(Below is an alert from the Healthy Humboldt Coalition.)
CRITICAL LAND USE HEARING THIS THURSDAY
The Planning Commission must hear from us on April 30th
A massive turn out of our constituents for this hearing will be needed to generate the political support to protect Humboldt’s agricultural and timber lands from development.
We’re asking our members who:
- support Alternative A’s “Community Forest Acquisition and Management Program” that could protect the McKay Tract and create a Community Forest for Eureka
- would choose a smaller urban footprint over sprawling residential development on Humboldt’s prime agricultural lands
- would like to prevent subdivision and development on industrial timber land
to join us at the Planning Commission this Thursday, April 30th
The County is expecting people from all over Humboldt to make a point of being at this Town Hall style meeting, and it will likely be moved from the Supervisors’ Chambers to the Eureka High School Gym to ensure that there will be space for everyone. So it really is critical that our constituents come out in force and stand in solidarity for the most ecologically sound and community strengthening land-use policies.
Again, the details:
- 6:00pm this Thursday, April 30th
- Supervisors’ Chambers (825 5th St) or EHS Gym (1915 J St)
Please check our website for talking points and the logistical information once confirmed. In the meantime, please feel free to call 682-5292 or visit www.healthyhumboldt.org to learn more about these issues.
Oh boy, another mob scene.
Why do all the people or a large majority of the property owners and I mean the long term ones Russ, McBride, Prior,Barnum and other land owners support the other coalitions and the new people support Healthy Humboldt not a slam just a question from an uninformed person.
It is a good question, Tell Me.
Certain large land owners stand to make a lot of money by selling off parcels for development.
I grew up in Humboldt and my family owns timberland and we all strongly support Healthy Humboldt. The reality is that there are a small but vocal group of large landowners who stand to become very rich if they can subdivide their agricultural and forest lands into estate lots and developers who stand to make millions handling those developments. Unless you are a developer or a large landowner looking to cashing out, the type of wholesale subdivision and conversion of working ag and timberlands will simply serve to destroy the quality of life we enjoy here.
But it is rational for those large landowners and developers to support HumCPR and HELP and the Sunshines because if you make your millions and Humboldt gets destroyed in the process who really cares: plenty of new places to move on to with your money. Cruel irony is a large percentage of the large ranches in Montana and Colorado were bought by major developers from California. We are the ones that will lie in the bed that they make.
They could but there seems to be a lot of land not selling and even in our hay day we could not sell that many parcels it seems like hysteria and fear is driving the bus. Do not get me wrong but can there be a middle road I have land and am not planning on doing anything but leaving it to my kids but they should have more choices if they want, it would be theirs not anyone else s at that time. Maybe that is where it gets dicey for me some group with no dog in the fight dictating their beliefs on someone else s property.
A community forest in Eureka would be HUGE…it would mean far more to the community than a series of estate lots.
A community forest for Eureka doesn’t require revoking rights across the rest of the county. McKinleyville doesn’t either. I keep reading about our evil timber barons and landlords–but who do you think are the 3000 members of HumCPR? Suckers all? They’re people like Tell Me, who’ve planned all their lives to do what a handful of new groups tell them they can’t do.
No mystery why even evil realtors and developers feel threatened by fear campaigns that don’t give a hoot about collateral damage. Purely abstract ideals, uninformed by experience of the rural lands they would interfere with, are really scary whether left or right. That’s how left and right blurs into fascism, remember?
I can’t speak for plutocrats, because I don’t know any. But I know more and more people appalled by the overreach of groups that presume to manage our countryside without knowing it or cooperating with its residents and owners. This scale of hostility is massively unproductive, and leads to what we see–a backlash stronger than the exaggerations and stereotypes that whip it up. Eventually we’ll start talking about this stuff instead of shouting about it. I can’t wait.
How could the McKay Tract become a “community forest” for Eureka, when it is outside the city limits ?
So you get to live here and you got yours so the hell with everyone
else. How long have your really lived in Humboldt. Most likely not
long. You just want to live here, shut down all the jobs and make
this into some kind of green paradise where the only jobs here are
government or some sort.
Sequoia Park is not a community forest?
Unfortunately, mob hysteria is often what drives these types of processes. The county Planning Commission should be commended for coming up with the idea of a Town Hall style meeting–if you went to or saw the one for the Housing Element, it was quite interesting and informative, as it includes discussion and Q&A between the public, staff, and the commission. No repetition of angry half-truths by misinformed people who really have little idea of what the General Plan Update is.
Check out the documents, they are all online. It’s not easy reading to be sure, but here are some samples:
*there are already more than 1,600 undeveloped rural residential parcels outside Community Planning Areas; the County needs to be sure there are enough parcels zoned for housing to provide 6,000 new houses over the next 20 years. Healthy Humboldt thinks that 1,600 rural residential parcels are enough, and that the remainder should be in existing towns, wher emost of the population lives and works.
*Contrary to what CPR tells people in SoHum, the AOB ordinance is not up for discussion. The only mention of it is whether or not to count AOB houses as affordable for low income households.
(AOB=Alternative Owner Builder, special building codes for houses built off the grid).
*The GPU is not about “taking away” rights to build, it’s about how much subdivision we want to see in the future, and where we want to see it. Realtors and developers want to see it everywhere; farmers who already own land want to be able to subdivide if necessary for cash flow; young farmers want to see ag land stay cheap enough for farmers to get a start without paying residential estate prices.
High Finance: ask the Keep Eureka Beautiful committee, they were the ones who first proposed that the McKay Tract should be a community forest for Eureka. It’s immediately adjacent to city limits, and is already popular amongst hikers in Eureka.
Green Diamond has been working on a proposal to build 5,000 houses there. It’s actually pretty nice, and would make a great park or community forest. Eureka could sure use more parks and trails.
Well said 8:49.
NEC, a “new group”??? Humboldt Watershed Council? Sierra Club? These are the founders of the Healthy Humboldt Coalition, which was formed in about 2003 to work on the General Plan Update.
Longwind, you undercut any sensible arguments you might have with these kinds of attacks: “fascism”??? Please.
It appears that there is merit to much of HumCPR’s argument for preserving the rural lifestyle, but when you align with large scale landowners and Realtors who’s sole motive is to subdivide and develop, your credibility takes a huge hit. For these guys, it’s all about the money, and has nothing to do with rural values. Nothing.
There aren’t jobs or even decent schools to support 5,000 new homes, there isn’t even a bank to underwrite mortages on that many homes. Hell, the well water in humboldt county isn’t even safe to drink- why in the world do some of you think many people even want to move here? So their children can learn crime and to steal?
Private property is the foundation of our country and is respected by anyone except a commie greenie-
HumCPR keeps trying to pretend that this is about taking away their ability to build on their rural parcels. That is simply not true – what HumCPR is fighting for is a dramatic increase in their ability to subdivide rural timber and ag lands. I don’t blame them for wanting to carve up their land and make a quick buck but I do blame them for trying to pretend it is about “preserving the rural lifestyle”.
If the people of this county as a whole want to subsidize these subdivisions of rural lands with their eyes open so be it. But lets remember that nobody can even begin to pretend that subdivision in rural lands is anything other than a total debacle for the taxpayer who has to subsidize roads, medical and other services for such subdivisions and that it is anything other than a trainwreck for the environment.
There are lots of solid studies that have shown that large lot sprawling subdivions in rural areas not only directly destroy the environment in connection with the conversion of the land but result in dramatically higher fossil fuel use, road construction and related impacts. If HELP and HumCPR hope to win they better win fast because their goals are so contrary to the emerging regulations relating to land use’s impact on global warming. If they were to win in Humboldt it would put this County back fifty years in its effort to be a leader in this area.
Grayshade, I think you’ll find that the handful of participants in the GPU who composed Plan A’s sweeping generalizations came from Democracy Unlimited and Greenwheels in particular. Check when those groups were founded, too.
Read up on fascism. It’s probably the most misunderstood government philosophy in America, because it’s an always available option that never goes by its name. Rounding up war resisters during World War I? Fascism, ‘avant la lettre.’ Depression post offices? Compare them to Mussolini’s architectural wedding cakes in Rome–same style for the same reasons. Roosevelt didn’t get away with packing the Supreme Court, and heaven knows I’m grateful for him, but your assumption that this most flexible of authoritarian models doesn’t apply to us is uninformed.
Have you ever heard of the urban Red Squads infiltrating and disrupting antiwar groups in the 1960s? Know anything about the tens of millions of dollars paid in settlements for government assassinations in recent decades? Don’t forget the Judi Bari settlement. This isn’t make-believe. So many people are upset because they see that governmental/private abuses of power cut across our current, silly left-right divides. More name-calling won’t help you to understand the real problems.
8:59, I’ll give it to you straight. I used to agree with you. I assumed that little people had no common intrest with big owners. I’ve come around on that because I see that nothing happens in politics without meaningful coalitions, and this rural coalition mischaracterized as a timber-beast front really does represent broader interests than Hurwitz’s, say.
That’s why I begged readers to read the HumCPR Newsletter. What I heard back was “what an anodyne sack of sweet thoughts, that’s not what HumCPR’s really about.” I disagree. There is no freedom without responsibility. People living in the country know this in their bones. The newsletter talked about restoration and water storage and waterless waste disposal because they’re issues essential to continuing rural freedoms, which we are learning to take responsibility for.
When stereotypes overwhelm minds and hearts, people become, may I say, susceptible to the style of government that dare not speak its name. I don’t know whether this rural coalition can survive success. I’ll be eager to see.
And you know what? As I get old and sleepy, I find myself forgiving people who defend their livings against attack. I think you’re wrong to assume people hate the countryside just because they buy and sell it. Some do that because they love it so much.
8:59, So because out of 3,000 members there are 30 or 40 realtors or large timber owners you propose to condemn the whole organization? In any large organization there are those you will not totally agree with in the case of HumCPR the realtors would seem to be a tiny minority. HumCPR has steadfastly said they are not taking positions on subdivisions and they have stuck with that. Perhaps it would make more sense to support them until they start down a path you disagree with. Get involved with them and make sure they stay on track.
9:37, I won’t take up all your misunderstandings, but just to begin: Plan A says that all new rural construction shall require a Condition Use Permit. That means a hearing before the Board of Supervisors, an EIR, expert consultants, reports, delays, and a far from certain outcome. Of course that’s a restriction on the right to build. How can you possibly misconstrue it as anything else?
What subsidy? Where subsidy? Since when is leaving me alone a subsidy?
And why do you assume that every rural homeowner wants their kids to have city services? Ask anyone why they moved to the country. It wasn’t for city services. If you’re concerned that the ‘wrong kind’ of rural resident will want them, enforce the existing laws that limit their spread, and stop worrying about it.
“Large-lot rural subdivisions” are the bugaboo of McKinleyville, which was designated by our planners in decades past as the growth outlet of the county. They are not even a gleam in developers’ eyes elsewhere. They are not why rural residents resist encroachment on traditional rights. As we head into deep recession and the county population declines, why are you jumping up and down over this? Why not leave us alone?
I keep hearing about the future. If it ever starts, let’s talk. If there is a place in the county where restrictions are appropriate, I think we should put them there. Blanketing the county with restrictions that McKinleyville refuses to put itself under is just goofy.
HumCPR’s newsletter seemed low on merit to me. I am not sure what pooping in an outhouse has to do with the General Plan Update.
Scott, I’ll just quote the cover.
Inside This Issue:
*Rural Building Rights and the General Plan
*Code Enforcement
*Urban Planners Designing Rural Life
Plus numerous other features, including; Alternative Septic Systems, Smart Growth, A Solution Seeking a Problem, Rural Living, and more.
And what you got out of this content was ‘pooping in an outhouse.’ Hmm.
That’s a non-argument. Developers don’t build without crunching the numbers. I’m inclined to believe they know something you don’t. If not, boo hoo, they lose gobs of money and suddenly there’s a glut of more affordable housing because they have houses they can’t sell.
If they succeeded with 5,000 new homes (which don’t get filled over night) the schools would thrive and gosh, we might even build new schools. Oh, the horror!
The problem with schools is that there aren’t enough kids to fill them, and here you’re arguing that building homes for more people will create a school problem. That’s a facepalm if there ever was one.
I will bring my popcorn and Raisinets, and I will see you Thursday.
The photo on the cover of Humboldt CPR’s newsletter is a good example of why we need to question the idea of populating TPZ. Does anyone else see the obvious fire hazards in that picture? Since so many wildfires begin at residences, the idea that anyone has the right to occupy the forest and can then keep adding on for successive generations is a recipe for deforestation.
Why do all the people or a large majority of the property owners and I mean the long term ones Russ, McBride, Prior,Barnum and other land owners support the other coalitions and the new people support Healthy Humboldt not a slam just a question from an uninformed person.
Partly because many of us newbies have experienced the ravages of poorly planned development in the Bay Area and other communities. We’ve heard the mantra “it can’t happen here” before and we feel like we’re fighting a rear-guard fight whenever these issues come up anywhere.
So you all ran from there to here and now your going to make a stand. Fighting a fight, for a lawyer only when there is money to be made
Ed, a far more immediate recipe for deforestation would be to ignore the fuel-load buildup in those forests decades after logging. Owners do more than spot and fight fires amplified by past practices; they also perform protective fuel-load reduction to make the consequences of fires less catastrophic for themselves and for the rest of us. We’re safer with homes in the woods than without them–but you won’t learn that from a snapshot.
Where did you dream up that ‘so many wildfires begin at residences,’ anyway?
It kinda creeps me out that the lion’s share of reaction to the newsletter that’s appeared here is about its graphic arts, as if its content were froth and the pictures substance. If they had produced a news-comic, Ed, would you have read it then? Would you read news-boobs? What does it take?
The reason to read the newsletter, once you’ve digested the pictures, is to understand the feelings and perspectives of tens of thousands of county residents who actually live where theorists and noodlers project their notions. Wouldn’t you like some grounding in what you’re talking about? Why not?
I’m sorry for my asperity. I really want to highlight the information-divide on display here. I hope we’ll discover some willingness all around to learn things before we’re through shucking and jiving about this.
So you all ran from there to here and now your going to make a stand. Fighting a fight, for a lawyer only when there is money to be made
For the record, I won’t be making any money off this fight. I will volunteer some time however.
Longwind, I got my information from firefighters while fighting wildfires in Mendocino Co. Those fires were started in and around homes in the woods near Laytonville.
When Sonoma County’s General Plan Updated 20+ years ago, they had the same pop. we have now, about 125,000. They said the same things; it can’t happen here. Now Sonoma County is up to half a million people, and is considered just an extension of the Bay Area.
So all you folks keep running here so you can save us from the ravages of where you can from. Isn’t that called irony? I mean, you want to live where it is wild and open, and no one else is gonna come with you? Don’t you think that is part of the American Frontier Mentality? And when this place is just too fucked up for you, then move to the next place. STAMPEED = watch out!! They are coming!
Gee funnygirl, since you’re not one of “all you folks” are you Karuk, Hupa, or Wiyot?
From what I’ve heard, the neighborhood ravages started around 1850. We can have both “wild and open” and 200,000 (2% growth rate over 20 years) people if we aren’t grabbing to divy all the unoccupied space because “its there for the taking by whoever gets there first”.
Difference between Sonoma and here is that Sonoma residents can (and do) commute to high dollar jobs closer to the bay. We are restricted by geography that way, and that is a good thing. If you’re going to live here, it’s necessary to work here, for the most part at least. We do need to grow intelligently, and that includes making our communities attractive places to live. Large parks, like the Arcata Forest and other similar parks make a huge difference in communities, and they can attract folks to town who might not otherwise choose to live in town. I include myself in that group. Sequoia park is really nice, but it’s small.
Well, Shades of Gray, the problem with sharing your “opinions,” is that someone might actually check out your “facts.” You might be surprised to learn that you are wrong.
US Census data shows that Sonoma County in 1990 had 388,222 residents. In 2008, (admittedly only 18 years and not the 20 years you “cited”) it was 466,741. Please do some math. That works out to slightly more than 1% population increase per year.
Oh, and by the by, Sonoma County happens to be an hour from the Golden Gate Bridge, so its residents can actually commute to the Bay Area cities to work. Humboldt is 5 hours from the GGB, so that Redwood Curtain seems a pretty effective barrier to the Sonoma County growth you loathe and fear so much. Sonoma also is called the Provence of California, with really desirable weather, wine and jobs.
If the population growth rate in Humboldt County was, indeed 2% a year, we would be adding 2,600 people (our population is 130,000 people, so 2% is 2,600). Does that frighten you, Shades of Gray?
Humboldt County has a growth rate less than one-half percent. Our schools are closing, jobs are leaving and with Option A, new housing of all types is going to be scarce.
I don’t mind a good, honest debate, but facts are facts and BS is BS. Fear mongering is fear mongering.
And denial is denial.
And zealotry is zealotry.
Eric Kirk, I call bullshit.
Well hey, if you have an idea of how I can make money promoting smart growth, I’m all ears. I’ll split the take with you.
Large-lot sprawl is not just the ghost of McKinleyville Past–it’s Present and Future too, unless we change the policies. That’s what many of us McKinleyvillans would like to see. A town where you could walk to the store, bike in bike lanes, and also protect the creeks and wetlands. Not build storage units on them.
McKinleyville has doubled in population in the last ten years, and the only thing that will slow that down is a change in policies or long-term recession. Otherwise, 40% of the new housing will be build here again. Many of us don’t like the lack of planning here. Just speaking for McKinleyville–I don’t for second think that people in every other community should want what I want. That’s what public input is for.
I prefer to just keep on complaining to other negative likeminded people! And keep the ag land in agriculture, and keep the forest in timber production, although not as tree farms.
“A town where you could walk to the store, bike in bike lanes,”
why can’t you do that now?
http://ramblingjackslaboratory.blogspot.com/2008/06/utility-cycling.html
I do not believe you are correct in your growth rate either. the population of mckinleyville doubled to 13,000 from 1980 – 2000. that included some of the highest years of construction the county has ever seen. you are saying since 1998 the population doubled again to 26,000 people and now we are the size of eureka.
OK, right.
McKinleyvillian,
When McKinleyville was being planned by the past two CAC’s the input from the public was for large lots. The CAC’s were a diverse group of local residents that each represented their own feelings about the future of the community. When staff proposed that the principles of “smart growth” would be incorporated in the plan, the citizen’s group rejected the request. The committee was balanced, that is very balanced with each “side” having the same number of votes.
If you are in tune to the Housing Element, you probably will not like what will be proposed for McKinleyville because we are the only area in Humboldt County’s jurisdiction that has infrastructure capacity.
“Many of us don’t like the lack of planning here.”
rather than lack of planning, there is lack of your knowledge on the subject:
http://co.humboldt.ca.us/planning/complans.asp
the mck plan was adopted in 01 or 02 and the one prior to that was in 85 or so. there is a plan, read it.
I think the point is not lack of planning but the vision that is different than that that the community chose. The basis of democratic planning activities is to judge the wishes of the residents of the community. The CAC process worked to determine that vision, but now planning staff wanted to do away with CAC’s because they felt it took a long time to get a plan. Yes the McKinleyville plan took nearly 10 years of community meetings and long discussions, but a plan was developed that had community support.
The current General Plan update (rewrite) had changed to a staff based approach, revealing to the public the recommendations with little public discussion, and therefore much concern. Take for example the forum on Thursday that is to discuss a significant range of tipics with a short public review before the discussion. 60 days was promised, but not provided. Staff wants to just push this through. I see a train wreck about to happen.
I forgot to add, the General Plan update has taken over 10 years and has cost about 10 million dollars!
The reason I think the land use stuff is baloney is simple: government always screws it up. The harder they try, the more screwed we are.
Land use policies always claim to help poor people. Could someone please cite an example of land use policy that actually helps poor people? I can only find policies that help industry. Maybe I’d shut up about it if I could find a real-life instance of improved lifestyle for the poor as a result of land use policy.
It seems to me that these land use and zoning policies are always a reaction to some other land use and/or zoning policy made by different government clowns in years past. Take TPZ… this gets attacked as a bad idea that needs to be replaced or improved. But private property owners didn’t invent TPZ, the government did. As a result, the discussion revolves around how we need to replace one stupid policy with another stupid policy. This guarantees that in fifty years we can have this discussion again about how we need to replace the faulty old general plan with a shiny new one that will benefit the people… this time.
Someone please explain to me how any of this is really going to create parks or help people out or preserve rural lifestyle or whatever the ultimate goal is.
Here are my ideas:
Remove involuntary building codes. People should be able to agree amongst themselves what adequate building codes are for their neighborhood and region. If a property owner does not want to take part in this agreement, they should not have to. However, breaking voluntary building codes while under contract is enough reason for legal action to be taken against the offending property owner.
Urban renewal/community development. We need to never talk about this ever again. Problem solved.
Rent control. I would be happy if this was a curse word. You dirty rent controlling rent controller.
Subdivision controls. This should not be in the hands of the government. Property owners can figure out if there is enough road and sewer themselves and take appropriate measures. When the government does take care of this, they screw it up.
Ag land. This should be a voluntary contract between local farmers and their neighbors. This should not be forced by the government because the government giveth and the government taketh away. That is, a farmer has less protection from a government agreement as the government can and will take away farmland when they come up with some pie-in-the-sky plan for it.
Eminent domain. You eminent domainer.
I am a “B” person all of the way.
McKinleyville will quit growing when people quit moving here. Same for Fortuna, et al. But what’s the big deal about growth? It happens. Plan for it is the idea, not stop it, which doesn’t work. Its like saying “I don’t want to get old”. Get over it. Its gonna happen, but it never happens quickly in Humboldt County. Growth, that is. Can’t help with the getting old thing.
i vote for mr. nice. you might get some crazy looking places, but i bet prices would come down.
I think it’s been done. It’s called “Mexico City.”
yes, we will soon have 22 million people here.
The reason I think the land use stuff is baloney is simple: government always screws it up. The harder they try, the more screwed we are.
That’s not true from my point of view. There are communities in the Bay Area which have planned very well despite the enormous pressure of growth. And government did very well by the people of Portland and the outlying areas, planning for development, transportation, etc.
Government often screws up, usually because of pressure from conflicting interests. But sometimes the right people at the right time with the right priorities and foresight can work wonders.
All generalizations are meaningless.
Not a Native – The land has always been there for the taking by whoever shows up. Show me a time when that was not true.
government is a violent thing- more people were killed by their own government in the last century than anything else.
allow Free People to live how they want and abolish all forms of government before it harms anyone else.
if you do government’s bidding- you will spend your afterlife in hell for betraying your fellow Man.
Well. That’s nuanced.
Well, we all saw the two of you at the PC meeting. Is this the start of your campaign, K8lin?
What Bay Area communities that are planned very well? Can you please direct me to one of these places? I don’t mean a “well planned” place where the average home price is greater than $250,000. That’s not planning, that’s rich white boys planning not to live among other ethnic groups.
I was hoping to draw “Portland” out of someone.
Oregon has a statewide ban on inclusionary zoning. No amount of urban renewal in Portland can spread the hood out without price fixing from inclusionary zoning policies. What is being proposed in Humboldt is very different from what is even legal in Oregon. If you want to model Humboldt on the land use policies in Oregon… go ahead, I am with you.