Home > Uncategorized > Code enforcement meeting draws 600

Code enforcement meeting draws 600

KMUD reports that 600 people packed the three hour code enforcement meeting at the Garberville Vets Hall Friday afternoon, and just like when Bill Clinton came to Eureka, not everyone got in. The meeting was streamed live on KMUD and can be heard in their audio archive at kmud.org.

The standing room only crowd was fired up to show support or displeasure at revelations from the CLMP-sponsored meeting. Attendees learned that code enforcement warrants are easier to get than criminal warrants, like those used in drug enforcement. The confusion over what exactly is being enforced by the raids are due to lines being muddied by those doing the raiding and warrant writing.

There are some bad cops in Humboldt County. They wander outside the bounds of the warrants they operate under, and they point guns at young women holding babies on their hips. Worse yet, they appear accountable to no one. There was a lot of finger pointing but, for the most part, no claiming of responsibility.

Apologies were issued to the woman from Yee-Haw, who was forced out of her home at gunpoint while holding her child by a thug with a badge who didn’t come to the meeting. Code enforcer Jeff Conner and District Attorney Paul Gallegos were sorry, but there were no good answers to her question of how this situation will be prevented in the future.

Second District Supervisor Roger Rodoni was equally fired up at the meeting, calling for everyone to show up at next Tuesday’s Board of Supervisor’s meeting at 9am to confront the County Counsel and Planning Department. CLMP will make a presentation to the Board about code enforcement issues at 9:30 am.

Good job to moderator Eric Kirk for keeping focus on code enforcement and not conflating the TPZ and General Plan Update issues.

UPDATE: You can watch highlighted parts of the meeting on YouTube, thanks to Garth.

  1. Anonymous
    April 4, 2008 at 9:16 pm

    It’s almost as if the peace officers are begging for a police review commission.

    It could happen if a different group took up the cause. The current crop of folks calling for police review are so rabidly anti-cop it’s hard to stand with them.

  2. thorn
    April 4, 2008 at 10:37 pm

    indeed there was very little conflating of those issues at all.

    i’m sure that there were some in the crowd who were unhappy about the proposed general plan update and other planning issues, but for the most part people stayed quite focused on the issues related to the code enforcement unit.

    well done people.

  3. thorn
    April 4, 2008 at 11:25 pm

    here’s my immediate impression on how the meeting went:

    it was a useful first step.

    the next important step will be at the supervisor’s meeting on tuesday at 9:00 am. desadier and the county counsel will probably have to attend this one, rather than leaving conner and gallegos holding the bag as they did tonight.

    the woman who had the gun pointed at her at the code raid at yee-haw spoke truth to power in a way that left little doubt that she was indeed telling the truth and that the power had better listen up and listen up good. many other people also gave detailed eyewitness accounts of the many abuses being perpetrated by the code raiders.

    for the most part gallegos, philp, and conner made lots of excuses – everything that went wrong was someone else’s fault, or due to the confusing structure of the c.e.u., or was just a fluke. but this sure added up to a whole lot of “flukes” and “misunderstandings” just in the last few months alone.

    as expected, philp and conner both denied that there was any intent to use the code enforcement unit as a pretext for warrantless pot searches, although there was no way for them to deny the fact that, intent or not, that’s how it works out in practice.

    they simply explaned it away as, essentially, “well, when we’re there anyway, the ‘open field’ doctrine applies and then we can look where we want.” which is exactly our point – the code enforcement unit used as a legal trojan horse to get around the constitutional requirements for probable cause to get a criminal search warrant. to say that you don’t “intend” that outcome rings pretty hollow when you continue doing it over and over.

    thank heaven for local democracy, where your elected officials stilll have to sit and look you in the eye when you talk to them, even if they do waffle and tapdance rather than give a straight answer to most questions.

    gallegos repeatedly stated that the code cops carried guns under the auspices of his office, but that he had no authority to supervise or discipline them. many people pointed out the fallacy of being responsible for arming people he has no control over. gallegos responded that he has been “uncomfortable” with this arragement for “some time” (he’s been in office for 5 years now, and that arrangement has continued throughout). he says he has been “in discussions” with the county counsel about it “for some time” and that it is “taking longer than he would have liked.”

    the general sentiment of the crowd seemed to back an immediate moratorium on the power of the code cops to carry guns, at least until there are clear lines of responsibility and someone can be held responsible for their actions, unlike the pathetic display of bureaucratic buck-passing we witnessed tonight. also popular with the crowd were the ideas of an immediate amnesty, grandfathering existing structures, and creating a new, more realistic and appropriate rural building code.

    rodoni played the populist role, and mostly just sat back and watched the fireworks, occasionally interjecting that it was the other supervisors’ faults and reminding us that it takes three votes to move anything on the board of supes, such as an amnesty, a new rural code, or grandfathering. left unsaid was what, if anything, he was doing to win over those other votes. but then, in what might have been the most astonishing comments of the night, he seemed to suggest that the 2nd and 5th districts were being “targeted” for these code raids to exact retribution against their supervisors. it was a somewhat veiled and suggestive remark, but that’s what he seemed to be driving at – at least that’s how it seemed to be interpreted by the folks i asked about it afterward.

    the mood of the crowd was certainly somewhat angry and frustrated, and there was some shouting at times, but no threats were made or anything like that, and the panelists emerged unscathed, if somewhat chastised. and thankfully there were quite a few moments of levity to help break the tension and keep things fairly civil, if not exactly friendly.

    too bad desadier and the county counsel blew it off. maybe they had somewhere else they really, urgently needed to be, but i doubt it. at least from the point of view of the public, their absence comes off as pure cowardice.

    at least conner, philp and gallegos were willing to listen, to take the heat, and, at least to some (small) extent, provide some answers. hopefully on tuesday, desadier and the county counsel will be on hand to take their share of the heat, and to try to explain themselves to the public who pays their wages. otherwise they should be replaced, poste-haste.

  4. April 4, 2008 at 11:32 pm

    Thanks for your recap, thorn. I’m glad you mentioned Rodoni’s comments about the 2nd and 5th districts. I need to listen to that again. Sounds like quite a conspiracy theory.

  5. thorn
    April 5, 2008 at 12:55 am

    heraldo,

    re: rodoni’s apparent claim of targeting of the 2nd and 5th districts:

    like i say, it was kind of a riddle of a comment, but as best i can recall i think the subject of targeting came up when a woman asked whether they intended to visit all homes in the county to bring them up to code, how they chose where to do these raids and how they could guarantee that everyone was getting equal protection (basically she was getting at the question of selective enforcement and profiling). i think the others may have answered also, but rodoni basically (1) reminded the audience of his earlier statement that there were three supervisors who, he claimed, would be opposed to some of the audience’s proposed solutions (and he may have also mentioned the general plan), and then (2) he asked the rhetorical question of which districts all these code raids were taking place in, and he may have supplied the answer himself, or maybe the crowd did, i can’t remember, but of course the answer was districts 2 and 5. so at the very least he was implying that those two districts were being targeted, and he seemed to imply some connection with the stances of the various supervisors.

    by the way, i thought it was a telling moment when conner was asked if they had conducted any of these raids in other districts, and he had to think hard and even still all he came up with was one or two trips to manila ( i mean, heck, is there anything up to code in manila?) so i think the targeting / selective enforcement question had some traction, no clear answer was forthcoming.

    i’m going to listen to it again, especially because trying to spell it out here, it’s hard to remember just how rodoni phrased his comment that brought me to the conclusion that he was claiming political retaliation, but this did seem to be how it was interpreted by many in the crowd, and i suspect that was roger’s intent.

    so maybe i read too much into it, or maybe i read into it exactly what he intended his audience to read into it, it’s hard to tell since implication, innuendo and rhetorical riddles are so much a part of his speaking style. kinda weird for a guy who likes to portray himself as a plain-spoken straight-shooter regular guy, don’t you think?

  6. thorn
    April 5, 2008 at 2:36 am

    well, at least it wasn’t just me. here’s how eric v. kirk responded to the same point:

    ———————-

    thorn said: …but then, in what might have been the most astonishing comments of the night, he [rodoni] seemed to suggest that the 2nd and 5th districts were being “targeted” for these code raids to exact retribution against their supervisors…

    Eric V. Kirk said: “Yes, the implication is that the Second and Fifth Districts are being punished because their supervisors (Rondoni and Geist) would vote to fire Kirk Girard. This is a very serious accusation.”

    Fri Apr 04, 11:34:00 PM

    [Link]
    ————————

    it seems to me that the photo you have of rodoni on the thread entitled “rodoni: stumping from the dias” kind of captures, in a visual way, his ambition to be the master puppeteer. or he could be playing ominous fugues on a pipe organ.

    either way, he can be one sly fox the way he insinuates such a serious allegation, but without coming right out and saying it. but to make that charge, even as an implication/insinuation, pretty much guarantees he’s not trying to win over those other votes he keeps talking about (and thereby actually adopting some sensible compromise solutions), no, it appears he would rather keep the conflict very much alive and hope that perhaps it costs lovelace the 3rd district seat and gets him a “third vote” on all sorts of things having nothing to do with these code enforcement raids.

    roger’s often amusing, and i appreciate his libertarian streak, which i think does in fact represent the feelings of many in the district – but it sure is hard to like him when he gets into these weird, as he put it himself, “conspiracy theories” that deflect any blame for him as the incumbent, and attempt to focus the raid rage on his adversaries, real and perceived, in eureka.

    at least that’s my take on it.

  7. thorn
    April 5, 2008 at 2:47 am

    aww, crap. i meant to say “…cost lovelace and pitino the third district seat…” sorry pitino fans!

    maybe i should have just said that perhaps rodoni hopes that plumley will be the winner and will side with him more than woolley usually did and more than he thinks lovelace or pitino would. just a thought. or maybe roger’s just enjoying playing the “ornery old coot.”

  8. Anonymous
    April 5, 2008 at 7:14 am

    it is interesting and odd these raids are only taking place in those districts. for some reason the activity has just ramped up in the last few months or so. seems a little elaborate for an election ploy, but if it only takes a phone call to the right person, it is not that difficult to do.

  9. Dem
    April 5, 2008 at 7:47 am

    Estelle Fennell for Supervisor!

  10. Anonymous
    April 5, 2008 at 8:35 am

    Google Earth has changed the game, people. Get ready to start paying your fair share of taxes, just for starters. Our schools and local government operate with that money and it’s not fair to the rest of us for you to get away with ANYthing if it costs the rest of us.

    You may have to bring your building up to code, or if it was built illegally, you may ultimately be required to tear it down. Bad? Yes. County government’s fault, no. Remember when you are pointing at someone – four of your fingers point right back at YOU.

  11. Anonymous
    April 5, 2008 at 8:39 am

    What a great ploy this is to divide the people and pile more blame on county government. It seems odd that the people who usually support the cops in anything they do, including killing unarmed people, (not the back to the landers or pot growers of course) are supposedly up in arms over this. Memos and minutes of meetings leading to this new policy of code enforcement should shed some light. Something just doesn’t add up here.

  12. Taxpayer
    April 5, 2008 at 8:45 am

    7:14, two of the county’s supervisorial districts are mostly within the cities of Eureka and Arcata. Their codes are enforced by city personnel. The other three districts are rural, and the issues at hand are about rural code enforcement.

    I pay all my taxes. My kids go to school. I drive on public roads. I too live in rural Humboldt and rely on the SO for police services.

    Why should other property owners, who also send their kids to local schools, use the roads, and rely on other tax-paid services, get away without paying their taxes (including permit fees)? Why should they get away with non-permitted buildings? Because they haven’t been caught yet?

    The need to obtain building permits has been public knowledge for some time. What I see here are tax dodgers. Cheaters, trying to spin away from paying their fair share.

  13. Taxpayer
    April 5, 2008 at 8:48 am

    8:39 I think the heart of this issue is local government revenue. 8:35 seems to have it pegged.

  14. thorn
    April 5, 2008 at 8:53 am

    well you sure are misinformed. it certainly isn’t about taxes. the tax assessor is a whole seperate thing, and they already tax most of these structures

    they, too use google earth now, and then confirm things on the ground as needed. and somehow the tax assessor doesn’t seem to feel the need to take a dozen heavily armed cops on visits to these same buildings. but then of course the tax assessor odesn’t facilitate these “open-field doctrine” warrantless searches for the sherriffs, unlike the code enforcement unit, which has been used as the legal trojan horse to try to circumvent the need for a criminal search warrant in many of these raids.

  15. thorn
    April 5, 2008 at 8:56 am

    oops – to clarify, my last post was directed at the comments at 8:35.

  16. Anonymous
    April 5, 2008 at 9:02 am

    The Assessors office is most definately involved in whats happening. Ulansey sent a letter to CLMP letting them know about the Assessor making multiple “suprise” harrassment inspections of his home because of his stand on enforcement and property rights. Evidently they found nothing unpermitted but keep showing up anyway. Supposedly they have been working with code enforcement in other areas as well.

  17. tad
    April 5, 2008 at 9:07 am

    Peace be with you

    If someone could link the radio archive I would appreciate it. Also if anyone makes a transcript that would be nice also.

    I agree with most of Thorn’s assessment, but the fact that many in the crowd believed Rodoni was their supervisor while these goon-squad code/pot raids allowed to proceed. Rodoni is seen by many as a quisling involved in the deliberate building of the Humboldt county police state. He has the responsibility to vote no to Philps funding, but he doesn’t.

    Over all it was the code enforcement that most called to be disbanded, and to send Desadiere and Connors to the unemployment lines.

    Tuesday a 9:00 am in the board of stupidvisors chambers.

    love eternal
    tad

  18. tad
    April 5, 2008 at 9:24 am

    Peace be with you

    This is a police state tactic. It profits the “government” through “property forfeiture laws.” It is a search warrant based on false premises. I don’t know if that is perjury, or a USC 1983 violation, or both, but it is illegal, and mean spirited. Rodoni says on his political site “Humboldt County is fortunate to have a state of the art Sheriff Department and correctional facility under the leadership of Sheriff Gary Philp.” Don’t expect any help there.

    Add to the “code enforcement/cops issue” last nights bullshit surprise “emergency” Eureka city council meeting, and we can see sneaky police state building going on everywhere.

    love eternal
    tad

  19. April 5, 2008 at 9:46 am

    but if it only takes a phone call to the right person, it is not that difficult to do.

    Yes — it only takes a phone call to complain about someone’s illegal building, a call that remains anonymous but results in these activities.

    Makes you wonder who is interested in whipping up the fear and frenzy at this time.

  20. Anonymous
    April 5, 2008 at 9:49 am

    Yep Heraldo. And if some choice properties just happen to be seized, whose to blame them for scooping them up at auction?

  21. Anonymous
    April 5, 2008 at 9:50 am

    How nice it would be to have the general plan update blocked and lots of lovely rural properties available cheap.

  22. April 5, 2008 at 9:54 am

    I should have wrote alleged illegal building.

  23. Anonymous
    April 5, 2008 at 9:56 am

    How absurd. All four participants assured everyone that there are not going to be any seizures. Rodoni even said something to the effect of “over his dead body” will there be seizures or homes distroyed. No one except Heraldo in his rants says anything about seizures. Get real.

  24. Anonymous
    April 5, 2008 at 9:59 am

    Connors said they even generally waive the fines as long as there is an attempt to get a permit.

  25. April 5, 2008 at 9:59 am

    Please provide a link to any rant I made about seizures. Variations of that word have been used four times in this thread, 3 by you and none by me.

  26. Anonymous
    April 5, 2008 at 9:59 am

    You are forgetting about the drug busts which came about because of the code enforcement, 9:56. Those won’t be negated and the people will more than likely lose their property.

  27. Taxpayer
    April 5, 2008 at 10:15 am

    “they already tax most of these structures” would change my thinking.

  28. April 5, 2008 at 10:20 am

    it’s hard to tell since implication, innuendo and rhetorical riddles are so much a part of [Rodoni's] speaking style. kinda weird for a guy who likes to portray himself as a plain-spoken straight-shooter regular guy, don’t you think?

    Yes, very well said. You have to be familiar with his particular beefs, spins and chips on his shoulder to understand what he’s saying.

  29. Taxpayer
    April 5, 2008 at 10:23 am

    If we follow the funding sources at the county, which ones are attached to the feds with missions and permissions? Someone said the DEA was in on this.

  30. Taxpayer
    April 5, 2008 at 10:25 am

    It’s not all Rodoni. He’s just trying to capitalize on the situation for the sake of his re-election.

    Can’t blame him for that. Otherwise, where has he been?

  31. April 5, 2008 at 10:51 am

    Parts of the meeting are now up on YouTube.

  32. Anonymous
    April 5, 2008 at 10:53 am

    Just last week Rodoni claimed he thought all the uproar was over one case where there was a parollee. Maybe referring to the Yee Haw Ranch where the code enforcement officer said one of the residents may be a parollee because he had tatooes?

  33. Anonymous
    April 5, 2008 at 10:59 am

    They already tax most of these structures. The assessor’s ofice has flown rural properties annually for years before Google Earth came along, and I’m sure they still do. Then I get a call from an inspector asking to come out and determine how much to raise my taxes.

    btw, have you ever seen a grow shed? Do you know how much one percent of a moldy shack comes to? I don’t know what this is about but it sure as hell isn’t about the assessor’s office. He knows how to raise my taxes just fine!

  34. Anonymous
    April 5, 2008 at 11:11 am

    Two of the above questions were answered at yesterday’s meeting. The ‘parolee’ Roger was quoted talking about in Wednesday’s Times-Standard was a butt-covering lie told by the sheriffs that beat dogs on Elk Ridge. At the meeting Charley called Roger and the code guy on that–apparently he had told them just what had happened already, and was furious they were accepting and repeating what his own experience showed was a lie.

    About the DEA, the code guy said they had tagged along on one of his missions in the past, but they were so gung-ho he stopped working with them. But he’s the good cop. The bad cop Desadier, who wasn’t there, wasn’t spoken for. But the good cop said the feds aren’t part of the current attack. Take it to the Supes!

  35. "Henchman of Justice"
    April 5, 2008 at 11:20 am

    Regarding Yee Haw,

    The woman should file suit against the Board of Supervisors (Respondet Superior), the Humboldt County Sheriffs Department, County of Humboldt et. al, County Counsel, Jeff Connor, other involved government officials, etc. for having her child endangered by a weapon which was brandished directly toward the child; brandished directly toward the mother herself; false arrest and imprisonment; destruction of property; illegal search and seizures; attempted manslaughter; attempted murder; psychological and mental stress; without a court order to detain any other persons specifically not the property owner, etc……… This event is very similar to NAZI GERMANY! Too many incidents involve military tactics as seen on television, movies and video games.

    P.S. Time for Social Justice to be ordained because it does not get the emphasis it deserves as illustrated in the United States Constitution.

    BTW – the airing last night on KHUM by Martha Spencer(?) regarding Yee Haw, Villica, etc. al was self-incriminating. People should listen to it on the audio archives. Todd Sobolic did an admirable job considering folks were asking him questions outside his perview and authority. Therefore, why was not an official from the County Environmental Health Department not on the phone since every question asked did entertain a necessary response from this department?

    Checkmate Supes.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  36. thorn
    April 5, 2008 at 11:42 am

    i’m glad people are interested in the matter of people paying taxes on buildings for years and then stilled getting slapped with huge fines or even told to “burn it down,” just because the buildings were “unpermitted.”

    from my point of view, if the county’s been taking your taxes for a building, then it’s been de facto permitted. they can’t be allowed to have it both ways (though that’s exactly the way it is right now). these previously and currently taxed structures certainly need to be grandfathered in as “permitted.”

    and we need a new, more reasonable “rural code” that legalizes the norm rather than criminalizing it, and in the case of the most “substandard” structures, provides ample time and assistance to residents to help them come up to this new standard. we need to particularly listen to our rural residents as we look to develop this new standard.

    no one should be in jeopardy of losing their home or their land over this, and certainly no one has to be held at gunpoint. is that too much to ask?

  37. tad
    April 5, 2008 at 12:04 pm

    Peace be with you

    I remember saying that the DEA went on three warrants in willow creek. Also Connors said that sometime they knew other illegal activities were taking place so they brought a butt-load of cops with them. There were no illegal activities at yee-haw, but then they went straight to the Vicilla bust. This is proof that the code enforcers, who said the sheriff asks him “what he saw, and the cops are working together to bust pot smokers and not the innocent happen-chance bullshit they say it is.

    Also as to legal things it is really nice that people can see the issue from the point of view of the poor people from yeehaw, but poor people can not afford to sue. It takes money to sue someone. Yes the have several very good cases. Both civil rights violations, forth amendment, and abuse of power law suits. Many have damages due to their being up rooted, but the worse is the children who were forced to watch them and their families treated like the Jewish in Nazi Germany.

    Also our “witness in the woods” (at yeehaw) claims that the never put away there weapons even after they cleared the property of its residents.

    Hopefully other victims will be at the supes meeting so we can exchange contact information and document these heavy handed “code enforcements.”

    love eternal
    tad

  38. tad
    April 5, 2008 at 12:07 pm

    Peace

    at yeehaw

    love
    tad

  39. thorn
    April 5, 2008 at 12:18 pm

    jeffery, the faint and qualified apologies the family at yee-haw recieved from a couple of the panelists, conner and gallegos were at least a start in admitting that wrong had been done. too bad they had to be cornered and faced down by an angry crowd before any such admission, even this vague ones, were made (but i guess that’s still what it takes sometimes). up until that moment, it has been all blaming-the-victims for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. and of course, at the meeting yesterday, the deputy who pointed the gun, and rogue code cop desadier weren’t there to anwer for themselves at all, much less apologize. maybe tuesday will be different, we’ll see.

    the gun-pointing deputy, the rogue code cop desadier, the sheriff, gallegos, the board of supervisors and perhaps most of all the county counsel should long ago have fully and unconditionaly apologized to this family for how they were treated, and perhaps even offered compensation. and these code raids should have been halted immediately until actual policies, personnel and/or structures were changed to ensure that this would never happen again.

    i’m not a lawyer and i don’t know what the right basis for a lawsuit will be – i doubt that “attempted murder” will stick – but it sure does seem like “reckless endangerment” of her life and her children’s lives.

    the county is so lucky that this family has not, at least so far, chosen to file suit against the county and the individuals responsible. but at this point how could you blame them if they did file a lawsuit. perhaps that’s the only way to get the county to sit up and take notice.

    i noticed that on eric’s blog ed denson piped in to say that they could definitely take the county to court over this. i don’t know what the deadline is for filing, but they might want to at least keep that option open to see if the county changes anything substantial about the way treats folks like them. because so far we’ve just seen a whole bunch more of these criminalized, sherriff’s posse code crackdowns.

    so if the county doesn’t volntarily come to terms with it’s “unpermitted” rural reidents, we’ll just see if the growing backlash reaches that critical mass at which the county will “sue for peace.” it looks to be headed that way at the moment, with the county dragging its heels, but word now spreading fast, candidates and elected officials trying to get out in front of the parade, and no vocal constituency on the other side, favoring the code crackdowns.

  40. "Henchman of Justice"
    April 5, 2008 at 12:25 pm

    Thorn,

    If the information about a firearm being pointed into the face of this woman and child is accurate, it would appear that attempted murder can be used in a suit because, after all, if the situation were reverse, you bet your bottom dollar the cops and DA would file those charges.

    It all depends on which side of the law you are on…..As Bush said, “you are either with us, or against us.” Surely rooted rhetoric he was indoctrinated with as a Masonic member worshipping Lucipher.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  41. April 5, 2008 at 12:59 pm

    if the situation were reverse, you bet your bottom dollar the cops and DA would file those charges.

    Yes but they don’t have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.

    I think the woman from Yee-Haw said this happened last July. That probably means she would have had to file a complaint against the county within six months and have the county deny the claim before she could file a lawsuit.

  42. theplazoid
    April 5, 2008 at 1:43 pm

    Peace be with you

    I will say it one more time – the poor people at yeehaw don’t have any money to file a law suit! Ed has not volunteered to file one for these people nor has anyone else. We currently are having a hell of a time filing several “wrongful death” suits against the county, because poor people have no money to file law suits!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Yes they have a winner, but no they have no money!!!!!!!!!! You can talk law suits to death, but either put up or shut up, If you are a civil lawyer and willing to take on the government of Humboldt county for contingency then come forward. I say this as someone who is personally involved with the yeehaw court case which is still on going and putting these people in harms way.

    love eternal
    tad

  43. Anonymous
    April 5, 2008 at 1:49 pm

    Here’s a great one: Jeff Conner of Code Enforcement said the ‘Open Field’ doctrine of we-can-do-anything-the-Constitution’s-a-piece-of-paper comes from “a couple of instances of case law.” What that means is, a lower court ruling wasn’t appealed. This isn’t settled law, it’s uncertain law awaiting a better lawyer or lawsuit.

    Just so you know, if EPIC could act on case law the way Officer Conner can act on case law, there would be one hell of a lot more Headwaters. Waaa, I keep reading that we’re all-powerful.

  44. Not A Native
    April 5, 2008 at 3:45 pm

    A violation the law isn’t expunged by a subsequent legal act. But subsequent acts should be considered in imposing punishment.

    Just because you pay taxes on a property shouldn’t make it permitted. But as a practical matter I wonder how an assessor valuates a non-permitted structure since the construction costs or replacement cost is hard to determine using standard estimations.

    And if you believe paying tax makes the structures legal, how about these situations?

    If you pay taxes on illegal income that shouldn’t make the income legal. If you steal somone’s property and then pay personal property taxes on it that doesn’t make it your property. If you pay sales tax on stolen property, that doesn’t make the property yours. If you smuggle cigarettes and then charge sales tax when you sell them, the cigarettes are still illegal.

    If you enter the US illegally and get a job, that doesn’t make you a citizen. If you murder an Iraqi citizen in the course of a war battle that you win a medal for, you are still subject to being charged with a crime.

  45. Oh Really?
    April 5, 2008 at 4:38 pm

    “If you murder an Iraqi citizen in the course of a war battle that you win a medal for, you are still subject to being charged with a crime.”

    Only if you’re a low-ranking scapegoat, as we saw in the Abu Graib case. Hardly at all for others, as we saw in the recent dismissals of charges for many of those involved in the massacre in Haditha. And not at all it you’re a “private contractor” (mercenary) in Iraq.

  46. Not A Native
    April 5, 2008 at 5:00 pm

    OK Oh Really If your point is that many or most potential violations aren’t enforced, that’s not very profound. The legal system recognizes that in one way with statutory limits to the time to enforce most laws.

    But you need to be careful with the verbage. I wrote “murder” which has a legal meaning. Whether a particular death of an Iraqi citizen is “murder” or “accidental” depends on the facts. But “murder” is prosecutable.

    People with unpermitted structures have been getting away with it for years. They feel to be in a privileged group that is morally exempt from those laws in perpetuity

    And no one is surprised by incidents of favoritism, corruption, cronyism, or out and out criminality. My point is only that getting away with breaking the law doesn’t make it legal.

    But does much illegality go unsanctioned? You bet it does, and some people are very happy when it breaks their way and get all uppity when the tide begins to turn. I call that arrogant, selfish, and greedy.

  47. thorn
    April 5, 2008 at 5:03 pm

    the list of possible analogies offered by “not a native” are actually a nice summary of what isn’t happening in most of these raids – for example, at yee-haw no one had stolen from anyone, received any stolen property, broken any border laws (or other laws, outside of the code stuff), or hurt or killed anyone. in short, in all of these cases, no one had been harmed until the code unit came stomping through, initiating the only real harm in the whole situation (and programs that create more problems than they solve should be first on the chopping block when the budget cuts come).

    so in a cetain, narrow sense, “not a native’s” analogies are logical enough, but there is a certain lack of proportionality in pointing to such analogies as justification for a situation that is really nothing like the ones in the analogies.

    at any rate, we need to decriminalize and demilitarize this whole code enforcement thing. can we agree on that?

  48. Anonymous
    April 5, 2008 at 5:10 pm

    nan, you already went through this tear. Why do we once more have to refrain from saying what we call you, and remind you that we who live in the hills didn’t ‘get away’ with anything more than democracy. We rose up against hippie cleansing, which was so sloppy it resulted not just in redneck cleansing but lawyer cleansing–which is *really* stupid–and the result of the uprising was peace and quiet for 25 years. Want to see it again? What on earth do you care how we make our homes safe? Honestly, this is too ridiculous for words so I’ll

  49. thorn
    April 5, 2008 at 5:16 pm

    even code cop jeff conner admitted that only about 15% of the code inspectors in the state are “law enforcement officers.” my understanding is that our own county code staff used to work out of the building department.

    so does anyone know just when, why, and how they were moved to the county counsel’s office, when the supervisor’s approved having them be law enforcement officers instead of regular civil servants? when did they first create the “split responsibility” system where the county counsel has the authority to supervise, discipline, hire and fire the officers, yet it is the the d.a. who issues, in essence, a blank check for them to carry a weapon, but who has no authority whatsoever over their actions?

    who voted for all these stupid ideas, and who suggested all this in the first place and why? is there a concealed agenda, or is this just one more case where our government just continues to create more and more police powers, almost as a matter of habit, until we push them back hard enough.

    these are a few of the questions we may want to demand answers to at the supervsor’s meeting on tuesday.

  50. Oh Really
    April 5, 2008 at 5:25 pm

    “…murder is prosecutable…”

    Actually not so if you’re a civilian contractor providing “private security” (a mercenary) in Iraq. Then you can kill anyone you want, and they just send you out of Iraq and back to the U.S. where Iraqi law doesn’t have jurisdiction. Also the U.S. military code of justice doesn’t cover them. This has happened in numerous cases, and has been reported on by Amy Goodman, among others.

    So much for “winning heart and minds” when you have unaccountable armed agents occupying a community, kicking in doors and hauling families out into the street at gunpoint. good thing that never happens around here (sarcasm).

  51. Anonymous
    April 5, 2008 at 5:31 pm

    There is a big difference between saying that all people should be treated equally in code enforcement and saying that code inspectors should be accompanied by gun wielding drug task force personnel searching properties. NAN wasn’t justifying police tactics, just equality under the law.

  52. thorn
    April 5, 2008 at 5:41 pm

    to “not a native” @ 5:00pm,

    this has nothing to do with people feeling privileged, except for those “central planning” adherents who feel privileged to tell everyone else where and how to live, even as they live in the mainstream of an amazingly destructive and violent society.

    unjust, unreasonable, and selectively enforced laws can and should be overturned, but until that has been achieved, the most straightforward way to resist unjust laws is simply to ignore them and make those who want to enforce such laws show their faces and demonstrate the lunacy of their laws by attempting to enforce them on an unwilling populace. this gets uncomfortable real quick, as the panelists last night were reminded.

    if your argument is simply you-must-obey-because-it-is-the-law, without respect to whether the law is just or reasonable in the first place – well, that’s quite an authoritarian view, now isn’t it?

  53. thorn
    April 5, 2008 at 5:55 pm

    5:31,

    a fair point. i didn’t mean to imply that n.a.n. was justifying the police tactics, but i can see how i may have given that impression.

  54. Anonymous
    April 5, 2008 at 5:58 pm

    It sounds like you are talking about abolishing building codes, Thorn. Is that right?

  55. thorn
    April 5, 2008 at 7:07 pm

    5:58, not quite, but i can see how you might think that.

    so i will try to lay it out very clearly so that you are not left in the position of making inaccurate assumptions about what i am calling for.

    appropriate rural codes could be adopted and appropriate implementation and assistance to bring the relatively small number of truly unsafe dwellings up to a reasonable code.

    but first, we need to recognize the the current codes, fees, fines and enforcement actions are causing more serious problems than they are solving.

    we need:

    – an immediate moratorium on the armed, military-style code enforcement “raids” and the unwarranted “open field” searcheds of both adjacent properties and even unrelated properties miles away, that are facilitated by these code raids.

    – amnesty for residents who have been hit with the unreasonably large fines for code violations and would be at risk of losing their home and/or property.

    – grandfathering of existing “unpermitted” homes that have already been assessed and taxed as homes, and a sane, reasovable process to bring truly unsafe homes up to a reasonable standard.

    – revision of policies, procedures, fee and fine schedules, and the adoption of a reasonable “rural code” that reognizes the different reality of a rural, agricultural community.

    – decriminalize and demilitarize the code enforcement unit, remove the status of code officers as “law enforcement” personnel and disarm them so that they are regular civil servants, not a new, unaccountable police force (as they are now).

    – an overall change of attitude from “catching criminals” and “punishing them” to an attitude of “working with residents.” this will only happen when their law enforcement responsibilites, and assumptions, are stripped away, along with the totally unnecessary guns.

  56. Anonymous
    April 5, 2008 at 7:23 pm

    Why should people who live in rural areas be allowed to build homes with lower standards than people who live in urban areas? It sounds like you are asking for special treatment. What exactly is the definition of rural? Outside the city limits? A certain distance from a paved road?

    What about multiple dwellings?

  57. thorn
    April 5, 2008 at 7:24 pm

    now of course if county staff and elected leaders cannot show a little common sense and come to some reasonable accomodation with its rural residents, and the code enforcement unit continues to create more serious problems (to public safety and civil rights) than it solves – then, among our options for dealing with that, the question of funding certainly arises: how long do you continue to fund a department that is currently doing much more serious harm than it is (potentially) preventing?

    hopefully it won’t have to come to that, or to booting out all the incumbent elected officials, or to launching a property tax strike, or a class-action lawsuit, or any of these things.

    but these are certainly all options if county officials drag their feet, or stay in denial despite being informed of the very serious problems with the current policies, or simply refuse to change the status quo in a meaningful way. it will be interesting to see how this develops.

  58. thorn
    April 5, 2008 at 7:43 pm

    7:23,

    wow, do i really need to explain how the countryside is different from the city or the suburbs?

    of course it makes perfect sense that we have different standards in the countyside, where a potentially slightly smelly composting toilet on my neighbor’s property 1/2 from my house isn’t going to affect me the same way as if they have the somewhat smelly crapper in their backyard on F street and i live across the alley.

    the problem of definitions and boundaries for what would be included in a new “rural code” category are certainly open to debate, and could be discussed rationally if the county was to open a dialogue on the issue. personally i’d suggest they simply adopt a density standard of one sort or another.

    as far as solutions go, in general, this is a case of “if there is a will, there will be a way.”

    but first our elected leaders and paid county staff must be clear that they have a serious problem on their hands, and clear about the nature of that problem.

  59. tad
    April 5, 2008 at 7:49 pm

    Peace be with you

    It seems that with the lack of “low and extremely low-income housing” that they could wave permit fees for people willing to build “low and extremely low-income housing.” Make them register with the county and if any renter finds out their landlord is cheating then the land lord could be required to pay the renter the difference and the back permit costs. As long as it is LIH then only when the housing sells will the permits need to be paid unless the new landowner wishes to assume the LIH contract.

    People could move homeless into their sheds to keep from paying permit fees. And places like yeehaw where many people have lived over the years could continue to shelter people who no one else will shelter.

    But Thorn is right they need to start leaving the guns at home. We need to demilitarize our police, and transfer them back from “law enforcers” to “peace keepers.” I would much rather live in a peaceful place then a law enforced place

    There are lots of times when murder is legal. Like when a cop catches a child in a ditch and nobody’s around. Or when a homeless man gets caught by cops with only homeless people for witnesses. Or when mental health gives anti-psychotics to a homeless person and then expect then to live on the streets. Or when the cops taser a person to death at the Garberville substation and bring him into the county jail to die. Etc. Etc.

    love eternal
    tad

  60. thorn
    April 5, 2008 at 7:56 pm

    “special treatment” ?

    yeah, just like pastures need “special treatment” compared to suburban lawns or city sidewalks.

    not “special,” just different, and appropriate to the circumstances. a 10×12 maximum size for a garden shed for your lawnmower may be quite adequate, and entirely appropriate for a 1/4 acre lot in a neighborhood full of these lots – but it won’t work out out too well to help you keep dry all the equipment needed to run a small family farm.

    different solutions for different situations. seems like common sense to me, not at all hard to understand unless you are determined not to.

    and remember old whoever-it-was who once said something more or less along the lines of:

    “a slavish devotion to consistency is the hobgoblin of feeble minds.”

    (hmmm, i think it might’ve been ambrose bierce or h.l. mencken, both arse-holes in my opinion, but certainly not feeble-minded).

  61. Anonymous
    April 5, 2008 at 8:22 pm

    “Words, words, words,
    I’m so sick of words.
    I get words all day through,
    first from him, now from you.
    Is that all you blighters can do?”

    Eliza Doolittle
    “My Fair Lady”
    Lerner and Lowe

  62. Anonymous
    April 5, 2008 at 8:25 pm

    “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” This remark comes from the essay “Self-Reliance” by Ralph Waldo Emerson…

  63. Anonymous
    April 5, 2008 at 8:25 pm

    You sidestepped the question of inequality in codes by changing it to the size of out buildings allowed and didn’t respond to the question of more than one dwelling or the definition of rural.

  64. Anonymous
    April 5, 2008 at 9:18 pm

    Thorn, Be careful, you are starting to sound exactly like Ulansey. You are saying exactly the same things for exactly the same reasons. People are going to start saying you are in league with the “developers”, who ever they are.

  65. thorn
    April 5, 2008 at 9:31 pm

    8:25,

    with all due respect, the “question of inequality” is based on a faulty assumption – that for “fairness” or “equality” to exist, the building codes must be the same for all residents, in all locations, at all times. nonsense.

    let me put it to you this way: the speed limit on F street in eureka is different than on the highway. that is not a question of “inequality” and your right to “equal protection under the law” is not violated if you get a speeding ticket on F street for doing 65mph, even though you wouldn’t be ticketed for the same speed on 101. the different standards are simply the result of laws that recognize the different situation and apply standards appropriate to the circumstances. crazy idea, ain’t it?

    multiple dwellings, definition of rural, all those details can be addressed through the democratic process, and good, sensible solutions can be arrived at, but only if people are truly open to new ideas, not just looking for excuses to stick with the status quo, in which the code enforcement unit is creating more serious problems than they are (potentially) preventing.

  66. thorn
    April 5, 2008 at 9:40 pm

    9:18,

    and i should care…..why?

  67. Jalapeno Pooper
    April 5, 2008 at 9:49 pm

    I’m glad it’s Ralph Waldo Emerson who made the “hobgoblin” remark. “Hobgoblin” is a fun word to say out loud. Try saying it 10 times in a row, real fast, and see if you can do it without sounding ridiculous. Impossible.

    And it’s so appropriate to the subject here that this quote comes from a piece on Self-Reliance.

    Hobgoblin, hobgoblin, hobgoblin, hobgoblin, hobgoblin, hobgoblin, hobgoblin, hobgoblin, hobgoblin, hobgoblin.

    Yup, it’s pretty hard to take yourself too seriously after that little exercise in cheek-flapping.

  68. Anonymous
    April 5, 2008 at 9:55 pm

    Thorn, man, you shouldn’t care. That’s the point, the truth is the truth. United Stand. Ulansey’s not a developer any more than you. I hear you, and him, and you both speak the same truth. We all stand together and we will win this battle.

  69. Anonymous
    April 5, 2008 at 10:06 pm

    Ulansey is NOT United Stand. Don’t be fooled.

  70. Anonymous
    April 5, 2008 at 10:14 pm

    With all respect. It is you being fooled by those who want to take away our right to live on our land. Ulansey has never said anything about subdividing or anything like it. He says only that we have to fight for our right to build our homes on existing parcels and rules. He was right there with us screaming about goon enforcement, before anyone else. Hear him out.

  71. thorn
    April 5, 2008 at 10:20 pm

    9:55,

    i took the 9:18 comments at face value. now i see that they were intended in a sarcastic tone. just one of those little thinks you can miss when there’s no voice tone or body language to put the words in context.

    but what i still don’t get is why this came up in the first place…did i say something negative about ulansey? did i say something negative about the united stand group?

    as far as “developers” go, i have said before that i think some will stand to benefit if land is seized and sold at auction, but i don’t think i singled anyone out and accused them, certainly not ulansey. so where’s your beef?

  72. Anonymous
    April 6, 2008 at 8:02 am

    Uniform codes are democratic, Thorn. Your speed limit law doesn’t apply because everyone is expected to drive the posted speed limit regardless if they are urban or rural. You are asking for special treatment in building codes which is not democratic. When there are virtually no rural building codes, which is what you get when the inspector makes each decision on a case by case basis, you get favoritism, bribes, corruption and inequality.

  73. Anonymous
    April 6, 2008 at 8:08 am

    No, you get guys in flak jackets with automatic weapons backing up inspectors telling you to burn down your son’s house–without paperwork, no citation. Just threats, and a beaten dog down the road, and mothers and children removed from their home at gunpoint. That’s the current system. Why don’t you think it needs reform?

  74. Anonymous
    April 6, 2008 at 8:18 am

    That has nothing to do with what I was discussing. Virtually everyone has ageed that pot searches disguised as code inspections is wrong and it seems as if the county is going to end that. That has nothing to do with the current code system. I was talking about Thorn, and many others, asking for a different code system for rural dwellers which is obviously undemocratic.

  75. thorn
    April 6, 2008 at 9:32 am

    8:02am,

    sorry, i can see you are trying, but your reasoning is still quite flawed.

    under a new “rural code” there won’t be any “rural people” getting special rights and “urban people” being treated unfairly. there are simply urban areas and rural areas, which are treated differently because they ARE different, just as there are different speed limits for different roads.

    just as with the example of speed limits, people are all held to the same standard, based on where they are at the time. so a previously “urban person” who buys a parcel in the countryside will have the same rural code requirements as as any other person who lives in the country.

    or do you think that we should REALLY all have the same building standards – should all homes out at Elk Ridge or Wood Ranch be required to tie into city sewer and water, as is required in densely populated urban areas? of course not. so the law already recognizes some differences based on location and density, we are only asking for the same kind of common-sense approach to other code issues.

    your interest in equality and fairness is admirable, but in this case misplaced. all people may were created equal, but all landscapes and communities were not. tying to force everyone to live to the same standards, despite the very different situations they are in, is not equality, it is “…a foolish consistency…” as mr. emerson put it. but don’t worry, if you just open your mind a little, that hobgoblin will soon leave on its own.

  76. Anonymous
    April 6, 2008 at 9:35 am

    There is nothing undemocratic about different codes for different situations. That is exactly what currently exists. Houses in town connect to sewers. Houses on larger parcels can have septic or composting systems because they have the space. This is just one example. The problem is not that current codes are inherently a problem (they do need to be simplified) it is that the system to get a permit is run by a department who doesn’t believe people should be able to live on their land and so places obstacles, absurd costs, and hurdles before anyone who even tries to abide by the system. The Planning Department needs to be changed so that their underlying policy is “how can we help you achieve your goals”, not “how can we thawart your every effort”. That kind of change in attittude can only start with a change in personel at the top. Kirk Girard, and his attitude need to be replaced.

  77. Anonymous
    April 6, 2008 at 9:47 am

    There may be different requirements as to water and sewer but the building codes themselves should not be different. Imposing higher standards on urban dwellers is not democratic. Girard didn’t create the building codes. When we built our suburban home many years before Girard was in this position, we got contradictory instructions with every inspection. We need solid and uniform buidling codes for the entire county. Living in a rural setting doesn’t negate the need for safe building and wiring codes. You are asking for special rights because you live rural and all the gnashing of teeth over fascist police tactics is just smoke to disguise it.

  78. thorn
    April 6, 2008 at 9:52 am

    9:35,

    you make a good point about the overall attitude at the county planning department – and i would say that comment applies to our county government in general.

    i agree that sometimes it is the staff attitude, not just the rules, that are part of the problem.

    but as you say, some of the rules certainly need to be simplified. although a new “rural code” might be seen as further complicating the issue, if done properly it could simplify matters for folks in rural areas by making it completely clear what rules apply to them.

    i’m not necessarily wedded to the idea that a new rural code is the only way to achieve streamlined, reaonable and understandable processes for rural owner-builders. but i do think it is an idea that should be considered as we go forward.

  79. Anonymous
    April 6, 2008 at 10:01 am

    A new helpfull attitude would serve urban residents equally well as rural. It still starts with Girard. The same applies to County Counsel, the problem is not Connors, it is at the top with Chaitin. Both report to the Supes. Look at the time and resources being wasted on this whole thing. If one of us with a regular job created even half of this waste do you think we would survive to 10:00 on monday?

  80. Anonymous
    April 6, 2008 at 10:05 am

    You must be on drugs. Girard didn’t make the building codes and inspections and enforcement have been a problem for at least 30 years. Your fantasy that all will be perfect once Girard is fired is just that. You won’t be happy with anyone who tries to enforce the law regardless of the law.

  81. thorn
    April 6, 2008 at 10:08 am

    9:47,

    your first two sentences are completely self-contradictory. first of all, water and sewer are PART of the building codes. so if water and sewer related building codes can be different for different situations, then why can’t other building codes be different for different situations? For example, a 10×12 maximum size for a shed (without an expensive permit) is fine for a suburban lot, where a large shed built next to your neighbor’s fence may affect your neighbor in a sustantial way by shading their garden, shedding water onto their property, etc. but 1/2 mile away from your neighbor out in the country, how is a 20×40 shed going to have any real impact on your neighbor any more than a 10×12 one? answer: its not.

    it is starting to seem like you are either incapable or unwilling to engage in reasoned debate on this subject. but i have enjoyed the opportunity to try to converse with you. you have done a fine job of illustrating one of the main logical flaws behind “central planning” – the fallacy that any difference in rules between city and countryside is “unfair” to people in the city. it’s nonsense, but i can understand the appeal of the argument, as it seems simple and appeals to fairness. but applying one set of rules to people when they are in very different situations is exactly the opposite of fairness.

  82. thorn
    April 6, 2008 at 10:19 am

    just to be clear, some standards probably should be the same – the safe standards for electrical wiring being the most obvious example.

    then we get into how to help bring this about. and the fact is that a cooperative, collaborative approach with homeowners, rather than a confrontational, punitive approach, will be far more effective. for a model, look to the very successful program of the mattole restoration council aimed at getting private property owners to improve their private roads to reduce runoff into our creeks.

    if people could get an inspector out to look over their wiring without the threat of being thrown off their land for being in an “unpermitted” house, and without bringing an armed assault down on their innocent neighbors, a lot more people would be willing to get that inspection.

    the willingness of the county to work WITH its rural residents, rather than “catch” them and “punish” them, is what is needed, bottom line.

  83. Anonymous
    April 6, 2008 at 10:19 am

    You already covered those minor exceptions, Thorn, and I clarified that I was talking about health and safety in building and wiring, not the size of outbuildings or water and sewage. Ignoring my points and going back to the same argument shows that you are the one who doesn’t want an reasonable debate on this.

    The properties having problems today weren’t permitted or inspected for compliance to even the most minimal codes. They also have multiple dwellings per parcel, some of which are rental properties. That doesn’t justify police invasions, but you have to admit that there are health and safety issues with all of them.

  84. Anonymous
    April 6, 2008 at 10:27 am

    10:19, So your solution is to throw out the properties owner and family, tear down their house, and rezone the land so nothing can be legally built ever again. Do you work for the Planning Department? Thats their plan.

  85. Anonymous
    April 6, 2008 at 10:29 am

    As an added point, you have stated repeatedly that there are already lesser standards for rural building on the books and that was apparently too restrictive as well. It is apparent to many of us that a lot of people who live a rural lifestyle don’t believe any laws should apply to them, that they shouldn’t have to pay their fair share of taxes and fees, and we should all support them in that. It isn’t going to happen.

  86. Anonymous
    April 6, 2008 at 10:35 am

    That is a fearmongering lie, 10:37. You must be the CPR member assigned to post lies today. Take the day off.

    No, I don’t work for planning. I am just sick and tired of people who think they are special and shouldn’t have to obey any laws they don’t like or pay their fair share including back to the landers, dope mafia, corporate crooks, developers, and cops.

  87. Anonymous
    April 6, 2008 at 10:51 am

    10:35, So what is your solution? We know you want the tax revenue and a common or similar system of rules that make sense, no disagreement here. But should people be able to live on their land or not? Should they be moved out of their homes?

  88. Anonymous
    April 6, 2008 at 11:35 am

    The alternative owner/builder code specifies standard wiring and plumbing just like town. Why are you whining? The health department imposes ridiculous graywater leachfield requirements, just like it does on people who should have them. Why are you whining? The assessor’s office knows about our new construction and rebuilding and comes out to assess it annually. Why are you whining? What is the problem here? What’s unfair to my mind is someone more invested in resenting a cartoon in his own imagination than learning about other people. I don’t like that–but, upon reflection, I won’t whine about it.

  89. thorn
    April 6, 2008 at 12:10 pm

    10:35,

    by grouping “back-to-the-landers” in with “the dope mafia” and “corporate crooks” you just revealed the prejudice that apparently underlies your seeming inability to grasp the simple concept that different rules for different situations is perfectly fair and equitable, as longs as they apply to anyone in that situation equally.

    i’m sorry you have such a cynical view of your rural neighbors, but i can see that it goes much deeper than the issues at hand. so instead of arguing further i’ll just try to note where we seem to agree.

    it seems that we agree that at least some building codes (like those dealing wih sewer and water) can be different in different situatons of housing density, terrain, etc.

    it seems that we agree that some should probably remain the same, as with electrical systems.

    and it seems that we agree that armed “raids,” in tandem with unwarranted pot searches, is a wrong-headed and counter-productive approach to trying to actually help rural residents improve the health and safety of their dwellings.

    we may disagree with a lot of things, but if we agree on these three basic points, then there is a basis for discussion. assuming you can get past your prejudices (and i, mine) to discuss these matters in good faith.

    i welcome any constructive discussion, but i’m not going to waste my time if you have already made up your mind, irrevocably, about me and all my neighbors, without ever meeting us.

  90. Anonymous
    April 6, 2008 at 12:11 pm

    I’d care more about the problems of rural people if so many of them weren’t flagrant lawbreakers.

  91. thorn
    April 6, 2008 at 12:15 pm

    12:11,

    see 12:10 comments.

  92. Anonymous
    April 6, 2008 at 12:32 pm

    That was me at 12:11. Gee, I’m glad it’s possible to post messages anonymously!!!

  93. Anonymous
    April 6, 2008 at 12:43 pm

    Was leaving developers and cops out of your post regarding my list of groups inadvertent or because it disproves your theory about my views, Thorn?

  94. thorn
    April 6, 2008 at 4:08 pm

    12:43,

    i think you made your views quite clear at 10:35.

    it seems that you have a pretty big chip on your shoulder that pre-dates this issue. but if you want to try to move beyond this, then read and respond to my post at 12:10. if not, that’s ok, too. no hard feelings on my part. have a pleasant day…it sure is nice outside!

  95. Anonymous
    April 7, 2008 at 10:56 am

    Yes. Put your wallet on the ground slowly. Then smile at the man with the knife and back away slowly, telling him you are his friend, his good friend. Then, at a safe distance, turn around and run like hell to safety.

  96. thorn
    April 7, 2008 at 1:00 pm

    huh? was this 10:56 comment posted on the wrong thread?

  97. Anonymous
    April 7, 2008 at 1:20 pm

    Your attempts to mischaracterize what I posted yesterday regarding groups who seem to believe they can ignore laws they find inconvenient shows you aren’t really interested in honest discussion.

  98. thorn
    April 7, 2008 at 1:49 pm

    well, okey-dokey then.

    i think it’s telling that you don’t even seem to want to acknowledge areas of apparent agreement, as pointed out in my post at 12:10 yesterday. this suggests to me that you must not be real interested in reaching any common ground, and you’d rather sulk about perceived mischaracterizations (different interpretations than you want) of your comments at 10:35 yesterday.

    so i guess we’ll just let the readers (if any) judge the exchange as a whole. i’m cool with that. have a pleasant day.

  99. April 7, 2008 at 2:48 pm

    Looks like the county is way behind as far as compliance with the General Plan. Check it out:

    https://www.co.humboldt.ca.us/planning/gp/2009%20Housing%20Element/Annual_Report_2006.DOC

    One excerpt from the annual report:

    3.32. The inspections service shall be strictly non-punitive, and shall be publicized as such.

  100. April 9, 2008 at 2:21 pm

    “I’d care more about the problems of rural people if so many of them weren’t flagrant lawbreakers.”

    Um, aren’t there aren’t a lot of town dwellers who are flagrant lawbreakers too? Most of the meth busts I read about, for example, happen in places like Eureka and Rio Dell. So, following your logic, I shouldn’t give a shit about the very real problems being faced by those communities, because, from what I see when I pick up the Northern Humboldt dailies, there’s a lot of scum living among you.

    This SoHum vs. NoHum, urban vs. rural, mainstream-culture vs. counterculture BS has got to stop. Because while the pawns go at each other with their stupid, petty arguments, the people in power find flimsy, back-door reasons to exercise that power in the most astonishing ways. It happens at all levels of society, from this little county all the way up to the global level, and it’s always really sad to watch.

  101. July 9, 2008 at 12:21 pm

    Build Earth Ships, total off the grid, self-sustaining houses. This guy can show you how http://www.garbagewarrior.com
    He also has changed New Mexico building codes to allow a testing site to improve and invent new technologies to make these houses better.

    The more “We the People” force the “Powers to be” to change, the sooner we can attempt to save this planet.
    We are all going to need this sooner rather than later. Whole communities need to be built like this.

    Take a chance or wither and die.

  102. kateascot
    July 9, 2008 at 12:44 pm

    anon 12:26…..thanks for that…..He’s my kind a man! My campground idea is like that, an earthship. Surely we cannot believe that our traditional houses and codes are meant to be all that is available to current populations! We’ve been living with 19-20th century standards that were not perfect in the beginning and do not meet the needs of an over consumerized society….time to step into the new frontier of survival in the 21st century. Stretch those brains, exercise them before they turn to dead matter…..

  103. Anonymous
    July 9, 2008 at 1:05 pm

    Renolds (the Garbage Warrior) has truly great ideas. Unfortunatly, they are more suited to rural areas like his in New Mexico, not Humboldt where the latest wave of quasi-environmentalists has decreed that we must all live in urban areas. Here the Garbage Warrior would be labeled a developer because he advocates a rural lifestyle and living on the land.

  104. kateascot
    July 9, 2008 at 1:36 pm

    …well…in the 80s we used to call Humboldt 60s by the sea, now I guess we’re 80s by the sea, 20 years behind

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,161 other followers