Fifth District Supervisor candidate Ryan Sundberg needs a dictionary. Despite campaign coffers that are flush with developer money, he told the Times-Standard he supports “protecting agricultural and timber lands.”
Perhaps he means “protecting” with new roads and fragmentation.
But his ideas of protection don’t include meeting with farmers who work the land — Sundberg bowed out of a March 29th meeting with them. So, just like other events Sundberg avoided, the meeting carried on without him while his three opponents, Patrick Cleary, Pat Higgins and Jeff Lytle, discussed their views with Humboldt’s northern farmers.
Sundberg originally said he would attend the meeting, but backed out after farmers informed him they support Option A in the General Plan Update (GPU), which offers the most protections to ag land. Sundberg said a death in the family prevented his attendance, but at least he made it to a fundraiser for his campaign the following day.
Sundberg’s big-money supporters throw cash behind the most development-friendly candidates, which is why his comments in the T-S raise eyebrows. It’s not enough to have a campaign manager hovering during interviews to insert protectionist buzzwords Sundberg may or may not embrace. At the April 26th candidates debate, Sundberg said it would be “predecisional” to give an opinion on which GPU option he favored.
Outgoing Supervisor Jill Duffy endorses Sundberg because, she says, he knows how to listen. So far, it appears he listens about as well as Duffy — selectively — avoiding those with opposing positions.
It would be nice to hear more from candidates and less from campaign managers. Bass has the same problem.
Sundberg and Bass have campaign managers in common — Richard Marks. Sundberg’s manager Richard Mostranski ran Marks’ failed run against Neely in 2006, and then took on Nancy Flemming’s unsuccessful campaign.
Sundberg just is another puppet being used to represent the same collation that is backing Jackson, Bass and Downey. HumCPR organized and spent a ton of money polling as early as November of last year in an effort to ascertain who the most elect able people were who would represent their right wing interests. The puppet masters are mostly the decedents of the people who used to run local politics and they want to take the county back from the progressives. They are obviously very well funded and they are a lot better organized than they have ever been. This is a threat to be taken seriously. Please don’t let big $$$ interests settle this election. Hagen for DA, Downey for sheriff, (only because Hislop is certifiably insane) Leonard for the 4th district and either Cleary or Higgens in the 5th. (Sorry Jeffrey)
Thanks Heraldo. I didn’t know who to support in the fifth district.
Today I cut my check to the Sundberg campaign.
What’s amazing to me is that Patty Clary of California Against Toxics (CATS) is supporting Sundberg. What the blazes is she thinking?
Your $10 is sure to make a big difference.
Humboldt Turtle nailed it at the beginning of this thread. The candidates are puppets and that is why you don’t hear from them. Fortunately their string attachments are pretty obvious for everyone to see. Do you really think that Sundberg wants to get up on the same stage with Higgins and particularly Cleary. The few times he has, he looked incredibly nervous that he might say the wrong thing. Those strings can jerk pretty hard.
News flash: High Finance admits he is utterly uninformed this late in the election cycle, after debates and discussions have been aired and newspaper articles have been written and a zillion campaign mailers sent out… he uses a blog commentary to decide which candidate to financially back. That’s sad. Really sad. Please give me your e-mail address HF. I have a few things I want to sell you.
Oh I get it HF. We’ll avoid all criticism of developer funded candidates so you’re deep pockets won’t flush them with even more cash. How high is your high finance? You’re sounding a little pushy, been hangin with Rob?
I want to know if there is a potential runoff in this election.
It seems like Sundberg is getting developer backing, Higgins getting the granola vote, and Cleary getting the middle. I know I am generalizing.
So if the moderate to left vote gets split between Cleary and Higgins, does that mean Sundberg just walks with it, or will there be a runoff?
Only if 51% of the vote knows he’s developer backed and agrees with it.
Being sympathetic to developers’ interest does not make someone a puppet. He deserves the respect of believing he really shares their goals. Either way, they are confident he’ll work in their best interest.
Cleary or Higgins are both votes against Sundberg’s 50+%, and they’ll be united in the run off.
A developer built the houses you fools live in. They built the stores & offices you work & shop in. They built the hospitals you go to when you’re sick & the shopping centers you go to when you’re well.
I have never seen such uninformed nonsense as I do from most of the bloggers here.
Ohh, right, and because my mother gave birth to me, I’m not allowed to disagree with her, ever.
Remind me again why we should take you seriously.
too bad the developers don’t want to build what the people want to live and work in. no imagination whatsoever–just cookie cutter track subdivision crap.
but I don’t blame them–I blame the crappy rules that we’ve had since 1984. time to update the General Plan and build the types of places people want to live and work in.
HiFi sez: “Thanks Heraldo. I didn’t know who to support in the fifth district.
Today I cut my check to the Sundberg campaign.”
….yes, I am sure its the first donation you’ve floated to this Bass clone…..what a douche!
Keep the Arkley developers out of the Fifth District!
i understand HiFi’s point and presume to agree with the sentiment that not all developers are bad. however, we do have a general shortage of ones that are ecologically-minded and have a humanitarian conscience. we could all call it as it is and cite to greedy capitalists instead but i suppose it may seem too commie for most. let’s try it: a vote for sundberg is a vote for money hungry capitalists who are trying, as ever, to run the show for their own gain. it really doesn’t have quite the ring to it. ah well. it’s all just a matter of putting lipstick on a pig anyhow.
“time to update the General Plan” – indeed!
High Finance says:
May 30, 2010 at 10:03 am
Thanks Heraldo. I didn’t know who to support in the fifth district.
Today I cut my check to the Sundberg campaign.
Wow! That sure took me by surprise. My whole world view is shot!
That farmers event was the night his Wife`s grandfather passed away. Have a little compassion.
Here here HF, your rants and admonishments to the readers of this blog are sounding elitist, what’s up with that? Might have to do a little better than that on this blog, but I’m sure the Buggs will cheer your every word.
I personally don’t believe anything anyone running for office has to say. Their actions speak louder than their words. I think Sundberg has made his priorities abundantly clear by shining on the meeting with farmers and attending his campaign fundraiser the next day while supposedly in mourning for a lost family member.
Yes Spongy Morel, he made it abundantly clear he’s a family man.
May Ms. Sundberg’s grandfather rest in peace.
Pat Higgins for Supervisor!
“I think Sundberg has made his priorities abundantly clear by shining on the meeting with farmers”
shining?WTF?I would think of Sundberg as a giant P.O.S if he had attended the meeting with the farmers instead of being with his wife and family.
Anadromous, I have not said that all developers are good. But the left wing posters have made the word “developer” into yet another bogeyman to the left.
Ne’er-do-well, my “admonishments” are nothing more than attempts to keep things in perspective for the left. To use logic & reason to illustrate the absurdity of the left wingers flaming posts & attacks.
In most people’s world, that is not “elitist”, that is simple, plain common sense.
Not an Expert, you certainly are not. Developers cannot build houses everybody “wants”. Everybody wants a $500,000 quality champaigne home on a beer budget. Developers build what people can afford to buy.
Some of the candidates are corupt and others aren’t? You are really a bunch of wierd fucks. They are all just people who believe that they can affect a change for the betterment of their community. They just have different priorities. May not be the same as yours, but that does not make them evil. Get over yourselves.
HiFi. What about affordable housing? Less than 15% of local folks can afford the average price of around $300K in our County. How many can afford $500K? I suspect the profit in a cheaper house is not enough for these wonderful developers. Instead, they build for retirees coming here from areas where real estate is much more expensive.
HiFi,
I’m not sure I agree about what people want.
Personally, I think an affordable, single story, well lighted and insulated 1000 sf home with good southern exposure would meet lots of people’s needs, and after trying it, they might find they love it.
The conundrum most developers seem to find themselves in is that they only have a small inventory of lots, and so they build bigger and bigger houses on the lots, hoping to keep a 30% margin on a bigger sales price.
That worked for them for a few years, but I don’t care for the houses.
The City and County could change the zoning to make smaller homes more affordable and profitable, for example, easing close in parking restrictions inside the city, or giving the option of building bicycle garages in lieu of additional parking spaces, or streamlining the permit process for energy sustainable improvements, etc.
As for the 5th District, I think Higgins deserves a shot.
Jeff, if you make it to the runoff, I will donate $50 to your campaign, if you’ll accept it:)
We get the government we deserve and it appears to be the one money buys. It’s all about image because most people do not pay attention. Sigh. Example? Sundberg, the Indian Clarence Thomas, boasts tribal endorsements even though his buzzword position on HCAOG is by far the least supportive of tribes. Shame on all of us.
9.13am, There are a lot of developers perfectly willing to build affordable housing. The problem is zoning laws & the NIMBYs. And also who pays for it? Somebody has to buy them & then start renting them out.
Ken, the majority of the people don’t want 1,000 sq ft homes. Ask any realtor, almost everybody is looking for 1,400 to 2,500 sq ft homes if they can afford it. The overwhelming number of people are looking for the 3 bedroom- two bath model.
Oldphart, you hit the nail right on the head for the winner of the Best Post Of The Day Award, better known as BPOTDA.
I know well or at least have met about two-thirds of the local candidates & office holders. Not a single one of them is corrupt, left or right. They just have different approaches & priorities.
Some are morons, like Jeffry Lytle. Some are not so bright, like Jimmy Smith or Virginia Bass. Some are mean & vindictive, like Bonnie Neeley. Some are obnoxious, like Larry Glass.
But they all believe they are the best person for the job.
Moronic, not-so-bright, mean, vindictive and obnoxious politicians are keeping our perfectly willing developers from building affordable housing??
HiFi, help us out. Why do we have zoning laws?
HiFi. By affordable housing, I was referring to People “buying” the house, not rental housing. In other words, developers building homes in the $300K range, not the$500K range. How can locals afford a $500,000 house when they can’t afford a $300,000 one. My point is no one is building in this range because they can make more $ by selling the more expensive one. Get it?
Not “a lot,” but there are some developers wanting to do affordable housing. The smart growth development in Cutten has the McMansion NIMBY crowd freaked out. DanCo in Arcata had an affordable subdivision killed by the city council this year, another case of NIMBYs dictating city policy.
As for 1,000 sq ft home, I’m aware of no developer calling for that, although it would be livable for one person. 1,400 sq ft? Yes, definitely, but 1,400 is not allowed by NIMBYs.
9:33 you are clearly NOT an expert:
The letters to the editor, blog postings and various other fora in town are replete with ranting and railing denounciations of “evil developers”. I am not a developer, but I think the finger pointers have it backward.
To blame developers for the ‘unwanted growth’ of our community is like blaming weeds for causing the rain. Whatever developers and carpenters are (better at building anything than you are, employers, and law abiding – they have to follow all of the building codes etc. in order to be permitted or licensed)they are not stupid. They build houses, stores, hospitals, co-ops, hardware stores, sporting good supply stores, bars, clubs, restaurants, gas stations, rest homes, colleges etc. because there is actually a demand for them.
And since you (and complainers like you) actually live within a sheltered space, pee in bathrooms, cook in kitchens and watch tv from your beds or living room chairs you should be thankful for that roof over your head that someone actually built it for you. And if you work for a living, not only do you work in a building built by someone else, you drove or walked or pedalled on a road that (gasp!!!!!) a developer/builder/paver worked together to construct that road so that you could even get to your job.
Let me guess – you are not native born to the area, am I right? Could YOU be bad for spreading evil growth?
Carpenters, builders and the numerous sub-contractors (painters, electricians, dry-wallers, plumbers etc.) are not evil – someone else is. Got a mirror?
Once again a brain dead argument is made. Because my mother gave birth to me, I must agree with everything she says and does in perpetuity.
Umm, no. Get a clue.
9.50am. Yes, developers make more money on a $500,000 home than a $300,000 home. However, the number of buyers greatly escalates for the lower price homes. The number available for $500,000 homes are few & far between.
Take a look at the number of building permits issued. There are far more in the $300 range than the $500 range.
Is it just conceivable that Sundberg is a very good man who has positions that some here disagree with? That is, someone that you would not choose to vote for, but someone who is not simply a developer’s tool?
Makes me wonder what your mother thinks of you.
HiFi,
You are right. People want bigger homes. Whether they can truly afford them is another matter.
It seems as a society that our priorities have gotten so out of whack. This is a progressive (sometimes batshit insane) blog, and it seems to go unquestioned that 1400 square feet is a minimum for living. In the 70′s a 1500 sf house was considered very large. Now it’s just average.
House size is a pet peeve of mine, I’ll get off my soapbox, Er, couch.
Enjoy your Monday, everyone.
Last time I checked, there weren’t many people buying bigger homes. The market is filled with them. I suppose several families could pool their money and buy one and then all live together.
Life is not a sitcom. Build smaller homes people can afford to buy. Let the McMansion NIMBYs build tall fences so they don’t have to look at us commoners. Ooh, I just want to slap their arrogant faces.
Affordable housing is a buzz word. it’s not about helping poor people get into houses. When you hear “affordable housing” mentioned the developer usually wants tiny lots thrown in too.
I am a NIMBY neighbor of the Danco Arcata project. It is not fair to blame that solely on NIMBYISM. What about the roads and traffic issues, what about the services and developer fees needed to provide them, what about the toxics present in that land that housed a tee-pee burner and a mill, what about the City’s general plan and promoting infill instead of expansion into the bottoms?
Dan can’t meet the price(profit) point necessary for him to build there. He needed more for less and the city was not willing to spend money just so he could make money.
NIMBY, sure, proud of it too. Do you think Dan would ever live in one of his developments? Maybe he is a NIMBY too. Maybe everyone is.
From a builder’s standpoint, for all the costs it takes to get a 2 bed 1 bath house built, you may as well throw on another bedroom and bathroom. Cha-ching.
Like anyone else, developers aren’t all bad. They run the gamut. What they do is sometimes take incredible risk to develop their projects. Risk that most business people never take individually. They get rewarded for that risk. It’s a natural tendency to mitigate risk and one of the ways developers do it is to buy influence with politicians. Other groups do it too, but developers are generally more organized and have more money to influence small community election cycles. Humboldt county and Eureka in particular are classic examples.
Sundberg is controlled by his supporters in a way that Cleary and Higgens are not. If Sundberg wasn’t controlled, he wouldn’t be afraid of stating his opinion on the GPU. He wouldn’t be saying words like “predecisional” regarding a process that has been going on for far too many years. He’s trying to fool the voters. Why would anyone want to elect a candidate that thinks the voters can be fooled.
Less than 15% of locals can afford an average priced home (around $300K). Who’s buying the $500K home? Out of area buyers I’ll bet. Nothing wrong with that, but, how can locals afford to buy here? Do you think better paying jobs might help? Just asking. What supervisory candidates can have an influence in bringing those to this area? If there truly is one I hope they become elected. Talk’s cheap.
11:12,
I don’t know enough about Sundberg to comment on your seccond paragraph, but I agree completely with your first paragraph.
Lodgepole @ 10:54 makes a good point. The incentive as an individual builder is to get the most out of a particular project, since so much of the cost and risk has to do with permits, legal issues, etc. If you’re going to jump through all the same hoops anyway, then building an extra 500 square feet is the easy part. So it should be no surprise that we tend to end up with an oversupply of larger new houses.
10:04 anon, your a fucking moron. Do you have a valid argument or just the mother trip. It makes no sense, does not relate to anything.
Sundberg is a good man. Smear away, it does not detract from him being the best choice.
Gee, how many 1200-1400 sq foot homes do you think JFL has built in McKinleyville, only a bunch.
What about all the housing that developer was force to put into Central Estates. Just like what your calling for is what is being built. Know what, in ten years it will be a slum. Thank you county planning.
Yet another mouthy idiot. His position on the tribes and HCOG is the most realist and workable. Is that not what we would elect him for, doing the right thing.
There are no Arkley developers in 5th district dipdoo. Without a doubt you do not live here. Did your mother teach you to blame it on Arkley whenever you were not smart enough to figure it out.
Woodsworker, Maybe she knows something you do not. That would not be much of a stretch judging from your previous posts.
Danco project was killed by progressives in Arcata, nimby and not.
If you say it enough, it still is not true. Your argument about Sundberg being controlled is no more valid than your mommy argument.
Don’t know if you have looked lately but we have a lot of lower priced housing that is not being built because very little is being sold.
Let me see, I heard him say that he supported building a home on a legal parcel, while Cleary and Higgins qualified their statements to the point of being meaningless, so where do the buldozers come in?
“Danco project was killed by progressives in Arcata, nimby and not.”
easier to blame then admit?
Maybe Sundberg and Hofweber could go at it with dueling bulldozers?
“Don’t know if you have looked lately but we have a lot of lower priced housing that is not being built because very little is being sold.”
None is being sold because they don’t exist.
The cheapest house for sale in Eureka is a 2 bedroom, 1 bath, 807 sq ft dump for $200,000.
You people keep talking about “homes” and what is affordable to most “not so well-paid people” is “affordable housing”, which the world over seems to be multi-family units. Apartment houses, fourplexes,etc. Many citizens could buy their share of a reasonably priced condo or whatever but zoning, require profit margins, and single family cultural marketing history have put our society in the mind frame that we are currently in.
What a farce! Sundberg refuses to take a stand on which GPU option he prefers. He says it would be predecisional. In other words, he knows most voters don’t want sprawl but the businesses paying for his campaign do.
Oh dear, what to say? I know… take a trick out of Jill’s hat and refuse to say anything. Citizens have no right to know about what our pols are doing. Got not right to know what his positions are when he’s running for office either.
For the next lesson, Jill will show Ryan how to listen – like she does.
“The cheapest house for sale in Eureka is a 2 bedroom, 1 bath, 807 sq ft dump for $200,000.”
Hogwash:
The cheapest house in Eureka is $99,000 (MLS #229340). There are 10 listed for under $150,000 and twenty-two listed for between $!50,000 and $200,000.
Do you even look up these things? It took about 3 minutes on the MLS listings!
Anyone who says that they support any option in the General Plan is a fool because they are not finally developed by the Planning Commission. Higgins and Cleary were pandering to voters and Sundberg is the only one who gave a genuine answer.
A Non A Me,
You’re arguing that because the policy is not a done deal, that the candidates can’t talk about which policy options they support or don’t support? That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.
Saying that they support a policy that is not written sounds very stupid to me.
Also,
If a person is elected and they are asked to vote on the plan and the environmental impact report, they must certify that they have revied all the comments before they certify the EIR. If they say that they want one of the options before the EIR is reviewed, that could be a big problem. Cleary and Higgins have not had enough experience in the area to know that and Sundberg, as a Tribal Council member has had to review and adopt many projects and knows better.
I’m with A Non A Me. If you’ll notice, tra, what used to be called ‘Plan A’ is no longer being discussed by the Planning Commission. Instead, its distinctive features are being exported to Plan B as fast as majorities can be assembled. When Plan B is presented as the compromise middle, it will contain controversial pieces of Plan A. How many of them is what they’re arguing about right now. So which do you support?
Saying “I support Plan B” is a very confusing way of supporting Plan A, as best I can make out. I don’t blame Sundberg and Virginia one little bit in acknowledging what most voters can’t quite grasp: this process is not designed to be understood, it is designed to be misunderstood. Responsible people can’t play by such rules. So they wait and see what will actually be contained under the misleading labels. Until then, it’s all pre-decisional.
Estelle Fennell used this same approach when running for Supervisor — refusing for a time to weigh in on the GPU because it was something she would be voting on later if elected. Perhaps that’s what Sundberg meant by “predecisional.”
Maybe he can get a job at HumCPR if he loses.
I did a search and the cheapest I found was $200,000 and everything in that price range is a tiny dump in a bad neighborhood.
Don’t count your chickens Heraldo.
I see what you did 1:11. Those cheap houses are all foreclosures and the prices listed are not the actual selling price.
Just a thought:
Humboldt County counts it available land for the Housing Element and says that they find over 7,000 places that houses can be built, but they do it by a stystical analysis of areas. The Find our Lots group actually looked at the land and finds only about 700. So if the FOL team is correct, and we have a shortage of land for housing, what does that do to cost? Also, if infill is the chosen way to build, we find that infrastructure does not support that, what will that do to costs?
Well, longwind, I think you’re right that whatever the Planning Commission eventually recommends will be called Option B and will be protrayed as the moderate/compromise position. Whether it will be Option A in sheep’s clothing is not yet clear.
Whatever they come up with, we the voters should get to vote on it before it becomes law.
Is the county’s estimate of 7,000 buildable sites basically just 7,000 sites that could be built on “in theory” or are these really viable building sites that the county would be likely to actually issue permits for?
And if the latter, does the 7,000 figure assume the existing mix of discretionary and ministerial permit requirements of the different building sites, or does it take into account proposed changes to the GPU where a lot of land that is currently buildable with a ministerial permit would be changed to a status that would require discretionary permits from the county?
No, they say that these 7000 sites are reasonably available within 5 years of the Housing Element time life. This Housing Element is a part of the “new” general plan and must be compatible with all the elements of the new plan. The Housing Element claims over 1000 units in Shelter Cove where there are no sewer hook ups available and includes land in Cutten that must have the Martin’s Sewer Intercepter build, which will not be within the time line for the Housing Element.
Actually they state that they will ease getting a permit for houses!
It doesn’t matter what kinds of permits. The lots just are not there is the problem. They are hillsides, marshes, without supporting infrastructure, etc.
Plain Jane you are without a doubt the stupidest person posting on this site, a place with a low standard. What planet did you arrive from, I know it was just last night.” tiny dumps in bad neighborhoods “, do you live in la la land. ” I see what you did “, are you a real person or just someone made up to instill humor in this blog.
Did your search include talking to folks in the industry. A actual search of the real estate sites. Of sales. Of whats already been permitted and approved as far as new construction.
I’m not blaming at all, just pointing out a fact. Most of the folks posting on this blog are in the bleachers and spouting off about things they know very little about. Talk to the candidates, go to the forums, don’t just do the talking points.
A family member has been looking for a house to buy in that range for many months. There is nothing out there. I won’t waste any more of my time on someone as unworthy as you in the future since all you add nothing and then disappear after lobbing insults.
Well said, there is a serious disconnect between the actual situation and what is on the ground. This blog and others are attempting to paint Sundberg and others as wanting to bulldoze the planet when that is not what they are saying. Getting a building permit for a legal piece of land is an appropriate stance. Saying that Sundberg skipped a meeting when he had a death in the family was bad, is just stupid. I would never vote for someone who went to a meeting with farmers when there was a death in his wife’s family. He has the right priorities. Now criticizing him for not going on Cleary’s radio station is just as stupid. Any candidate who had poor judgement should not be elected.
We want regular folks who have the right priorities to be in elected office, ones that have a high priority for family and show good judgement, and as far as I see, Mr. Sundberg scores high on all of those points.
PJ – do your homework on the prices of homes. There are homes available under $200,000 and not just in Eureka. Call a realtor and get informed. Or just keep saying the same old shit and try to convince the rest of us you are so much smarter than us unwashed masses.
This is the first time I’ve ever seen a paid ad on the Humbold Herald. It shows up on this page (but not the main Humboldt Herald page) right after Heraldo’s post, before the comments.
Am I the only one seeing this?
Ads by Google
Jeff Leonard Speaks Out
See and hear his responses at the Healthy Humboldt debate on-line.
http://www.jeffleonardforsupervisor.org
You’re not the only one seeing it. WordPress displays ads to some viewers in exchange for the free service. I can pay $30 to stop the ads, which is tempting in this case, or let you suffer the illusion that the Humboldt Herald supports Jeff Leonard for Supervisor. We don’t.
What gives with the advertisements?
I’ve never seen ads on the Humboldt Herald before, but today I saw an ad from Jeff Leonard on this thread (right between Heraldo’s post and the comments section) A few minutes ago I tried to post a comment about it, but apparently it didn’t post. When the page refreshed, there was a new ad:
Ads by Google
Yes on Proposition 16.
Find Out Why The California Republican Party Supports Prop 16.
http://www.TaxpayersRightToVote.com
Is anyone else seeing the ads, or is it some kind of glitch on my computer?
I actually have a life without blogging. Much different than you PJ. That you have relatives is scary as it indicates that yours are able to breed, just what the planet needs. Again are you for real, I’m unworthy. What, of listening to your silly talking points. Go get a friend, or maybe a life.
This blog is pushing an agenda. I happen to believe one which is no good for Humboldt County or anywhere else.
I know the candidates for 5th. Have interacted with all of them( including Jeff) over the last 10 years on numbers of boards, committee’s, groups, projects etc. Ryan stands out as the best candidate for the job, period. Without question. That a group of people on this blog want to do smear on him does not change that fact.
Ryan has shown good judgment in the past. If you want to look at someone who is controlled look at Cleary and the huge out of the area progressive push behind him. Higgins is at least a local guy. Before he declared you never saw much of Cleary. Unfortunately for Higgins lots of people have heard him speak and know about him. Jeff is a good guy, however he has shown a dark side doing blog commentary.
Oh, O.K. thanks for the explanation.
I didn’t claim to be any smarter than anyone and didn’t call anyone “unwashed masses,” Fart. As I stated, I know from first hand experience what is available in the housing market in Eureka in that price range. Tiny dumps in bad neighborhoods, a few condos, not a single decent house. If you want to play the foreclosure game, go for it but don’t pretend those are the prices those houses are selling for.
O.K., now I’m not seeing any ad, possibly because I’m signed in with my blogonym now.
test1
The difference seems to be whether or not you are logged in with a blogonym.
Unregistered readers are sure to see more ads.
anon like me says “If you want to look at someone who is controlled look at Cleary and the huge out of the area progressive push behind him. ”
Some facts please or are you still paralyzed by predecisionalism.
All the candidates are “nice guys” in their own circles of friends. No axe murderers, puppy killers and the like. Ryan’s friends think like he does and see no ill side effects to the agenda build baby build his backers have.
Cleary has someone in Sacramento doing mailings and such for his campaign, he did a poll a couple months ago to form his “message”, he has taken $20,000 from the Blue Lake casino and his business affairs are tied to the rancheria. More of his supporters live outside the district 5 than live in it.
Higgins and Lytle are the only two candidates who try to not just talk but walk the walk. They shun the big money running politics thing and I can respect that.
sundberg is right on with the general plan comments. watch the meetings, they are moving policies around from “B” to “A” and “A” to “B”, or both, or half in one, some in the other. for somebody to say they like “A” is completely idiotic, since no such thing exists, at least not in the context that most people would expect.
as far as the number of lots go, it is a joke, they haven’t done the “grounds-truthing”. using a statistical analysis here is a little bit crazy since the terrain, infrastructure, and ground conditions vary so much in Humboldt. .5 miles in any direction and you can have a completely different set of conditions that interfere with the constructibility of a parcel. complete waste of time. they have spent more time figuring out how and why NOT to do the work than the work itself.
saying sundberg is protecting the land with bulldozers because he skipped a meeting due to a death in the family is real classy, i’ll leave it at that.
plain jane, please explain how the listed price is not the price you pay, I don’t understand that. if it is listed for $100,000 and you go in and say, “I’ll take it!” – - what, they won’t sell it?
Lytle & Higgans “shun the money” because nobody wants to donate to them. So they try to make their weakness sound like some noble ideal.
I don’t blame them, but lets stop with the games. They are marginal candidates & elections always draw out a couple of kooks that want to get their name in the paper.
High Finanace is sure the one to understand the pulse of elections. Didn’t he applaud the Supreme Court ruling that money equals free speech?
Pull your head out of your money bags, HF. Take a couple deep breaths. To you, hundreds of regular people donated to a campaign amounts to hundreds of nobody’s, but every one of those nobody’s gets to vote.
Fortunately, folks can still think. And its only us folk who cast the ballots.
Plain Jane, if you are not interested in houses under $200,000 because they don’t fit your idea of a place to live, well, get off your high horse. Foreclosure homes sell at or less than the asking price, just like all real estate these days. And there are some homes out there under that price range that are not in foreclosure. Get informed before you shoot from the hip.
People participating in the Herald seem a lot less interested in this race than the one in the fourth.
All in All, this is still a free country. And how much a candidate can raise often tells us the degree of support a candidate has among the people.
Is there too much money involved in political campaigns? Some, yes. It is obscene that Obama spent almost a billion dollars. But the fact a supervisor candidate raises $70,000 is not. If a city council candidate can’t raise $25,000, then maybe they should rethink whether they have any real support.
Even at a billion dollors Obama spent less per voter than some of our supervisor candidates will end up spending.
Look at the picture when Cleary declared. Who do you see. Read the letters of support. Look who is writing them. First pull your head out of your ass anon, it will be easier to see that way.
HF, I do not think Jeff would take money. Sounds strange but for him it is a matter of ethics. Higgins got elected to harbor district by the group that is now supporting Cleary. Seems they are a bit miffed that Higgins wants a paying job, not just to be a place holder.
Small business owners that employ local people are the ones donating to Sundberg. They represent a wide variety of industry. I will support the canidates these business owners support as they provide jobs and products we need.
Anon like me, not sure what you mean with regard to the people and the letters unless you are referring to some supporters who don’t live in the fifth and you couldn’t have your head stuck that far up your….. I didn’t see you tell us that Sundberg gave back all his out of district money or did I miss that.
I guess my family member should have hired one of you real estate experts rather than a respected agent since all he could find in the price range were tiny dumps or houses that were sinking in mud and needed massive structural repairs and new roofs, substandard wiring and ventilation problems or neighborhoods you wouldn’t want to live in. The problem with foreclosures is that many of those you see listed are a scam to get a membership fee, don’t exit or aren’t for sale at that price. Real foreclosures are listed with real estate agents and they all have access to the information.
Anon,
You know exactly who I’m talking about. I don’t need to name them or be drawn into debate over it. All the progressive machine folks who come out every time. Never said anyone should give back out of district money. Most small business people in McKinleyville support Sundberg, it is a fact even if you do not like it. For you it is a game, for me it is the town I live in not just some stupid power play form a bunch of newbee socialists. No I’m not calling Cleary a socialist. Just the machine that’s promoting him. I think he will/is being lead just like Cliff, ask the folks in Fortuna how they feel that is working out.
Anon like me No, I don’t know exactly who you are talking about. If you think Cleary is being led, why not let him debate Sundberg more often. Wouldn’t it be clear in a direct comparison if someone were being led?
Cleary was “selected” to run for the 5th because he will fit right in with Bonnie, Cliff, and Mark, and would not bring any change to the way our County operates. If you like Bonnie and what she does, then Cleary is your man. If you want a more independent voice that is connected to McKinleyville, and the communities in the 5th, then Sundberg is your choice. Cleary did not participate in anything before the election in McKinleyville and probably would not in the future if he wins. He makes claims of being accessable, but I don’t believe it. Sundberg is a part of the community and will continue to be active, clearly the best choice. Now Higgins would be distracted and he is now and his ears do not work.
Forgot an example:
McKinleyville’s community event is Pony Express Days and they had the kick off last week where hundreds of people came out. Guess who the only candidate for 5th District Supervisor showed up? Only Sundberg, can you believe how disconnected Cleary and Higgins are to not even know enough to show up.
How connected is Cleary in McKinleyville when he has his town hall meeting at Azalea Hall and TWO, yes TWO people show up. Hell he had 13 in Blue Lake.
Sometimes politicians have other commitments that prevent them from showing up at what you consider important events, you know like Sundberg did when he had to cancel a meeting with farmers? It has nothing to do with their connectedness to the community but their scheduling priorities. God knows a REAL politician wouldn’t miss a chance to kiss babies and mingle with the voters even if he had to miss his daughter’s wedding (or grandfather’s funeral) to do so.
PJ, Sundberg had a death in his wife’s family. He did meet with the farmer’s group later. But you must get my point.
You didn’t get mine, ANon. Since you don’t know why Cleary and Higgins missed the big event of the year for McKinleyville but you don’t like them, all you can do is speculate wildly that they are too disconnected to show up to an event. Since they didn’t promise to be there, they have no reason to give an excuse for not showing, unlike Sundberg who did. For politicians to miss an opportunity to campaign in a crowd of people gathered for a non-political event is unusual, but it in no way implies they didn’t care about the event or are disconnected from the community. They just had other priorities.
I have never seen Cleary at a 5th district event held in Orick, Willow Creek, McKinleyville Etc. I have seen both Sundberg and Higgins at these events many tmes.
A Non A Me: Your facts are simply wrong. Sundberg never met with the farmers’ group, and the fact that you contend that he did throws all of your previous statements into question. Their meeting was the day AFTER his wife’s grandfather’s death. He used that as an excuse not to go, probably because Mostranski told him it would be counter-productive, given the farmers’ clear preference for a position he does not support. The day afterward, he attended a prime rib fundraiser for his campaign, making the claims of being in mourning ridiculous.
Sundberg is a developers’ tool. The “Indian Clarence Thomas” metaphor is very apt.
wish elections were tomorrow, I am ready for this to be over.
Country mouse. You know shit about 5th district. PJ you know even less. This event was advertised for months in advance. They did not attend because they do not fit, period.
I have been active in Mckinleyville for 12 years. Both politically, business, service clubs, etc. Never even heard of Cleary, never saw him anywhere. He never attended a event or a meeting of any sort during that period of time. Suddenly he is hanging out at 6-rivers.
Your war cry bullshit about developers’ tool is not sticking because in general the regular people in Mckinleyville know and like Sundberg. “Indian Clarence Thomas” frankly is racist bullshit, funny coming from a progressive.
I have always felt that you were a prog troll. Your calling Richard by his last name shows that you in all probability related to R. Trent. The farmers don’t have a clear preference at this point because they have not met with him. Typical propaganda bullshit.
The “Indian Clarence Thomas” remark was a repulsive bit of bigotry, plain and simple. C’mon people, let’s try to keep it civil.
I’ve rarely seen such foaming at the mouth and grinding of the teeth as over this spew of misinformation about Ryan Sundberg. Jeez people! how can you be so far off track? Ryan is NOT owned by the boogeyman or anyone else. He IS that rare combination of able and willing to hear the views of a broad spectrum of people in our far flung district 5. Yeah – we all live here together. What’s more, his hard work has produced real long lasting improvements that you can see if you care to look, both for our communities and our environment. His record speaks for itself, if you can shut down the noise machine for a minute and listen. Take a breath and stop the knee jerk. If you are civil about it, you may call me and ask why I support Ryan for 5th district supervisor. To anyone paying attention: read the stuff here but realize that most of it is completely opposite the truth.
FFS! There are people in the REAL world who have weddings, graduations and other important functions they have to attend which aren’t scheduled around Pony Express Days. People smearing Cleary and Higgins for not attending a non-political event for crass political purposes are just demonstrating their bias and ignorance since they have absolutely no way of knowing why they didn’t attend.
If Ryan has no obligations to developers and the HUMCPR group lets hear him debate. If he is the better candidate, let’s hear him debate. The TS endorsed Cleary because he can easily demonstrate that he is vastly more qualified to be a county supervisor. The argument that “you weren’t born here” just won’t fly this time. Ryan may be a nice guy and undoubtedly has made significant contributions to his community, but no one is owed anything in this race. It is about who will be the best supervisor and viewed in that light, Cleary is the better qualified candidate. And, I agree, the Indian Clarence Thomas remark is repugnant on a lot of levels.
Oh STFU with the boogeymen for once. Want to hear about the anti-democratic evil designs of Loco Solutions until your barfometer breaks? Are you really accusing Patty Clary of being an Arkley toady?
As Patty implies, some of this stuff is an insult to stupidity. Get a brain.
TS never said vastly superior. What they said is Cleary stands out however Sundberg has all the same qualities and would make a good supervisor.
Fact is Cleary is not the better qualified candidate. He knows very little about the 5th district and has never made any effort to be involved in it. His handlers are out of Arcata. Being born here is not what it is about, it is about service/involvement in this community. Who would best represent this district. Arcata has a supervisor, Marky Mark. We do not want a clone, we deserve our own supervisor.
I have been active in McKinleyville for more years than I want to tell, but I actually saw Cleary once where he was talking talking about his rescent appointment to the Headwaters Board. I tried to speak to him, but he just put on a “I am smarter than you local bumpkins” and played his retired investment banker card. I felt insulted then and would never support him for anything.
Now I have known Sundberg for years, see him everywhere and have been and continue to be impressed with his judgement. As Patty Cleary says, he is the best choice.
I have seen the emails that Ryan Sundberg sent to the farmers who organized the meeting, which occurred on April 29th, specifically to discuss the general plan update and land use/agriculture issues. Sundberg had been confirmed to attend for weeks, up until two days before the meeting itself. On April 26th, an email was sent to Sundberg by the farmers, in which they noted their consensus support for Alternative A. The next day (April 27), Sundberg sent an email back saying that he would not attend. He cited a fundraiser occurring the day after the farmers’ meeting, implying that his “preparations” for the prime rib fundraiser inhibited his ability to attend the farmers’ forum. Importantly, he did not say anything about his wife’s grandfather. Based on the timing of his about-face, it was clear to just about all of the farmers that he did not want to be confronted about any substantive land use policy positions, especially in the presence of his challengers. The next day (April 28), his wife’s grandfather passed away. In my opinion, it shows poor character that he used this fact to hide behind, especially given that he had already declined to participate before the family member passed. He never met with the farmers after that. Based on the in-depth, spirited exchange of viewpoints at the meeting on the 29th between Higgins, Cleary and Lytle, the farmers elected to endorse Patrick Cleary for Supervisor at the meeting’s conclusion.
Ms. Clary, I am surprised and dismayed that you have chosen to support the one candidate who has repeatedly ducked debate between him and his opponents on important issues that matter to us all. It is also especially upsetting to see you characterize him as “open and willing to hear the views of a broad spectrum of people,” when it has been widely documented that the exact opposite is the case.
Look at the Cleary list of endorsements very few from the 5th district. The ones endorsing from the 5th are the Elites do as I say not as I do. Hypocrites
Well, if you said that the discussion was going to be about only Option A, then if I were he, I probably would not want to show up either since it looks like a meeting that was set up for his opponents. It looks like Sundberg was smart to not walk into a trap. You are all hung up on this one topic and seem to have no reality in your thinking. If the meeting was to discuss all options, then all the better, but since it was limited, end of discussion.
And end of representation.
By the way, what farmers. Local farmers, organic farmers, dairy farmers, oyster farmers, farmers market farmers. STRS talks just like someone I have dealt with in the past, just have to think about it. Tells a nice story though. Lots of facts that no one can verify. Why if they were to meet in 2 days would they email him to tell them they had a consensus to go for A. This smells like bullshit to me.
There is no documentation other than you running your mouth that anything happened. Seems like there is a group of people who support other side who have a history of trouble with the truth.
Very interesting. Patty Clary’s support of Sundberg suggests he’s not really just a tool of developers, despite the way he is being portrayed as on this site.
and of course the people that write this blog and many that post might just have a bit of an agenda, ya think.
Also the fact that he is so well supported in 5th district. Every event he has had in 5th district has been heavily attended by 5th district people. Not so any other candidate. Across the board people at every walk support him. Its not just one group of people supporting him, it is however one main group putting out all this garbage about him.
PJ, how ignorant can you be, at this point, other than weddings and funerals, everything is a political event in the 5th.
Actually PJ none of the other candidates was at a wedding or funeral, not even a graduation.. Call them and ask. No, you look up their web site for phone numbers.
I’m not claiming I know why they weren’t at Pony Express Days and don’t care, just pointing out that you don’t know either so your expressed assumptions, once again, show that you don’t care about facts, just smears.
Wow. When the facts about their candidate come spilling out, Sundberg’s people start to attack the messengers, the forum, even the farmers themselves. How lame. Nowhere did I say that Alternative A was “to be the only thing discussed.” It was far from the only thing discussed. As I said (please reread my post, rather than trying to spin it), the forum touched on all aspects of the land use element of the general plan, as well as other subjects. True to his recent pattern of evasion of policy forums and debates, Mr. Sundberg chose to boycott it, despite the fact that for weeks leading up to the event, he had said he would be there. On top of that, two days after this abrupt about-face, he changed his story and tried to use the death of a family member as his excuse – despite the fact that he had already cancelled (BEFORE the death). This can only be characterized as “duplicitous.”
Ryan Sundberg does NOT have a broad base of liberal support in the 5th, despite Ms. Clary’s endorsement. Why? People see through his (and his handlers’) rhetoric and platitudes. Look at the list of local big developers who have donated to his campaign. It is very telling.
To anon a me and anon like me- You both seem fairly provincial based on your writing. I gather that you don’t like Lovelace or Marky Mark as you call him. I’ll agree that Cleary does have some of Mark’s attributes. He is smart, listens, does his homework and tells you what he thinks. Cleary also has a proven track record in business. Something that seems to frighten some of you for reasons that I can’t quite fathom,. On top of that, he has the ability, again based on past performance, of bringing disparate groups together and getting things done. If your idea of qualifications for candidates is their attendance record at Pony Express days, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but my guess is that many of your fellow 5th district voters are going to go with the candidate who can do the best job. This isn’t in any way to demean Sundberg’s contribution or ability but he just isn’t at the same level as Cleary. This is the job of supervisor. If they debated more, you and everyone else would recognize that.
Let me get this straight, most people on this site, especially the esteemed “Heraldo,” support Bonnie Neely. Bonnie took 10k from an out of town “developer” and was vigorously defended by PJ and Heraldo when I said this was wrong. Now, Sundberg is villified because he takes money from developers… Why are we against Sundberg taking money but we’re okay with Bonnie doing it? Heraldo, your words were it’s legal so it’s okay regarding Bonnie so why not apply that to Sundberg?
If you really want to get it straight, I have never said a disparaging word about Sundberg or his campaign funding. However, what could Bonnie as supervisor do to benefit an out-of-town developer compared to what a person could do in her position to help a local developer? Is there a difference in what these different developers expect for their money?
This is not a vilification. Sundberg is supported by developers who oppose building restrictions on ag lands but says he supports protection of those lands. It’s fair to point out the discrepancy.
PJ, the developer Bonnie received money from has gone through the CCC before. It stands to reason he may again attempt to develop within their jurisdiction in which case being in favor with Bonnie would be important. Do you really think he gave her money just because he heard about her support of the jazz festival or the fact that Chris Kerrigan likes her?
Heraldo, why is it a discrepancy? Is he bound to do the bidding of the developer because he took their money? No. Is it going to influence him? I would say yes. This is exactly the same situation as Bonnie is in with the So Cal developer who will in the future attempt to get things through the CCC. The discrepancy lies with you and the fact that you will point this out about Sundberg and then act as though the situation with Bonnie is in any substantial way different. Personally, I think it is wrong and hypocritical in both instances.
I do not believe that the developer in southern California is proposing to make ugly and wasteful developments in Humboldt County like our local developer types would like to do.
Make of it what you will. You think all those developers and HumCPR types support Sundberg because he will vote for ag and timberland protections? No.
STRS,
No one attacked any farmers, it seems to be you who has trouble reading posts. Just asked what farmers. Again all these facts you claim are just your word. All the rest of your post is spin. Your right on the button on one thing, Sundberg has the support of a broad base of supporters in the 5th. Not just one type. It is the liberal support that is divided up between the two Pat’s. You continue to repeat the same developer yada yada crap. Still does not make it true.
Provincial. Wow, sorry my degree’s in science not English. But you don’t have a clue of what your taking about. That I’m not fond of Mark or his agenda is true. Never said he did not do his homework or was not smart. Little know fact is that he has a whole group of underlings that do a lot of stuff for him. True believers. But he is committed. I just think from his actions that he is a sneaky little man. Fits with Bon-Bon very well. Also Gags and Glass.
H do you have position papers on these developers that say they oppose building on ag land.
Rest of your post is bullshit spin. I have no fear of Clearys record. What I said is he has not been involved in 5th district. Ryan also has a very good record. As the TS notes.
Enough. There is not enough toilet paper to wipe up all the prog shit on this site. Get out and vote.
Exactly Heraldo. That’s my point. Developers don’t give money unless they are planning on getting something from the politician they donate to. Thus, Bonnie’s 10K is every bit as dirty as Sundberg’s. Why can’t we just agree on it? Is your argument that taking money for favors is okay if you, the voter, agree with the favors the politician is granting and it is wrong, if you, the voter disagree with the favors? Does that seem like a sound argument?
4:11- Really? We’s stupid peoples up heres in Humboldt is more “wastefull and ugly” than those beautiful people down in So Cal.
Jeff B said:”Is your argument that taking money for favors is okay if you, the voter, agree with the favors the politician is granting and it is wrong, if you, the voter disagree with the favors? Does that seem like a sound argument?”
No it doesn’t seem like a sound argument to me. But it is a sound argument that when a candidate takes money from people with clear expectations and then behaves evasively about those expectations that said candidate will be called on it.
4:40- When a candidate takes money from a developer or “big business,” there are always expectations. How is Sundberg any more evasive than Bonnie?
Jeff B., if you can’t see the difference between the agendas of local developers, and one who is 700 miles away who has never done any business in Humboldt (nor intends to), then you are either naive or willfully disingenuous.
developers who oppose building restrictions on ag lands
i think a more accurate statement would be “developers who oppose certain building restrictions on ag lands. i have yet to meet this pave the planet local developer who wants the county to resemble the big city.
the fact is there is little demand for this type of development. the people who will be responsible for our future urbanization and the problems that come with that are the people who are saying they don’t want us to look like santa rosa, yet cramming everybody into the same urban footprints will do wonders for traffic, right?
it would be fine with me if they would practice what they preach, but why is it OK for faust and girard to live on large parcels old ag land and not me? how come lovelace gets a half acre and i can’t? for the true believers that live in town and walk to work, i respect their opinion, but for the “do as i say, not as i do” people who want to dictate what growth should look like but would never live that way themselves; well, i find that sad, troubling and hypocritical.
That’s a real nice way to attack the idea that Humboldt’s forest and ag land shouldn’t be eaten up by voracious development.
The fact is, 5:31, there exist many parcels in the county that are larger-sized than standard city lots. Some people choose to live on them. More importantly, there are between 5000-7000 more undeveloped rural-residential lots in Humboldt. For you, this is an inconvenient fact that undermines your argument to attack Lovelace, Girard and Faust.
You can fool some of the people some of the time…
Interesting that Neely voted against the So Cal developer’s plan to privatize beach access. The same ones who donated 10,000 bucks to her campaign. Who else in politics can claim behavior as principled?
California has been a State for 160 years. In that time (3 or 4 generations), it has become the most populous State. Anyone who thinks it won’t happen here fails to appreciate the march of history and the coming desire for our water, our forests, and paradoxically, our population density. There is an appropriate time to slow the floodgates, and it’s very soon.
i’d like to see that list of 5,000 – 7,000 parcels. the county doesn’t ask it. call them tomorrow and ask for the list and report back here please. don’t forget to take out shelter cove…
pardon me, the county doesn’t have it.
I don’t know any contractors or developers who actually give a flying fuck at a rolling donut about ag land. They either have land that they have already purchased or look for land that is zoned for development. What do you think here – that they want to deal with the Planning/Building Department? Do you somehow think that they have never dealt with those folks? That they are brain dead and intent on cutting down all the trees and buying up cattle ranches and turning them into subdivision? And then having to deal with rezoning those parcels? WTF
Sounds like Oldphart has never been to Cutten or seen what lies in its future.
Vote for Pat Higgins and avoid all the nonsense above.
“…never been to Cutten or seen what lies in its future”
Actually, the big development planned for Cutten/Ridgewood, Foster-Gill’s 1400 new suburban homes on converted timber land, has been promoted by Lovelace and Girard, given the red-carpet treatment by the Planning Department, and so on.
I don’t know where Higgins stands on Foster-Gill (it’s not in his district anyway) but you might not want to cite Cutten as your example, since Higgin’s pal Lovelace and the rest of the Option A Hallelujah Chorus, are apparently all lovey-dovey with Foster-Gill’s huge suburban development on converted resource lands. Go figure.
“reasonable”? Really?
I like to think so…you are free to disagree of course. If you cited something specific that you thought was unreasonable, we could have a conversation about it. Or you could just stick to the meaningless one-liners. Either way is fine with me.
Vote for Pat Higgins, we need a raving looney in the 5th.
Actually although I disagree often reasonable usually makes valid well thought out points. No Just party line crap as so may anons spout here. So many with an agenda, so few with any real knowledge.
I would bet fart know a whole hell of a lot more about the Cutten deal than you anon.
Coming late to this discussion, I would add this: All the arguing about how/if money from a business binds a candidate to do favors for that business if he/she is elected – what if giving money to candidates were not allowed? Would democracy die? One thing for sure, you all would have to find something else to blog about.
Money flows away from fear. Higgins is so “out there” that the fact that he is running will cause his opponents to get donations. Cleary has not received much business money because he is unknown and seems to be a Bonnie clone. Sundberg gets donations because he will listen and give everyone a fair shake and he is not a person to be afraid of, the reason he is getting broad based support.
I agree with A Non Me. The problem for Cleary is that the majority of his supporters are no growth anti business types.
The “just say no” crowd is completely in control and needs a shake up.
There are as many people in the “no growth crowd” as there were WMDS.
I want corporations big and small to get to vote. The more money the corporations make the more votes they should get. Double bonus points when they successfully evade paying taxes.
Candidates bought by Indian casinos are the best! Double bonus points if you belong to the tribe that runs the casinos. Ditto if you business partners with the casino.
When this country finally gives it all over to corporations – then we’ll have good government. Until then, we have to suffer through government by the people and for the people. Who thought up that crap anyway
Were those WMDs who said I’m worse for my land than industrial clear cuts?
Did WMDs say 1300 unbuildable lots in Shelter Cove were available for ‘affordable’ housing?
Was that a WMD on the Planning Commission who said *any* rural home anywhere in the county is evidence of urban sprawl?
I guess they’re only no-growthers on other people’s property.
I agree with everything but the urban sprawl comment longwind. What you are essentially saying is it is okay for the people who get there first to then say, “no more building because that’s sprawl.” Who gets to decide that? I want to own a home in the country. Should those who already own homes in the country be allowed to tell me no because they see me moving into the country as sprawl. Population is growing and that means more homes and more expansion outward.
A little history on the “no growth” meme used so often by HumCPR.
NO GROWTH: A broken record
January 19, 2008
Eureka big shot Rob Arkley and his so-called HELPers are feverishly working to define Humboldt County’s on-going powwow about county planning as a fight between fabled “no growth people” and champions of unbridled development (oh, er, um affordable housing rural lifestyles).
Their strategy involves an oft-echoed “no growth” talking point which falsely characterizes those who promote thoughtful planning for inevitable future growth over giving developers a blank check for sprawl. This recycled meme makes regurgitation easy for simple dupes. Just rinse, wash and repeat.
Below are some examples starting with a misleading observation from today’s Eureka Reporter editorial, which fails to note that those waving the “no growth” flag are all Arkley front groups (or newspapers).
* “There are others who are often described as “no growth” people.” Eureka Reporter editorial, Jan. 18, 2008.
* “We need to have available lots to build, and we need to have a committed planning department. There’s a no-growth attitude in [the planning] department, and that needs to change.” — Kurt Kramer, erstwhile business partner of Rob Arkley, who together formed A & K Investments, NCJ, Feb. 16, 2006.
* “’No growth’ groups in the county would probably prefer no port development at all…” Eureka Reporter editorial, Jan. 8, 2008.
* “local no-growth initiatives and extreme regulations…” Arkley’s Humboldt Business Council.
* “The proposed changes would basically enforce a no growth policy in Humboldt County, damaging our local economy and threatening our ability to live a rural lifestyle.” HumCPR propaganda, Oct. – Nov. 2007.
* “[County] staff has chosen in the past and continues to ignore recommendations emanating from the business community while favoring input from the ‘no growth’” sector. Kay Backer, HELP, March 14, 2007.
* “…very vocal minority aggressively pushing a no growth agenda.” Kay Backer, HELP, August 15, 2007.
Perhaps Arkley’s contingent of developers are so challenged to define and sell their inflated growth agenda that they’re forced to shoot down a bogeyman of their own creation.
203 Comments | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Heraldo
What’s your point H?
Just an inconvenient history lesson.
The point is that “no growth” is just a frame used to counter those who prefer thoughtful planning to the usual expansionist mentality.
Lesson on what. You just cited your own article where you quoted people saying that there is a big local push for “no growth.” What’s the history lesson? That you have talked about this subject before? That you are super fast at referencing past articles?
Close your eyes, Jeff. You can pretend you didn’t see that “no growth” is a term that originated in Arkleyville.
Wealthy Humboldt! Nya nya!
Loco Solutions! Woo Hoo!
Citizens for No Economic Growth! Gotcha!
Inconvenient history lesson . . . or meaningless babble? Heraldo tells all.
(Meaningful babble might include acknowledging that everything I said above quotes leaders of the controversial campaign that must not be named or labeled.) Hell, who needs labels?
Why would “Arkleyville” be responsible for that term? Is he in on the purposed building projects in Cutten? If you disagree with it H, does that mean Arkleyville probably did it?
I don’t want to see suburban sprawl just like the next person. However, I think people do have the right to build in and around Eureka. I think a lot of people who are already established (the Jacoby Creek crowd for example) had no problem expanding and spreading into the cuts to build their own dream houses but now what to say stop, don’t go any farther. Who should get to make that call H? Cutten is much nicer than downtown Eureka and I don’t blame people for wanting to build and live there. Where do you live H?
Want to live rural. Buy an existing rural house. There are about six of them up for sale near me. Buy one. Make my neighbors happy. 2-5 acres lots, nice houses, open space, horses, cows, goats. Not rural enough for you? Go to Alaska. Sarah is waiting for your arrival and we are waiting for your departure.
Good one country dweller. Funny you live out in the country but don’t want growth out in the country. Maybe you should have your property condemned in an eco groovy manner and give the property to the state gov’t for people to picnic on.
See any hypocricy in you living in the country but not wanting growth in the country? How did you get to be so lucky that you get to decide when growth is supposed to stop? And I just might become your neighbor because I’m looking to move to the cuts. That’s where I like to be so I don’t feel I have the right to tell others they shouldn’t move there. Is it possible that if more houses are created, your property value goes down, and thus the reason you don’t want me building is because you are every bit the capitalist that evil Rob Arkley is?
I would never accuse Girard and Lovelace and pals as being for “no growth.” They are all for growth, as long as it’s a huge, centralized suburban cul-de-sac development like Foster-Gill, 1,400 units on converted resource land in Cutten/Ridgewood.
Of course if an individual Humboldt resident wants to build a single house on their TPZ or Ag parcel, well we certainly can’t have that!
It’s true that industrial forestry has and is guilty of mismanagement, gross mismanagement. What industrial forestry does not do is develop in such a way as to take land out of timber production by building permanent structures, outbuildings, garages, mother in law units, gardens, orchards and vineyards, permanent roadways, and all the while sucking water to service the ever expanding “dream house”.
Quit hyperventilating Jeffy B. It actually lowers your capacity to reason.
If nice houses in rural areas are not selling – why build more?
What you fail to grasp is that once you build on ag and timber land, you take the rural out of rural. Then all you have is sprawl.
According the the Economist, the population of the USA is expected to triple in size in the next 100 years. And none of those people will either be born in nor move to Humboldt county so we just need to . . . ah do what? Why, not allow them to build houses. There. Done. Now we have nothing to worry about.
Building one house and a couple of outbuildings on a 160 acre TPZ parcel does not take the whole parcel out of production, nor does it “take the rural out of rural” and replace it with sprawl. On the other hand, Lovelace & Girard’s favored development, Forster-Gill, which would put 1,400 units on converted timber land, well that certainly DOES take the land entirely out of timber and replaces it with sprawl. Oh, but it’s Smart Sprawl, right?
Witty response country dweller. It’s probably very come out there on your acreage while the rest of us fight it out in the slums (watch your yard, we’re coming). Nice houses don’t sell because they’re priced too high. If there was more housing, your house value would drop (it’s called supply and demand). I’m not advocating sprawl, I just think it’s funny that you say you take advantage of the beautiful land we have in Humboldt and then don’t want to afford others the same opportunities.
What you say would mean more if you weren’t doing the opposite of what you are preaching. Why don’t you start a move from the country to downtown Eureka? Renovate and get downtown going again so people won’t aspire to move to the cuts.
But reasonable anonymous, many of the TPZ parcels are more like 40 acres, not 160. Some are even smaller.
If each TPZ lot had a house, a mother-in-law house, a couple outbuildings, road networks, septic tanks, fences, and water withdrawal, what would Humboldt County look like?
Reasonible, we’ve been over this. Are you saying that unless you can afford 160 acres you do not have the right to live in the country? I’m not even saying I disagree with you but I feel like people on this site are amazingly hypocritical. In one instance, you hate Arkley because he is rich and doesn’t give enough to the poor. Next, you want to exclude 90% of the population and allow only the richest citizens to live in the country. Small lots are the only way most people will ever live in the country reasonable.
If you built illegally, tear it down.
That’s true Reasonable, and planning agreed. But subdividing that 160 acre into 40s, then 20s, then 5s is what happens once you open that door. Very few places in Ca. recognized that in time, and they are the ones where the rural life persists.
Jeff B, you are not very bright, are you? Your arguments indicate that you do not grasp the essence of the debate.
Supply and demand will eventually force prices of existing housing stock to decline. No need to build more to make this happen. Just sit tight and wait. Then make your purchase.
Why do you say I do not want to afford others the opportunity to live in rural area? As I said, buy one of my neighbors’ houses if you want rural. Now how does that translate into “stay out”?
Country Dweller, you don’t want new building in the cuts, correct? Can we also agree that houses for sale are limited and inflated due to supply and demand and marijuana profits? Thus, stay with me country dweller, people with modest incomes won’t be able to afford your neighbors’ property (I bet I can guess why their moving) due to the inflated value and the small number of houses for sale.
If more houses were built on smaller lots, houses would be more affordable. True liberal/progressive thought advocates living on small properties where people share buildings. What you are advocating, not allowing building after you already live in the cuts, is typical capitalist greed in a get yours society. I understand it and don’t blame you. Just acknowledge that you want to keep your property value high and you want to enjoy your place by yourself. You don’t want to share. You are greedy and want to keep everything to yourself, correct?
Am I missing the essence?
40 acres with a house, mother-in-law unit, barn, shop, well, and tanks. OK maybe 2 acres. Road in and out, still only water for a house or 2. Only 60-65 houses were built in all Humboldt last year. I lived on 20 acres with house, shop, barn, road in and out, 12 acre walnut orchard,tanks,and well. It was rural as can be. Walnuts paid taxes and all utilities. Raise chickens, rabbits, goats, pigs and cows etc. Good country life. My brother lives on 8 acres, much the same stuff minus walnuts. His neighbors 3-20 acre parcels. The area is considered rural by everyone.
The problem is Marky Mark, Miller, Faust, etc. all want to be the rangers of the park and we get to be the serfs. Its about control.
Country dweller says:
June 2, 2010 at 12:31 pm
“If each TPZ lot had a house, a mother-in-law house, a couple outbuildings, road networks, septic tanks, fences, and water withdrawal, what would Humboldt County look like?”
Since that’s not even remotely likely, given the terrain and remoteness of most of that land, why bother asking that question…except as a scare tactic?
I mean if you’re going to ask that, then you might as well ask this: If every bit of timber land was converted to a Foster-Gill style suburban subdivision, what would Humboldt County look like?
Neither of those questions is very meaningful, because neither scenario is even remotely likely.
Jeff B asks: Am I missing the essence?
Yes, you are missing the essence.
Any explanation Country Dweller or will sentences that don’t address specific questions and rhetorical questions be all that I get from your incredibly deep and insightful self?
Jeff B. says:
June 2, 2010 at 12:33 pm
“Reasonible, we’ve been over this. Are you saying that unless you can afford 160 acres you do not have the right to live in the country?”
I never said any such thing. I simply gave one example of what Lovelace, Girard, and Co. support (Foster-Gill’s 1,400 units on converted timber lands), and one example of something they seem to be hell-bent on trying to prevent (a house on a 160 acre TPZ parcel).
I don’t claim to have all the answers or know exactly where we should draw the line on rural parcel sizes. But I do know how ludicrous and self-contradictory the current Lovelace/Girard approach is, and I think the contrast between the two examples I cited demonstrates that quite clearly.
A Non Like Me, you should get together with Jeff B.
Take your 20 acres and divide it ten times. No, that is not enough. Jeff already stated his preference for many really small lots and “rural” houses. Let’s make it 1/4 acre lots. Put a house on each one – cheap houses because we don’t want to look like rich greedy capitalists, do we?
There, isn’t that nice? Open space, quiet, privacy. And – all that timber to harvest, keeping your taxes low. You guys have the formula.
Ed says:
June 2, 2010 at 12:36 pm
“That’s true Reasonable, and planning agreed. But subdividing that 160 acre into 40s, then 20s, then 5s is what happens once you open that door.”
No, Ed, subdividing an existing parcel into a number of smaller parcels/building lots is a completely different and (already, even under existing laws) far more difficult and uncertain legal process than building one house on an existing parcel. Slippery Slope? Get a Grip!
Country Dweller, don’t hyperventilate and then go buy an island with uncle rob and shoot any of us poorsy bastards who tries to come harvest your fruit and make love to your daughters/wives. Real enlighted bra.
Reasonable, I see what you are saying and was over-simplifying. Thanks for the intelligent banter. I think we agree where the crux of the problem lies.
The difference between Forster-Gill and other conversions is location, Reasonable. Forster-Gill is already completely surrounded by subdivisions, is in close proximity to schools and other necessary services and the developer has agreed to shoulder a large portion of the cost to upgrade existing services to handle the increased load which will be incremental over a 30 year period. Land owners dividing single large parcels into a few smaller parcels can’t do this due to price / cost constraints.
Country dweller says:
June 2, 2010 at 1:17 pm
“Take your 20 acres and divide it ten times. No, that is not enough. …Let’s make it 1/4 acre lots. Put a house on each one…”
Congratulations, Country Dweller, you just described Foster-Gill, supported by your pals Lovelace and Girard. Meanwhile they oppose people having the opportunity to live like “anon like me.”
And all these rural pests are piling into the most unpopulated reach of the West Coast, 6 hours from a real city, that’s losing population, with no secure job base, and few amenities for retirees because . . . because . . . there’s a bogeyman under our beds!
Did I miss anything?
Glad we agree on something anyway Reasonable. My “grip” is fine. My experience is being surrounded on 3 sides by tpz formerly owned by PL, Simpson, and LP. They are gone now after their clear cuts, but before they left, they tried to rezone. That’s what they do after overcutting. It’s an obvious pattern. But wait, there’s more. this pattern has been repeated for me in Plumas Co. Lake Co. Mendo. Co. Santa Cruz, and Lassen co. Hope it doesn’t here.
Plain Jane,
Yes, Foster-Gill is located adjacent to other subdivisions / suburban lots. And once it is built, you will be able to say the very same thing about the piece of land next to Foster-Gill. That’s the nature of sprawl, it grows out from the existing sprawl and is justified by the fact that the area is already sprawled out.
By the way, most of the folks with homestead homes out in the rural parts of the county maintain their own roads (name a new public road created by homesteaders and burdening the taxpayers, I bet you can’t), no sewer systems are needed (many use outhouses / composting toilets, others use regular septic tanks) and schools like Ettersburg, Whale Gulch, Salmon Creek and so on are very modest, yet surprisingly high-achieving due to much higher levels of community and parental involvement in these small local schools.
Sure, in theory, the large, a centralized development near existing infrastructure SHOULD be less of a burden on taxpayers, but in reality it just doesn’t really work out that way. This is the peril of trying to apply one-size-fits-all theorhetical planning constructs developed in more populous areas to a rather out-of-the-ordinary place like Humboldt.
Anyway, I expect Foster-Gill will go forward (assuming there is sufficient demand to buy the units), given that it has the inside track with the Planning Department and the support of the Option A true-believers like Lovelace. If it does go forward, and eventually get fully built-out, we’ll see what the traffic looks like in that area. I expect it won’t be pretty, given that there are only like 3 ways in and out of that neighborhood.
The project was designed to conform with Plan B, not Plan A, Reasonable.
Are you not familiar with the landscape around Forster-Gill, Reasonable? It is a large parcel bordered by Ridgewood Heights subdivisions on 2 sides, Lundbar Hills on 1 side and Westgate subdivisions on 1 side. It isn’t spreading out but filling in. With the developer agreeing to shoulder a large part of the already needed upgrading to water and sewer services, it reduces the amount existing homeowners will have to pay per parcel.
FYI: Currently there are only 2 ways out of Ridgewood Hts, Walnut Drive to Cutten or Ridgewood down to Elk River and out to Herrick Rd.
Sometimes I think some of our Planners just spent way too much time playing SimCity when they were younger.
Reasonable Anon said:
“Sure, in theory, the large, a centralized development near existing infrastructure SHOULD be less of a burden on taxpayers, but in reality it just doesn’t really work out that way”
Please get the figures to back up this claim.
And Jeff B, what are you high on? No use trying to have a logical discussion with an illogical mind. Look up hyperbole. In future, try to avoid it – does nothing for your credibility and makes one doubt everything you say.
Three PJ. Through Cutten, out through Elk River, and finally out Campton.
Currently, high on nothing. Name calling and not disputing or disproving what has been said does nothing for your credibility and makes me doubt everything you have said.
What was it that I said that was so illogical? Be specific and let me know. I’m not sure where you find me to be so misinformed and illogical.
There is no road from Forster-Gill direct to Campton, Jeff B. You have to drive down Walnut Drive to get to Eureka regardless if you turn off at Campton or continue on to Cutten. Don’t try to tell me about the roads in Ridgewood since I lived there most of my life, ran all over the Robinson property (Forster-Gill) and 14 Acres (what Lundbar Hills used to be called).
PJ, I’m sorry. When I read your post, I mistakenly thought it said two ways out of “Cutten” and not “Ridgewood.”
Country Dweller:
Honestly, I don’t have any figures at my fingertips to back up that claim, and as the one making the claim, I recognize that the burden is on me. So I’ll own up to that, that this is my *opinion,* not a proven fact.
Furthermore, in re-reading my post, I think that instead of “it doesn’t really work out that way,” I should have said “it doesn’t *always* work out that way.”
So, you got me, I made a claim that was both too far-reaching and that I can’t definitively prove. But lacking evidence to the contrary, I continue to hold the opinion that although “in theory the large, centralized development SHOULD be less of a burden on taxpayers, in practice it doesn’t *always* work out that way.”
So,
(1)Do you still disagree with my opinion given the change of wording to “doesn’t always…”?
(2) If so, can you give me reason to change that opinion? If you believe that large centralized developments are *always* less of a burden on taxpayers than individual landowners building individual houses, can you prove that?
Again, Reasonable – in the Forster-Gill project the developer has already agreed to pay a large share so in this particular case it’s obvious that the costs to existing homeowners will be less per parcel than if every existing parcel had to pay an equal share for the already required upgrades. Words like always and never can rarely be used truthfully in any discussion.
Regarding impact fees, from the project website:
Hey H, how many houses are they trying to put into the deleopment?
P.J., I am well aware of the geography around Foster-Gill. When I said “2 OR 3″ ways in and out of the area, I was referring to accessing the area in general: Walnut Drive from Cutten and Eureka, or from Elk River to Ridgewood, and depending on whether you want to count it as a separate feeder or not, Campton. But you are quite correct to point out that Foster-Gillians would have to take Walnut to get to Campton. Essentially there is really just one through road that serves that whole area: Walnut/Ridgewood/Elk River. Which only strengthens my point that 1,400 new units there are going to create serious traffic problems. Again, I think its probably a done deal, so we’ll get to see how it actually does play out, traffic-wise. I know this much, I’m glad I don’t live up that way.
Yes, Foster-Gill is more or less surrounded by sprawl, and it would “fill in” with 1,400 suburban lots and a token bit of commercial space so that they can call it “mixed use.” By the way, much of Arcata’s Redwood Park and Community Forest are “surrounded” by development on three sides, so if we plowed that under and turned it into 1,400 housing units I guess that would be “infill” and “smart growth” as well? Perhaps if we put a little strip mall in Redwood Park, we could called it “mixed use” too!
It’s nice that you had the opportunity to “run all over” the Robinson property and others before they were overrun by development. Too bad the future denizens of the Ridgewood sprawlfill won’t have that opportunity.
That’s why they made Redwood Park, Reasonable. That “token bit of commercial space” includes a grocery store which is sorely lacking in that area today since the nearest place to buy a carton of milk is in Cutten or Herrick Road. 1,400 housing units over a period of 30 years isn’t that great and probably not much different than the building that has occurred over the past 30 years in a piece-meal fashion (although I’ve never counted the houses) which required existing owners to pay to hook up to sewer service.
Jeff, I posted two links to the website. Perhaps you can answer your own question.
“It’s nice that you had the opportunity to “run all over” the Robinson property and others before they were overrun by development. Too bad the future denizens of the Ridgewood sprawlfill won’t have that opportunity.”
You really aren’t at all familiar with Ridgewood Heights, are you? There is unbroken forest for miles and miles to the south just behind the shallow border of homes and behind Ridgewood School, on the east side of Walnut and at the east end of Ridgewood Drive. I’d suggest a quick peak at Google Earth if you want to see how much forest there is compared to the area of existing and proposed homes.
Thanks H. I answered my question thanks to your guidance.
Jane, while you’re on Google Earth, perhaps you’ll also notice that converting one or two acres of a TPZ parcel to a home site with a garden and a couple of outbuildings still leaves “unbroken forest for miles and miles.”
The Redwood Park / Community Forest example was just an illustration that applying the standard of “it is already largely surrounded by development therefore it’s infill” isn’t, on its own, a very convincing argument.
But for a more realistic example, how would you feel about a proposal to build a Foster-Gill type subdivision on that last bit of remaining open land in McKinleyville, between Central Ave and McKinleyville Ave, towards the School Road end. That land is already “surrounded” by development, therefore we should get rid of that last bit of open space by turning it into Foster-Gill North?
How is that property zoned, Reasonable? Has the county been planning to develop it since the 80′s?
Ridgewood is “sorely lacking” a grocery store because people have to go a couple of miles to Murphy’s in Cutten? Really? By that standard, most every neighborhood in Humboldt is “sorely lacking” in the grocery store department.
Maybe that’s the interest in a walkable community.
Exactly, Heraldo.
If Forster-Gill were the only remaining open space in the area and they were building on every square foot, your examples might suffice, Reasonable. However, that isn’t the case at all. Sorry, but I can’t think of a neighborhood in Eureka that doesn’t have a grocery store within a short walking distance. They aren’t supermarkets and you wouldn’t want to do all your shopping there, but for the odd carton of milk or loaf of bread they are quite handy.
Bad news. Its called central estates and already has a plan that was rammed down builders throat by planning. Mostly 1-2 bedroom apartments, small lot small houses, and multi-unit low income apartments. Something like 250 + units total. It does not fit the area but Kirk and the boys made it happen.
It’s nice that the Foster-Gill plan attempts to mitigate the costs of infrastructure improvements. I mean that. If you’re going to build that kind of subdivision, then that’s the right thing to do. So, credit where credit is due.
However, keep in mind that if you are comparing Foster-Gill to individual rural residences, most of those individual rural residences (for example a single house on an existing TPZ or ag parcel) do not require a hook-up to city sewer or water in the first place. They use their own money to put in their own septic tank or else use the very-low-cost and very-low-impact solution of an outhouse or composting privy.
Similarly, most of those rural home owners pay for their own road upkeep through private road associations (of course the county pays for the upkeep of existing public roads, but we have to do that anyway).
What I’m saying is that the cost-of-infrastructure-improvements situation is not as clear cut an equation as the planners’ theories would suggest.
Damn H, I just read your post, very interesting comment.
Like I said, I think Foster-Gill is pretty much a done deal. We’re going to find out just how much of a problem traffic is (or isn’t) whether we like it or not. Personally I don’t see how thousands of additional residents in an area with only one real through road running through it is going to result in anything other than a traffic nightmare.
But who knows, maybe a major change of values and habits will occur and most of the Foster-Gillians will be taking the bus or riding electric bicycles or something, though I kind of doubt it. Of course if this sea change in transportation technology and values and habits does happen, then maybe the complaint about rural residents supposedly having larger carbon footprints due to more fossil-fueled driving will also change with the advent of more electric vehicles. A lot can happen in 20 or 30 years.
As you may recall, my original point was that I would never call Lovelace or Girard “no-growthers.” As far as I can tell as long as the buzzwords of “mixed use” and “infill” are employed, the Central Planning fetishists are all in favor of these sorts of large, centralized suburban subdivisions located in resource lands at the edge of town, the kind of big projects that largely benefit one big developer. So they are certainly not “no-growthers.”
My main objection is that even as they sing the praises of these big suburban developments, Lovelace and Girard and the rest of that crowd oppose individuals retaining the right to build their own single house on an existing TPZ or Ag parcel. I think that contrast is quite telling, in terms of where these SmartSprawl people are coming from.
“They use their own money to put in their own septic tank”
Yes, that’s how it was in Ridgewood until the developers started subdividing and then everyone had to pay AGAIN to hook up to community services and the special fees the district tried to assess for upgraded services needed due to additional homes was overruled in the courts when the developers filed suit.
How many houses do you think can be built on existing ag and TPZ parcels, Reasonable? How many people could afford to buy one?
At 2:12 Jeff B. asked me to point out his illogical assertions. Here are a few
11:25 “I want to own a home in the country. Should those who already own homes in the country be allowed to tell me no because they see me moving into the country as sprawl.”
Reality: no one said you can not buy a house in the country. As I mentioned, several are for sale near me.
More reality: The issue is not if you are “allowed” to buy a house in the country, it is whether we should subdivide our remaining agricultural and timber lands and build new houses there. Get the difference?
12:07 “Maybe you should have your property condemned in an eco groovy manner and give the property to the state gov’t for people to picnic on.”
Huh? I think only Jeff B can see any logic in this statement. I won’t even try.
12:07 “See any hypocricy in you living in the country but not wanting growth in the country?”
Not really. Growth in the country makes it less country. It destroys the characteristics that I and my neighbors enjoy. You are welcome to enjoy them, too. As I suggested, buy one of half dozen houses for sale near me.
12:28 “It’s probably very come out there on your acreage while the rest of us fight it out in the slums (watch your yard, we’re coming)”
You live in slums? You get into fights? Would the new housing developments you advocate become slums? Doesn’t sound like you would make a very good neighbor. You have a huge chip on your shoulder, Jeff B
12:49: “Can we also agree that houses for sale are limited and inflated due to supply and demand and marijuana profits?. ”
This is very simplistic. Did you sleep through the housing “bubble” that Wall Street investment bankers created?
12:33 “Next, you want to exclude 90% of the population and allow only the richest citizens to live in the country. Small lots are the only way most people will ever live in the country reasonable.”
Problem is, when you divide ag and timber land into small lots to keep the cost down you 1) destroy the rural environment 2) create sprawl. That is unless you advocate only one small lot – just for yourself. But then, that would exclude others and be hypocritical, wouldn’t it?
For the record, I am not rich. I bought my very modest house many years ago, before house prices got so inflated. If I had to purchase my house today at its assessed value, no way I could afford it.
My neighbors and I are not hypocritical for wanting to keep the zoning as it is to maintain the rural qualities. Those are the same qualities you say you value.
What do you think of this:
Some countries are peaceful and seldom engage in war. Should we suggest to them that because our country is engaged in perpetual war, the peaceful countries are being selfish – having all that peace for themselves. That they should get into a war too, just to level things out?
Many of my comments were made in obvious jest. If you want me to identify which ones those were, I can go back through and do that for you. However, that would speak poorly of your intelligence.
My point that you so inarticulately point out as illogical, is that the population (i.e. the amount of humans) is expanding. This necessitates more housing and it either has to be denser in the location of homes or it has to expand. You don’t want expansion and it’s an inevitability of our world so get ready to be disappointed.
These were my points that were not made in jest and that you see as being absurdly illogical.
-Rural housing and housing in general in Humboldt is inflated partially due to weed.
-Poor to moderate incomes can’t afford to buy current rural homes with acreage.
-It is hypocritical to expand and live in the country while at the same time opposing further expansion into the country (you got yours, nobody should get theirs).
You sound all butt hurt because you know it’s true. The country is desireable. People like me are coming. I’m saying fuck you if you don’t like it. People need places to live and people like myself, who choose to live in Humboldt and who can afford it, want to live in the country just like you do.
The only point you made that is at all reasonable is about rezoning. I get that but once again, eat a fat one. People like me will vote for rezoning so we can get our piece of the pie, and then some day when I’m old like you, I’ll try to keep all the whipper snappers away and I’ll probably sound like a greedy old jerk like you. For now, I’m taking the opposing view and saying, let me build, open up more property, and let me buy my 40 acres in the country.
By the way, Humboldt is huge. It can and it will expand into the country because there is still great land available. Check your history and look at what’s happened since 1900 and see if you notice any trends.
Jane asks: How many houses do you think could be built on TPZ or Ag parcels?
Well, I don’t know exactly how many, but I suspect that the Foster-Gill equivalent of 1,400 units could certainly be accomodated over 30 or 40 years.
How many people could afford to live on these rural parcels? Well that depends on incomes and land prices. I think we’ll see rural Humboldt land prices drop as a result of Legalization, those prices are already stagnating now with the semi-legal status quo. Look at current listings and there are some surprisingly modest asking prices for rural parcels.
Now whether you can afford to build on your parcel or not will in part be determined by whether you can count on getting a “ministerial” permit as long as you follow all the existing rules, or whether you’ll have to jump through a lot of hoops to get a “discretionary” permit (and spend all that money while risking that you’ll be turned down in the end). With a strict “discretionary permit” regime in place, only the fairly wealthy will be able to afford to get all lawyered up and hire an engineer and do various studies and spend all that money while risking not getting a permit in the end. So if it’s manoralism and the further gentrification of rural lands you’re aiming for, Option A is definitely the way to go.
Also, the cost of building on a rural parcel will be greatly affected by whether the County ever gets over it’s crapophobic approach to composting toilets, where they require you to put in a full septic system before you can apply for a permit for a composting toilet. Those unnecessary and water-wasting septic systems, and all the engineering and permits that go along with them, add a tremendous amount to the cost of building rural homes. If you want to make building your own home on a rural parcel more affordable compared to buying a contractor-built suburban house, it would help if we stopped trying to impose urban/suburban-oriented sewage disposal on rural residents who could do just fine, and conserve a lot of water, with a composting privy.
Of course the reality is that a relatively small percentage of people actually want to live way out in the sticks, which is all the more reason that enacting strict new measures to prevent the relatively few from doing so is not only wrong, it’s also rather pointless.
Without any restrictions on applications for building permits on TPZ land there have been fewer than 40 requests for the some 2500 seperate parcels in the last 10 years. So is this a problem that needs a fix? By talking about changing the rules, landowners may rush to get a permit.
This whole argument is focused on compact housing or not, rather than a range of choices. Most people would find compact housing very restrictive and undesirable.
I believe that condensing populations also makes the population more interdependent and rely on governmental systems. Many “smart growthers” want compact housing and available transit and a complicated infrastructure which is not here or even on the horizon. Many of our locals have not the economic freedom to avail themselves of this living option.
Actually I think many people are perfectly happy with compact housing, and it’s fine with me if they have it. I just don’t think we should foreclose options for the fairly modest number of people who wish to live and work in more rural settings.
I agree, there should be choices.
the reasonable anonymous said on June 2 at 3:22 p.m.:
Similarly, most of those rural home owners pay for their own road upkeep through private road associations (of course the county pays for the upkeep of existing public roads, but we have to do that anyway).
The county does not pay for the upkeep of existing public roads only some of them. The new developments for years now have formed PRD’s for nonarterial roads since the county will not maintain them. The Public Works Department has a very large list of roads that need rebuilding or repaving that used to be over $100 million and now is much larger as costs have gone up. I have looked at that list and very few roads are listed. Many are long ranch roads. The street I live on will never be resealed or repaved unless all the resident homeowners get together and repave it. A few developers with small subdivisions of 4 to 6 homes have formed a HOA but that is not the preferred choice as with a PRD your tax bill has the amount so the county gets the money and hopefully saves it for your road.
Sundberg’s campaign manager is Kathy Rodriguez. She is a Republican activist the local chair of the Carly Fiorina campaign.