Dr. Ann Lindsay talks about the Health Impact Assessment in Garberville.
Petrolia resident Ellen Taylor comes out in defense of county health official Ann Lindsay in today’s Times-Standard. The doctor’s good name has been dragged through the mud over her Health Impact Assessment for the county’s General Plan Update.
Taylor herself is a health care professional and given her backwater residence it will be difficult for the foot-stomping, name-calling faction of the Coalition for Property Rights to dismiss her as a “urban environmentalist.”
In spite of the seriousness of these concerns, Dr. Lindsay’s comments drew hot protests from a group of Realtors at [a September Board of Supervisors] meeting. They leaped indignantly to their feet, accusing her of trying to control how people live, and branding her recommendations as “social engineering.” They urged the board not to adopt the report. This summer’s Humboldt Coalition for Property Rights (CPR) newsletter continued the campaign, in an article questioning her scientific integrity, with the suggestion that she is being manipulated by the county planning department.
This vehemence invites scrutiny. Health, internationally recognized as a fundamental right of every human being, is cited by the World Bank as a vital engine of economic growth. The ancient art of municipal planning has always taken for granted the dependence of individuals upon community health.
Read Taylor’s editorial here.
RSS - Posts
June 25, 2009 at 10:52 am
You have to be kidding right? Taylor believes meth should be legal (per her TS op piece). She is flat out bonkers Heraldo. Have you read her article “Two cheers for Meth, Free the Tweakers?” You can find it at http://www.counterpunch.org/taylor06072007.html
June 25, 2009 at 11:43 am
Leave it to Ellen to equate socialized medicine with land use planning…
June 25, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Health Impact Assessment = lots of stuff to consider when attempting to set/direct policy with “a theory”.
Once service contractors and the ability to move to and from in close proximity to “service centers”(urban) are excluded from the data, how much healthier is urban living compared to rural? I believe it is worse, especially the psychological and mental stresses that urban areas present with all the people in such tight quarters chomping at the bit.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
June 25, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Anonymous 10:52,
Too bad you didn’t read the article you linked to. Did you know that headlines are generally not written by the authors of opinion pieces. They’re written by editors to try to draw people in. In other words, they’re intentionally sensational.
I’ll let Ms. Taylor defend her article herself, if she wishes. She basically points out that meth is endemic, that the war on drugs isn’t working, and that other approaches need to be tried. It sounds like wild-eyed common sense to me.
As for Ann Lindsay’s piece in the T-S, wow, more wild-eyed common sense. Dr. Lindsay has the nerve to point out that Oklahoma City’s mayor has succeeded in getting citizens there to lose weight. Social control! Call Rush!!!
June 25, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Wow, one rural resident agrees with Ann. Well, I guess that settles it then!
Of course Ann Lindsay’s “research” didn’t include any actual data from Humboldt County, but I suppose that’s no big deal for people who are willing to impose their ideological preferences on others just on the basis of theories cooked up with out-of-area data.
So, it looks like Ellen Taylor will be moving to Eureka in order to improve “community health? Or is that just something other folks are supposed to do?
And “name-calling?” You mean like comparing the CPR group to the notorious war criminal / mass murderer Dick Cheney? Oh wait, that was Sylvia DeRooy speaking on behalf of the Wealthy Humboldt perspective (which she is well-suited to do from her comfy position in Westhaven). I haven’t heard anything even close to that kind of name-calling from the other side.
Hey, maybe Sylvia and Ellen can move to Eureka and be neighbors in a nice little duplex built as in-fill!
(Or maybe they can both continue to enjoy their nice homes in Petrolia and Westhaven while ensuring that others don’t get that opportunity. Yup, I’m betting on that outcome.)
June 25, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I am glad to see health impacts considered in planning. Vehicle traffic is not healthy for those in the vehicle or for those who in the communities through which the vehicles pass. And if health impacts become a requirement for planning and building, then perhaps all those impoverished neighborhoods won’t get stuck with the polluting sorts of businesses their wealthier don’t want. And thanks, Ellen, for showing that not all SoHummers are self-absorbed heroes in their own retro-drama.
June 25, 2009 at 3:53 pm
So we’ll all be waiting to see if Ellen decides to move to Eureka to improve her health and the health of the community at large.
I’m sure the air quality in Eureka will be a great help in improving her health, compared to her place in Petrolia.
Practice what you preach, Ellen, or stop preaching.
June 25, 2009 at 3:57 pm
The only two people more confused than Ann Lindsey are Mr 5th Dst and Ms Taylor. Wow! maybe we can start our own little Cuba right here in good old Humboldt.
June 25, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Lindsay’s health assessment is based on a narrow view of the issue and lacks credibility since it was funded by HumPal (guess who?), same people that populate Wealthy Humboldt.
Her main point is that driving is unhealthy and the general assumption is that rural people will drive more than urban smartereized grothers who live in town. Unfortunately she provided no data to support that general conclusion, just the assertion.
She contrasted us with rich Marin and SanFrancisco, a real good comp.
As Ann said, she does not want this place turning into Santa Rosa. Does her opinion count?
June 25, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Does yours?
June 25, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Right on, Ellen! Right on Dr. Ann! I’ll take some common sense science over the narrow interests of some rich developers trying to trash our health and our environment to make themselves richer! You CPR developers are lying scum. . .but I have to admit, you’re skilled at spin control. I live in a rural area, but I’m not obsessed making a profit off the backs of my fellow citizens. I pay FULL property taxes, unlike the folks who want the tax break AND the subdivisions.
June 25, 2009 at 7:01 pm
the question is walt, are you less healthy because of where you live?
June 25, 2009 at 8:14 pm
No, because when I built my house, the septic tank and drainfield system was inspected and is up to code. Plumbing and electrical too. The old house, with its gray water draining into the woods, marginal septic and various structural issues, was built before building codes. It was full of mold (and asbestos floor tiles), so we had allergy problems.
No, as a former carpenter who went through the union-sponsored apprenticeship, and worked with building inspectors for years, I know about codes and I’ve seen what happens the “market” dictates the code. . .houses burn, people get sick, and houses collapse in earthquakes. Laissez faire economics is swell for the rich, not for the rest of us.
June 25, 2009 at 9:11 pm
you really don’t know the issue walt. they are saying that you are less healthy because you live in the country. you drive more and eat more and weigh eight pounds more than the city mice. it has nothing to do with your septic system, it is your lifestyle, according to dr. lindsay. since you don’t have access to trails, or at least the paved ones on maps, you have a health problem.
June 25, 2009 at 9:21 pm
LOLZ you said “mice.”
June 25, 2009 at 9:21 pm
More left wing Socialist bull shit..
June 25, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Walt pull your head out of your ass, breath some fresh air. There is no common sense nor science in the argument. Its MUS, I think you had your leach lines a little to close to your water supply for to long. That or you lived in one of those states that allow marrying your first cousin.
June 25, 2009 at 10:23 pm
The HIA is AFU
June 25, 2009 at 10:51 pm
We need alternatives to right-wing social engineering by the highest bidders.
It will cost $2 trillion in taxpayer bailouts for that “right” to build large, unaffordable, inefficient homes and automobiles. It may cost another $2 trillion for that “right” to charge 35% interest rates on credit cards now accepted for health care and food. What will continued remote developments cost us?
CPR promises to protect the right to live the rural lifestyle on remote forested land while every new mile of public road, every new home, and every new car requires thousands of annual public dollars in maintenance, emergency and other gov. services, subsidized by citizens increasingly challenged today simply to “live”. Municipalities are going broke just trying to maintain the infrastructures originally built with timber-tax dollars.
Having just experienced the current housing collapse,(costing the public twice as much as the last one in the 1980’s), local developers are already beginning the next bubble “gold-mine” in Cutten, Humboldt Hill, Myrtle Town, Mckinleyville and Fortuna.
Unfortunately, rural Humboldt outrage seems to be a convenient distraction.
June 26, 2009 at 5:46 am
Quit with the “rural lifestyle” crap already. . .that’s an obvious red herring. What this is about is money. The CPR folks I know want the tax break of a TPZ AND the right to build and sell or rent expensive homes. They aren’t building co-housing or selling those spec homes to the poor. The “potties” down in SoHum are doing the same thing. Like Deep Throat said: follow the money. How are they any different from Hurwitz, Ken Lay, or Madoff? Meet the new boss. . .same as the old boss.
June 26, 2009 at 6:19 am
If municipalities are going broke just trying to maintain the infrastructures originally built with timber-tax dollars (least not forget all those “newer” roads built with development monies), then that would mean that “public jurisdictions” would actually have to spend tax dollars on that maintenance. Let us face it – tax dollars are GROSSLY AND MANIPULATIVELY misappropriated to the point that all levels of government whine for more, just like an alcoholic prior to rehab!
As far as the next bubble “gold-mine”, local planning and building departments are just as much, if not more, on board for these developments for tax dollars and housing numbers in order to appease the “State” mandated figures. Therefore, everytime the big, bad developer is being accused of huffing and puffing, just remember it is local government departments that ultimately blow the doors down when deciphering “what is allowed in Humboldt, and where”.
Again, nip in the bud over-population – this is the pre-cursor to almost all problems. Until then, this H.I.A. issue will ring along with ill-focused arguments that ever so often make a person wonder who sold-out their soul for political, ideological positioning. Name that tune ♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫……
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
June 26, 2009 at 6:54 am
It will cost $2 trillion in taxpayer bailouts for that “right” to build large, unaffordable, inefficient homes and automobiles.
it wouldn’t cost anything if they just left things alone.
June 26, 2009 at 7:04 am
No tax breaks exist on the home or portion of the TPZ land set aside and exercised for non-TPZ uses.
TPZ Taxes = dead argument.
Rights to build = already exist; therefore, nothing extra is wanted. Another dead argument.
In following the money, your travels will find you entertaining your local public jurisdictions before you get to the developer, just sayin’.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
June 26, 2009 at 7:10 am
I did not know that HumCPR is responsible for all of our nation’s ills Reinventing the Wheel. I hope you feel better after your rant. Do you remember the definition of “projection” in your psych classes? I hope you can understand that HumCPR is advocating for what rural landowners have now, the right to build a house on a legal parcel. Nowhere does HumCPR advocate for subdivisions, sprawl, McMansions, etc. If you can’t debate on the facts, just calling names does little to forward the debate.
June 26, 2009 at 7:35 am
Excellent last sentence, A Non A Me. Why not go back to the very first comment, and start ’splainin your fellow HumCPR supporters, ummm, “arguments”.
June 26, 2009 at 7:37 am
Reinventing the wheel needs a rabies shot. His rant is complete bullshit, no facts just emotion. MUS through and through. Also he sufferes from lack of original thinking, the new boss is this prog’y bullshit that has infected humboldt but it just the same old socialism.
June 26, 2009 at 8:04 am
Urgent Message to Hum Red:
See A Non A Me at 7:10 AM.
June 26, 2009 at 8:09 am
I love it when business people attempt to proclaim moral superiority over health care providers.
June 26, 2009 at 9:06 am
Oh good. Ellen Taylor. Now there’s a person known for her even-keel approach to contentious matters. It remains to be seen whether her endorsement helps or hurts the causes she supports.
June 26, 2009 at 9:27 am
Anonymous has a stellar reputation in contentious matters, too.
June 26, 2009 at 9:51 am
Anonymous? Heraldo? Come on, be serious, isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black. Think a little about what your’re saying.
June 26, 2009 at 10:47 am
Actually Ellen Taylor owns a house in Arcata, [redacted], along with a 163.92 acre, a 80 acre with an adjoining parcel on the Mattole River. But her real point was that healthcare is a right. If you want to know more about her, just Google her name. I believe that she is certainly out of the mainstream and an unlikely posterchild for the smarterized growth crowd at Wealthy Humboldt.
June 26, 2009 at 12:09 pm
I love the sobriquet “Wealthy Humboldt”. Just how much did those “newsletters” in the Journal cost CPR? So who’s wealthy? Spinmeisters! Einer spinnt immer.
June 26, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I don’t care what side of any issue you are on, it is not ok to post peoples addresses. A Non A you should be ashamed of yourself as should the nuts on the other side who have done the same.
June 26, 2009 at 1:57 pm
It was worth pointing out, 9:51.
1:28, the address has been redacted. Posting it was poor judgment, to say the least.
June 26, 2009 at 2:08 pm
ps and it seems that all she pays in taxes (our ms. taylor) for her 250 or so acres in petrolia with her house is about 1800.00 which it looks like she bought in 1999. I ask you why isn’t she paying more taxes on that property which is clearly worth much much more.
June 26, 2009 at 7:03 pm
The reason I started using the name Wealthy Humboldt is that if they get what they are advocating for, only wealthy individuals will be able to live in our rural areas. It also so happens that their “base” seems to be well-to-do retirees and professionals, but that’s not really what I was getting at when I started to use the term Wealthy Humboldt to describe them. Glad it’s catching on, though, as it certainly describes who will still be able to live in rural Humboldt if they get their way: only those with the money to buy the 600 acre minimum parcel sizes, or pay for the lawyers and consultants needed to wade through the county bureaucracy to get a Conditional Use Permit to build on land that, right now, they have a right to build on without a C.U.P.
I realize that the gentrification of the rural lands MAY not be their intention, but unintended consequences are just as harmful (often more so) than the intended ones.
June 26, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Anyway, I’m delighted that “Wealthy” Humboldt has caught on as a nick-name.
It also captures the hypocrisy of folks like Sylvia DeRooy, who lives in upscale, non-urban Westhaven, but wants others to live in in-fill duplexes in Eureka.
So, when do Ellen Taylor and Sylvia DeRooy and the rest of the gang move to small apartments in Eureka? That would solve their hypocrisy problem, and also open up two non-urban homes for others to live in, thereby lowering the demand for new development in our rural areas. I’ll be waiting to see if they walk their walk, or if, like so many Wealthy Humboldters, they just like to talk the talk…
“Life is short
Talk is cheap
Don’t make promises that you can’t keep
If you don’t like this little song I’m singing,
Just grin & bear it
All I can say is if the Shoe Fits Wear It
But if you must keep talking,
Please try to make it rhyme
Because your mind’s on vacation
But your mouth is workin’ overtime!”
(Theme to Thursday night talk on KHSU…anyone know who the artist is?)
June 26, 2009 at 7:17 pm
It seems like they are trying to limit any further growth of any of the rural communitys. They are concentrating all the population into more managable citys! They act asif “We cant let people move back to the land and live stress free lives! How will they be monitored, who will make sure they are following all the made up rules!” They need to suffer just like everyone else! No escaping the matrix sorry! We need you on the grid now! What about equal oppertunities for all communitys to grow as that community sees fit! I live in the rural area of souther humboldt and i dont think i should be dictating what happends in mckinleyville, nor do i think someone in eureka should be deciding what happends where i live! We live diffrent lifestyles. Theres enough land in this county for everyone! Doesn’t anyone realize that by limiting growth they are just proping up the real estate values to unaffordable prices. Look how bad the situation is rigth now in southern humboldt, most the people who would like to live there or do now cannot afford to buy a home in the area! most homes are between $250,000 – $500,000. And its because theres a high demand and a low supply of housing, not everyone can get in and live in the community so you either gotta pay the high price, know someone, or have some other way of obtaining a place to live. Making it harder to live in the rural areas of humboldt will not stop the demand it will just make things worse for future residences. Who will be able to live here when the cheapest livable house is $250,000? Is it our fault for wanting to live someone with better weather, land, enviorment. Less crime, pollution, traffic and many of the negative aspects of urban areas! If it wasn’t for the rural people of this county your urban areas would already of turned into the “arkleyvilles” you all are so scared of! Its the urban/yuppie mindset that wants all that crap! It is the people who live in the city who support it the most! Also has anyone thought about the Flouride angle on this whole debate! They want us to get onto city water systems that are usualy flouridated. If you do any research into this you will know it is basical industrial by-products / waste from aluminum/copper/steel smelting plants + rock phosphate surface mining. It has been shown to lower your i.q. It is the #1 cause of dental flourosis (too much flouride). And studys have shown that communities that take it do not have much if any higher rate of healthyer teeth! the suposive reason it in the water in the first place! Did i mention that inside your body the flouride replaces calcium in your bones and stays deposited in your body! Wow sounds great! Its exactly what the nazi eugenecist want to further manage there populations of slaves!
Dont belive me look it up for yourself!
June 27, 2009 at 7:54 am
OMG! Nazis everywhere!
June 27, 2009 at 9:00 am
Manageable for who, elitists?
Living rural is a “slap in the face” to those who want to “control”.
Additionally, living rural is more “outside” mainstream society(as advertized), which is also a bug-a-boo for those who yurn for the highest potential human “sin tax” dollar generation through MASS consumerism(population density configurations).
Living rural also provides an example for others to look toward in order to realize that living “out yonder” or “off the grid”, sts, has it’s advantages which tend to defy the commercialized lifestyles being projected into consumers’ mindsets on a daily basis through a routine which has helped to create the “power and control” for those who make bureaucratic decisions.
Good Post S.d.d.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
June 27, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Skippy Says:
June 26, 2009 at 7:03 pm
“The reason I started using the name Wealthy Humboldt is that if they get what they are advocating for, only wealthy individuals will be able to live in our rural areas. It also captures the hypocrisy of folks like Sylvia DeRooy, who lives in upscale, non-urban Westhaven, but wants others to live in in-fill duplexes in Eureka”.
If 75% of Humboldt County residents could afford to buy a home here, instead of the 75% that cannot, this probably wouldn’t be much of an issue for Healthy Humboldt.
Where exactly are these affordable, in-fill duplexes? You know, the places that enable single and family residents to save the capital necessary to have other OPTIONS for where they live, where they work, how they commute, what they eat, and their access to education, good health and health care.
My wife and I looked at a tiny home for sale on 8th Street, Eureka, curious about the OPTION to walk to services, stores and transportation. $220,000 for a 900 s/f home with original one horse garage, no yard.
No wonder rents are high.
June 27, 2009 at 8:22 pm
wheel,
this is due to supply and demand. wealthy humboldt wants to restrict supply more. do the math.
June 27, 2009 at 8:24 pm
also, less than 10 years ago, many more people could afford to buy houses. you want to know the difference? they were building 200+ homes a year. now we are at 65 or something like that and most cannot afford them. supply and demand.
June 28, 2009 at 9:17 am
There is a movement silently growing amongst the rural homesteaders that was born out of city/town “enviros” and north coast envirn. center/epic demonizing rural land owners as polluters.
First and foremost is the withdrawl of financial support from these rural homesteaders that has been pouring in over the years and sustaining NEC/epic.
You picked the WRONG group to demonize…
more to come………
June 28, 2009 at 9:43 am
developers/real estate investors calling the environmental folks “wealthy.” Ha! We all know who is driven strictly by their wallets…
June 28, 2009 at 10:00 am
Yo, 9:43, it’s amusing how Wealthy Humbuggers turn reality upside down. If rural landowners were motivated by profit, we would let you have your way. The less rural land is available to buy and sell, the more our own land would be worth. As with house prices, scarcity-value is Econ 101. But there are values more important than money, explained and defended here and elsewhere, that you’re unable to take in with your money obsession. What a shame that you can’t grasp the values of environmentalism.
June 28, 2009 at 10:02 am
I see alot of familiar names on the HUM CPR lists… spin in anyway you like guys
June 28, 2009 at 11:31 am
From what I understand, the CPR group has several thousand members. Gee, I didn’t know we had that many developers in Humboldt, where only a couple hundred homes are being built every year! (sarcasm)
The fact is that most of the members of the CPR group are just small-time rural property owners. From what I’ve seen at the various hearings and meetings where they were represented, the most active and outspoken members are some of our long-time homesteaders / back-to-the-landers.
At the same time, the *leadership* of the group DOES seem heavy with realtors and other financially interested parties. I’m guessing that this is where a lot of the money for the fancy newsletter comes from.
But, so what? What matters is what the group is actually advocating for. Despite the fact-free assertions by certain parties, the group seems to be rather narroely focused on advocating to maintain the right to build on existing rural parcels, *not* for making suburban subdivisions. If that was to change, toward a more big-developer-benefitting agenda, I think they would lose a lot of their grassroots support, which is their best asset.
So, are the homesteaders / back-to-the-landers being “used” by the realtors and big developers…or is it the other way around? So far it seems that, despite the realtor-heavy board of directors, it is the small-time property owners who are in the driver’s seat as far as setting the agenda. And, sure, they’re happy to have some folks with money to help push that agenda (and of course realtors and smaller developers have something to gain from the current right-to-build-on-existing-parcels agenda). Saul Alinsky, one of the founders of modern community organizing, would call that “economic jujitsu,” using the economic strength of one group to battle another group that is even more of a threat.
If I start to see any sign that the CPR group is moving away from their roots and towards becoming another HELP/Sunshine clone, I’ll be the first to advocate that homesteaders / back-to-the-landers abandon them. But that hasn’t happened.
June 28, 2009 at 11:36 am
In fact, at the moment, the main groups that I seen pushing for ACTUAL big suburban subdivisions are:
(1) *Green Diamond* (formerly Simpson Timber), which wants to put more than 6,000 residential units in the McKay tract (which right now supports the best salmon habitat leading to Humboldt Bay, is home to spotted owls as well as countless other wild creatures, some residual old growth redwoods, and lots of relatively mature second-growth redwoods that support an old-growth-like habitat and if not mowed down for suburban growth could continue to develop into old growth forest).
(2) *The developers of Forster-Gill* which would also put thousands of small-lot suburban housing units (and some commercial space) at the edge of Cutten, on prime timberlands.
(3) The *Humboldt County Planning Department,* under so-called Smart-Growth aficianado Kirk Girard, which has rolled out the red carpet for these developers, even arranging to take Forster-Gill and “roll it into the General Plan.”
If I remember correctly, current 3rd District Supervisor (and former Wealthy Humboldt chief) Mark Lovelace actually supported the Forster-Gill project as so-called Smart Growth. Why? Because they’re throwing in a little bit of commercial space, which makes it “mixed-use,” and because they set aside some “Green Space” by packing the housing units onto small lots. Of course the reality is that the “Green Spaces” are mostly just the steep gullies that they couldn’t build on anyway (so the developer isn’t really giving up anything, but as a result of this non-sacrifice they get to pack even more units on the buildable land).
And of course Wealthy Humboldt, by pressing to “contain” new housing to areas in or near existing cities, is playing right into the hands of these suburban-subdivision developers, while at the same time pretending that those advocating for the right to build a single dwelling on a 160 acre existing parcel are the “developers” and in danger of creating “massive subdivision of our resource lands.”
This irony would all be pretty funny, if it weren’t so harmful to people’s lives, livlihoods, and stewardship of our rural lands.
I do believe that most of the folks involved in Wealthy Humboldt are well-meaning and really believe that what they are advocating is best for the county. I just think they are badly misinformed, and sorely lacking in real-world perspective about rural land issues, and the possible impacts of unintended consequences of their well-meaning advocacy.
Unfortunately unintended consequences can often be just as bad, or worse, than intended ones.
June 28, 2009 at 12:09 pm
As usual you nailed it, Skippy. Saul Alinsky rocks! My own guarantee of HumCPR’s purity of action is simple, since I’m a leftist: If I disapproved of something, I’d just schism like our forbears did. It’s easy. In the meantime I’m in a far more impressive coalition than what we’re up against, this community of interests uniting professional greens and professional planners equally estranged from their popular bases–though the grant-greens don’t seem to have the slightest idea whose interests their partners in planning serve. They’d have to interact with the public to find out, which is known to offend funders, so maybe they’ll never know.
ps, Alinsky said at the end of his great career that if he could change one thing, he would put a self-destruct mechanism in all his community organizations. He said effective community groups were ‘inevitably hijacked by middle-class careerists within 5 years.’
And that was decades before the Humboldt Watershed Council even existed.
June 28, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Alinsky was a very wise man. I had never heard that quote about middle-class careerists / 5 years, but that matches my past experiences with community organizations almost exactly.
They start off with some kind of geniune, organic grassroots basis, but pretty soon the tail is wagging the dog, as the staff (in effect) nominates new members to the Board of Directors and in some cases a “Staff Board” is formed, with no real outside influence at all. Groupthink abounds, and connections to funders, lawmakers and other elites become far more important than their own membership. At that point, membership becomes little more than a donation and receipt of a newsletter, maybe a letter writing campaign. Bureaucracy explodes and feeds itself.
For a prime example, see what has become of the Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs), state-level, originally student-based groups that were started by Ralph nader in the early 1970’s. Virtually all of the state groups are now financially controlled by a Boston-based outfit called the Fund for Public Interest Research (“The Fund”), populated by career PIRG fundraisers, non-profit bureaucrats, and elite-oriented pseudolobbyists. Weak state Boards made up of students from campus chapters (who naturally come and go with high turnover) are easily manipulated by career staff, and anyway nearly all of the money is controlled by “The Fund.” The PIRG’s agendas grow tamer by the year, asking for mere crumbs (and getting even smaller crumbs), and rarely engaging their membership in any meaningful way. Instead of a group of Mice that Roared, they’ve become an Elephant that squeals. Very sad.
The same danger of growing out of touch with the membership and dominated by staff and political insiders threatens the future of both HumCPR and Wealthy Humbolt / Humboldt Watershed Council. We’ll see which one (if either) can resist the bureaucratization / careerism / elitism that often grows like a cancer in such groups. So far, the CPR groups seems to be more grassroots-based and less reliant on out-of-area grants. But that could change…we must be vigilant.
As for Wealthy Humboldt, we’ll see how that develops. But at this point it seems to be a “coalition” consisting in reality of the about two dozen people, who each claim to “represent” lots of other people through the other groups they work with. The problem is that the members of those other groups, like Humboldt Watershed Council, don’t have any real say over the Wealthy Humboldt agenda (and may not even know that they are being claimed as a supporter of Wealthy Humboldt by extension of the group they belong to having joined as a “member of the coalition”). Therefore the “representation” is largely a facade.
In my more active community-organizing days we called this type of hierarchical pseudo-coalition building a “Letterhead Coalition,” which as the name implies is an astro-turf type of fake grassroots where leaders of groups commit their groups to the new “coalition” and put their groups names on the letterhead and the leaders of the coalition then “claim” the membership of each of those groups as their “base.” When I was a community organizer we generally avoided being part of these “letterhead coalitions,” as they did not have any real accountability to the members of the groups that comprised them, and often ended up taking postions that would not have been supported by many of the members of the constituent organizations.
As Michael Franti wrote in one of his songs with Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy:
Careerism, opportunism:
Can turn the politics into Cartoonism…
June 29, 2009 at 12:59 am
Skippy, can you fill me on the Hum CPR position on subdividing TPZ properties? Do they favor a plan without any restrictions? Would 40 acres be the limit? I’ve read that each application would have to be reviewed, but I’ve also heard that the process will hopefully be refined so you’ll have a clear picture whether or not your application will be accepted. Sorry to single out you, but you seem to be very knowledgeable about the subject.
Thanks in advance-
June 29, 2009 at 4:05 pm
I’m not even a member of HumCPR (not much of a “joiner” these days) and to be blunt, Lee Ulansey’s rather hyperbolic rhetoric tends to rub me the wrong way. But I do agree with much of their stated agenda, particularly the desirability of continuing to allow people to build a house on existing legal parcels. (If there’s a “hidden agenda” beyond that, well I don’t really want to speculate on what it might be or whether I’d agree, I’ll take a wait-and-see approach until something changes.)
Anyway, I’m afraid that I don’t know what their position is on subdividing TPZ lands. If someone else does know what their position is (and I’m not talking about pure speculation about hidden motives, hidden agendas, etc.) I’d be interested in hearing what that position is.
My own opinion is that I’d rather not see “automatic” approval of TPZ subdivisions (nor, for that matter, “automatic” approval of agricultural land subdivisions). But I do think that folks should be allowed to build one house on an existing legal parcel, whether it is TPZ or agricultural land.
Remember, the TPZ tax break does *not* save the owner any money on taxes on the house and land immediately around it — the taxes would be the same as any other similar home in the county. Meanwhile the TPZ tax break *would* continue to apply to the remaining timber on the property — taxes are deferred until you harvest.
We need to remember the reason for the TPZ tax break was created in the first place: so that people would not feel pressured to harvest quickly/frequently just to pay their tax bills. That way the small-time timberland owners can choose let the timber grow for a few extra years or decades (as many of our homesteaders / back-to-the-landers do), increasing the eventual value of the timber, and maintaining important habitat in the meantime.
When they finally do harvest, the county gets it’s taxes at that time. If the owner doesn’t harvest for a long period of time, obviously the county may “lose” tax monies that they otherwise would have recieved if it was harvested sooner — but counterbalancing that are the positive habitat and watershed values of letting the trees stand longer, harvesting more selectively, etc.
June 29, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Thanks Skippy. Anyone from Hum CPR care to answer the question?
July 2, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Thanks Skippy. Anyone from Hum CPR care to answer the question?
HumCpr has answered this question over and over and over again but you either are not a good listener or intentionally not listening because you intentionally dont want to believe the answer.
They DO NOT represent Developers interests what so ever.HumCpr does not advocate for subdivisions..especially the ones that’s in store for Humboldt hill or In Cutten where a “smart growth” in fill project will bring in up to 1500 homes and 3600 people.
As one resident, Anna Hetko, pointed out that the Forster-Gill development is but one of a series of developments the county will be looking at in the future in the Cutten area’s remaining forested stretches. “All of the forest is basically going,” she said. After the meeting, Hetko, who’s lived in the area 20 years and has a one-acre parcel, said the Forster-Gill project “sucks.” “They want to build a shopping mall in there, where now there’s bear, bobcat, spotted owl, salmon spawning creeks and five osprey nests,” she said. “It’s living, breathing habitat that they want to develop in a grotesque manner……”
HumCPR’s focus is to represent rural land owners concerns at the county level. They have thousands of members.
Simply put, HumCpr wants to protect our rural rights to live on our rural land.They have stated that people should be allowed to get a regular permit (not a discretionary permit) and be able to build their home on their LEGAL parcel. This includes but not limited to TPZ land. This is why I am a member of HumCpr. Plus which they are a great group of people who revere the land……that’s why we love living in the country.