The latest newsletter can be found inside last week’s North Coast Journal, and for me the most interesting portion was the one dedicated to four questions asked of each of the candidates. I can’t find it online at either the NCJ or HumCPR sites.
I’m going to summarize the responses pretty much ignoring the commentary candidates gave which is not directly related to the question. You should read them on your own however, as some of what they say is tangentially related, sometimes provided when the candidate didn’t feel it was a question appropriate for the position for which he or she is running. I sometimes receive some complaints about my interpretations of campaign statements, occasionally even from candidates I support. I could say that sometimes the “confusion” is the product of the difficulty of interpreting either inadvertently or deliberately vague or evasive responses, but I’ll leave that up to you. This is just a primer for those of you who may not access the newsletter any time soon.
I think the wording of a couple of the questions are problematic as well, as noted. A few of the candidates respond to a question by challenging a premise behind it, and I note that in my summary. If I can’t tell what the candidate position is on the question, I note that as well.
Fourth District Supervisor:
Do you believe the County should uphold the people’s principally permitted right to build a home with a home with a ministerial permit on their legal existing parcel? (this question assumes that the right is always principally permitted as oppose to conditionally permitted regardless of zoning or other legal status of the land, or at least it fails to distinguish).
Virginia Bass – Yes, as long as the right is recognized by state and county law.
Jeff Leonard – I think maybe the answer is a yes, but basically he defines “ministerial permit” and says that the definition has been changed for the Marina Center project and objects to that process.
Bonnie Neely – Points out that it is not a principally permitted right with every parcel under existing law and says that discretionary permits are applicable when there is an issue of compatibility with surrounding land uses. Believes that the Board needs to review ag zone and TPZ policy and establish a set of checks and balances, but not require conditional use permits for the majority situations in which owners don’t intend to receive tax breaks for ag or TPZ status.
Should the County have the right to unilaterally merge existing parcels that were legally created just because a single owner now owns them?
Virginia Bass – No
Jeff Leonard – No
Bonnie Neely – The county does not have that right. The existing law provides for due process. Using the merger ordinance to prevent fragmentation of timber and agricultural lands may not be a good idea. She wants to hear alternatives.
Do you believe that the public has been adequately informed and given sufficient opportunities for meaningful input in the General Plan Update process?
Virginia Bass – Acknowledges that the County has spend a great deal of time over the years on the issue, but does not believe that the information provided has been adequate or timely.
Jeff Leonard – Says that the county has taken ample public input on the GPU, but needs to speed up the process.
Bonnie Neely – Yes
Do you believe that the County is effectively administering the current General Plan?
Virginia Bass – Responds in the negative and then refers to a lack of clarity which applies to policy regarding the current plan as well as the update.
Jeff Leonard – Doesn’t really answer. He says he’s done a good job with Eureka’s General Plan and says that complaints about the County process should be directed to Bonnie Neely.
Bonnie Neely – yes, especially considering the funding limitations.
The responses from the other races are summarized below the fold.
Fifth District Supervisor:
Do you believe the County should uphold the people’s principally permitted right to build a home with a home with a ministerial permit on their legal existing parcel? (this question assumes that the right is always principally permitted as oppose to conditionally permitted regardless of zoning or other legal status of the land, or at least it fails to distinguish).
Ryan Sundberg – Supports the current permit procedures.
Patrick Higgins – Yes, as long as all policy considerations have been factored into the requirements for a ministerial permit, particularly environmental and conservation considerations.
Patrick Cleary – Yes, for all residential zoned properties. Says it’s more complicated for ag or industrial zoned properties. Supports ministerial permits for one home per parcel on TPZ parcels of 160 acres or larger.
Jeff Lytle – Yes, because a right is a right.
Should the County have the right to unilaterally merge existing parcels that were legally created just because a single owner now owns them?
Ryan Sundberg- No
Patrick Higgins – Supports the existing merger ordinance as applied towards Williamson Act and TPZ land only. Points out that owners receive tax breaks precisely because it is necessary to treat the land differently from residential land in order to preserve resources.
Patrick Cleary – Does not support the Merger Ordinance in its current form. Supports an ordinance to prevent fragmentation with incentives and possibly a merger ordinance, but also to allow for owners to roll out of applicable land status.
Jeff Lytle – I’m pretty sure the response is “no.”
Do you believe that the public has been adequately informed and given sufficient opportunities for meaningful input in the General Plan Update process?
Ryan Sundberg – I’m not clear on his answer to the question. He commends the Commission for holding a meeting in Garberville, then says that he’s concerned about the people who are concerned about the proposed plan.
Patrick Higgins – Commends the Planning Commission for its efforts, but suggests the Board of Supervisors could do more to explain the process in their own districts and promises to spend lots of time in the 5th District. Was this a swipe at outgoing Jill Duffy?
Patrick Cleary – I’m not sure he addresses the question specifically, except to suggest that the County can do better despite having held “160 meetings” and received “600 comments.” Thinks it’s time to finish the process. Basically, I think he’s trying to say that it’s been open enough and it’s time to finish the process.
Jeff Lytle – The whole process has been twisted, deflected, and deformed.
Do you believe that the County is effectively administering the current General Plan?
Ryan Sundberg – There are too many time delays in permit approvals.
Patrick Higgins – Lack of resources and staff are a problem. Efficiency can be improved. The inequities put a particular burden on those with less money to spend.
Patrick Cleary – The current General Plan is difficult to administer because it is out of date and not in compliance with state laws. The Planning Department needs better administration. The Headwaters Fund should be used to streamline permitting and increase transparencies, but the project has not been implemented.
Jeff Lytle – Leaders have failed. Special interests are bad.
Assessor:
Do you believe the County should uphold the people’s principally permitted right to build a home with a home with a ministerial permit on their legal existing parcel? (this question assumes that the right is always principally permitted as oppose to conditionally permitted regardless of zoning or other legal status of the land, or at least it fails to distinguish).
Johanna Rodoni – Yes.
Jon Brooks – Doesn’t believe the question is in the purview of the Assessor’s Office, pledges to stay out of other political issues, and tries to explain the role of Assessor. He addresses tangential issues, such as the lack of clarity with regard to the difference between a legal parcel and an Assessor’s parcel.
Mari Wilson – The Assessor’s job is to locate, identify, and value all of the land. The existence of a permit or legal parcel is not in the scope of the Assessor’s job.
Should the County have the right to unilaterally merge existing parcels that were legally created just because a single owner now owns them?
Johanna Rodoni – No, as it will have numerous negative impacts on the owners.
Jon Brooks – The issue is beyond the purview of the office. He will assess all property, whether merged or not, as specified by law.
Mari Wilson – Assessor’s Parcels are only combined at the request of the owner.
Do you believe that the public has been adequately informed and given sufficient opportunities for meaningful input in the General Plan Update process?
Johanna Rodoni – More effort is needed for such an important process.
Jon Brooks – The Assessor’s office is not directly involved in the process, but may be able to help with the process by providing improved data and analysis, particularly with regard to the “illegal subdivision” issues.
Mari Wilson – The question is not appropriate for an Assessor candidate and should be directed to offices directly involved in the process.
Do you believe that the County is effectively administering the current General Plan?
Johanna Rodoni – In some cases no. The County is delaying processes in anticipation of the GPU, when decisions should be based solely upon the existing plan until a new one is implemented. The current plan with a little tweaking should be the basis of the new plan.
Jon Brooks – Again, the issue is not a direct one for the Assessor’s office, but the Assessor can be indirectly helpful. The Assessor should not become involved in subdivision and zoning controversies, and should coordinate with other agencies to send tax bills to record owners, while helping to provide notice to innocent owners of questionable parcels.
Mari Wilson – Again, the question is not appropriate for a candidate for the Assessor’s Office.
District Attorney:
Do you believe the County should uphold the people’s principally permitted right to build a home with a home with a ministerial permit on their legal existing parcel? (this question assumes that the right is always principally permitted as oppose to conditionally permitted regardless of zoning or other legal status of the land, or at least it fails to distinguish).
Allison Jackson – Prefaces by saying that the questions have nothing to do with running the D.A.’s office, but offers her responses as a private attorney. Says that people have a right to a ministerial permit process.
Paul Hagen – Prefaces by saying that the D.A. has no authority in the subject area of law, and cannot properly weigh in on subject issue policy decisions, and therefor declines to answer.
Paul Gallegos – Prefaces by saying that the D.A. needs to maintain neutrality on the issues in order to enforce the law in an equitable and just manner. Does not believe it would be appropriate to voice personal opinions on the subject. Therefor, no comment.
Should the County have the right to unilaterally merge existing parcels that were legally created just because a single owner now owns them?
Allison Jackson – Currently the County has that right if they follow certain requirements. The County can, but should not as it causes significant financial burden and even financial ruination.
Paul Hagen – Declines to answer.
Paul Gallegos – No comment.
Do you believe that the public has been adequately informed and given sufficient opportunities for meaningful input in the General Plan Update process?
Allison Jackson – Disappointed in the meetings she has attended.
Paul Hagen – Declines to answer.
Paul Gallegos – No comment
Do you believe that the County is effectively administering the current General Plan?
Allison Jackson – No
Paul Hagen – Declines to answer.
Paul Gallegos – No comment.
46 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 16, 2010 at 9:26 pm
ED Denson
I’m in the dark here. I am voting for Johanna for Assessor because I know and like her. I am voting for Paul Gallegos for DA because I think he is doing a good job and have heard nothing from the other candidates which indicates they could do better. I vote in the 2nd district, so what I’m wondering is which candidates in the 4th and 5th district do I want to wish would win if I want my land as unencumbered as possible by regulation, medical marijuana patients and dispensaries to be supported, and intelligent guidance of county affairs?
May 16, 2010 at 9:35 pm
Eric Kirk
I lean towards Neely in the 4th and Cleary in the 5th (much as I like Higgins). I’ve already said I’m voting for Brooks. I’m working on a post re the D.A.’s race, which I’ll post soon.
May 16, 2010 at 9:48 pm
Eric Kirk
I just realized that they didn’t ask the questions of the Sheriff candidates.
I really don’t know who’s the better Sheriff candidate. I’ll probably just vote for Hislop because he’s perceived as the underdog and closer elections are good for democracy.
May 17, 2010 at 5:53 am
Rose
“I’ll probably just vote for Hislop because he’s perceived as the underdog and closer elections are good for democracy.”
In that case you are voting for a guy who likes Asset Forfeiture and AR=15s, and setting up his own assault team complete with all the cool outfits. Amusing. “Good for democracy,” O-K, then.
Who do you think the targets of Asset Forfeiture are?
May 17, 2010 at 6:23 am
Anon
“…so what I’m wondering is which candidates in the 4th and 5th district do I want to wish would win if I want my land as unencumbered as possible by regulation, medical marijuana patients and dispensaries to be supported, and intelligent guidance of county affairs”
Ed, In response to your question Eric responded unsuprisingly that he supports Bonnie and Cleary dispite the clear and obvious information that both strongly favor dramatically increased regulation and restriction. This utterly fails to answer your question. This could be reasonably interpreted as disingenuous at best. Wouldn’t it be great if candidates and pundits alike simply answered questions directly and without spin?
Bass, Leonard. Sundberg, and possibly Lytle (if you can figure out what he is talking about) all support less restriction. All of the candidates have been supportive dispensaries and medical issues except Lytle, who’s position is muddled at best. As to intelligent quidance, hey, they’re all politicians and given enough time all will screw it up.
As to Sherriff, Hislop is an asshole and a power freak. Often underdogs are what they are because they shouldn’t be elected. Giving credibility to poor candidates who would do a poor job is very bad for democracy. Greoge Wallace and David Duke were underdogs.
Educate yourself before voting. Don’t listen to me, Eric, or anyone else. It is your civic responsibility to be an informed voter. Blogs are not a place to become informed.
May 17, 2010 at 6:59 am
Anonymous
Too bad candidates saw fit to duck the questions. It seems to me that they were being asked their personal opinions about the topics. To say that it is not a questions relevant to the office they are running for is simply evading giving their opinion. Rright or wrong, good or bad they should have responded and their failure will affect my vote.
May 17, 2010 at 7:13 am
Eric Kirk
Well, should they also respond to questions about the Iraq war? Flat tax? American Idol?
May 17, 2010 at 7:23 am
Anonymous
Eric your editorial addition to the straightforward question about ministerial permits is inappropriate. It shouldn’t matter how the property is zoned. Every property owner should be entitled to a ministerial permit.
May 17, 2010 at 7:23 am
Anonymous
“Well, should they also respond to questions about the Iraq war? Flat tax? American Idol?”
Deciding not to respond to a questionare is a candidates perogative. Once the decision is made to respond they should actually answer the questions. A BS response should affect the way we vote.
May 17, 2010 at 7:39 am
Anonymous
What’s going to affect my vote is whether the candidate panders to an organization like HumCPR. Jackson, Rodoni and Sundberg have their tongues so far up HumCPR’s ass they can taste its breakfast.
May 17, 2010 at 7:44 am
Dave Kirby
There are no easy answers to any of these questions. Certainly none that can be answered in a sound byte. There are hundreds if not thousands of parcels in the county that cannot support a residence. Lack of water, failure of sewage disposal perk testing, flood plain etc. There are also many non conforming TPZ parcels that in reality will never yield enough timber to be commercially viable. There really needs to be a systematic review of all existing Ag, including TPZ.parcels and a more realistic zone designation applied. It’s my opinion that any change that disallows a single residence on a TPZ that otherwise has the infrastructure to support the dwelling is legally a “taking”and opens the County to serious legal exposure.
May 17, 2010 at 7:47 am
Eric Kirk
have their tongues so far up HumCPR’s ass they can taste its breakfast.
Quite the imagery. You should write children’s books!
May 17, 2010 at 7:48 am
Eric Kirk
Eric your editorial addition to the straightforward question about ministerial permits is inappropriate. It shouldn’t matter how the property is zoned. Every property owner should be entitled to a ministerial permit.
Okay, well, that’s a perspective I guess. I disagree.
But in any case, I think everyone agrees that a residential zoned property should be subject to a non-discretionary process in which a permit is guaranteed if certain requirements are met.
On another subject, Johanna is on the radio right now. I’ll be listening on my way to the office.
May 17, 2010 at 8:24 am
Fred Mangels
Rose wrote, “…In that case you are voting for a guy who likes Asset Forfeiture and AR=15s, and setting up his own assault team complete with all the cool outfits.
I wrote elsewhere it will be ironic if the lefties end up mostly supporting Hislop- whether because of his supposed education or underdog and outsider status- and thus vote for the candidate supportive of the “militarization” of law enforcement. Not to mention asset forfeiture and such.
May 17, 2010 at 8:31 am
Anonymous
johanna did an excellent job of answering hubers’ and woods’ questions. they really tried to trip her up with leading questions, and she hammered them with answers that were clear and succinct. woods actually sounded like he finally understands how the assessing process works, thanks to johanna’s easy to understand answers.brooks lost my vote. i will now be voting for johanna. so will my partner. johanna is clearly a very smart,creative, and thoughtful woman. she will serve the county, and we, the people, well, as assessor.
May 17, 2010 at 8:52 am
Eric Kirk
Fred and Rose – so you’re telling me that Downey is opposed to asset forfeiture?
I do have to say that the education is a plus for me. I’d really like to see more college educated cops in general.
But what I’d really like to know is why the Republican hamburger guy on Broadway is supporting Hislop.
May 17, 2010 at 9:00 am
Fred Mangels
But what I’d really like to know is why the Republican hamburger guy on Broadway is supporting Hislop.
I don’t know but I would guess either he’s friends or family of Hislop. It would especially seem so since his signs were among the first up.
May 17, 2010 at 9:00 am
Eric Kirk
johanna did an excellent job of answering hubers’ and woods’ questions.
Only heard a portion of it, but she did very well indeed. Definitely smart move to play up the Kreb and Spencer endorsements, both of whom firmly backed Clif in the supervisor election.
Jon Brooks really impressed me however, both on his KMUD interview and in our personal meeting. He is a licensed appraiser which gives him some solid qualifications and I appreciate his overall depth as a candidate and a person. I also appreciate that he will not feel obligated for the office to take a stand on planning issues, but to stay focused on the job at hand. He has pledged to send the tax bills to the owners of record rather than the current office’s policy of coordination with the county by refusing to acknowledge recorded instruments and instead sending tax bills to those whom it deems the “true owners” of the parcels. The owner of record is the owner to be taxed, and the office should allow the other agencies or the courts to iron out the “true” ownership. It’s not the assessor’s call.
May 17, 2010 at 9:02 am
Eric Kirk
Fred – I’m also noticing that his signs share many lawns with Virginia Bass.
May 17, 2010 at 11:06 am
Anonymous
Cleary is a good middle ground compromise between Higgins and Sundburg.
May 17, 2010 at 11:26 am
Not A Native
The challenge I find in choosing a sheriff candidate is its unreasonable to expect any of them will meet my desire for a liberal officeholder. The position just isn’t attractive to people I’d like to see in the job.
The best I can hope for is someone who isn’t corrupt and has a willingness to accept new ideas. Education is the only indicator I have to determine those qualities, so I suppose I’ll vote for Hislop while holding my nose and crossing my fingers for good luck.
May 17, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Anonymous
All four of those questions were loaded and agenda driven. The candidates should have ignored them.
May 17, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Anonymous
Hislop and Downy are both very conservative. There is little difference between them on social issues, so it is really just a matter of style and one (Downy) being an “insider’ in the Sheriff’s office and the other (Hislop) presenting himself as a “reformer”.
One thing Hislop has going for him, is that Rose Welsh opposes him.
May 17, 2010 at 1:06 pm
the reasonable anonymous
“One thing Hislop has going for him, is that Rose Welsh opposes him.”
True dat!
May 17, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Fred Mangels
Hislop and Downy are both very conservative.
Well, Downey described himself to me as being along the lines of a libertarian. I had no problem with that as he’s always seemed an easy going, live- and- let- live type of guy to me.
I might add that a most of the retired Humboldt Sheriff’s deputies I’ve known (worked with a number of them at the Humboldt Bay Power Plant) seemed like pretty mellow, live- and- let- live types.
May 17, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Fred Mangels
Eric wrote, I’m also noticing that his signs share many lawns with Virginia Bass.
Actually, one thing I haven’t noticed is any kind of left vs. right issue in this race. I know I’ve seen Downey signs on some hard core lefty lawns. I expected that most of Hislop’s support would come from the fringe left Gallegos supporters. From reading this thread, that would seem to be true, but from everything else I’ve seen, there is no left/ right divide.
Oh, and that asset forfeiture thing: I’m not sure just how much a county Sheriff would have to do with asset forfeiture policy, but I’m sure they have some influence or policies wouldn’t vary from county to county.
One of the abuses of asset forfeiture complained about most is that agencies need not prove a property owner had knowledge of his property being used for a crime to seize property that was used in, or for, a crime.
Some agencies take advantage of that and seize property where the owner is innocent. I know past Eureka Police Chief Arnie Millsap was quoted as saying some years ago when that problem was brought up, “We don’t do that up here…“. I’ll take his word for it.
But that doesn’t mean it won’t be done up here. We’ve already had the Eureka City Council mulling seizure of cars used for soliciting prostitution. The only reason they dropped the idea was Oakland was in the middle of a lawsuit over exactly such a policy.
So, which candidate would be more likely to use asset forfeiture to its fullest extent and possibly abuse it? I’d say Hislop, if only because he’s already known for suggesting the D.A.’s office use asset forfeiture proceeds for basically power toys like AR15s and a mobile command post. Hardly things needed for that office.
He also keeps insisting he’ll search high and low for new sources of funding, including various grants and such. There’s no doubt in my mind he’ll be looking at asset forfeiture and trying to see if he can get more money out of that. One way to do that is to start seizing more stuff, whether the owners had anything to do with the crime it was seized for, or not.
Only time will tell, but I’m saying Hislop is by far the one we should fear for abuse of the asset forfeiture system and departmental policies. That doesn’t seem to have been a problem with Downey in his role as Undersheriff. As Millsap said, We dont’ do that up here..
May 17, 2010 at 3:10 pm
the reasonable anonymous
“…Hislop is by far the one we should fear…’
Ah, yes, fear. That’s a novel approach (not).
May 17, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Anonymous
e-everything you and huber are basing your questions and assessments are on how does it relate to bob mckee and the tooby ranch. mckee screwed the county, and those that he sold parcels to that were not the county acreage minimum. for mckee to try to use the “i am using the original williamson act contract’ is bs. he signed them, he knew what they said, but he did as he pleased, like he always does.
May 17, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Ben
I certainly will not be voting for Allison Jackson who politicized herself without restraint in this questionnaire. Hum CPR owns her.
May 17, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Eric Kirk
Actually, one thing I haven’t noticed is any kind of left vs. right issue in this race. I know I’ve seen Downey signs on some hard core lefty lawns. I expected that most of Hislop’s support would come from the fringe left Gallegos supporters. From reading this thread, that would seem to be true, but from everything else I’ve seen, there is no left/ right divide.
I believe that Downey is very popular in Sohum. Can’t speak for places like Arcata. I see Downey signs on lefty properties down here as well, but nobody has given me a reason to vote against him, or against Hislop. I’ll look into the weapons and assets forfeiture thing I guess. But I tend to favor underdogs, for the reason stated.
May 17, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Eric Kirk
e-everything you and huber are basing your questions and assessments are on how does it relate to bob mckee and the tooby ranch. mckee screwed the county, and those that he sold parcels to that were not the county acreage minimum. for mckee to try to use the “i am using the original williamson act contract’ is bs. he signed them, he knew what they said, but he did as he pleased, like he always does.
Anonymous – As I’ve explained in posts before, I’m not going to discuss the Tooby Ranch lawsuit here as I have clients who are directly involved in it. The issues are extremely complicated anyway, and no internet forum discussion could do it justice, certainly not where the majority of participants are missing so much of the facts and law. There is so much misinformation and partial truth being spread in the community from all sides of the issue, I prefer to litigate the case where it belongs. If you’re truly curious, you should read the pleadings on file in the case. Your post suggests to me that you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
May 17, 2010 at 4:16 pm
the reasonable anonymous
But posting uniformed rants is SO much more fun than reading the actual pleadings on file!
May 17, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, to be fair, a good portion of the media coverage has been misleading. And it’s not deliberate. It’s complex law which is hard enough to report on if you have the resources to hire attorneys to consult with in your stories. To really do justice to the law in this case, any newspaper article would have to be dull as dishwater and very long.
May 18, 2010 at 8:34 am
Anonymous
Of all of the candidates’ answers only Bonnie’s reflects a real understanding of the process and the issues. Obviously she has been at it for awhile, but she does know what she’s talking about. Neither her opponents nor any of the Fifth District candidates have a solid grasp.
May 18, 2010 at 10:09 am
anonymous says
RE:Fifth District Supervisor:
Do you believe the County should uphold the people’s principally permitted right to build a home with a home with a ministerial permit on their legal existing parcel? (this question assumes that the right is always principally permitted as oppose to conditionally permitted regardless of zoning or other legal status of the land, or at least it fails to distinguish).
erik take=”Patrick Higgins – Yes, as long as all policy considerations have been factored into the requirements for a ministerial permit, particularly environmental and conservation considerations.”
erik you are wrong on your assessment of higgins answer on this question.please reread his words.
he did not say yes to this question…..he stated that IF somebody ALREADY had a ministerial permit…they should be allowed to build . He did not say he supports anyone’s one right to get a ministerial permit….higgins is on record that he supports the “conditional use” permitting process in Option A.
May 18, 2010 at 10:29 am
anon
Humcpr put out a great newsletter. I got my copy that was inserted in the local rags. Although I did appreciate the candidate questionnaire, I was actually very impressed with the diverse articles regarding land use issues. I really thought that steve hackets article on the fundamentals on the GPU was very insightful.
And that Doctors article on rural living= healthy living was right-on.
charly custers GPU Justice article is a MUST read….
May 18, 2010 at 10:49 am
Anon
I like that HumCpr didn’t endorse anybody. Let us read the candidates “answers” and let us make our own minds up.
I read that HumCpr’s membership crosses all the party lines and groups with 35% Dems; 36% Repub; 13% No Party; 4% Green; 12% Peace and Freedom,Libert.,American Independant.
May 18, 2010 at 11:04 am
Anonymous
I think most hippie HumCPR supporters are secretly hoping Bass and Sundburg win, but are too embarrassed to admit it to their liberal friends.
May 18, 2010 at 1:14 pm
anon
what i noticed in humcpr’s newspaper is the diverse business’ that put ads in that newpaper. there’s scads of ’em. one ad that stuck out for me was the ad from the community credit union offering a no hassle water storage tank loan special for land owners.
way cool.
May 18, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Eric Kirk
erik you are wrong on your assessment of higgins answer on this question.please reread his words.
he did not say yes to this question…..he stated that IF somebody ALREADY had a ministerial permit…they should be allowed to build . He did not say he supports anyone’s one right to get a ministerial permit….higgins is on record that he supports the “conditional use” permitting process in Option A.
Well, I don’t have the actual response handy, but that one doesn’t make any sense. Of course you have a right to build if you have a ministerial permit. In fact, you have a right to build if you have a discretionary permit. In fact, you don’t even need the right if you have a permit.
Does Plan A mandate discretionary permit processes for all land, or just TPZ and ag land? If it’s the latter, then the response I attribute to him is more accurate to his position “on record.”
May 18, 2010 at 9:16 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Here’s Higgins’ response in the HumCPR newsletter:
“A person owning a legal, buildable parcel who has been issued a ministerial permit has the right to build a house.”
Fine as far as it goes, but does not really answer the question of whether he supports the current right to a ministerial permit, or a more restrictive regime where many people are required to get discretionary permits. In fairness, his failure to answer that question squarely may be due in part to less-than-perfect wording of the question.
May 18, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Anonymous
Eric, just because Higgins doesn’t make sense doesn’t mean it isn’t his answer.
May 19, 2010 at 9:25 am
Eric Kirk
Well, that’s true. And if RA is quoting him directly, then that is what he said. I suspect he was trying to say something slightly different, which is how I read it. As I said, anyone who has a permit has the right to build a house. Duh.
May 19, 2010 at 10:15 am
anon
Higgins is seen as unelectable. He should drop out and save our county and candidates an exhausting and expensive run off election.
May 19, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Anonymous
Higgins clobbered the incumbent for the Harbor Commission. Same voters.
May 20, 2010 at 8:02 am
Anon
“Higgins clobbered the incumbent for the Harbor Commission. Same voters.”
if its going to be the “same voters” then higgins doesnt have a chance. that particular election had the LOWEST dismal voter turn out in the history of HC.
and the supes race is quite a different story as well, the last time higgins ran for supe he got maybe 11%.