Home > Uncategorized > 160,000

160,000

Approximate number of undeveloped acres zoned “Rural Residential” in Humboldt County.  The area includes 2,500-3,500 possible home sites according to Humboldt County Community Development Services.

Planning commissioners debated at Thursday’s meeting whether to characterize the land as an “adequate supply” vs. defining a goal of “orderly development.”  Some thought the word “adequate” had a negative connotation.

Chairman Jeff Smith asked whether the Commission intended to “embrace” the rural lifestyle or “attack” it.

But Commissioner Ralph Faust said the county was not rejecting a lifestyle. “There are more opportunites now [to build on large lots] than people willing to do it,” he said.  “We need to balance between that lifestyle and the social and environmental impacts.”  Faust added that there’s no basis to stop applications for permits on those lots.

“From planner’s perspective, we look at demand,” said Community Development director Kirk Girard.   “We think there’s enough inventory for this particular land use.”

The meeting was continued to November 12.

  1. Cleroy
    October 23, 2009 at 7:34 am

    Yeeeha! 160,000 acres is a hekuva lot!

    As far as the word “adequate” goes, never did like it myself.

    When I say “Did you have fun last night baby?” and Carlene says”It was adequate.” That don’t make a man feel too great.

    Whereas, if I say, “Hey sweet thang, how bout we go back to my place and get orderly with it?” That’s lacking something too.

    Oh well, these things are better left to the great thinkers of our time like Heraldo. Gotta get back to embracing my Urban/Sub-Ag/Rural interface matrix/Wilderness lifestyle.

  2. tim
    October 23, 2009 at 7:47 am

    All those ‘undeveloped’ acres?
    Thats why I live here.

  3. Lodgepole
    October 23, 2009 at 8:24 am

    2500-3500 possible home sites….That’s quite a margin of error. After all this time and expense can’t we do better than that?

  4. Anonymous
    October 23, 2009 at 9:02 am

    Actually what the staff said was that 1900 of those parcels have vacant, buildable homesites.

    As was pointed out last night, since the annual average is 40 homes built on rural residential parcels out side Community Planning Areas, we seem to have enough parcels to accommodate the next 40+ years’ demand.

    All they are discussing is whether the County needs MORE rural residential building opportunities than we have now.

    People who live there (like Tim 7:47) probably don’t want many new neighbors.

    WITHIN Community Planning Areas may be a different story–some places, like Orleans, Garberville, and other rural communities–have a shortage of housing choices closer to “town.” That’s where new rural growth should go–where there are already roads, stores, schools, and community centers, we should be promoting housing for the aging hill dwellers.

  5. Mr. Nice
    October 23, 2009 at 9:08 am

    2500-3500 possible home sites….That’s quite a margin of error. After all this time and expense can’t we do better than that?

    A thousand of them have some voodoo charm VW bus parked on the flat areas and they figure somebody could or could not stick a house there.

    I still don’t understand this idea of having another 3,500 okie families demanding a wal-mart. What good is that going to do the 10,000 people with no jobs? Put those people to work clearing fuel ladders or something. Where is the stimulus money for that?

  6. Cleroy
    October 23, 2009 at 9:23 am

    3,500 Okies!? Sounds like a helluva time WooHoooo! Where my people at?

    But seriously, fuck off Mr. Nice. What a stupid straw man argument. If you only had a brain…

    You come off as an elitist classist chauncey type. Who dost thou command to pay us simple folk for clearing fuel ladders my lord?

    I sure hope we don’t get overrun by 3,500 hundred Mr.Nices.

    For now though, “III’M the KIIING of the FOREEEEST!”

  7. chris
    October 23, 2009 at 9:26 am

    The number of acres is misleading ,the number of buildable parcels is more telling. With building requirements now it’s not that easy to build on an existing parcel no matter what the zoning may be.

  8. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    October 23, 2009 at 9:44 am

    Rural residential – To Be Continued……

    The Planning Commission debated the use of this word adequate. Some references below:

    Quote from Kirk Girard, “Supply dampens demand.”

    Correction on that statement = “Supply supports demand.”

    Idea by Commissioner Faust – reduce the 1950 rural residential because they represent a 50 year outlook number for density/needed units.

    Emad – This discussion should be before the actual people that live in these rural areas, not just the 6 people in the crowd (regarding adequate / word semantics).

    Notes = 1950 current approved lots for rural residential use would not exist if development was so overboard in current rural areas.

    Faust’s suggestion or idea to reduce the current 1950 is not necessary if mankind in Humboldt County has shown that out-of-control development by developers does not exist. Is this an idea to replace ag lands which have been lost to previous development nearer to urban areas?

    The most likely idea of the intended use of adequate is this – Humboldt is a “rural county” for which entices people to live here. Therefore, make sure there exists an adequate supply of land in your future for residents to live rural lifestyles. Adequate was used for “emphasis” to make sure that the rural lifestyle opportunity always exists.

    Question – What is wrong with the definition of the goal that substantiates a “change in the language”? Then, after the GPU process is complete and over(for which the public no longer gets to attend hearings over the matter), staff will go back into their cubicles to invent the “policies and definitions”( the real concerns that people are not interpreting). The policies and definitions should be completed for vote prior to the termination of the GPU process – this is why the current Plan is better than most people realize. All people need to understand is that IF the current G.P. was enforced, then many of the problems and evidences used by folks would never exist as evidence or problems in the first place to be used to change something which does not need much ammending at all.

    Words on paper mean nothing if action on the ground is deferred into perpetual motion on a maniacal merry-go-round. More circular logic at work in order to create more written laws that go unenforced. Maybe a “cell phone” will be more effective than letters constructing words into sentences on a format of paper.

    It is the “little things” that get changed that make a “huge impact” on the unknowing.

    Again, all land other than industrial or commercial should be guaranteed the right to have one home on it if the owner so chooses – this is vastly different than allowing a major subdivision with many homes like what we would see near urban centers. Remember, the property owner still has to mitigate all impacts too.

    Rural – is not homogenous nor homologous. The rural lands differ in what may or may not be acceptable to potential owners. The southern portion of the county has different land features than compared to the northern part of the county – same respect with regard to eastern and western Humboldt County. Rural properties also vary in sizes, prices, styles, topography, etc… all points considered when deciding where in rural Humboldt a person wants to reside.

    The question still remains – what are the “real justifications” for limiting rural living? If it is due to impacts, then o.k., but, included in the conversation and final decision should be the “lack of enforcement of existing codes, standards and laws”. To not enforce written laws can’t be a “real or true” justification for limiting a lifestyle that which is being allowed to commit impacts that would otherwise not exist for if it were not for public officials and agencies, by inaction, allowing these impacts to occur.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  9. Mr. Nice
    October 23, 2009 at 9:50 am

    You come off as an elitist classist chauncey type. Who dost thou command to pay us simple folk for clearing fuel ladders my lord?

    So the fucking forest doesn’t burn down.

    Just saying, more okies in the hills is gonna mean more fire protection bullshit which is gonna create more fuel ladders which is gonna take out more trees.

    I wasn’t trying to make an argument, I was just saying some inflammatory shit. I rarely make an actual argument.

    I not so secretly support HumCPR. I think it might be a good idea to have some of this undeveloped rural residential, be, you know, developed. Just as long as they don’t go subdividing to all fuck like some parts of Trinity and Del Norte with nobody actually building anything that resembles a house on the subdivisions.

  10. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    October 23, 2009 at 10:00 am

    Forgot to say – “possible home sites” is no guarantee.

    This is a word play trick to gain support. Maybe, public agencies will be bold enough to actually disclose all the legal uses which are guaranteed.

    “Possible” just means that the Planning Department and other agencies don’t really know what can be done! So, the land inventory is incomplete in so far as it’s guaranteed uses are concerned. Remember, the supes voted on “full disclosure” for all land in Humboldt County!

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  11. RedHummer
    October 23, 2009 at 11:20 am

    The difference between the 2500 and 3500 home sites is the unpermitted mother inlaw yurts that will appear on the 2500 home sites

  12. Anonymous
    October 23, 2009 at 11:49 am

    Just a reminder, in case anyone out there is still thinking at all, that:

    1) “The social and environmental impacts” of “that (rural) lifestyle,” to re-quote Mark’s Brain Ralph Faust, are pure and simple made-up junk science, exemplified by Dr. Ann Lindsay’s commissioned smear job on rural residents that contains not one iota of local data or research (swear to God, look it up in the plan documents and see. The fact that her statistical gob job has no factual basis has not diminished its status in the Planning Commission, needless to say.) Healthy Humboldt’s repeated loony line that rural residents are worse than industrial logging doesn’t even qualify as junk science, but it softens the ears for more Faustian foolishness.

    2), the majority of those ‘possible home sites’ countywide are located in Shelter Cove, a 40-minute thrill drive from the closest services in Redway. If they were buildable, they would be exactly what the Planning Commission and Faust in particular claim to be planning against. Luckily, most of them are in fact unbuildable, as frustrated lot buyers continue to learn the hard way when they go to the county for permits.

    If meaningless drivel could be piled instead of puddled, the Commission’s tower of Babel would be an achievement. As it is, it’s too mucky even to be an embarrassment. Maybe next time.

  13. October 23, 2009 at 12:42 pm

    I just love the sign on the way to Shelter Cove from Redway on the hairpin corner just past the park. It says:

    Caution: Rough Road
    Watch for:
    Potholes
    Sinkholes
    Assholes

    More development means much more of the latter…

  14. Not buying it
    October 23, 2009 at 12:45 pm

    “according to Humboldt County Community Development Services.”

    Now that is a mouthfull. Hasn’t anyone paid attention to those poor folk that have been bilked in Shelter Cove, buying so called buildable parcels that are not buildable at all. Those people lost their entire investments. The county has it designated as buildable, but they aren’t at all. There have been lawsuits against the sellers because they simply are NOT buildable.

    Can’t these folks just tell the truth and correct all of this false data?

  15. Reinventing the Wheel
    October 23, 2009 at 2:29 pm

    Dr. Ann Lindsay is a local hero, someone that stepped outside the redwood curtain to help a rural county understand the health impacts and necessity of creating compact communities… Like most of the rest of the industrialized world, and tourists, have enjoyed for centuries.

    She did her job.

    Heroic…

    I’ve read that 250,000 Americans have been losing their homes each month since last January. Citizens that are streaming into cities that have no affordable housing. Yet, developers are poised to continue building thousands more units miles from downtown.

    Current growth models have proven to be unsustainable economically and environmentally. The limited public resources we have must be focused on in-fill development with regulations that help get it done.

    Grandfather-in existing rural residences and change the rules!!!

  16. joke
    October 23, 2009 at 3:00 pm

    the amount of acreage does not matter. there is some people who own 5,000 acres of land and only have 1 house on it. Lets look at how many undeveloped affordable parcels there are. as of right now looking on the MLS there is only shelter cove lots for sale! give me a break! we need more rural subdivisions so people have an affordable option to living ruraly. not everyone can afford a 500,000 dollar property!

  17. joke
    October 23, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    they make no mention of how many of these rural suposivly “available” land is actualy for sale! claiming we have 40+ years worth of land is a joke when 99% of that land is NOT FOR SALE! and most likely will not be for sale any time soon!

  18. joke
    October 23, 2009 at 3:06 pm

    MR. NICE YOUR A BIGGOT

    “3,500 okie families”

    Give me a break okie types only moved to humboldt when it was affordable.

    NONE OF THESE so called “okie” types can afford to buy any rural land in humboldt county! the average property is anywhere between 300,000 – 600,000 in rural humboldt. Sounds to me that they are trying to make the rural areas for rich people only and that the urban areas are going to be for poor folks. infact this tactic is whats centralizing all the poor people in eureka!

  19. Anonymous
    October 23, 2009 at 3:19 pm

    Sigh. Sounds more like Reinventing the Whopper to me. And changing the subject.

    If we want to have functional zoning, why don’t we have some? What stops us from regulating the areas that need regulation? And what does that have to do with revoking rural rights? Humboldt’s cities aren’t hemorraging into our countryside, can’t you even look out your window? Can’t you read the Planning Department’s statistics, which show no reason for their proposed policies?

    Why should our government and their enablers spend so much time and money demonizing and lying about our own citizens? With people like you thinking it’s green to do so, not just Humboldt’s own GangGreen? What on earth makes you think lies and bullying reduce human misery if the government sponsors it, reinventor?

    ps, since you haven’t read the doctor’s propaganda (if you had couldn’t have overlooked her missing methodology), your empty praise for her mission stands or falls on her demerits, not yours. She’s your ‘hero’ for repeating the same empty slogans you repeat. We used to leave that to Fox News.

  20. October 23, 2009 at 4:32 pm

    revoking rural rights

    The sky is falling! Gonna make us live in Arcata like rats! HELP!

  21. A Non A Me
    October 23, 2009 at 5:35 pm

    Community “Development” Department’s Housing Inventory is as far from fact as can be possible. They inflate the numbers to get grant money. HCD may not even certify this joke of a Housing Element.
    Just saying that there are X acres available is a joke. Just read the policies for building and only the rich will be able to have the “rural lifestyle”. So where do the proponents of urban living live? Kirk Girard lives in a gated subdivision on a large lot surrounded by trees and our newcomer to the scene, Faust, just purchased a rural house with land! Please, please, do as I say not as I do!

  22. Heraldo
    October 23, 2009 at 6:02 pm

    Are you saying Faust bought TPZ?

  23. High Finance
    October 23, 2009 at 6:52 pm

    Mr “Nice” is not so nice.

    You might try to remember, at one time you were the “Okie” that the real, old timers wanted to keep out.

    I see so many of you types, trying to raise up the drawbridge once you get in.

    How about private property rights of the landowners ? If you & the other no-growth people living off of government checks want to make this county into a park, I would suggest that you buy a lot of those 160,000 acres & build yourself a moat.

  24. Mr. Nice
    October 23, 2009 at 6:54 pm

    Sorry to be bigoted against the entire state of Oklahoma.

  25. October 23, 2009 at 6:56 pm

    High Finance,

    What is your opinion on vacation rentals in Trinidad? Do you think that property owners there should be able to rent their property by the day or week to anyone they want?

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  26. Anonymous
    October 23, 2009 at 10:05 pm

    Faust is an elitist living on a rural residential parcel. The gate should have been locked before he moved in.

  27. HumRed
    October 23, 2009 at 11:58 pm

    Hell yes, they should be able to rent their property. Theirs is the key word. What right do you have to tell them shit. As long as property is maintained. I am so tired of people who want to control others who are not breaking any laws because of their socialist beliefs. So far this is not a socialist nation, although it is being driven into the ground by spongers like yourself.

  28. Walt
    October 24, 2009 at 5:55 am

    And if your next door neighbor wants to built a nuclear waste dump on HIS land, you wouldn’t object? Really, though, this is about MONEY, as always. The folks who own TPZ parcels want extra income from rentals. . .legally. From what I’ve seen, an awful lot already have rentals, and their attitude toward the county is “Que los ojos no ven, el corazon no siente.” (Spanish. Get used to it.)

  29. Dave Kirby
    October 24, 2009 at 8:08 am

    The Gorilla sitting in the corner of the room re. rural development is the impending legalization of Marijuana. Having served as the planning commissioner from So.Hum. 92-96 and working as a real estate agent out of Garberville it is my opinion that if pot is legalized the pressure to build in the rural watersheds will be over. In fact the existing homesteads will drop in value dramatically. The fact is that the only justification for the inflated prices we’ve seen down here,in most cases, is the buyers anticipation of growing enough pot to pay for the place. Take pot out of the equation and you wont be able to give away some of the more trashed pieces. Just my opinion.

  30. A Non A Me
    October 24, 2009 at 8:32 am

    Heraldo,
    Rural Residential is not TPZ. Your statement shows how little you know about what your are talking about!
    As far as the gorilla in the corner, it is here with indoor grows, the new way of producing this product with lower overhead, that is expensive land. Indoor has lower initial costs and a better 215 cover.

  31. Cleroy
    October 24, 2009 at 8:56 am

    “Sorry to be bigoted against the entire state of Oklahoma”

    What does the state of Oklahoma have to do with this? The ones you call “Okies” are the ones who left you nimbicile.

    I have a grape of wrath with your name on it Mr. Nice.

  32. Heraldo
    October 24, 2009 at 9:27 am

    Rural residential is not TPZ

    No shit. So what’s the problem?

  33. High Finance
    October 24, 2009 at 9:44 am

    Yes Bill, homeowners should have the right to turn their property into vacation rentals.

    I have stayed in vacation rentals in other parts of the country. If anything, they are better maintained than the average house.

  34. Anonymous
    October 24, 2009 at 10:45 am

    The point is the majority of the planning commisioners live on large lot rural residential along with supervisor Lovelace. Why isn’t Faust living in downtown Arcata if its so great.

  35. October 24, 2009 at 10:58 am

    So it would be OK with you if I rent my property very cheaply to people on bargain vacations? No problem, HumRed, High Finance?

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  36. October 24, 2009 at 11:20 am

    the majority of the planning commisioners live on large lot rural residential

    So what? Humboldt has a “rural tradition” as discussed at Thursday’s Planning Commission meeting. No one is forcing everyone to live in Arcata no matter how hard HumCPR howls its hair-brained talking points.

  37. High Finance
    October 24, 2009 at 11:29 am

    Yes bill, rent out your property cheaply if you wish.

    As long as you maintain your property, it is none of my business.

  38. Anonymous
    October 24, 2009 at 12:40 pm

    “So what? Humboldt has a “rural tradition” as discussed at Thursday’s Planning Commission meeting. No one is forcing everyone to live in Arcata no matter how hard HumCPR howls its hair-brained talking points”

    So does this mean that you now support HumCPR’s principal talking point than people should have the right to a ministerial permit on existing legal lots? I thought not. Until then it is your agenda that is suspect and in fact your crowd is attempting to force new homes and families into the urban areas. I understand exactly what they are supporting, they say it and put it in writing. It is the anti rural living side that hides their plan behind double meanings and semantics.

    Agree with HumCPR or not their intent is clear: the ability to build on legal lots, period. Seems like their simple straight forward message is resonating with thousands, their opposition seems to be losing public support at every turn.

  39. A Non A Me
    October 24, 2009 at 7:12 pm

    HumCPR has thousands of members because they represent what most everyone wants, not the elite “I have mine and I am rich and I don’t want you to have what you want and I have what you want” crowd who control the decisions now in Humboldt. Why don’t you ask HumCPR how many new members they got when they sent a mailer to rural landowners about the changes in the plan? This was not Heraldoesque the sky is falling stuff, but exactly what the “plan” would do to their property. The Neely, Clendenen, Lovelace team will not get what they want, even with Heraldo’s help.

  40. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    October 24, 2009 at 7:24 pm

    What about,

    “I have mine NOW (regardless of wealth) AND want to disallow you from having the same opportunities and choices as me”?

    Or, “get it while you can because it won’t last much longer.”?

    Or, “I’ll get mine now and then restrict others later.”

    Again, all non-industrial and non-commercial zoned property should be able to have one (1) living unit/home minimum allowed on that land. If land disclosures over uses is going to be muddyish or incomplete, then why are the parcels of land even on the open market for potential acquisition? This seems like a situation that the consumer is being co-opted into believing something, which may be false, through an action of buying a “worthless piece of property which one can’t do anything with”.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  41. Mr. Nice
    October 24, 2009 at 8:12 pm

    As far as the gorilla in the corner, it is here with indoor grows, the new way of producing this product with lower overhead, that is expensive land. Indoor has lower initial costs and a better 215 cover.

    You are tripping.

    I’ll try to enumerate these costs for you.

    Money down on a coupla acres of land in Buddhaville: $4,000.
    PVC pipe, greenhouse plastic, water ram, gasoline pump, netting, dirt, shotgun, tent, solar panel, etc.: maybe $1,000 or $2,000.
    Next year: $0.

    Deposit on some house: $2,000. Yearly cost to rent/lease said house: $20,000. Yearly electric bill: $5,000-$10,000. Lamps, ballasts, timers, etc.: $1,000-$5,000 depending on scale and condition. Probability that a “215 cover” sized op is going to pay for this: 0.

    The only indoor setups that pay for themselves are massive. They are not 100 square feet, you gotta be kidding. Pound for pound, outdoor is way cheaper to produce. If it wasn’t, would people bother buying up this random property in the backwoods? Now, there are people who do set up backwoods indoor, but this is normally after they are already flush with cash from a few rounds of guerrilla outdoor.

    Legalization will be a death blow to homespun indoor. The only people who would be able to compete would have to set up the same type of scale that conventional Canadian farmers do. With our electricity/fuel prices compared to theirs, the large-scale indoor cannabis certainly would not be grown in California… unless they had solar panels or some other cheap electricity supply.

    But really, it is the $3,000/lbs thing that makes people able to profit from indoor, not that it is cheaper to set up than outdoor.

  42. October 24, 2009 at 8:20 pm

    I think you are on to something, Mr. Nice.

    I think that talented outdoor farmers will do just fine after legalization. The dispensaries, though might be hurting. After all, first thing after full legalization is that I am headed a few miles south or north to meet myself a good farmer, shake his or her hand and make a deal to supply my medicinal herb for the next period of time.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  43. HumRed
    October 24, 2009 at 10:11 pm

    First of all you would have to own property. But lets go to fantasy island and then yes its your property. As long as it is maintained and not done illegally. Remember its your property.

    Mr. Nice you don’t know shit about operating a grow but legalization will hurt Humboldt. Will be big business, permits, regulation, government control of the whole process. Look at states like Oregon, government controlled alcohol, much higher prices.

    Bill, you should be doing that now, or doing your own if you are 215 patient.

  44. Anonymous
    October 25, 2009 at 8:46 am

    if you think spanish will grow in the county you might not want to limit rural activities and growth

  45. October 25, 2009 at 10:09 am

    So HumRed, you don’t believe in absolute property rights like High Finance apparently does? If it is “illegal” like say without a building permit from the county?

    Thanks for the semi civil answer. This is a serious issue. I want to clarify the positions of people who claim absolute property rights, because it seems like if people want to say open a pot dispensary or a detox center or maybe a halfway house or homeless shelter or feeding kitchen then property rights claims seems to go away.

    It seems to me sometimes that those who claim absolute property rights are those who want to tell me I can’t have a campground for poor people on my land.

    As far as what I should be doing now, well since MJ is illegal, the farmers in the region are understandably somewhat secretive, so it is hard for me to walk around Garberville and seek one. Once MJ i legal, that will change.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  46. October 25, 2009 at 10:14 am

    Yes, HumRed, it is true I am propertyless.

    I used to own a home on a 1/3 acre parcel. It was stolen from me by Republican Doctor Bill Frist’s Health Corporation of America.

    I am not bitter any more though I once was. I will work to defeat corrupt fascist Republicanism til the day I die.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  47. Mr. Nice
    October 25, 2009 at 11:40 am

    HumRed

    I realize legalization will hurt Humboldt’s economy. Wasn’t trying to say otherwise. My point was outdoor costs less to set up and operate than indoor. The only reason people set up small scale indoor operations is to avoid copping a squat in the backwoods.

    HumRed, how do you do it? I get all my ideas out of comic books and rap music. Would be nice to hear your methods.

  48. HumRed
    October 25, 2009 at 1:23 pm

    Bill,

    Your 215 enables you to produce your own legally. Since your not trying for marketing you can buy a few clones, few pots, little soil and away you go. Grows faster than tomatoes, I’m told by folks who would know.

    Mr. Sometimes Nice,

    Just the same.

  49. Anonymous
    October 25, 2009 at 1:47 pm

    how did you lose your home to medical bills?

  50. Mr. Nice
    October 25, 2009 at 2:42 pm

    I try to be nice enough HumRed. The issue I was talking about had more to do with things like why people buy TPZ and why it is profitable to subdivide trashed rural residential land.

    Growing good product indoors is a bit more complicated than dirt and clones. If it were really that easy, all of these specialty gardening stores would go out of business. The required inputs largely depend on the type of clone. The types of clone that literally grow faster than tomatoes do not produce that great of bud. The highest quality strains do not produce stellar yields. The strains that do produce both high quality product and high yields typically take forever to fill out vegetatively and 50%-100% longer in flower to ripen. The clones that vegetate and flower in reasonable amount of time, produce quality product, and have reasonable yields are sensitive to humidity, prone to fungi/pests, and have reactions to sudden temperature changes.

    Tomatoes are an excellent comparison. It is many times more difficult to grow deluxe tomatoes than some generic Burpee variety. You won’t find a high-yielding, high-quality tomato that is resistant to the elements, fusarium, TMV, etc. If you do, please make cuttings.

  51. October 25, 2009 at 3:33 pm

    Perhaps the city of Eureka could dedicate a little community garden for those of us who have recommendations but live in apartments and are unable to grow. I think it would have to be fenced. I will hold my breath. Ha.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  52. PESCADOR
    October 26, 2009 at 4:12 pm

    Not a word here that I could see about fish, and specifically about salmon & steelhead. The health of the watersheds are pretty clearly not good relative to this keystone indicator species. The drawdown of water, the many poorly maintained &/or badly designed roads, and the effects of these on fisheries is the real issue with any and every development or extractive use of the rural lands of humboldt and the redwood coast overall.

    I’m bored with endless whining about the qualities of human lives (crowding vs. property rights vs. dope growrs vs. diesel spills vs. blah blah blah whatever), while we continue to fail in maintaining healthy watersheds and in living within the carrying capacity of this place that has supported humans for tens of thouosands of years and which we all (collectively as a culture), have damaged and depleted of significant resources health within 5 or 6 generations.

    The rights being violated by the current generations are the kids who ultimately inherit our mess.

    What solutions are being offered for the recognized problems?

  53. Lodgepole
    October 26, 2009 at 6:03 pm

    Don’t reproduce and spend less time blogging.

  54. Anonymous
    October 27, 2009 at 3:35 pm

    Pescador, rural residents have been addressing these issues ad hoc for years, because the county won’t despite pleas for help. Sanctuary Forest in Whitethorn has grant funding to pay for two dozen large water storage tanks to be filled in winter months, to make household water draws from low summer river flows unnecessary. The county wouldn’t permit the tanks, saying each landowner had to get their homes fully permitted–though the county actively discouraged building permits in rural areas–before the tanks would be tacked on to the suddenly necessary permits, and of course the tanks would be punitively taxed.

    Now you know who’s good for the land, and who’s bad for the land. Welcome to HumCPR.

  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 1,162 other followers