for the small landowner, I was a skeptic. When I heard that the Plan A people wanted to drive people off their land I was baffled as to why people would believe that until I thought about it. From work with the Alternative Owner Builder group many years ago, and hearing about the overbearing code enforcement, I understood HumCPR had tapped into long standing fear and mistrust of the County, particularly the Planning Department.
June 24, 2013 at 4:10 pm
That Other Anonymous
Democratic Jon,
Anyway, putting aside for the moment the disagreement over how much of a role money is playing in our local politics here in Humboldt County, it seems we do agree that the influence of money in politics is a growing problem in general. So, I’m curious, did you get a chance to watch that video about the Clean Elections model for voluntary public financing? If so, what did you think? Is that an approach you could support?
June 24, 2013 at 4:15 pm
That Other Anonymous
“TOA, I saw scaremongering coming from both sides.”
No doubt about that.
June 24, 2013 at 4:24 pm
Janelle Egger
“This will necessarily include dialing back on some of the overblown “all is lost because they changed some words in the Guiding Principles” ”
You are right, all is not lost, yet. But I hope you are not meaning to imply that changing some words in the Guiding Principles is unimportant. This is, remember a long term plan. After it is completed there will still need to be decisions made, all cannot be done at once. Like most of us, the County has limited resources. There is lot to do. How will the County staff prioritize what to do first? The Guiding Principles should provide that guidance.
Will staff organize workshops to assist those who might be interested in knowing the process that will allow multiple buildings on existing ‘smaller’ parcels, or will the first priority be to formalize all the restrictions and set up the process to allow the breakup of large parcels? Perhaps there is another option, helping owners of smaller parcels to pool the resource, the timber, while creating individual property rights to live on the land. That might create a model for the future subdivision of large holdings that would not be as attractive to buyers wanting parklandestates and workable for selective and other environmentally sound practices which sometimes are more difficult on smaller parcels.
June 24, 2013 at 4:36 pm
That Other Anonymous
“From work with the Alternative Owner Builder group many years ago, and hearing about the overbearing code enforcement, I understood HumCPR had tapped into long standing fear and mistrust of the County, particularly the Planning Department.”
Yes, and if you notice the way the previous Board majority blatantly ignored the recommendations of their own much-ballyhooed Code Enforcement Task Force, and continued to give their unwavering support to Kirk Girard despite the many manifest failings of the Planning Department under his leadership (just to name a few of the prominent signals sent by the previous Board majority), it’s not hard to understand, why, in the glaring absence of any other political force sticking up for them, rural residents, small rural property owners and those sympathetic to them, flocked to join HumCPR, or at least appreciated the role HumCPR played in representing the point of view of many rural residents.
There are many lessons there, including: (1) The gods of politics abhor a vacuum — so if you leave legitimate concerns festering someone else will step in and provide leadership, and you may not like the results, and (2) Overreach engenders backlash. The corollary to the latter is that in the aftermath of a spasm of overreach and backlash, it takes time to reach something approaching equilibrium. I think we’re still in the relatively early stages of that now.
June 24, 2013 at 4:49 pm
That Other Anonymous
” Perhaps there is another option, helping owners of smaller parcels to pool the resource, the timber, while creating individual property rights to live on the land. That might create a model for the future subdivision of large holdings that would not be as attractive to buyers wanting parklandestates and workable for selective and other environmentally sound practices which sometimes are more difficult on smaller parcels.”
Did you see the earlier discussion of the Mattole Restoration Council’s PTEIR project?
http://www.mattole.org/content/mattole-forest-futures-pteir
Is that the sort of thing you are referring to, because if so, I’m all for it, and would love to see the same kind of thing for other watershed. I commented on it here:
June 24, 2013 at 4:51 pm
Janelle Egger
Re elections and the GPU mandate:
In the Spring of 2011 there was a rumor that Supervisor Clendenen had been approached and offered funding for his campaign, if he agreed to a list of required positions. Story was that he turned it down and began fundraising. By the end of June he had raised about $31,600.
Between July 1 and Dec 31 Fennell raised $31,972. Almost a third of Fennell’s donations, $10,000 came from ten donors who each contributed $1500 to Bohn, $1000 to Fennell and $1000 to Brooks.
I don’t claim that these donations prove that one cohesive group of people were meeting secretly somewhere and orchestrated, on purpose, a coordinated overarching campaign based on some set of issues. But I don’t know that the donations weren’t so orchestrated and this does lend support to the rumor.
As for this campaign being a mandate on the General Plan; I can understand that Fennell winning with her direct connection to HumCPR has a set position, just as Lovelace is seen as having a set position. But Bohn has said that the number one issue people talked to him about was cleaning up the front of the Courthouse. Both he and Sundberg stated they needed time to get familiar and take it slow so they could consider each issue. I don’t see that as a statement that they had any set position, but some took it as a sign that they were in HumCPR’s pocket.
Looking at the donations in the other districts in the 2012 election supports the notion that money is only one factor. In the First District, Bohn with his years of commitment to his community didn’t need to raise $142,883 to win. Seidner, with less than $5,000 still came in second, beating the $25,990 candidate. And Lovelace won, although his opponent raised almost 3 1/2 times what he raised.
Issues, and perhaps connections, may matter more than money in our local elections. However, one issue is only definitively decided by an election when that issue is on the ballot. The GPU Guiding Principles will be decided by this Board. I am interested in knowing the reason behind each of the proposed changes that were tentatively approved by the straw vote. Would viewing the video of the meeting provide that information?
Donation numbers from
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_19898271
&
http://www.times-standard.com/ci_20289048/bringing-money-supervisor-candidates-file-finance-disclosure-forms
June 24, 2013 at 5:29 pm
Jim
Janelle:
While campaign fundraising is a topic worth discussing, your examples should at least compare apples to apples not apples to bananas to oranges to lemons.
For example. If memory serves, by the June election, Rex had raised something like $300k, Cheryl over $50k and Annette $25k, nothing like the numbers you quote above and personally, I would never use the T-S as a source for anything.
June 24, 2013 at 5:31 pm
Cookie
I heard the same rumor about Clif and that he turned the money down. I heard a rumor that the money Clif turned down was offered to Estelle and she took it. I had forgotten that. Glad you brought it up Janelle. I also “am interested in knowing the reason behind each of the proposed changes that were tentatively approved by the straw vote.” And who exactly thought up the reasons.
June 24, 2013 at 5:45 pm
That Other Anonymous
I don’t doubt the First District fundraising numbers cited in the Times-Standard article that Jannelle linked to — the problem is that those numbers only cover the fundrasing that took place from Jan 1 through March 17th.
Seidner didn’t even officially announce her candidacy until the week after that, March 21st. Meanwhile the other two candidates had already been running, and raising funds, for many months.
June 24, 2013 at 5:55 pm
That Other Anonymous
By the way, it’s probably not a great idea to begin your narrative with “there was a rumor that…” and “story was…”
In my view, the bottom line with Fennell and Clendenen’s fundraising was that while Estelle did raise more money from outside the district than Clif did, Estelle also raised much more money, mostly in small-ish donations — from within the district, compared to Clif. In my view it was mainly the overall level of public support that Estelle already had within her district that caused most of her fundraising success, not the other way around.
June 24, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Jim
Also, what people forget about Clif is that he was $25,000 in the hole from his first campaign, loans from his campaign manager and others plus what he had put in out of pocket and a lot of that initial fundraising was to pay off these loans.
June 24, 2013 at 6:24 pm
Janelle Egger
TOA, Thanks for the links to the Mattole and your earlier comment. I didn’t get past the discussion of the study For existing small, medium parcels that’s a wonderful approach.
I still think that large land owners may have a greater ability to meet rigorous environmental safeguards, and weather downturns in the market. They also have a greater ability to manage land only for short term profit, as Maxxam demonstrated so well. Given what was happening in the real estate market at the time, I still believe that Board’s action did was correct. That it morphed into something else is regrettable.
The model I am thinking of is the Big Lagoon model. Each member of the Big Lagoon development owns their cabin and the right to move it should it be threaten by bank erosion. There are restrictions on the size of cabins that were imposed at one point by the elected board. The asset, coastal land, is held in common.
June 24, 2013 at 7:27 pm
That Other Anonymous
I like how you’re thinking, looking for a win-win approach.
I understand the argument that larger timberland ownerships ought to, at least in theory, be well-positioned to do “light-touch” selective logging, though as we both know, that hasn’t been how it’s actually played out on the ground so far. Part of this is that large ownerships under corporate / private for-profit control have a strong incentive to maximize profits for their owners or shareholders in the short-term. Maxxam was the extreme example of that, given that their timberlands were rapidly squeezed dry in an effort to both meet the massive debt payments required by Hurwitz’s junk-bond-financed takeover of Pacific Lumber, and also, at the same time, yield big profits that Hurwitz cold suck away to Texas.
The Big Lagoon approach, as you describe it, sounds like an interesting approach, and potentially an innovative one. I don’t know whether it would translate well to timberlands or not (do you know if anyone has tried such a model, either in our region or elsewhere?), but it certainly seems worth considering (on a voluntary basis) to see how well it might work.
June 25, 2013 at 7:15 am
Democratic Jon
6/24..
08 am Forest Queen – you’re right – I would replace “lawyer’s” with “non-laypeople” to get closer to the point I was trying to make.
You’re right. … (hillmuffin abstract word count…2)
**************************
11am HOJ – I’m sorry I don’t understand your background enough to make it through your response. There is something you wrote when I first joined the discussion regarding civil wars that I can’t get passed. I will write about it in the future when things slow down a little. If I am going to do it right, it will be a serious, personal response to that comment. It’s so important to me that I want to get it right. I’ve already deleted one (long) attempt before posting already.
Also, I can tell there is some bad blood in this comment zone. My first concern however is getting some interesting and informative information on all things GPU. There is so much to learn about the background. TOA’s made a strong case to back up his opinions. I think it is important to try to understand where everyone is coming from as much as possible. You know – democracy. To Bothilo’s (sp?) point a week ago at some point we all are going to be human and hypocritical. We are not god’s here – with the possible exception of longwind who may in fact be a demi-god.
I’ll check out the stump-house issue some day. The name is great though. Speaking of tree-houses has everyone seen the incredible tree houses behind the old Safeway at Harrison and Harris in Eureka? The are 50 or 100 feet high and are amazing. Probably tough to pass through the building department today though.
Issues over personal. More later. (5)
***************************
4pm TOJ – I agree with pretty much all of your post except your conclusion. This also goes to the following discussion about actual campaign contributions that Janelle and Jim discuss. My bias for the following points is I am highly devoted follower of talk radio – left and right if I haven’t already made that embarrassing admission. I also cannot subject myself to non-KEET TV anymore. I also dvr almost all my media consumption (including radio) so I don’t have to deal with the mind-numbingly repetitive local commercials.
1) You are right of course about the personal aspect of candidacies of in our area. Anecdote: one of my first impressions of the Neely/Bass campaign came from my neighbor who I like a lot but we don’t discuss the biggies like politics or religion. He had a Neely sign up which seemed odd because he has not been a proselytizer like myself. Just recently I asked him why he put it up because I was wondering about his feelings on Supervisor Bass. He said the Neely’s were a long time friend of the family.
2) To the point about the actual campaign contributions. That was my point about the baseball teams. There may not be a strong correlation between campaign funds and winning. The first site that comes up when doing a Google search for “correlation between campaign spending and winning” is
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/CampaignFinance.html
which has economics and liberty in their title, so I’m going to assume they are well funded and … conservative.
Here is how the article begins…”conventional wisdom holds that money plays a central and nefarious role in American politics. Underlying this belief are two fundamental assumptions: (1) elective offices are effectively sold to the highest bidder, and (2) campaign contributions are the functional equivalent of bribes”
I don’t need to read the rest, I know where that is going. But they do have a point.
a) One complication between correlating money and winning especially in Humboldt is…is said money being spent efficiently? I’m going to guess that a large portion of it is being spend on TV advertising. How many people are still watching TV? How many of those have the ability to skip commercials? If they are subjected to commercials, how much more sophisticated is the viewer now with their ability to fact-check on the internet in real time? I think there is a major shift in people’s choice in media and I wonder if the Money is keeping up. But that’s literally your job to figure out, no?
As a cab driver I knew Rex Bohn was going to win-just because of his effective sign campaign. I thought Bonino would too because he seemed to have the same people manage his sign campaign. Not quite as aesthetically effective as Bohn’s baseball, but he had it in all the same extremely effective private property spots (read land-owning friends) (See money and politics below). I think the Bonino/Atkins campaign was won on the back of Atkin’s work ethic – I drove past her campaigning on her own in the Eureka streets on at least one occasion. Her victory gives me hope going forward.
3) My point about money and politics to you and the following conversation between Janelle and Jim is this. I’m concerned about the larger money spending universe…Super PAC’s, trying to create a paper locally to influence opinions, KINS v KGOE, preferred placement of street signs, that link I just found randomly on the web above, etc ad infinitum. Money is everywhere in our cultural/political matrix and Money has an agenda. I believe Money has bamboozled the good people of America from a FDR America 40 years ago to a Rush Limbaugh America. We are feeling the effects of this today and will until we begin to focus again on critical thinking.
Here is my point locally. I love to refer to that first speaker on the June 3rd BOS meeting. He made the point – we voted the 4 of you in, now do your job. It’s true. What did he mean by that? Who are the 4 people? Are they all Republicans? All Tea Partiers? what? IMHO, they are all flexible in their opinions on property rights vs. regulation/government oversight. This is Money’s largest concern in local politics, IMHO, and also why I think the GPU brings the citizenry out of the woodwork. We can feel the injustice in our bones – to be fair – on both sides.
Coffee fueled rants can be expressive, but correct? (9)
************************
4 pm Janelle- This was my personal favorite part of that HumCPR letter “Several groups advocating a radical agenda are planning to show up in force.” I guess if Softball’s Richard Marks is a Progressive Democrat then the only space that remains for me on the spectrum is a radical? On second thought maybe they are right. Just Watchin’ would agree for one.
Sarcasm can be useful when experiencing cognitive dissonance. (8)
***********************
4:10 TOA – So on your second prodding I did (some of) my homework. I used a new iPhone app to record my neuron’s exact reactions to the video you linked to…it went like this…
“Bill Mo..?YES!”
I’m a huge Bill Moyers fan. In fact I can track back at least three of the ideas/recommendations I’ve posted here to him. Narrative – Joseph Campbell-Bill Moyers. HSU Elite (pejorative used lovingly) – Susan Jacoby – Bill Moyers. On The Media-Bill Moyers. If he is for it, I’m probably going to be on board. For those who disagree on most things Bill Moyers… it’s not that I’m agreeing with whatever he says, it’s that I’ve found over the years that we have similar values and tend to end up on the same side of any given issue. Is that a distinction without a difference? I don’t know. Also, if you think you disagree with Bill Moyers because you agree with Bill O’Reilly… Check out some of his shows on the internets. Most of them are there and free (unlike O’Reilly – back to the Money point). He does interview strong thinkers on what is often considered the right. I’m thinking of Richard Viguerie, and many financial experts that had a great deal to say pre and post 2009.
I would support all sorts of reform. I think I’ve mentioned how upset I am that a vote for the Green Party for example is a default vote for the Republicans in many states. We need to address this as well as money. I think all the third parties (including Tea) have a great deal of interests in common with many true Democrats on these issues. They are Constitutional Amendment Majority waiting to happen if we can overcome our mistrust of each other.
The good people behind that link need to work on their production values but I suppose then don’t have the money for that. zing.
Bill Moyers is a national treasure. (6)
***********************
June 25, 2013 at 7:29 am
bolithio
Thing is, when your an industrial timberland owner, you are going to maximize your profit in the short term andmaximize your productivity in the long run. The later part is mandated and enforced by the State. So while many people point to how MAXXAM liquidated much of the standing inventory during their 20+ year reign, the forests they left where not deserts. Indeed there is a tremendous amount of timber that will “come on line” in the next two decades.
So much indeed that MRC was able to purchase the company and implement the coveted “light touch, aka selection” policy – even knowing that volume production would be very low for the first 15 years.
If I have a point it is that the tragedy of PL/Maxxam is one of local culture, people, jobs etc…The forests themselves are just fine. I do not think they would be “fine” if they were fragmented into thousands of individual ownerships following the maxxam era. I also agree that it was good that we prevented that.
June 25, 2013 at 9:28 am
Cookie
” campaign contributions are the functional equivalent of bribes ”
” The forests themselves……… I do not think they would be “fine” if they were fragmented into thousands of individual ownerships following the maxxam era. I also agree that it was good that we prevented that. ”
A couple sentences from the long dialogue that stand on their own.
June 25, 2013 at 9:35 am
Janelle Egger
TOA, I think you give a negative connotation to rumors. And they often are, like some advertisements in our technology age, misleading or untrue.
However, sometimes rumors are the communication of facts. When the facts are difficult to verify, it is easy to dismiss the facts by saying, “Oh, that’s just a rumor” or “all you need to do is consider the source.”
Jim, If Rex raised anything like $300,000 then he would have raised more than Neely and Bass COMBINED raised in the 2010 race. That his contributions did approach the level of a hotly contested race is interesting isolated fact that could be attributed to all the work he has done for the community. I would be interested in knowing how much he has left, he doesn’t appear to me to be a spendthrift.
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_16415007
Just to be clear, the final total is an irrelevant fact. The important information is that it now seems to me that if Clif was approached, it appears it was an offer/threat that was real. What is still unknown is if the offer was made to others who accepted. My hunch is that the offer was ONLY made to Clif, and to his credit he refused.
June 25, 2013 at 9:45 am
Eric Kirk
I don’t know if he was offered money Janelle. He was definitely threatened with money to be spent against him and they made good on their threat.
June 25, 2013 at 9:45 am
Jim
Janelle: Whether Clif was approached or not, if he had represented his whole district and not just a vocal minority, he would have been able to ignore the approach and raise the funds needed to mount a credible campaign.
People who think total money raised isn’t important, will continue to support candidates who, while admirable in person, don’t stand a snowballs chance of winning. This, for instance, is something Eric and I are in total disagreement with. He thinks candidates should be chosen solely on policy, where, realist that I am, I think it should be based on both policy and electability.
June 25, 2013 at 9:48 am
Eric Kirk
Even so, Clif was clearly electable. There are plenty of Sohumers who were happy with his representation, but were loyal to Estelle. And if anything, Clif’s energy spent on Sohum as opposed to the northern part of the district was disproportionate in Clif’s favor.
There are a number of reasons Clif lost, but the biggest reason was that he is an environmentalist in a district hostile to environmentalism.
June 25, 2013 at 10:00 am
Janelle Egger
“that the tragedy of PL/Maxxam is one of local culture, people, jobs etc”
Were those tree left because it was the most efficient way to harvest, or because there were regulations requiring selective harvesting?
Yes, we are lucky there was a willing buyer that could wait 15 years. Hopefully that was the plan rather than subdividing. Only time will tell…
If you think that all is fine with the land following the Maxxam approach, you should go talk to those living in Elk River.
That some business decisions are made without concern for culture, people, jobs, etc. is not OK in my book.
June 25, 2013 at 10:25 am
bolithio
Janelle; neither. PL/Maxxam exclusively used clear cutting. The harvest units were regenerated via natural and artificial regeneration. Unlike harvests prior to the 1970s, stocking standards required a certain amount of trees within 5 years of the logging. As such units from the 1980s and on are mostly fully stocked redwood forests rapidly approaching commercial stages.
Regarding Elk River, I lived there for over 10 years and flooded every year. People in Elk River who blame logging for flooding should be forced to take a college hydrology class and then consider what happens when you build houses in a flood plain. Not to mention that the floodplain has been intensively converted to pasture and is still extensively grazed. PL/Maxxam may have settled with people to shut them up, but the science behind the capacity of forest filter strip is going to point to a negligible effect on peak flow on the vast majority of formally clear cut forests.
Peak flows were certainly higher in the historic era following logging (Faulk) – when the practice was slash and burn, but in the modern era of harvesting, the units were regenerated and are now young forests with 300+ trees per acres that are 30-50 feet tall.
June 25, 2013 at 10:30 am
Anonymous
“There are a number of reasons Clif lost, but the biggest reason was that he is an environmentalist in a district hostile to environmentalism.”
Gee. What happened to those hundreds, indeed thousands, of SoHum hippies who paraded up to Headwaters for more than a decade, magnetizing progressive forces throughout the county and state, and fighting liquidation logging so forcefully that it had to be defended by Diane Feinstein and Bill Clinton? Those hippies pissed Eric off, that’s what happened, so they’re no longer environmentalists. Rock on, Eric.
Janelle, I really appreciate your voice in these discussions. I hope you’re clear, since Eric makes much so murky, that no one down here supported Maxxam’s subdivision either. No one I know of fought the 45-day moratorium that telegraphed to the bankruptcy judge how little support Maxxam had across the county. (Only Roger Rodoni among the Supervisors, let’s see, why did we elect him again? Who elected him? Oh wait . . .)
Fractured fairy tales are all good fun but should be recognized for what they are. Eric may know every supporter Clif had down here, but he regularly displays how little he knows of the great majority of us, who proved Clif to be unelectable on his record–because poor Clif learned about SoHum from the likes of Eric, and like Eric couldn’t learn from the rest of us. Anyone who can’t understand rural issues except as Sierra Magazine does can’t represent us. Clif proved it, and Eric still does. Good luck with the next campaign, amigo!
On the other hand, cooperation and mutual understanding could be really groovy. I’m glad most of the county seems to like the idea.
June 25, 2013 at 10:36 am
Eric Kirk
What happened to those hundreds, indeed thousands, of SoHum hippies who paraded up to Headwaters for more than a decade, magnetizing progressive forces throughout the county and state, and fighting liquidation logging so forcefully that it had to be defended by Diane Feinstein and Bill Clinton?
I believe that most of them voted for Clif. A good dozen of them were involved in Clif’s campaign both times around.
As to what happened to the others, human nature. It’s all about what the other guy is doing.
And a few of them have actually been quite candid and honest – telling me that they’ve rethought their views on private property rights. There has always been a libertarian streak – it was expressed on talk shows on KMUD years before the TPZ and GPU issues ever came up. Judy Bari raised it once with me personally, after a really ugly demonstration at a Rodeo Parade and the lack of community response. She told me that she believed that Sohum hippies had become too comfortable, “too middle class.”
It happens. You get older. And you have vested interests. It’s not evil. It’s just human nature.
June 25, 2013 at 10:40 am
That Other Anonymous
“There are a number of reasons Clif lost, but the biggest reason was that he is an environmentalist in a district hostile to environmentalism.”
Cliff performed best in “hostile to environmentalism” Fortuna and worst in SoHum, which is not “hostile to environmentalism” except by a the very narrow definition that defines environmentalism as opposition to rural living.
June 25, 2013 at 10:42 am
Eric Kirk
And of course “opposition to rural living” is the audacious suggestion that rural living might need some planning and regulation as much as urban living.
June 25, 2013 at 11:27 am
That Other Anonymous
The premise that the goal is no regulation of rural areas is as false now as it was the last time you made the claim. In any event, even if that somehow was the goal, it’s certainly not what the actual language of the GPU’s actual policy provisions reflect, wild “gone are all the protections” extrapolations of revisions to the Guiding Principles notwithstanding.
June 25, 2013 at 11:29 am
Janelle Egger
“the funds needed to mount a credible campaign”
And how much is credible depends on how much someone else is willing to spend.
People who think they know everything will continue to talk as if that was a fact rather than a belief.
When Estelle entered the race in 2008 I saw two candidates that I could support based on policy. Experience wise I thought that perhaps Estelle might have a better skill set for the job to be filled. Clif appeared to me to be more electable, I knew him as a very ethical person and hard working. I didn’t think either had a chance until fate stepped in.
Clif won and served for four years. I did not support his reelection, but I find the notion that he represented “just a vocal minority” offensive and out of line.
I didn’t support Estelle either, but I wish her a lot of luck fulfilling Jim’s standard of representing the whole district, and sincerely hope she ignores the notion that minorities are bad if vocal.
June 25, 2013 at 11:45 am
Anonymous
The Other Anonymous says “The premise that the goal is no regulation of rural areas is as false now as it was the last time you made the claim. In any event, even if that somehow was the goal, it’s certainly not what the actual language of the GPU’s actual policy provisions reflect, wild “gone are all the protections” extrapolations of revisions to the Guiding Principles notwithstanding.”
There is nothing in the GPU which is any more than the bare mimimum required by state law. The plan is only different from the old one because state law is different and the majority is not writing the GPU to fashion a creative preservation policy but rather to avoid losing the lawsuit when it is over. it is pretty minimal stuff going into the GPU and you are either biased to your agenda or easily impressed.
June 25, 2013 at 11:51 am
Janelle Egger
bolithio, I understood from your first comment that Maxxam did not use clear cuts exclusively.
You wrote: “but the science behind the capacity of forest filter strip is going to point to a negligible effect on peak flow on the vast majority of formally clear cut forests.” I must ask that you translate that if you wish me to understand that sentence.
My understanding is that there is an apple orchid that did very well through the floods for many more years than the 10 you lived there. I don’t think the Elk River folks need a lesson in hydrology, I think they understand that “the vast majority” is not the same as all.
June 25, 2013 at 12:53 pm
Eric Kirk
The premise that the goal is no regulation of rural areas is as false now as it was the last time you made the claim. In any event, even if that somehow was the goal, it’s certainly not what the actual language of the GPU’s actual policy provisions reflect, wild “gone are all the protections” extrapolations of revisions to the Guiding Principles notwithstanding.
“Plan D” with “minor tweeks” was actually the rallying cry in the CR meeting 2010 – that we weren’t supposed to “overhaul,” but merely “update” the plan of the 1980s, despite the fact that realities, laws, and our understandings of the impacts of low density development into the wild areas have changed. Homesteaders were used to a hands-off policy, and because the Planning Department and the Department of Environmental Health hired people who had taken Environmental Studies courses as undergrads, the emphasis changed and there was kind of an urgency in making up for lost time as the Mattole wasn’t making it to the ocean and certain species have been disappearing as roads have been built on a whim for decades.
There will be some additional restrictions which may or may not be actively enforced. What is missing is an overall policy statement as to the impact of the extension of low density development. It’s great that they’re not going to make it easier to subdivide TPZ parcels and that housing developments will be limited to two residential structures within a three acre area. I didn’t ever think there was any question about that, but if they were considering the allowance of more impact, then I’m grateful for whatever forces of moderation at least physically preserved the resources, whether they will actually ever be harvested. If I was living in Shasta County I might even consider that something of a victory.
June 25, 2013 at 2:17 pm
bolithio
Sorry Janelle.
Ill try to clarify.
Clear cuts in the 1990s have all been re-forested and currently have trees and understory vegetation covering the surface of the ground (as opposed to bare soil). This does several things. It dissipates the rains energy prior to reaching the ground and reduces peak flows from surface run-off (in heavy rain events). Second, the vegetation itself, especially the trees take up and hold water from the soil which increases the soils ability to permeate water – which reduces run-off.
Now compare a forested surface with a completely open one, which is intensively grazed. You have compaction from cattle that reduces bulk density. That means the rain permeates slowly and runs-off faster in heavy rains. With little to no vegetation on the ground or along streams (only grass and some willow patches) peak-flows in near-by streams are increased dramatically during rains.
There are very few previously clear cut areas left in Elk River that are not covered in trees 10-50 years old. However the converted pasture lands remain and are still intensively grazed.
June 25, 2013 at 2:59 pm
Cookie
June 25, 2013 at 9:45 am
Eric Kirk
I don’t know if he was offered money Janelle. He was definitely threatened with money to be spent against him and they made good on their threat.
Eric, this part of the conversation reminded me of something that Clif said to my partner. It was at an event in Fortuna, I think towards the end of the campaign. Endorsements. This is the best I can remember it. He told her that he had received tons of endorsement packets and questionnaires, and that he had not filled any of them out. And that he had not sought out any endorsements. Did not want to be beholden to anyone. This should have been made public during the campaign.
Doesn’t that mean that Estelle got endorsements with no competition?
What does that mean about the groups that did endorse Clif, and he didn’t seek out their endorsement or fill out their packets and questionnaires?
June 25, 2013 at 4:54 pm
Janelle Egger
bolithio, Thank you for the translation.
Were not the pasture lands there long before Maxxam? And the apple trees. Whatever logging practices were used, the problem continues. Whether caused by the “very few previously clear cut areas left in Elk River that are not covered in trees 10-50 years old” or residual stream degradation from the 1990’s clear cuts themselves, or both, the important thing is to stop dismissing those who are left with the problem. State Water Quality staff agrees with the residents that the condition of the river continues to worsen.
Click to access friends%20of%20the%20eel%20river%20communication144970.pdf
And yes, I realize that Maxxam employed professionals who probably did everything they could within the circumstances of the time.
June 25, 2013 at 5:32 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
June 24, 2013 at 2:24 pm
That Other Anonymous
You having a differing opinion, does not make me dishonest. Don’t feel bad, though, it’s a pretty common mistake.
In keeping with the phrase de minimis non curat lex (“the law does not concern itself with trifles”) I will endeavor to do likewise.
Feel free to have the last word, if you want.
Response: Referencing 10:17 pm, 06-23-13 post and its follow-up “got caught allibies by TOA” implicates dishonesty by TOA when furthering the cover-up modus operendi “come-back retorts” claiming a false reason for the false claim of differing opinions; rather, HOJ focuses on the facts that so eloquently were left unexplained by TOA in the the StumpHouse Issue in order to make something appear, how shall it be stated nicely, appear more absurd than it really was to make the impression that the little ole Stumphouse was setting-upon regular ole land.
The absurd StumpHouse reads less absurd when including Streamside Management Area in the explanation of why the neighbor complained. If the StumpHouse was not located in an SMA as described by TOA @ 10:17 pm on 06-23-13, THEN would the neighbor not have complained?
So, TWO different versions of explanations suggests two different responses and varying opinions. TOA did not cite all the facts of the StumpHouse issue which is deceptive and dishonest.
TOA Got Caught with 5 fingers discounted in the COOKIE JAR,
Five and Dime,
Word,
HOJ
June 25, 2013 at 5:41 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
It’s great that they’re not going to make it easier to subdivide TPZ parcels and that housing developments will be limited to two residential structures within a three acre area.
Response: Eric wrote the above comment but remember, two residential structures was apparantly not going to be allowed on “some” TPZ parcels depending on the acreage/size.
HOJ asked Eric and anyone else what difference does it make if 2 units exist on any TPZ land if the acreage for conversion of use is limited to a maximum of 3 acres.
It seems that “harvestable timber” exists on smaller than 40 acre lots (not sure how many exist and exist with harvestable timber sufficient enough in supply. Obviously, a 3 acre TPZ property could not have two residences with a 3 acre conversion of use and still support harvestable timber.
So, it seems there must be a “fine line” from somewhere that would dictate how small a TPZ parcel can be before it really can’t provide much in harvestable timber.
This is still a concern to be clarified as of two weeks ago.
HOJ
June 25, 2013 at 6:37 pm
bolithio
the important thing is to stop dismissing those who are left with the problem.
Thats fine, its just that “those with the problem” continue to be in complete denial of the process that were there prior to humans entirely. They can spin their narrative of victimization forever – but it wont change the fact that they live in a flood plain which will periodically flood for centuries to come. Not because of logging, but because of hydrology (the water cycle) and geo-morphology (geologic formation of the watershed). Elk River is comprised of wildcat and hookton formation soils which are prone to subsurface erosion and water will always have periods of turbidity.
June 25, 2013 at 6:53 pm
bolithio
TPZ has a minimum parcel size of 160 acres. It can be further reduced to 40 acres with a JTMP. As a forester, I dont support TPZ parcels less than 40 acres. There still may be commercial trees to be harvested occasionally on them, but its not worthy of the tax break.
June 25, 2013 at 7:27 pm
Anonymous
Bolithio writes: “The forests themselves are just fine.”
The redwood forests are doing fine? They were just about wiped out completely. And where they stood, existing logging practice continues to replant other species. The forests are not fine, as the climate is becoming dry at an increasing rate. Ask any fireman how well the forests are doing.
June 25, 2013 at 8:15 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
True Bolithio,
but there are those “weird sizes” too that are not even 40 acres. It is agreed that TPZ should not be subdivided below 40 acres, but those which already fall below that threshold should not be “disallowed” from 2 units in a converted 3 acre area if harvestable timber exists. This is the concern being raised – what about exisitng sub-40 acre lots that don’t conform to the new standards. Maybe, some lot line adjustments between neighbors occurs, maybe sales that combine two parcels, etc…. Just think it is only fair that the “new rules” have exceptions for those already in the “grey areas”. Besides, if the sub-40’s are not harvestable timber effective, then all the more reason to be “fair”.
Sincerely,
HOJ
June 25, 2013 at 10:46 pm
Janelle Egger
bolithio,
People lived with the Elk River flooding for many decades prior to Maxxam. Are you spinning a narrative that it is the timber industry that is being victimized by vicious people making unjustified claims? Are you trying to say that the change in the river is unrelated to the logging upstream?
Maxxam used other logging methods, why was clear cutting used in the Elk River watershed? Perhaps that is the industry standard in watersheds comprised of wildcat and hookton formation soils.
Please remember that we agree “that the tragedy of PL/Maxxam is one of local culture, people, jobs etc…”
June 26, 2013 at 5:09 am
bolithio
Hench: Sometimes zoning needs to change. If not to deal with new standards, but to clean up mistakes of the past. If a sliver of land yielded a 3 acre parcel of TPZ, it should be changed to a appropriate zone regardless of “timber”.
Janelle, answering your questions: No. Yes (or at least any change related to logging was from historic logging prior to 1980s maxxam when clear cuts were ridge to ridge and didnt offer riparian buffers)
And I think I confused you, maxxam didnt really use other methods. They pretty much only clear cut.
June 26, 2013 at 5:37 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Bolithio,
HOJ knew what you wrote regarding zoning two decades plus ago and mentioned the types of actions taken to resolve issues, but I did inquire of those weird less than 40 acre lots being treated fairly when Harvestable timber yields may be not effective.
Were both in agreeance,
Cool Mo Dee,
HOJ
June 26, 2013 at 7:19 am
Democratic Jon
Jim –
This person thinks money in the form of campaign funds is important. For one it informs voters which campaigns are serious when there are more than two. My point was that the candidate with the largest campaign coffers doesn’t always win. That’s why we still go through the troublesome process of voting. And, as I am trying to understand the Clenenden/Fennell race from a historical perspective largely from people here who experienced it first hand, are you saying that Clif didn’t have a snowballs chance of winning, or are you referring to a third person that I am not aware of?
Because it seemed to me like the race was pretty close. I think it would have been much closer if Cookie was right about his discarding potential endorsements. Just fill out the damn things and let the chips fall where they may. I would imagine he wanted to protect his business interests and not alienate too many customers. (Note to editor… Cookie is only one source on the endorsement issue – may just be hear-say)
While I was looking up information on the race here is a telling quote from the T-S on Supervisor Fennell’s positions. “She has said she wants to address issues regarding sensible land use, environmental protection, property rights, business development and education.” That perfect mix- all embodied in one person.
This is when our adversarial system breaks down. We need to have public debates. The chance for the public to have their say in these debates is when they vote. Being an advocate of such a mishmash combined with blurring the well established party lines leads us to the public outcry we are experiencing today over the GPU.
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_20793832/tight-race-2nd-district-humboldt-county-supervisors-race
I’m still wondering if I could sway you on the legitimacy of the HCDCC’s lack of endorsements for candidates like Supervisor Fennell. I wrote about this in depth a few days ago but here is a summary. As Democrats we have to balance the purpose of the Committee as “supporting actively Democratic candidates” and being consistent with our principle of an “honest and transparent government”. I believe many on the HCDCC find a contradiction between those mission-statement goals when debating whether or not to endorse Supervisor Fennell et. al.
Doesn’t the (D) without an endorsement carry some validity and allow for more people to find a home in the Democratic Party? The latter should be a goal we are both for. Once Democrats like Estelle, Supervisor Bass, and Eureka Councilmember Brady start getting endorsements as well as the (D), the current majority progressive/liberal wing (for lack of a better term) of the Democrats loses any formal means to denote their protest. And let me emphasize that against, we are talking about a majority on the Democratically elected HCDCC. Shouldn’t that count?
I understand your point about being a life long Democrat, I do, but isn’t that why the (D) is there? Can you acknowledge that there may be some value to the Democratic Party to parse the endorsements very carefully?
I would like to note that I included Supervisor Bass and Councilmember Brady on the list above because both nominally ran to the right of their opponents based on my impressions of the race. Is it safe to say that the Clendenen/Fennell race was more murky in terms of left v right, but on all things GPU Fennell definitely ran to the right, right?
June 26, 2013 at 8:56 am
Jim
Democratic Jon:
I’ll have more in a bit, but here is a NCJ article from a year ago that I think sums up my problems with the HCDCC quiet well. I think this link should work…
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/humboldt/dem-schism/Content?oid=2133157
June 26, 2013 at 8:59 am
Cookie
Is the forum for the clear cut Green Diamond is doing going to take place be before or after the clear cut?
June 26, 2013 at 9:14 am
Cookie
Yep. Estelle is a wolf in sheeps clothing. She is much more Republican than Democrat. And her vote of no on more time for public comment on her re- write of the GuidingPrinciples shows it. I’d forgotten that Bass changed party affiliation. I still thought she was a Republican.
June 26, 2013 at 9:51 am
Forest Queen
Do you guys have any idea how great your posts are? Too bad the intelligence is being wasted discussing the Power Status Quo (PSQ).
Eric looks for de facto conversion – try February 21, 1871 when Congress incorporated and went into business.
NAN up there on June 20 ripping someone a new one – is just hilarious – intentional or not.
i can’t subject myself to the word ‘Democratic’ – as in Democratic Jon. Forty-something, with definite signs of Dualism-Stuckism-Syndrome (DSS). I try to read your comments, b u t I can’t get past the intended, influence of Division.
For example; where exactly is the word democracy in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Amendments thereto -the Bill of Rights?
This indoctrinated stance you have chosen to wear, as well as displaying it in front of Jon, is disturbing . . . the hour is getting late. Please bring forward fact/evidence to support your false hope in the division that doesn’t exist, that you’ve been ‘played’ into playing the metaphor roll of, Democrat. As if it has ever, or ever will, truly matter positive for humankind. Our main desire is to bond. Words that create sep ar a tion or bring that feeling up – is, fortunate or unfortunate, a feeling of nausea – as words can carry with them the breath of death. That’s just the way it is Jon.
Majority does not decide right or wrong, your conscience does.
The Supreme Court has determined:
“All codes, rules and regulations are for government authorities only, not humans in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process.”
Rodrigues v Ray Donavan (1985).
Seems like the due process sought here in this thread, is for one, agreement on definitions/terms of the words – yes? I.E. – your definition of the words “non-laypeople.” These words just aren’t in my realm Jon.
i also seriously doubt that you and me share the same definition of the word “lawyers”
June 26, 2013 at 10:22 am
Anonymous
Uh…no, the Supreme Court has “determined” no such thing. This is simply a fabricated quote, which appears nowhere in the actual case, which is a case that was never heard by, nor cited by, the Supreme Court. See here:
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7892
So:
(a) It’s not a Supreme Court case. It’s a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case: Rodrigues v. Donovan, 769 F.2d 1344 (9th Cir. 1985).
(b) The “quote” is simply fabricated; it does not appear anywhere in the text of the decision.
(c) Not only does the decision not use those exact words, it doesn’t say anything like that.
Here’s the text of the actual decision:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9246881990924854314
If you’re going to post a supposed “quote” from a Supreme Court case that supposedly makes a vast, sweeping claim like “All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process,” you might want to at least spend 60 seconds checking to see if the quote is real, and that it comes from a real Supreme Court case.
June 26, 2013 at 11:09 am
Just Watchin
Anonymous @ 10:22 …..sorry you wasted your time looking up FQ’s “quote”. Most people familiar with her posts know that she makes things up as she goes, so they don’t bother.
June 26, 2013 at 11:36 am
Forest Queen
I stand corrected – hold the quotes, it’s a summation. Yes, 9th Cir. It’s a one-pager in my downloads that has the Supreme Ct. just as I typed it – crumby excuse I’ll admit . . . nevertheless, it doesn’t detract from my putting into action the thought and ‘let’ it manifest with the intension that we, not the architect of every detail, will be surprised at what comes our way.
Our desire if kept in mind and not a hundred other confections, we attain the goal with ease and less doubt.
June 26, 2013 at 12:21 pm
Anonymous
No, it’s not a “summation,” it’s a hoax, plain and simple. The case does not provide one iota of support for the claim made in the paragraph.
.
June 26, 2013 at 12:26 pm
Jim
Democratic Jon:
The snowballs chance is in relation to Eric’s belief that policy should be THE defining factor in candidates, not my belief in policy PLUS electability.
Yes, money is a telling factor on who is a serious candidate. In the Rex, Cheryl, Annette race, both Rex and Cheryl raised huge amounts from the community where in Annette’s case $22,000 out of $25,000 came out of her own pocket. And while it is not everything, until media becomes free, we’re stuck with it.
As to debates, there was the televised KEET debate between Clif and Estelle, plus additional ones in the different locales, Fortuna, SoHum, etc.
One of the complaints the campaign got was – Where did Estelle stand on issues? In response, we ran “Where I Stand” newspaper ads with her positions on ultimately 10 or 12 important community issues.
The race between Clif and Estelle was close only if you think a 6% margin is close. Clif was the incumbent and they are rarely defeated, historically. One the the things that worked against Clif was the fact, because of the write in candidacy of Johanna Rodoni the prior cycle, he did not win a majority of the vote, but only 40% if I remember correctly. Which of course means 60% voted for someone else. And while that improved to 47% against Estelle, his failure to represent the majority of the voters of his district came back to haunt him.
I also have to laugh at Eric’s latest newest reason for Clif’s loss – He was an environmentalist. Eric refuses to admit that Clif was a weak candidate, a nice guy, but weak none the less. And without a massive media buy and a track record that was lacking accomplishments, he was toast.
June 26, 2013 at 12:35 pm
Eric Kirk
So what exactly was her position on big boxes in Fortuna Jim? The question was asked. She answered, and lots of people clapped. But I didn’t quite get it.
What was her position on the legalization of marijuana?
I guess I missed the “Where I stand” article, but I do remember in 2008 the marijuana question came up.
Q: Do you support the legalization of marijuana?
Johanna: Yes
Clif: Yes
Estelle: Well, the devil’s in the details….
Q: Do you support the construction of a big box in Fortuna?
Johanna: Yes
Clif: No (in both 2008 and 2012)
Estelle: In 2008, “It depends on which big box.”
In 2012, “I personally don’t buy cheap plastic crap from China.”
Just as a couple of examples. Yes, Clif lost in great part because he’s an environmentalist in a district which is hostile to environmentalism. I actually said that shortly after the election Jim.
June 26, 2013 at 12:50 pm
Jim
Eric:
If you did, sorry I missed it. And I don’t think the district is hostile to environmentalism as much as environmentalism with no consideration of job creation or anything else.
And since when in 2012 was there any hint there would be a big box in Fortuna? What I find amusing was that after all the huffing about Wal-mart, they found a way in anyway though the one time I was in there, deserted would be a charitable discription. And if there was not a follow up question at the Mateel… And since Wal-mart has snuck in, I don’t hear ANY concerns about big boxes anymore. But call in to MMM and ask. It’s not up to me to put words in Estelle’s mouth.
As to her position on MJ, I think it’s become pretty clear, what with the attempt to pass a county ordinance and her statements on it.
Actually, we ran two separate 1/2 page ads in both local papers and in the T-S listing her positions, four or six each time. Sorry you missed them.
June 26, 2013 at 12:56 pm
Cookie
Estelle has made clear that mega grows are alright by her with her statements on the county ordinance.
June 26, 2013 at 1:05 pm
Eric Kirk
That’s a lot of dancing around Jim. She had two opportunities to answer the question. She dodged both times.
I don’t blame her from a strategic perspective. She had to appeal to the right in Fortuna, and not push the Sohum left too far. Best not answer at all.
But some of us prefer to know where our representatives stand on these issues. Clif will always tell you straight out what his position is. That’s why I came to support him over Estelle back in December of 2007 at the Civic Hall in Garberville. He was refreshingly candid. A rarity in politics.
June 27, 2013 at 8:29 am
Democratic Jon
Jim, thanks for the response and the link. More later after I catch up, consolidate and develop thoughts on all things Democratic Party endorsements. I would briefly add to another conversation that a paid advertisement is not a something to tout as a means to spread your candidate’s platform. It kinda goes to the point of those concerned about money and the democratic process.
June 27, 2013 at 8:40 am
Jim
Democratic Jon:
As you’re thinking about things, I would be interested in how you would get a candidates platform out to the greatest number of people?
Our position ads were seen by thousands and where Estelle stood was there in black and white for all to see.
June 27, 2013 at 8:53 am
That Other Anonymous
Humboldt County supervisors receive death threats over GPU.
http://www.times-standard.com/news/ci_23550023/humboldt-county-supervisors-receive-death-threats-over-gpu?source=rss
June 27, 2013 at 9:13 am
Democratic Jon
Good question Jim, thanks, I’ll add it to my list. One quick thought having gone through some of the old comments around April 2012 would when one of the debates with Clif happened would have been to advocate for debates without pre-screened questions and more rebuttal time? Maybe more debates? Those are first thoughts.
Also, I have to re-post this incredibly prescient comment by Jane given how the guiding principle changes have gone through so far. I know that the process isn’t over, but I think that is only because of the public outcry. If there wasn’t such a vocal response, I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t have been revisiting that GPU mission statement.
******
April 13, 2012 at 1:17 pm – Sohum P.
Estelle, like most politicians without extensive actual experience, can always adopt the feel-good friendly-to-transparency point of view. Those of us who have worked with Estelle in other organizations know this is not always how she manages her own workload. I haven’t worked directly with Cliff so I cannot speak to his own style.
Jane
*******
I hope you don’t take this in a snarky fashion that it may sound. I am giving you my first impressions given what I know at this point. I am still learning and deferring to those who a) live in Supervisor Fennell’s District and b) where involved/paying close attention. I’m sure in the end, no matter how much I learn we are going to have fundamental differences but I’d still like to reserve any potential snarkiness for future posts.
I have pdf’s of most of the old T-S’s so if you happen to have quick access to a date one of the ads was printed I could check it out. Google doesn’t seem to effective at retrieving ads.
June 27, 2013 at 9:39 am
Jim
DJ:
The T-S ads were run on Thursdays in the Eel River Valley section of the paper in the last six weeks before the election. Which ad was run when I don’t really remember.
June 27, 2013 at 10:41 am
Cookie
Jim: maybe you could list her positions here? I bet you still have them, or Kathleen and Estelle still have? It would be interesting to see them now. You said there were 6 or so positions where she stood?
June 27, 2013 at 11:18 am
Democratic Jon
Eric. Here is an op-ed on the front page of the NYT that sounds like it will be significant for GPU-related stuff. Can you translate it’s potential influence on local issues from one steeped in the language of GPU and law? Have you commented on it before?
A Legal Blow to Sustainable Development
By JOHN D. ECHEVERRIA
Published: June 26, 2013
STRAFFORD, Vt. — LOST amid the Supreme Court’s high-profile decisions on affirmative action, voting rights and same-sex marriage was another ruling that may turn out to have a profound impact on American society. The court handed down a decision on Tuesday that, in the words of Justice Elena Kagan, will “work a revolution in land-use law.”
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District
Also, thanks Jim
June 27, 2013 at 11:30 am
Democratic Jon
Also, to point of the nexus of ideology/money, and development/real estate/property rights any guess of the breakdown on this 5 to 4 decision? True even on the federal level I see.
(correction… front page of NYT online)
Finally time to enjoy the amazing day too. Blessings back at you SBB from the other thread.
June 27, 2013 at 12:42 pm
Forest Queen
Anonymous,
What may be a “sweeping’ statement to you, is not to me.
I told you I’m reading this from one page for now. Rodrigues v United States Secretary of Labor, 769 F 2d 1344 (1985). I did read this case years ago.
This is in quotes –
“ . . .the record before us indicates that Rodrigues may have cognizable due process claims, Rodrigues does not make a facial attack on the constitutionality of the FECA procedures themselves, but instead, asserts that the procedures are unconstitutional as applied to him. . . . we do not find the due process challenges unsubstantial . . “
“We do not mean by this to express any opinion on the ultimate merit of Rodrigues’s due process claims. We defer to the district court in the first instance. We simply conclude that, on the basis of the record before us, Rodrigues’s due process contentions appear to be more than mere allegations included in the complaint to create jurisdiction where none would exist otherwise.
19850826 © 1998 VersusLaw Inc.”
THE PROCEDURES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO HIM.
(it’s a matter of knowing one’s self)
If you can’t see the game, you’re not even looking for the rules.
June 27, 2013 at 1:29 pm
That Other Anonymous
That’s not even close to the claims made in the fake quote that you first falsely attributed to the Supreme Court, and later tried to defend as somehow constituting a “summation” of the appeals court decision:
The former — the actual language from the appels court decision — is a very pro forma statement indicating that the appeals court did not rule out the possibility of due process claims, because that was not the issue before the appeals court. (The issue before them was whether the lower court had jurisdiction or not, and this appeals court decision said yes, the lower court did have jurisdiction, and remanded the case back to the lower court for further action).
The latter — the fake quote that you first attributed to the Supreme Court, and then claimed was a “summation” of the appeals court decision — is an entirely fictional account of what this appeals court decision said, It has no basis whatsoever in the language of the decision. In short, that paragraph represents either a hoax, or a delusion, depending on the state of mind of the person who wrote it.
June 27, 2013 at 3:37 pm
Cookie
TOA: are you in the legal profession?
June 28, 2013 at 6:29 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
HOJ says two things are coming-back to haunt society in America as HOJ said it would a couple years back on the blogs for which HOJ was called mean names.
#1) That anyone buying gold was a fool sure to get stuck holding the bag as “Ye who owns the gold is Ye who posesses the gold” and since paper notes saying one owns this or that many troy ounces of gold, blah, blah, blah, etc….and yet no gold audit of the treasury for how many years?
#2) That the housing market is messing-up the real-etstate industry for LAND PRICES, especially AGRICULTURAL LANDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GREED BREEDS PROFITEERS & SUCKERS, MANY BACKSTABBERS, MORE THAN ENOUGH LIARS, SO MANY NAIVE,
and of course the little socio-politically brainwashed children tools,
link = http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/home-prices-rebound-farmland-gets-riskier-kleintop-133041545.html
HOJ
June 28, 2013 at 8:10 am
Democratic Jon
tee hee hee, I just received an email – I’m going to my first official Democratic Committee Meeting. *rubs palms* (ie a committee within the umbrella HCDCC -Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee)
This is going to be the Democratic Communication and Education Committee where resolutions and endorsements are debated and composed to be voted on at the main meeting of the HCDCC. I’m not sure if the powers that be would like names and date exposed, though I don’t know why not, but let us just say it is shaping up to be a very interesting conversation. If I could draw an analogy, it would be as if a group of Republicans and a group of Democrats had to come into a room to come up with a meaningful response to the decimation of the GPU mission statement.
TOA: Objection!
DJ: I retract my last statement your honor.
For those that care, I’ll let you know how it all turns out after the meeting where I can a) observe what is going on – I can probably contribute, but I have no voting power and b) I can ask around at where to draw the line, if any, at public/private information.
Another beautiful day in paradise. Thank God for Global Warming!
June 28, 2013 at 11:52 am
Forest Queen
DJon,
Trying to cast out the devil with Beelzebub? Using his own rules? roflmao
Only the ones who do not know the law can really only be the ones ‘practicing’ it, i.e. attorneys.
“Disobedience in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man’s original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through rebellion.” Oscar Wilde
“When democracy trumps liberty, the seeds of tyranny are sewn.”
Jefferson
Times are quickening.
June 28, 2013 at 12:19 pm
Forest Queen
Anonymous and That Other Anonymous,
For the sake of brevity, let’s say the summation I mistakenly put quotes around isn’t there. My point is that most people don’t get the idea that there is no MAN MADE LAW that orders a man or woman to ‘ask’ permission from their Public Servants to do something that is natural. Such as eat, fish, travel, walk.
Contract is law, Law is contract, and consent makes the law.
If we were dealing with a legit system, then the laws would be simple and intuitive. On that basis, alone, we know we’re not dealing with a legit system.
We’ve grown to be dependent. We have lost sight, totally, of what “independence” means. At the end of the day, I’d attribute this enormous frustration to the slow but sure awakening, that there truly is no political solution, that there is no way that changing out this or that political office with someone else is going to make one cotton pickin’ bit of difference – the voice of the people has been drowned out by the quiet rush of “hush money.” The frustration exists because we’re going to have to do this ourselves, not by or through someone else, but rather by our own individual intuitive. We’ve become dependent, so being compelled to be independent is extremely frustrating.
June 28, 2013 at 9:25 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
FQ is right,
America ain’t LEGIT,
and
America is far from “Too Legit to Quit”,
Too many sheeple,
Bahhhhhhhhh,
Nasty Cheese Hoof Rot Smell,
This is the scent of American stench,
So says Hench,
HOJ