The Healthy Humboldt Coalition is taking to the airwaves to educate listeners about Humboldt County’s General Plan Update.
This ad features a conversation between two people about the GPU.
Transcript:
PERSON 1: Well, that’s just not true.
PERSON 2: What do you mean? Which part?
PERSON 1: A couple of them actually. No one’s going to have to merge their properties with their neighbors. The whole merger issue is for people who get tax breaks under the Williamson Act or TPZ and have multiple adjoining parcels that are less than 160 acres. No has to merge with other owners, that would be crazy. No wonder you’re so upset.
PERSON 2: Well ok, but they also say I won’t be able to build a house on my own property.
PERSON 1: That’s not true for most property owners. If you’re on timberland, yeah, there’s some limitations — there have been for years — because you get a huge tax break for being in timber and not residential. But you can still have a home on your land, maybe even a couple if you chose to conserve parts of it.
PERSON 2: Yeah, but what about code enforcement issues?
PERSON 1: Code Enforcement is an entirely different issue from the General Plan
PERSON 2: How do you know all this?
PERSON 1: From the Healthy Humboldt Coalition. They actually make sense of the General Plan Update.
Healthy Humboldt is working for a county General Plan that provides healthy housing and transportation choices. To learn more visit healthyhumboldt.org.
This is news?
First, Healthy Humboldt needs to get on board with ONE candidate up in the 5th District. The split vote shows a split deck of cards and political preference.
Second, as if H.H. has a voice in the matter – NOT; hence, The Ad!
Third, H.H. is no better versed in “community health” than myself and many other “INDIVIDUALS” IN THE COMMUNITY WHO COULD CARE LESS about Healthy Humboldt and its train wreck of political and social manipulators.
Sincerely,
the anti-group, err anti-gang, mentalitist.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Clarifying question… so if I get tax breaks under the Williamson Act or TPZ and have multiple adjoining parcels that are less than 160 acres, yes in fact, the whole “merger issue” is real. Correct? If not, Healthy Humboldt has helped muddy the issue.
How many landowners are we talking about that are affected by the merger issue? That’s the question, because Healthy Humboldt seems to be acknowledging the issue is real.
Ohhhh, “most.” In other words, some landowners are screwed. How many landowners does Healthy Humboldt believe are OK to screw?
But you can still have a home on your land, maybe even a couple if you chose to conserve parts of it.
So it’s forced conservation and you may be able to build?
That has such a nicer ring to it. I wonder why Healthy Humboldt didn’t use that phrase in its ad.
It’s my land. Mine, mine mine! You’re not the boss of me and no stupid government is either. Besides, it’s mine. I have a paper that says so. That means I can do whatever I want with my land because it’s mine. And I own it.
No one is forcing them to take a TAX break on their land. WTF. Does everyone forget that this is about taxes?
Bunch of whiny bitches anyway.
We’re from Healthy Humboldt and we’re here to help you. Relax. It doesn’t matter what you think.
America’s so-called “Property Rights” Movement goes back to pre-revolutionary times and is based on one huge lie: what the government takes by force, individuals can claim divine by right. There are no such things as “property rights”, folks – only regulations.
Yes, that is correct. So enjoy your “tax break” you are getting on your TPZ or WA parcel. Hope you and your neighbors like sharing! lol
I wonder why Healthy Humboldt didn’t use that phrase in its ad.
Everything they fear about progressives is apparently true. The truth comes out here at the Herald. People show their true colors.
This is essentially telling people in town (who dont know much about TPZ/WA) that “its no big deal”. Hey, you dont even live on TPZ!
45% of Humboldt is TPZ. Thats like six hundred thousand acres. Is there room for you?
This group thinks they should slow growth. Whats a good way to do that? Well what if we deny exceptions to TPZ acre minimums, we essentially guaranteeing that most people will not be able to afford it. Brilliant!
Mine!!!!!
Apparently I missed something with this ad or some of the posters didn’t understand it (or didn’t listen to it?) Without regard to whether the ad is factual, what I heard was that the merging of multiple properties is to consolidate land owned by the same person and won’t (obviously) result in merging properties owned by multiple people and TPZ properties will be allowed one house, maybe more on a case by case basis. What did I miss?
City life is a life of nuisances after nuisances. Why would anyone with half a brain of a peaceful and comfortable life ever want to live in a city or infill area where nuisnaces are very abundant. This whole manifested crap is played off the votes of senior citizens (they have years of saved finances to spend on services – political guinea pigs), single mothers with children (dependency tools), those who cater to the I have mine but you can’t have yours crowd (elitist hypocrites), etc…
Now, why is it that MOST of the very same people pushing this infill crap either have never lived a rural lifestyle OR are politically involved for which pooling people together is, by far, the most “controlled” method to “build society”, in so far as their political push is effective. It really is only about money, politics and power through mis-representations (just being nice on a Sunday morning).
JL
What you missed, is that most land, while owned by ‘someone’, is technically owned by someone else. e.g. banks, or as more common around here, the original seller who is carrying the note. So many many ranches were sold off by one family or company – and many of them are not paid off. Countless parcels are stuck in limbo, county planning basically in lockdown until the update happens. In almost all of these situations you have all these people who “own” their parcels that the County may merge together because technically the parcels are owned by someone else.
It does seem crazy.
What I am hearing from you, Bolithio, is parcels that which were sold before they were legally divided may not be allowed? Who owns the mortgage is irrelevant if it was on a legally permitted property, right?
A visit to the HH web site shows that what they are doing is to use their site to back political candidates. They are a non-profit and are skating on thin ice by coming out for any particular candidates. Since Elizabeth Conner and Jen Kalt are all there is to HH and they have both publicly come out for Cleary ya gotta wonder at the legality of what they’re doing.
On the other hand, what the ad says is true. 6:12: you have a thin and twisted grasp of the issue. Yes, if you want to continue getting tax breaks on TPZ lands they must be merged so they are 160 acres or more. No one has to merge with other land owners.
7:14 am,
I disagree. I believe that the facts say that property owners DO have rights and DO have regulations to abide by – seems fair on is surface.
…..now, where your thoughts and my thoughts merge into agreement with respect to force ……
often, government breaches the very laws it is to uphold knowing that to “PROVE and COMPEL PUNISHMENT UPON THE GOVERNMENT” means that a victim has to …..drum roll……,
SPEND MONEY, TIME, ENERGY, etc…
Now, do you see where we can agree. Personally, I am not at all surprised that ANY GOVERNMENT WOULD use force or harassments, etc… to hurt certain citizens intentionally based upon previous, current or future intended political interactions that yield no easy benefits to government – emminent domain actions and cases, property damages and abuses, alterations/frauds of filed data and documentations, etc….
When a citizen stands out as not going along with fraud, deceit, manipulation, etc… it pisses the hell out of those WHO THINK they wield such great power and control. Thus, government becomes more compelled on an individual employee’s sub-surface/back room behavior to further deface public information to guide it toward a government defense/stance on any given abuses. It is quite the nice “mafia style organization” that controls the American citizenry – a sort of rookery for developing CooKoo Birds and Turkey Vultures.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Saying that TPZ producing land below that of 160 acres is different than if it were above 160 acres is true only on parcel size comparisons. To imply that there is more TPZ benefit on a 160 acre parcel -therefore a tax break on only 160 acres and above, is not legal and, if challenged, the county ordinance will be amended or shall defeated in court!
Social Engineering FAILS EVERY TIME!
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
“Social Engineering FAILS EVERY TIME!”
What is your definition of social engineering, Jeff?
I’m not all that informed about this issue. Isn’t the idea of TPZ to give a tax break to people who keep TPZ land in timber production instead of housing?
How is it unfair to a land owner to take away a tax break designed to keep land in timber production, if the land owner has subdivided it for housing?
Why should two people who have bought houses, one in TPZ and one not, pay different taxes if the one in TPZ is not following special rules to get their tax break?
P.J.,
leaving people the frack alone! That is my social engineering, up until the point they disrespect, create a nuisance, do something inappropriate which codones a responsive action, etc….
Humans have no further government rights to take away something unjustifiably just to fit the boners in scoiety.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Mitch, on TPZ, the house itself and 3 surrounding acres will be taxed for residential, but the rest of the acreage gets the TPZ tax break.
No, it doesn’t. Unless you view it through bitter-colored glasses.
So, Heraldo, can you explain what people’s complaint is (from their point of view)?
Here’s the deal, Mitch. TPZ replaced ad valorem taxes in the 1970s, when it was recognized that punishing people for conserving their trees with increased taxes after trees were 40 years old degraded our timber resource. We wanted to conserve our resource, and the state changed the law.
TPZ was invented to incentivize forest conservation and harvest planning. Humboldt County has the most acreage in TPZ of any county in the state because the county *automatically* shifted forest lands into this new land use zoning when it came into existence, with assurances that traditional uses wouldn’t be affected. That’s what made it such a successful program.
It never entered anyone’s mind when the program was established in this county to forbid people to live in the woods. It’s still a fringe idea, truth be told.
It seems that people living on TPZ land harvest less frequently than industrial operators. When did that become a bad thing? That was why TPZ was created!
This whole debate relies on people not knowing the past, the present or the future of timber practices. Knowing the past and present, I hope people will realize that none of us know the future. Timber resources, in or out of TPZ, grow more valuable every year. It’s a foolish assumption that a house somewhere somehow makes its appurtenant timber worthless. When we’ve regrown after the forest holocaust of the last half-century, we’ll be in a new world, which we can’t plan for now except on foundations of theology, not economics or even social engineering.
On subdivisions: patent parcels can be developed without subdividing, without zoning changes. PPs typically are 160 acres, but may be smaller. When Healthy Humboldt fulminates about ‘subdivision,’ what they’re actually talking about is the existing ability, seldom exercised, to build a homestead on those thousands of Homestead Act patent parcels. Their buildable potential does increase the sales (and mortgage, and asset) price of timberland. It doesn’t mean it will be developed. Just look and see. Indeed, as the trees grow development becomes less likely, not more so, because its underlying timber use is growing in value.
In any case we have a Depression to go through before we see whether any of the bogeymen dreamed up during the boom years will come to visit us. They seem to be in China now, and not heading our way.
TPZ tax breaks
FOR
ONLY THAT PORTION OF TIMBER PRODUCING LANDS.
SIMPLE INCENTIVE.
Now if the political scheme is to disallow parcel sizes below 160 AND then the accompanying arguments on taxation methodolgies that ensue, then this is a completely different criticism that is still trying to weave itself through manipulators into the issue to create confusion to stear voters a certain direction based upon misinformation.
Groups are no better than the very governing bodies that recognize them! So, accompanying criticism is justifiable when connections have been made between members of groups and those who have been hired as public employess. The connections are much more than mere public commenting, go figure what deals are being cut! It is just not H.H. either – it is just about every group or organization there is that feels if they form a group, they wield more political power than they really actually have, which less brainwashing and misinformation, is zilch!
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Which is why it will be bought and sold for residential rather than timber production.
longwind,
Thanks. I think I’m following, but I’m not sure. Please correct any mistakes below:
Humboldt forest lands were automatically placed in TPZ, giving owners a tax break for keeping them in timber.
People were promised that already-existing houses would not be challenged.
Land under TPZ is harvested less frequently.
Parcels of 160 acres or above can have a house, and the ability to have a house increases their sale price, even when no house is there.
OK, then. Where’s the fight?
Mitch,
Longwind is very true to the words written. The many posts show straightforward positions that have not deviated. IOW, Longwind appears to be a “stand-up” citizen!!!
My interjection: Code Enforcement, urban infilling, public tax dollars, etc…
That is the fight – getting public officials to actually do their job instead of picking and choosing their actions and re-actions based on what political issues will subsidize their needs the best. Notice I wrote “their needs”!
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Sorry I asked, Jeff. Nevermind…..
Yes P.J.,
you asked a difficult question, not.
So, what is your defintion of “social engineering”, just curious.
JL
I made that mistake once, too, Jane. It’s better to shake your head and move on.
>>People were promised that already-existing houses would not be challenged.
More to the point, building more houses on TPZ was never questioned.
>>Land under TPZ is harvested less frequently.
Yes, but more to the point, smaller TPZ parcels with a house on them tend to be harvested less. This is considered a problem by HH, rather than a very cheap conservation service. Dunno why.
>>Parcels of 160 acres or above can have a house, and the ability to have a house increases their sale price, even when no house is there.
Parcels of any size are valued in part by their underlying development rights. So if you remove development rights, timberland values drop significantly, some mortgages turn upside-down, banks get paralysed with negative-value assets, etc. But credit where it’s due–it certainly slows economic growth!
>>OK, then. Where’s the fight?
The fight is to prevent people from living outside cities. People living outside cities think that’s a bad idea.
Jeff, Social engineering is the use of manipulation to change society. Religion, in my opinion, is one of the most successful types of social engineering. Since you said social engineering always fails, I was curious to hear your definition which you still haven’t provided. Your view of social engineering seems to be one produced by social engineering, i.e. political propaganda.
longwind,
Here’s the impression that a very casual observer of this (me) gets.
One side wants to ensure that, in TPZ areas, no more than one house per 160 acres can be built, for a TPZ population density of four households per square mile.
The other side wants to change things so that, in TPZ areas, subdivision is allowed and the population density can go well beyond four households per square mile.
Am I even in the ballpark?
I’m inclined to agree that the population density in timber production areas should remain low, as long as nobody now living there is evicted.
I don’t think the government should be telling people where to live, but I do think it’s reasonable to withhold a tax break from someone who is not living up to the reason the tax break was created. If people really want to have a house on every ten acres, OK, but why would they be entitled to special tax breaks?
Again, I think I’m probably missing something.
>> Where’s the fight?
Cal Govt Code says a TPZ is a (minimum)10-year restriction on the use of land . . . Land use under a TPZ will be restricted to growing and harvesting timber, and to compatible uses approved by the county. In return, taxation of timberland under a TPZ will be based only on such restrictions in use.
In the 70′s the Assessor was charged with assembling a list of all parcels assessed for growing timber. “Parcel” is defined not as a patent parcel, etc., but as an Assessor’s Parcel. (oops.)
Parcels zoned as TPZ may not be divided into parcels containing less than 160 acres unless the original owner prepares a joint timber management plan that provides for the management and harvesting of timber by the original and any subsequent owners, and that shall be recorded with the county recorder as a (10 year)deed restriction on all newly created parcels.
Absence of compliance with this requirement has created a tangled web of property issues. It’s one of the reasons we had so many Assessor candidates this year. Unfortunately, the one who could realistically address this issue in a fair and reasoned manner lost out to name recognition and the incumbency factor, not to mention low voter turn-out. Seems we get the government we deserve.
Thanks for trying so hard, Mitch. All this is as complicated as the GPU.
First thing you’re missing is that the subdivision bogeyman is not unleashed the way you suppose. There are no neighborhoods of undeveloped 10-acre TPZ parcels. That could not come about from current policy, not anywhere.
Your confusion is caused by HH successfully conflating patent parcels with your example of horrifying unregulated rural development. It’s all imaginary, but who says so in the funny papers?
Bottom line: local county zoning restrictions on the Green Diamond cutover between McKinleyville and Fieldbrook will remove the only actual threat motivating Plan A’s patriots: that Green Diamond might sell off for individual development their existing 160s there, just a few miles from Arcata, without the Planning Department being able to interfere.
Local planning is the solution to this concern. Hosing that parochial concern over the entire county has been massively counterproductive.
Remember too that subdivisions are allowed. Also, you can have less than 160 acres on TPZ with a JTMP. Its just that it is very clear that county does not like you to get them. There are rules in place to handle and govern how these parcels that end up below the parcel size minimums are governed. Getting these conditional permits however has become appallingly complicated, expensive, and time consuming.
What about Bareilles’ Titlow Hill mess and other illegal subdivisions that have occurred?
Mitch @ 8:55: you are not confused. That is about the sum of it. The timber industry, realtor and developer lobbyists, want to confuse and anger people with fear-based tactics, because one of the most important proposals in the GPU is to allow small landowners to build a house and remain in TPZ, while limiting houses on Industrial TPZ to 1 per 600 acres.
So Bill Barnum, whose family still owns 18,000 acres of TPZ, and also is the attorney for the Nor. Cal. Homebuilders Association, tells all kinds of lies to confuse people. But you hit the nail on the head. TPZ = 10% of non-TPZ property taxes, and if you never harvest timber, it’s quite a tax shelter.
Longwind is right in that the local zoning is what will prevent TPZ close to town from being developed with sprawling development: that is the Industrial TPZ zoning I mentioned above. These TPZ lands close to populated areas are the main concern, but not the only concern. Barnum is in the process of breaking up 12,000 acres near Benbow through the patent parcel process. Without Industrial TPZ zoning to limit residential use of these large tracts of timberlands, any TPZ land can be broken up in exactly the way MAXXAM proposed for Palco’s 20,000 acres of “kingdoms.” The SUpes blocked that plan with a temporary moratorium but failed to change the regs that allow such a thing.
Good point. Its all the same. He had patent parcels that the county has decided to not recognize without subdivisions. That area isn’t TPZ though, but its the same type of issue. Its the counties mess. If they would have just accepted the patents, they would be receiving all kinds of revenue from building permits and other things. Instead, they get outlaws who do what they want anyways, and dont care or need their permits. Ive spoke with these people across the county. “What is the county going to come tear my house down? F them, Id like to see that, etc…”
Their anti-rural living stance is backfiring.
Thank you, longwind and yet another anon, for your answers. I’m still confused, but I’m beginning to get a sense of why.
Ya, but a stand of trees takes 50-100 years to mature! So while we are all impatient humans, we forget that timber managers (the ones who helped forge these laws)are thinking way beyond a ten year plan.
Longwind is not quite right about the patent parcel issue: that is a method of breaking up ag and timberlands without any planning or environmental review. Arkley tried to break up a large ranch near Loleta by this method: get the patent parcels or historical parcels legally recognized, then boom, a house on every parcel with no environmental review or public input. Arkley’s also got land in Samoa and Weitchpec that this process is in the works for, but the Planning Commission denied his appeal on the Loleta Ranch, so the others are on hold.
The folks at Healthy Humboldt appear to be among the few members of the public who actually understand this issue and what a disaster it can be for ag and timberlands.
P.J.,
this is where we differ – Social engineering is a term, a definition invented and used by those who want power to control. Yes, manipulation is a main part; yet, since I don’t socially manipulate and since I understand what social treason is, I do not recognize social engineering as anything but a mere illegitimate concept. If truly a democracy, as you so vividly show undebateably in many of your posts, then manipulation and force would be undemocratic or unconstitutional or both. So, if the ides is to bond society in a peaceful and united way, then the Staes has a lot a distance to make up in reverse gear just to get back to where “United” has a meaning that actually stands for something. The U.S. is far from united!
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Bolithio @ 10:46: small landowners don’t do even-aged harvest; they don’t wait for a “crop” and then clearcut it. They get an NTMP (Non-Industrial Management Plan) and manage the timber, commonly every 10-20 years, through thinning (which is a way to bring in some income over the long-term).
A small landowner who is managing for timber will also upgrade roads to prevent sediment, thin for fuels reduction, etc. They don’t just sit on it for 50-100 years and wait. Unless they are just using TPZ as a tax break.
This brings up Reasonable Anoynymous’ question of a few days ago regarding whether the voters or the BOS should decide which GPU is passed. With the propaganda wars already beginning due to the supervisor’s race, imagine what it will be like if it is put to a popular vote. Who do you trust to give you the unbiased facts on this?
My apology on wordspell/wordcheck – still getting used to new keyboard layout with this laptop compared to the PC. 99% of my errors in writing have happened on this new laptop. Good thing guitar fretboards don’t change so dramatically in layout, lola.
JL
PJ,
Nobody?
Healthy Humboldt actually recommends eliminating the Merger Ordinance for TPZ parcels if certain other policies are adopted that will “will discourage the use of TPZ lands for residential purposes by increasing the value of TPZ- zoned real estate while retaining the TPZ tax status that was instituted to keep forest land valued primarily for timber management.”
Check it out at:
http://co.humboldt.ca.us/gpu/docs/comments/2009DraftPlan/GPU130.pdf
Who really understands the issues without a direct economic / political agenda, Mitch?
When manipulation, misinformation and deceit are always propagandized by those claiming to be “for the people” and their quality of life, then what is that saying, “tell a lie enough times and people will believe it”?
So, in that respect, if liars and such accomplished their goals of twisting voter sentiments, then does it really matter in the end result who claims title to be the “master decision maker”?
For insiders, they say it was the dum bass voters fault – like ballot initiatives, bonds, propositions, etc….
For non-insiders, depends on the level of political awarenesses and involvements.
JL
I have little doubt that HELP, HumCPR, NCAHB, HAR, and Arkley will stop at nothing to prevent the County from adopting policies that will lead to better development. Lawsuits, ballot initiative, whatever it takes.
If you want to know the facts, read the GPU docs–they are all online, and it’s not as complicated as people try to make it seem. If you can read, you can understand it.
Unfortunately far too many people have strong opinions on things they have never actually investigated for themselves. People should have to pass a test on basic facts before they can speak at a hearing.
Haha Not! How many posters do you think there would be on a blog which had that requirement?
“Who really understands the issues without a direct economic / political agenda”
The fish and wildlife.
A reasonable person.
I’m disappointed with the Healthy Humboldt ad because it indirectly acknowledges there are exceptions to their own claims and blithely dismisses them. Umm, no. These are concerns of real interest to people. A reasonable person finds a compromise.
Who translates for them, 11:11?
Fact: current Humboldt County ordinance allows subdividing TPZ into 40s, with a maximum housing density of 1 per 20 acres. That’s 2 houses per 40 acre parcel. I recently looked up how much property tax a 40 acre TPZ parcel in SoHum pays: $75 per year. If you have a house, the value of the house itself is taxed as well, but the land is taxed at $75 per year.
I ask you: do you think a 40 with 2 houses is primarily being managed for timber, or for residential use? The point of the TPZ tax break is to keep land values low enough so people can realistically invest in it for timber production. Whether you agree with that tax program or not, that is what state law says: the development rights are supposed to restricted in exchange for reduced taxes.
But guess what? Humboldt County has never enforced those restrictions. And now they are talking about it because it’s getting to be an issue.
For Real, I’ll just focus on your central misunderstanding: The purpose of the TPZ tax break is being achieved, right now, everywhere people aren’t frantically cutting trees to avoid punitive taxation. There is no reason on God’s green earth to say that a 40 with two houses on it isn’t being managed for timber production.
Which isn’t to say that most TPZ 40s have two houses, they don’t. The point is, houses don’t matter for TPZ purposes. That’s why houses were included as permitted uses in the first place.
Screaming and howling about how well the intended protections work doesn’t make sense to me. Most of the value of rural residential property is in housing stock anyway, and we all know that’s the portion of our tax bills that the county can increase despite Prop 13. As usual, reality isn’t black vs. white. Propaganda is.
How can the county increase property taxes despite Prop 13, Longwind?
They watch for home improvements and changes (with Google Earth and airplanes), inspect and call, and add the retail value of the changes to assessed valuation, on top of the automatic 1 percent annual rate creep.
One of the legislative findings supporting TPZ law: “The state’s increasing population threatens to erode the timberland base and diminish forest resource productivity through pressures to divert timberland to urban and other uses and through pressures to restrict or prohibit timber operations when viewed as being in conflict with nontimberland uses.”
A caretaker house on a forty places a far lower level of demand on the tax base than a McMansion. As well, the caretaker is far less likely to whine about noise, dust, etc. from timber harvest than is the estate owner enjoying their serene forest haven. My house is in town and I’m tired of bearing the tax burden for all the public services we already cannot afford.
You’re entitled to your view and I am entitled to mine. I disagree with you that people living on 40s should get a tax break while the rest of us pay for their road maintenance, fire and police protection, etc.
my comment was to longwind @ 11:37.
Many small landowners practice even aged management, and most timber harvesting comes from a THP, not an NTMP. But regardless of how a landowner decides to manage their timber, the forest is still what it is. If it was clearcut in the past, than it is likely even aged now. This even aged vrs all aged concept is something that is more complex than simply selection vrs clearcut as a mater of policy or philosophy.
Silviculture should not be part of this discussion. These issues of TPZ and parcel size, rural living, etc having nothing to do with the type of logging that may occur.
For Real, we’re talking about a tax deferral, not a break. When the trees get big enough to cut the taxes paid fill the gap. The idea is to postpone the state’s tax harvest until the tree harvest.
HH thinks only the timber beast cuts trees. Our timber base has temporarily cratered, but we’ll see what happens to newly valuable trees in another 40 years. In the meantime property owners growing trees are providing habitat, watershed and management.
TPZ is a tax break only if the trees are never harvested, ever. Then they would become an old-growth forbearance forest better than and nourishing its surroundings. Just my own opinion now, but I think that’s worth the money. It’s what we used to fight for tax money to create.
For most people, the time will come again when it makes sense to harvest their trees, pay their timber tax, and, let’s say, send their daughter to college. Same as it ever was. Really not so criminal when you think about it.
What? How are you paying for maintenance on a private roads?
It took far too long to reach a critical point in this debate…
There are professional planners that calculate the public costs of every new residential construction and every new automobile that are added to communities 10 miles, or more, from population centers.
While Humboldt County enjoyed an industrial tax base, blind-faith in a failed model of sprawl and malls persisted, a blindness proving convenient for those who acquired cheap and remote resource lands and brownfields expecting continued public subsidies for infrastructure, emergency, and social services.
We should be mindful that it took many generations to destroy rivers, streams and salmon that once graced Southern California, among countless other regions, spoiled by the systematic greed of haphazard social engineering…by the highest bidders.
(Tell me again why the water gauges on the Mattole River were vandalized…??).
That’s why I am perplexed by Healthy Humboldt’s support of the Forster-Gill project in Cutten, an area already besieged by illegal sewage discharges, traffic, and 10-mile commutes to the nearest jobs, services and entertainment. “Smart Growth” was originally used in reference to in-fill development, there’s nothing smart about adding large subdivisions to areas already exceeding infrastructure capacity.
Oh right, all those building fees and taxes would pay for it…like they have for the past few decades…
NOT
“Oh right, all those building fees and taxes would pay for it…like they have for the past few decades…”
Because the developers filed suit, the fees to pay for the upgrades needed were dropped and development continued without them. At least Forster-Gill has volunteered to pay the larger part of the already required infrastructure upgrades.
…because you don’t understand how this project is fundamentally different and better than the historical precedent in this county. Smart Growth has become a jingoistic term every developer throws around, but in this case it’s true.
“Already required” means the sprawl-loving residents of Cutten haven’t paid their way for decades and now they are up to their shoulders in shit (sorry, poop doesn’t hold the same alliterative power).
Here a project comes along that might just help fix some of their problems and they predictably balk. I say give them what they want. No more development. The end result will be a humongously expensive assessment district to pay for their sprawl lifestyle in the boonies.
So it’s forced conservation and you may be able to build?
Well, yes. And it was forced back in the 1970s.
How is it unfair to a land owner to take away a tax break designed to keep land in timber production, if the land owner has subdivided it for housing?
Because Mitch, the county hasn’t enforced the TPZ laws the way they’re enforced in other counties since it was passed. Lots of people bought TPZ land assuming it was like any other land, because the county was looking the other way and nobody apparently, not the county, not Realtors, not Title Companies – apparently nobody warned people by saying “hey, you know, TPZ is not rural residential and someday you may find that the property is more restricted than you think.”
I think everybody kind of dropped the ball back then, even while other counties such as Siskyou made sure people understood by requiring that a timber management plan be filed with the county before any construction of a home is built on the land.
It’s a mess.
I hope what they come around to doing is offering to allow the smaller holdings to roll out of TPZ if they’re willing to pay back taxes. But whether special offers can be made to the smaller holdings, which I’m told represent only a small fraction of the total TPZ land, will survive an equal protections clause challenge from larger holding owners I can’t say. Probably it could.
Eric,
Offhand, what you describe sounds like a lot of well-paying lawsuits for you, but not like a reason to leave things the way they were dropped.
A few questions for you:
1) are the TPZ regulations clear (though unenforced by past Humboldt County governments)?
2) is a landowner responsible for obeying the law, regardless of whether the government is currently enforcing it?
3) did past Humboldt County governments ever make public statements that TPZ regulations were just for yuks?
I ask (2) because I’m gradually learning that things are different here.
“because the county was looking the other way and nobody apparently, not the county, not Realtors, not Title Companies – apparently nobody warned people by saying “hey, you know, TPZ is not rural residential and someday you may find that the property is more restricted than you think.”
Is there liability for failure to disclose? What about their title insurance?
Of course, if you listen to HumCPR, the County is already on the way with bulldozers and gestapo to force you into a city enclave. It’s kind of nice to hear another perspective. I’m sure both have their quota of BS but, like Mitch says, we’ll keep trying to understand.
If you REALLY want to hear a load of BS, go to Tuesday’s Council meeting for the hearing on Arkley’s illegally ‘bought and paid for’ ballot measure. The crap will flow like the waters of the ocean!!!!! I’m opposed to putting the measure on the ballot because, among other things, Cheri actually offered PAYMENT for it BEFORE the council had voted on it. Regardless of the merrits or lack of merrits, that HAS TO BE ILLEGAL, doesn’t it?
In any event, the Arkley minions will no doubt be out in full force with pages of talking points, mostly completely off the subject. You couldn’t BUY tickets to a farce like this.
What would be really great is if Arkley would “offer up” some money to the people he owes before spending on ballot measures, stickers and political campaigns, all the while maintaining his lavish lifestyle. It’s disgusting, if not immoral. I wonder how the minions would feel if they were not being “bought and paid for” – emphasis on “paid.”
1) are the TPZ regulations clear (though unenforced by past Humboldt County governments)?
They could be written better.
2) is a landowner responsible for obeying the law, regardless of whether the government is currently enforcing it?
Yes.
3) did past Humboldt County governments ever make public statements that TPZ regulations were just for yuks?
Not to my knowledge.
Believe me, I think there’s plenty of fault to go around. Land-owners might have asked themselves, “gee, I’m getting this tax break. Seems like a pretty good deal. Is there a down side?”
Is there liability for failure to disclose? What about their title insurance?
You can’t hold a seller liable for your ignorance of law. If they somehow hid the TPZ status, I suppose in theory there might be liability, but since the status is readily available from the county I don’t it. As for Title Insurance, they probably included the TPZ zoning status in their preliminary title reports and probably excluded, along with any zoning or other government issues, the issue from coverage. But they could have done more to educate people of the potential downside to purchasing TPZ land when it was apparent it was intended for residential use.
Here’s an analogy: I had a woodstove installed and declined to get a permit. Do I know that someday I will get caught and have to own up to it? Yes. Whose fault is it? Mine. I will not scream bloody murder that the rules ought to be changed, or that I didn’t know, or that the County is evil for having rules on woodstove installation, or that they are trying to force everyone to use gas heat because they are against my lifestyle.
But I did check to make sure that it was installed according to the permit, and I did tell my insurance company when I renewed the policy that I had a woodstove.
In Mendocino County, there is a limit to 2 houses per ownership. In Lassen County, NO structures are allowed on TPZ period. And people here think that 1 per 600 acres for industrial TPZ and 1 per parcel for small landowners is “draconian.”
It’s really just the same thing that’s been going on here for decades: the timber industry and fellow good ole boys hold up Mom and Pop to shield the Powers That Be from having any limit to how much money they can make.
In any case, Planning Commission is done with it recommendations on the Forest Resources chapter, so what’s the point of continuing this twisted debate?
Eric, So what should happen if someone wanted to be thorough and sure and went into the Planning Department and actually asked what they could do with a specific parcel number before they laid out the money and signed up for a thirty year mortgage and were told that they could build a house (and an in law unit) on each of two parcels? What would be legal? Fair? Is ther no expectation of a accurate representation when a official makes a statement? This is what happened to me and my family. Who will pay my mortgage or my kids tuition when I am destitute because I relied on what I was informed when I did my homework?
No, in my case. Until this moment I didn’t know I needed a permit and the company that installed my stove didn’t even mention it.
While we’re at it, I had a water heater installed with a permit filed, but the county never inspected the installation. And yes, I know for certain the permit paperwork went through.
False.
Good evening everyone.
I want to talk with Not an Expert for a moment. Your comments this morning are not polite or honest.
First of all, you are apparently a coward, as you are not blogging with your name. I am calling you out. Who are you?
Second, you chose your blog name. It is apparently correct. You may not like me, that is obvious enough, but I do know something about this topic.
Third, you blog that I have told “lots of lies” to confuse people about this topic. I challenge you to list those “lies” here. I do not think you can or will.
Fourth, you speak of breaking up lands using the “patent parcel process.” This shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding about land ownership. Land is held in parcels. A ranch or tract of timberland is not a single parcel (at least not yet, though people like you would prefer that to be true). Land in this county has been purchased over many years into manageable units, call them ranches or timber tracts. Think of a jig-saw puzzle picture; the picture has lots of pieces. If you sell off some of the pieces, you still have a picture, but it looks different from the starting point. But throughout the time the parcels were held together in the big picture, they remained intact, separate parcels. When owners go to the county and apply for certificates of compliance with the California Subdivision Map Act (Government Code section 66499.35), they are not subdividing anything. The law requires the county to issue a certificate to any requesting landowner that each legal parcel is just that, legal. When the county issues the certificate, it is recorded. That too is not a subdivision. If a property owner sells a parcel, that is not a subdivision. A subdivision is a separate legal process where a land owner asks the county to permit the creation of new parcels.
A fair question is whether people would bother seeking certificates of compliance if the county would drop its merger ordinance. But staff wants to merge these private parcels and that is a clear threat to the owners.
What you apparently advocate is a public policy against the “fragmentation” of ranches and timber tracts. You advocate that there is a public interest against a property owner being free to sell parcels they already own. While you would have no problem with someone accumulating parcels into an operating ranch or timber tract, you oppose the sale of the existing, underlying legal parcels to someone else. This dichotomy seems particularly strange to me. Why should you care if someone who owns land, sells it to someone else? What is the public interest in that sale?
Lastly, you are wrong about your claim that my family is “breaking up” land we own near Benbow. Simply not true. Some would say you lied about that, but I am satisfied that you are not an expert, and simply mis-spoke.
Other readers are confused about whether the state law allows a residence in TPZ. Government Code section 51104(h)(6) states that a residence in TPZ is a per se compatible use. It’s the law. I did not make it up. You can read it for yourselves.
What is new and likely a big problem is that the GPU proposes to re-define Industrial Timberland in Humboldt County. Under the current plan, IT is timberland owned by a property owner who also owns industrial processing plants (think sawmills). The new plan drops any reference to actual industrial capacity and includes anyone owning TPZ within a 5,000 acre parabola. A small land owner with a 40 adjoining Green Diamond and Humboldt Redwoods will be IT under that definition, even though they have zero industrial capacity. That 40 will then be subject to the proposed one residence in 600 acre rule. It is not fair. It will not fly.
Your turn. Start with a name, please, a real one.
Is Bill Barnum Heraldo? He sure acts like he makes the rules for this blog.
Well said Bill.
I think a big point is that things that are done are done. They shouldn’t be able to merge existing parcels, period. If the policy is changing, fine, but it changes from here on – not retroactively.
Bill – while you are absolutely right about posters to make personal attacks under cloak of anonymity, there is a little more to the code which raises some ambiguity. Sub-paragraph (h)(6) reads specifically names as a compatible use:
“A residence or other structure necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production.”
The first five words are clear, but that rest of the sentence is about as clear as “a well-regulated militia being essential to the security of a free state…” and we’re left to debate the meaning of the qualifying phrase until an intrepid judge explains it to us.
Hence the Siskiyou ordinance requiring the filing of a written plan prior to the construction of a home. I don’t like the word “necessary” in there. It makes me nervous for those who have homes on TPZ property, though I hope that most will be grandfathered under an historical use principle.
It would be great if one of the radio stations did a Kirk – Barnum moderated discussion on the GPU. It would be educational and most people trust at least one of them.
The Humboldt Herald would blog about it.
They could comment back and forth here too, of course, but we the people need to understand what is at stake and hear the aspects where they have consensus and disagreement.
“No one’s going to have to merge their properties with their neighbors.”
Who said they were? Seems like they are debating a straw man.
“That’s not true for most property owners.”
“Most” could be 51%. I guess we shouldn’t care about the rest.
This is good stuff…Bill’s pretty much on point here. I am a little surprised that given the number of GPU hearings(Forest Resources), most of these issue have not come up in public comment. Eric is right on with regards to “Necessary”….Seems to me the County has some discretion, particularily if they had a forester or hired a consultant. Just in case you dozed off, the Planning Commission completed its review of the Forest Resources chanpter with little public participation.
“No one’s going to have to merge their properties with their neighbors.”
Who said they were? Seems like they are debating a straw man.”
Bolithio said, “Yes, that is correct. So enjoy your “tax break” you are getting on your TPZ or WA parcel. Hope you and your neighbors like sharing! lol”
and
“In almost all of these situations you have all these people who “own” their parcels that the County may merge together because technically the parcels are owned by someone else.”
That’s because most people don’t know enough about it, Steak. It’s the sort of thing that only policy wonks and those with a direct interest have studied in depth.
I love how it starts out “Well that’s just not true.”
That’s some top quality shit there.
Wow, one last read through before bed and what pops up on HH? The following:
Ads by Google
Looking for Rural Land?
Find your country place and the Lender to get you there.
FindFarmCredit.com
Too funny! HH is profiting from ads for sale of rural land. I will sleep well tonight knowing that HH is on our team. ;)
The Herald never has advertisements that show up on my computer. Anyone else?
I have seen a lot of candidate ads and a few of other types. I don’t remember exactly but some were surprises because I felt like HH would not necessarily be aligned with those candidates.
This is posted at the top of the thread:
Ads by Google
Looking for Rural Land?
Find your country place and the Lender to get you there.
FindFarmCredit.com
Oh yeah? My ad says
How to get Radio Airplay
Get heard with Disc Makers’ free guide to getting radio airplay.
http://www.discmakers.com/RadioAirplay
but I want a place in the country!
Yep, the advertisement appears directly above the gray box that starts with “This entry was posted on Sunday, June 13th, 2010 at 12:01 am”
So, PJ, are you claiming that the Healthy Humboldt ad was responding to “Bolithio?” I guess they saw into the future to know that he would post that comment on a thread about their radio ad, so they decided to make the radio ad to clear things up!?
In the ad “Person 1″ addresses 3 issues. #1 is a strawman argument, #2 is “as long as it’s only a minority of landowners that get screwed, that’s O.K.,” and #3 is an irrelevant point. And they’re going to pay money to run those ads?
While I still think an advisory referendum on the GPU would be the fairest way to settle it, Healthy Humboldt has certainly provided a clear example of an interest group misleading and propagandizing the public about the GPU. Shameful.
I stopped seeing the ads when I started putting an e-mail address in along with my pseudonym. Try it.
Perhaps Healthy Humboldt is using the same outfit that comes up with Allison Jackson’s misleading ads?
That would explain the lack of ads here, RA. But aren’t those browser ads, not HH ads?
Bolithio is a forester (?) and that is what he is telling people, RA. Where did he hear it?
Not even close.
WordPress runs ads to support the free service. Several people noted ads for Jeff Leonard for supervisor popping up in the last month. We didn’t profit from that nonsense either.
It seems Bill is as smart as he is truthful.
The google ad that comes up is personalized; it reflects your recent searches. (Check it out!)
I guess ignorance is Bliss, so sleep well Bill.
As far as all that other self-interested balony, it’s hard to know where to start.
I will just say for now, that there are many people, includng Bill in his post, that are speading misinformation such as people will be forced to merge parcels with their neighbors and that the rules regulating the large tax breaks given to timber land owners for maintaining timber, not residential uses, allow for residences on all TPZ parcels as a compatible use.
But, if you are interested and don’t know who to believe (or you flat our don’t believe Bill or Healthy Humboldt or CPR), go to planupdate.org and read the plan and various comments about it. Evaluate for yourself what is being said and what Alternatives are in line with the Guiding Principles adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2004 The Guiding Principles can be found on the same website. Interestingly, although the 2004 Board was more conservative politically but most meansures than the current one, all the 2004 Guiding Principles are within the framework of “focused growth” and the need to protect resource lands from further subdivison and residential development.
Oops, I guess I’m not so smart either, not proofreading my post before sending…the last sentence in comment just posted should read:
Interestingly, although the 2004 Board was more conservative politically by most measures than the current one, all the 2004 Guiding Principles are with the Framework of “focused growth” and the need to protect resource lands from further subdivision and residential development.
I know this is hard for allot of people to understand. Rural living in this county can be a little different than other places, and the way you buy property can be different too. If you have purchased a TPZ parcel that is legal, either by a CoC, or is over 160, or is just an older(pre map act) substandard TPZ lot, if there is a merger, it shouldn’t effect you.
But, if you bought your parcel and the seller is carrying your note (a very common practice), that is where there are going to be problems if there are mergers.
Allot of landowners have sold patent parcels from their ranches, assuming that these parcels where all good. The talk of merging small parcels within ownerships causes the problems here, where yes there is a larger owenership, AKA Ranch, but the ranch has sold all the parcels. So now these parcels are occupied by new people, but the seller holds the note, until they can pay him off – either with a bank loan or presumably with cash.
Looking on a title map, you see one owner of several TPZ parcels, even though he has sold the parcels. So if they are merging TPZ parcels based on that, you can see the issue.
It will then require people to get subdivisions, which are very expensive and not guaranteed to even work in all woods situations (some of the requirements of a subdivision are overboard for deep rural living).
And, in my opinion, the egregious part is they are taking something from people. You took my land, which I thought was 5 parcels and made it 2. Furthermore, if I had passed down parcels to kids and grand kids, now I also have to prepare a subdivision before they can get a bank loan, file for a building permit, or what ever.
Thats the funny thing too. If you dont need a bank loan, or dont want to get a building permit, there is no way for the county to really do anything. So guess what people are doing out in the hills? What they need to. Dont want to make it easy for me to jump through the hoops? Fine, I wont jump through any.
Longwind,
man, you are so on it!!!! Too bad people won’t read up on facts, but will argue endlessly.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
G’day blogworld,
And thank you Jeff, you’ve got my vote. You rock, Bolithio, keep explaining what life is like. The previous edition of the HumCPR newsletter gave a great example of involuntary merging preventing a landowner from *conserving* his own land.
Bill and the various anonyms and interlocutors, thank you for an interesting and stimulating thread. It’s been nice to tag-team different themes so each back-and-forth doesn’t have to debate each and everything. To celebrate the new noon, another dredge into debatable points:
PERSON 2: Yeah, but what about code enforcement issues?
PERSON 1: Code Enforcement is an entirely different issue from the General Plan
PERSON 2: How do you know all this?
PERSON 1: From the Healthy Humboldt Coalition.
In fact, the Code Enforcement Unit enforces the codes and standards created and changed by the General Plan. The GP is the constitution ultimately defining code cop activities. The people pushing for armed and unsupervised code enforcement haven’t been shy in rooting for armed back-up for routine Map Act and Subdivision Map Act violations.
They have worked for two years to stymie meaningful reform of the Code Enforcement Unit. They argue that swapping the code cop’s personal sidearm for a personal escort of armed deputies constitutes progress.
Humboldt is the only rural county in California that insists on making compliance visits into armed sorties. How many ‘non-compliant parcels’ would be created by proposed reforms? Thousands. How many armed code cops would it take to make them compliant? Now that’s debatable.
G’day blogworld,
Thanks everyone for an interesting and stimulating thread. It’s been nice to tag-team different themes so each back-and-forth doesn’t have to debate each and everything. To celebrate the new day, a new dredge into debatable points:
PERSON 2: Yeah, but what about code enforcement issues?
PERSON 1: Code Enforcement is an entirely different issue from the General Plan
PERSON 2: How do you know all this?
PERSON 1: From the Healthy Humboldt Coalition.
In fact, the Code Enforcement Unit enforces the codes and standards created and changed by the General Plan. The GP is the constitution ultimately defining code cop activities. The people pushing for armed, unsupervised code enforcement haven’t been shy in rooting for armed back-up for routine Map Act and Subdivision Map Act violations.
They have worked for two years to stymie meaningful reform of the Code Enforcement Unit. They argue that swapping the code cop’s personal sidearm for a personal escort of armed deputies constitutes progress.
Humboldt is the only rural county in California that insists on making compliance visits into armed sorties. How many ‘non-compliant parcels’ would be created by proposed reforms? Thousands. How many armed code cops would it take to make them compliant? Now that’s debatable.
oops, sorry, I repeat myself enough already
Allot is not
what you think it be.
A lot is more
than you think it’s for
Yeah, I’m sure mergers will be decided based on outdated title maps. So much for the claim that Healthy Humboldt is using straw man tactics in their ad regarding what people are hearing about mergers.
I think you didn’t understand the problem. The county may not recognize business transactions. It may say that a clarification of policy is imminent for years, or just sit on routine paperwork. This isn’t legal, exactly–but as Eric so rightly observed, it’s a mess all around. The county’s recent increase in gumption is not clarifying anything, but rather vastly increasing the backlog of ‘shaded parcels’ of *uncertain* legality that no one is paid to unshade. Shaded parcels receive no cooperation or service from the Planning Department.
The only way to find out if your parcel is shaded is to ask the Planning Department. They’ll go see if anything looks shady to them. If it does–let’s say you bought it from Bob McKee 35 years ago–forget about the work you were actually at the department to accomplish, your shaded parcel goes into the bottomless shaded slush pile.
But you can still buy the parcel, sell it, insure its title, get insurance–you can get anything but a routine building permit! But you’ll be current, Jane.
Longwind..so true. Many on this blog will never completely understand this issue because they are not dealing with the County for permits, and/or they are not rural landowners.
Eric wrote, quoting a statute:
“A residence or other structure necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production.”
IANAL. To me, the normal English interpretation of that phrase is that whatever precedes or follows it pertains to either a residence ora necessary structure that is not a residence.
Is that not way the lawyer’s interpret it?
Longwind’s post is filled with maybes and ifs and then he acts as if the possibilities he raises are the reality. Scare tactics? Nah!
Eric’s posts are heavy with curt certainties. Alas, life isn’t, and God knows the county isn’t either.
Jane, I’m not a tactic, I’m one person among many who’ve had experiences you can learn from, or insult. Your choice. Your team will have a hard time winning elections if they’re all too smart to learn anything.
Mitch, eric doesn’t mention the paragraph above the part he pasted, which states:
(h) “Compatible use” is any use which does not significantly detract from the use of the property for, or inhibit, growing and harvesting timber, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the following, unless in a specific instance such a use would be contrary to the preceding definition of compatible use:”
You see that first part: ANY USE which does not SIGNIFICANTLY DETRACT…
erik is quoting from the list of examples that “shall include, but not be limited to”
that’s where the argument is.
Compatible use for the tent, hoop house, gun shed, kitchen, outhouse, curing shack…
All part of the “forest products” business. A house or two may be necessary to extend the forest management compound, big deal.
Thanks to Healthy Humboldt for clearing the air.
Sophistication,
not what it appears when looking into that hazy and misty bathroom vanity mirror every morning for those wannabe “elitists” or those folks “enamored with class status levels” who care so much about how they are viewed in the eyes of others. Same goes for socio-political organizational fronts & schemes – deflection, deception, re-direction, etc….
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Mitch, eric doesn’t mention the paragraph above the part he pasted, which states:
(h) “Compatible use” is any use which does not significantly detract from the use of the property for, or inhibit, growing and harvesting timber, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the following, unless in a specific instance such a use would be contrary to the preceding definition of compatible use:”
You see that first part: ANY USE which does not SIGNIFICANTLY DETRACT…
erik is quoting from the list of examples that “shall include, but not be limited to”
that’s where the argument is.
True enough, however that still does not define “necessary” as applied to the housing. There’s a basic principle of law in which there is a presumption that every word in a law has meaning and effect.
Hence, in the Constitution, the sentence:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
cannot be identical in meaning to merely:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
The qualifying phrase must be deemed to have some practical impact.
And likewise,
“A residence or other structure necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production.”
cannot be deemed identical to merely,
“A residence or other structure.”
So then what does the qualifying phrase mean, and how does it impact property usage? I don’t really know, any more than I know what a “well-regulated militia” is and how that is supposed to qualify the right to own and bear arms. I’ve searched long and hard for something definitive in both cases. There are plenty of analysis for various interpretations, usually agenda driven. Maybe someone should purchase the legislative history and see if there are any clues to be found there.
How’s that for “curt certainties?”
Yeah, I’m sure mergers will be decided based on outdated title maps. So much for the claim that Healthy Humboldt is using straw man tactics in their ad regarding what people are hearing about mergers.
Well, that straw man was very apparent at the Planning Commission meeting at CR last June.
Necessary usually means that without the object or action you can do or have the object or action.
Can you manage the property for timber without a residence? Yes. Then the residence is not necessary, thus not allowed.
Seems simple to me.
thanks Eric, that’s a lot more like it. Would Jane say you’re starting to sound like me?
Hmm, let’s see, which idiot straw man from the Wealthy Humboldt factory shall I pitchfork in response?
–I’m worse for the land than industrial logging?
–I’m fat and diabetic?
–I’m not paying any taxes?
–I’m demanding parasitic services from sore-beset urban taxpayers?
Please, let’s not bother with straw men. They make us all stupid.
“Well, that straw man was very apparent at the Planning Commission meeting at CR last June.”
Could you clarify who was using that straw man, Eric?
Can you manage the property for timber without a residence? Yes. Then the residence is not necessary, thus not allowed.
Well, that doesn’t jibe with the principle I outlined, because if no residences are “necessary” as contemplated by the law, then why bother to include it? Obviously, the legislatures deemed some residences “necessary.”
Could you clarify who was using that straw man, Eric?
According to my notes, two speakers from the audience complained that they didn’t want to be forced to merge their parcels with someone else’s. I’m not saying that one side or the other is deliberately causing confusion on the point. I’m only saying it’s there, or was a year ago.
Thanks Eric. So the fact that Healthy Humboldt addressed this issue in their ad is understandable since some people believe that they will be forced to merge their properties with their neighbors’ which is understandably alarming.
eric, i agree, all the words have meaning. you cannot take the part you quoted out of context since the definition says “any” use is compatible as long as it does not significantly detract, or inhibit the land’s ability to grow timber. the words “any”, and “significantly detract” have meaning, yes? why would the legislature say “any use” and “including but not limited to” then put restrictions on the list of uses that we are “not limited to” ?? seems to me it would say, “tpz is limited to the following uses:” for your argument to hold water.**
as long as the home is sited properly and current rules are followed a home on 40, 60, or more acres is insignificant as far as the trees are concerned. later on, if somebody was out there wrecking the forest, it seems that would be the time code enforcement should come in and say, “you are significantly detracting” and make them give up the tax break.
** i am not an attorney!
So lets say you got yoru new TPZ parcel. Know you want to build a house. Where? Well, you walk the roads. Hey, there is is this big flat right on the road! Infact, this is the only flat on the property. I will build it here.
Wait, that old flat was a log landing. So? Well, as you saw, there are no other flats on the the property, and the landing is the only place to load trucks for ‘logging’. If a house occupied this spot, well, now there is no place to land logs and logging the property may be no longer feasible.
—–
Fortunately, this would be a vary rare situation, and one that is more likely on a smaller parcel. Ill try to think of a better example of “detracting” from the timber harvest capability of a parcel.
——
On a side note, we have a JTMP process for substandard parcels. In this process, a licensed forester evaluates the parcels that will be less than 160 acres and determines if they, in their new smaller size, can continue to be managed for timber. Perhaps a quick one page form evaluation by a licensed forester could be used to verify of the construction of a residence will or will not detract from the timber resource. Would that help ease anxiety of this issue for county planners?
Again, the list must be interpreted to have legal and practical meaning, and the word “necessary” must have some purpose. I would say that what is implied is that homes not “necessary” are thus not automatically within set of the of “any use.” I would speculate, which is all that I can do without the legislative history, that homes which are not “necessary” are presumed to be incompatible, precisely because the majority of small holders do not ever harvest as they, quite understandably, prefer to live in wooded land. Whereas, a residence specifically for a caretaker of the lands for commercial purposes might be deemed compatible and “necessary.”
Residences can “significantly detract” from the TPZ purpose. That’s why we’re having this discussion.
I was hoping not to have to lawyer this any more, but Eric has pushed this to the limit. Eric, the problem with 51104(h)(6) is that the word “or” falls to the right of the words “A residence,” and there is no comma separating the two. This is determinative.
I checked out Witkin as an authoritative source. Witkin directed me to a 2000 2nd district appellate decision, Garcetti vs. Superior Court, wherein the punctuation of a statute was in issue. As to the rules of statutory construction (that is, how a court should read the laws) the court observed as follows:
“We now address that portion of the trial court’s interpretation which was based on the statute’s punctuation. The punctuation of a statute can be helpful in ascertaining its proper interpretation. “A longstanding rule of statutory construction-the ‘last antecedent rule’-provides that ‘qualifying words, phrases and clauses are to be applied to the words or phrases immediately preceding and are not to be construed as extending to or including others more remote.’ [Citations.]” ( White v. County of Sacramento (1982) 31 Cal.3d 676, 680, 183 Cal.Rptr. 520, 646 P.2d 191.) Evidence that “a qualifying phrase is supposed to apply to all antecedents instead of only to the immediately preceding one may be found in the fact that it is separated from the antecedents by a comma.” ( Ibid.)”
The antecedent (earlier appearing) words, “A residence” are not separated by a comma from the word “or.” Accordingly, the word “necessary” later in the sentence applies only to the “other structure” part of the law. In other words, the legislature intended that a residence is a per se compatible use, but so also would be an “other structure necessary to the management of land zoned as timberland production.”
This analysis disposes of the entire debate. It is silly to be talking about when a residence is necessary to the management of land zoned as timberland production. It never is necessary. It is often, but not always, desirable.
Timberland does not require an on-site caretaker. A caretaker or owner can live in town and drive out to the timberland, manage it all day long, and then drive home to the city to sleep. That an owner might desire to live on his timberland to save that trip is often desirable. It is never necessary. This logically supports the argument that while a residence does not have to qualify for the “necessary” exemption, other structures do.
The key to reading the law is to follow the rules of construction. The above citation solves the riddle here.
If the legislature had written it this way: “A residence, or other structure, necessary to the management of land zoned as timberland production,” it would be as the county staff promotes. The use of commas would have brought the qualifying term “necessary” into application to the word “residence.” But, that phrase isn’t the law as it is written. Nor would it comport with the general language of the compatible use clause above it in 51104.
In addition, the entire context of 51104(h)(6) makes it clear that only uses that significantly detract from the growing and harvesting of timber are disallowed. A house has a small footprint compared the acreage devoted to the growing and harvesting or timber, and a house does not significantly detract from timber production.
Eric, you said above,
“Residences can “significantly detract” from the TPZ purpose. That’s why we’re having this discussion.”
I challenge you to suggest a hypothetical where that would be true. I cannot imagine where it could ever be true. We are having this discussion because the rules of construction are being ignored. Eventually, the rules will be applied and this debate will be over.
If the county staff persists in promoting this defective analysis of 51104(h)(6), it will be overturned, and likely their entire approach to Forest Resource land uses will have to be re-visited. What a waste.
Well, there’s a lot there Bill, and I’ll respond in more detail later after I’ve taken a look at the White case, but while qualifying phrasing may not apply to “remote” wording under the case line, I don’t think that one remote paragraph can simply negate all meaning and effect of another one. If no residences are “necessary” under the law, then why was it inserted into the statute?
As for the hypothetical, we don’t need one. We have numerous properties being treated by owners, and arguably by the county historically, as rural residential, with a tax break. In other words, the land is developed for residence and sold that way because its value as residence exceeds its value as timber, and people who live there are likely to forgo timber harvest indefinitely.
And policy-wise, maybe that’s not a concern applying to the small holdings. But certainly it would be a concern for “kingdoms” marketed to people who really don’t even have to factor the value of the timber into their economic concerns.
My response is already longer than I’d intended, and I have a client at 3:00 I have to prepare for, but I’ll post a few more thoughts later tonight.
“Residences can ‘significantly detract’ from the TPZ purpose.”
Well, now you’re going to have to define “significantly.” I have a hard time seeing how a residence would significantly detract from the TPZ purpose.
Many of the houses I’ve seen on TPZ land in Sohum are located in existing open areas previously used as cattle pasture. In other words not a single tree was cut down to make room for the residence. So I guess you could say that it detracts from the pasture land available, but certainly not from the timber.
How ironic that the current complaint of Healthy Humboldt and its enviro allies is that those darned homesteaders don’t log their land as frequently and intensely as the big timber operators. How DARE they let their timber grow and mature, providing excellent habitat in the meantime! Apparently now that they are hell-bent on restricting rural living, all that really matters is that the timber is harvested frequently and as soon as possible.
So, would Healthy Humboldt & Co. be happier if homesteaders with “substandard”-sized TPZs were bought out by Green Diamond, Pacific Lumber (now called Humboldt Redwood Company) and Sierra-Pacific? Because then there would certainly be A WHOLE LOT MORE timber harvested (at least in the short-term).
Perhaps Healthy Humboldt could form a partnership with Charles Hurwitz? He sure knew how to increase the harvest and get lots of “production” going.
RA – see, normally I find your posts refreshing and “reasonable.” But that post seems like a deliberate play on emotion. Nobody “blames” homeowners for not logging. It’s perfectly reasonable to want to maintain the beauty of the forests around your home. That’s precisely why de facto conversion of TPZ to residential land significantly detracts from the TPZ purpose.
Bill – earlier I missed the comma argument. I’m sort of confused now that I’m reading it, and maybe the second glass of wine isn’t helping. But aren’t commas generally used for separating words and comments? Unless I’m missing something, I think the comma would have strengthened your argument. Instead the lack of one weakens it. I guess I’ll have to rethink that one in the morning.
And yes, the house itself has a small footprint. That’s not the point. It’s the residential use of the property that accompanies the house which essentially nullifies the property as TPZ land in many cases. It’s different in that way from ag, where farmers live where they work.
Eric,
just ask Dennis Mayo for a grammar lesson–he is apparently the local expert on the determinative, or whatever Bill Barnum and Kay Backer told him to say at the Planning Commission.
Oh, yeah, I forgot…Dennis can’t answer questions about what he says, he just reads from his cheat sheet and then gets confused if you ask him questions. So never mind.
RA, you should read the GPU docs instead of listening to profit-motivated people’s interpretation of it. You are getting confused.
Eric Kirk says:
June 15, 2010 at 9:33 pm
“Nobody “blames” homeowners for not logging. It’s perfectly reasonable to want to maintain the beauty of the forests around your home. That’s precisely why de facto conversion of TPZ to residential land significantly detracts from the TPZ purpose.”
The point is, Eric, that when fighting the big timber companies, the enviro groups (rightly) opposed the idea that producing as much lumber in the short term was the only important role of a forest, but when these enviro groups switched gears to promoting severe restrictions on rural building they suddenly feign concern about short-term production. I find that pretty revealing in terms of the shallow sort of groupthink that all too often passes for institutional “environmentalism” these days.
You see, logging less often, and more selectively (as small TPZ owners tend to do) is not just about “beauty,” it’s also about restoration, habitat conservation and long-term productivity in the context of lands that have been severely overlogged in the fairly recent past.
One might expect that groups like Healthy Humboldt would be all for those values being recognized, but since that doesn’t suit their desire to demonize rural residency, they ignore those positive aspects and focus on the “need” to harvest as much as possible in the short-term. And they call that short-term increase in harvest “productivity” even though it may actually be less productive in the long term, and is certainly less “productive” in terms of producing quality habitat, rebuilding forests soils, and so on, in the meantime.
“And yes, the house itself has a small footprint. That’s not the point. It’s the residential use of the property that accompanies the house which essentially nullifies the property as TPZ land in many cases.”
Let’s say we’re talking about a 160 acre parcel with a 3 acre homesite. That doesn’t prevent logging on the other 157 acres. It doesn’t. In fact it can facilitate BETTER logging practices, since the small landowner actually cares about their land, not just quarterly corporate earnings.
For some reason you seem to believe that these small landowners are only concerned with the aesthetic “beauty” surrounding their home and that’s why there isn’t a lot of logging on small TPZs. But the fact is that many, many of our homesteads were purchased after having been severely overlogged previously. In some cases, conifers were not replanted and hardwoods took over. So the new landowners need to do a lot of restoration, and the trees need to do a lot of growing before there is anything really worth harvesting. Meanwhile, as the trees grow, and some selective thinning is done, there is actually a lot of “production” going on, in the form of growing trees. Again, not much current “harvest,” but plenty of “production.”
And the TPZ status allows these landowners to defer harvest for decades, but remember, that was part of the purpose for TPZ, to allow landowners to let the trees grow and then pay the taxes later, when they are really worth harvesting.
Meanwhile, if the TPZ owner puts a house on it, the house and 3 acre homesite and any other buildings are all taxed at the regular rate, while the growing timber continues to be have TPZ status. As far as I can see, the system works very well, so if it ain’t broke, don’t “fix” it.
One risk of the “fix” that is proposed is that if one can only build a house on their TPZ parcel with an expensive and uncertain “discretionary” permit process, or else remove it from TPZ zoning, then many people may seek to do the latter, which will actually incentivize MORE conversion to homesites in order to pay the much higher tax burden. It’s a case of “careful what you wish for…”
Another possible unintended consequence (at least I HOPE its unintended!) is that if building even a single home on a TPZ parcel is made virtually impossible, many small owners may have to just sell their parcel (at a loss compared to current prices) to a large, out-of-area corporate timber company. Then I suppose Healthy Humboldt would just pull another about-face and fight Big Timber’s attempts to pull as much harvest as possible out of the land in the short-term. One would think they’d get a bit dizzy and confused changing their groupthink so thoroughly, but as outlined above, the groupthinkers certainly have shown their ability to take positions that are obviously completely contradictory to their earlier stands.
“It’s different in that way from ag, where farmers live where they work.”
Well, actually farmers and ranchers don’t necessarily have to live on their farm or ranch either. Many large farming operations and ranches are worked primarily by people who don’t live on the farm or ranch. So perhaps we should also require a new, strict discretionary permit process for building a single house on an Ag parcel? Wait a minute, isn’t that something the Plan A folks wanted, too?
Unless my memory is playing tricks, I seem to remember a lot of hoopla about how allowing a home to be built on an Ag parcel takes land “out of Ag production,” exactly the argument you are making re: TPZ. So are you saying that building a dwelling on a TPZ parcel should be severely restricted, but building a dwelling on an Ag parcel should not be so restricted? If so, then at least we agree on the latter.
One thing that I have yet to get a good answer on is exactly how many millions of dollars of tax revenues the county will lose if it DEVALUES so much of its land by making TPZ (and Ag land) extremely difficult to build even a single home on. It seems to me that if we pass a GPU that severely restricts residency on TPZ parcels, the market value of that land will plummet — and some say that’s just what they want to happen.
But has anyone actually looked at what the fiscal impact of such a move would be for the county? Clearly people could seek a lower assessment for their land if it is now to be encumbered by severe restrictions on the ability to build a home on it. Seems like fiscal suicide on the part of the county if they go through with it.
RA, you have no clue what the enviro groups are talking about. they don’t want more logging. that is just absurd. Healthy Humboldt has advocated for adding the phrase”ecosystem values” along with timber production as the primary use of TPZ land. That’s because the state law that established the TPZ tax program says:
“The forest resources and timberlands of this state, together with the forest products industry, contribute substantially to the health and stability of the state’s economy and environment by
providing high quality timber, employment opportunities, regional economic vitality, resource protection, and aesthetic enjoyment.”
Read the rest at
http://www.fire.ca.gov/resource_mgt/downloads/TimberlandAct.pdf
No one is advocating for severely restricting houses on TPZ, except for on the large tracts of industrial TPZ. The GPU calls for environmental analysis and planning (GASP!), not “severely restricting.”
RA, you need a new pseudonym–you’ve gone off into the extremities!
“logging less often, and more selectively (as small TPZ owners tend to do)”
big assumption RA
Yes, Eric at 9:33, too much wine.
Please read my post re: last antecedent rule. The absence of the comma after “residence” means that there is no argument. The term “necessary” modifies “other structure,” not “residence.” Read it again.
Witkin cite: 7 Witkin, Summary 10th (2005) Const Law, § 121, p. 226. Chapter X. Constitutional Law
g. [§ 121] Plain Meaning and Other Particular Rules. (Approx. 1 page)
* * *
(4) Last antecedent rule. Qualifying words or phrases should be applied to those immediately preceding them unless separated by a comma. (See Garcetti v. Superior Court (2000) 85 C.A.4th 1113, 1120, 102 C.R.2d 703.)”
So, Eric, the absence of the comma is fatal to application of the term “necessary” to the antecedent term, “residence.”
Do you really not see this?
“My Two Cents,”
Before you embarass yourself further, go ahead and find out what it takes to apply for and get a “discretionary” permit from the County, how long it can take, and what all that environmental “analysis and planning” costs. Add to that the rather self-evident fact that “discretionary” means that even if you follow all the rules, do all the studies, get all lawyered up and so on, you may STILL be turned down, at the “discretion” of our beloved and omniscient Central Planners.
The Plan A-type restrictions that have been proposed are a recipe for lots of TPZ land being sold off to out-of-state corporate Big Timber, or else the super-wealthy, who can afford to pay for all the lawyers fees, permit fees, engineering and so on, while also running the risk that their permit application will be turned down in the end. If that’s what you want — Big Corporate Timber, and trophy ranches for the super-rich — then I guess Plan A ought to be your choice.
As for me, I’ll gladly take locally-owned, selectively and conservatively harvested, owner-occupied Small Timber over absentee-landlorded corporate clear-cutting Big Timber any day.
“Big assumption, RA”
Actually not an assumption at all. I don’t have the link at my fingertips, but I recall reading a study that concluded that indeed small timber owners harvested less frequently and more selectively than Big Timber. Do some research yourself and see if you find any evidence to the contrary. You won’t.
Of course not every single small landowner fits that description, but ON AVERAGE, the smaller landowners harvested less frequently and more selectively. And in fact that is exactly what the Healthy Humboldt folks are (ironically) complaining about: Not cutting down enough trees fast enough.
“Not a Eurekan,”
Enviro groups don’t favor more logging — except when they DO.
That’s the whole issue I’m raising here. When they’re talking about Big Timber, they are all in favor of reducing the harvest, harvesting more selectively, doing more restoration, recognizing ecosystem values, etc.
But when it turns out that small TPZ owners in rural Humboldt are doing all those things, a little fact that is extremely incovenient to the enviros current fetish of opposing dwellings on TPZ land, then the complaint is that the small TPZ owners are not producing ENOUGH timber fast enough.
Just look at Eric’s comments on this thread. That is exactly what his arguments amount to: residency on TPZ reduces the harvest, and that’s a bad thing.
Well, you can take that position if you want, but if you also try to call yourself an environmentalist at the same time, well, get ready to be laughed at by anyone with critical thinking skills.
If they’re going to take the timber out of production they don’t need the tax break.
And, of course, let’s not talk about the many new roads, impacts on water and wildlife caused by those new homes.
There just aren’t enough domestic cats in the woods, I always say.
I’m still missing it Bill, but I’ll look at the comma case law when I get back to Lexus in the office tomorrow morning. Who knew that case law would actually reverse the grammatical function of a comma to link rather than separate words?
I mean I could buy a blue truck, and trailer. Or I can buy a blue truck and trailer. In the latter case, both are blue. In the former, only the truck is necessarily blue. But Garcetti apparently says the trailer is necessarily blue in the latter, but not in the former.
Clarence Darrow once said that inside every lawyer is the wreck of a poet. Maybe if we didn’t change the rules of grammar…
Just look at Eric’s comments on this thread. That is exactly what his arguments amount to: residency on TPZ reduces the harvest, and that’s a bad thing.
Actually, I didn’t say it was a bad thing. I said if frustrates the policy behind TPZ. Maybe that’s actually a good thing. But let’s at least have an honest discussion about it.
And RA, environmental groups don’t oppose logging. They oppose non-sustainable logging. That environmentalists oppose all logging is a straw man that I thought went out a decade ago.
…and there just aren’t enough hoses sucking water from the creeks. I guess fish don’t count.
Heraldo,
You’re confusing “production” with “harvest.” Not harvesting for a number of decades while forests grow back is still “producing” timber that can be harvested later. Remember, it’s TPZ Timber “Production” Zoning, not TQZ, Timber “Quick-harvest” Zoning.
As far as the 3 acre homesite that is actually “taken out of production” (assuming it wasn’t already an existing clearing/pasture, as is often the case) as you well know, that is taxed at the full rate, so there is no “tax break” for the land that has been “taken out of production.”
As far as “many new roads,” you clearly just don’t know what you’re talking about. What most TPZ residents use are EXISTING logging roads or ranch roads, which are then IMPROVED with better grading and gravel, leading to LESS erosion.
Then there are the thousands of miles of old, poorly-engineered “legacy” logging roads that our rural TPZ homesteaders have permanently decommissioned. So the NET number of miles of roads in small-ownership TPZs may actually be reduced, while the QUALITY of the remaining roads is improved. All without any big foundation grants or government programs. Pretty nifty, eh?
Meanwhile, you refer to the impacts of rural residents on water and wildlife, while apparently ignoring the very real and very destructive impacts on water and wildlife created by the alternative you are, by default, favoring — Big Industrial Timber.
But I agree on the domestic cat thing (I’m sure they’ll be banned at Foster-Gill, right?). But by itself that’s an argument for educating rural residents about the harm to wildlife caused by domestic cats and their feral offspring, not really an argument against people living in the hills.
I think you’re a bit out of your element on this one, Heraldo. You simply don’t seem to have much on-the-ground knowledge of rural living, and therefore you are relying too much on the Healthy Humboldt oversimplifications and propaganda. That’s just as bad as overrelying on CPR’s oversimplifications and propaganda.
Get out and meet some of our homesteaders and then reevaluate your opinions. You might start by talking to Earth Firster Darryl Cherney, who lives on TPZ land near Redway. Perhaps he might be able to do a better job than I can of convincing you that Healthy Humboldt is barking up the wrong tree.
Or perhaps you just don’t have an open mind on this issue and would prefer to remain willfully ignorant, parroting oversimplified Healthy Humboldt talking points instead of examining the complex realities.
It’s amazing, Reasonable, how you seem to magically know what “most” rural dwellers are doing with their roads, and that I have no knowledge of rural living.
I agree with Eric that you don’t live up to your blogonym on this issue.
Speaking of straw men, Eric, I NEVER said that environmentalists opposed all logging.
What I said was that when dealing with Big Timber they are on the right track by calling for reduced, more selective harvests, but when it turns out that this is exactly what owner-occupied Small Timber already does, well now that’s being portrayed as a bad thing, because it reduces Timber “production” (actually it doesn’t reduce production or productivity, it just reduces the harvest in the short-term).
Heraldo @ 12:09,
Well, I don’t “magically” know anything, what I do know comes from direct observation of many, many rural residences/homesteads on both TPZ and Ag lands in Humboldt, over the course of many years. Not all landowners meet my criteria for optimal management and stewardship, but very few (if any) are actually worse than Industrial Timber.
And, no, I don’t know for sure what your level of experience is with rural lands, but based on your cartoonish portrayl of the issues, I conclude that you are not functioning with very much on-the-ground knowledge of rural affairs. The fact that you choose to respond mostly with trite one-liners rather than addressing the actual points I have made kinda reinforces the impression that your knowledge base is stretched pretty thin in this area.
Again, I suggest you talk to some of our rural residents who are longtime environmentalists, like Darryl Cherney for example. Or maybe you wouldn’t want to associate with him now that he’s one of those evil “developers” since he has several dwellings on his parcel?
By the way, in my mind, “reasonable” means that you can “reason” with me and we can have a meaningful exchange of ideas. It doesn’t mean that I have to agree with you. Because I’m not a member of either of the self-selected political “teams” in this county, I often hear from one side or the other that I’m being “unreasonable,” for example when I have harshly criticized Sundberg for his DUI and his handling of it, or criticize Arkley for his political manipulation and spin-doctoring. “Reasonable” seems to be in the eye of the beholder, so I’ll just go on being me…
;)
“And there just aren’t enough hoses sucking water from the creeks.”
This is a legitimate problem, but a completely solvable one. As anyone who lives around here knows, there is PLENTY of water on an annual basis, the problem is basically during 3-4 dry months. The solution is water storage. It’s not exactly rocket science, there are lots of old redwood water tanks still out in the hills to remind us of what we SHOULD be doing more of.
Until recently, one of the major barriers has been the County Planning Dept., which insisted that before you could install any water storage tank you would have to bring everything else on the property up to code. Talk about counterproductive! And even now, the permit process seems a lot more expensive and arduous than it should be for something that would actually help SOLVE a problem that virtually everyone agrees exists.
Of course some folks would rather just USE the dry-season water shortage issue as an argument against rural living, rather than advocating for removal of bureaucratic barriers and institution of incentives to encourage more water storage. Because if we are actually moving forward in conservation and winter water storage then that’s one more (lame) argument that would no longer be available to explain why living in rural areas is so terrible.
And by the way, if you want to conserve water in rural areas, you might want to encourage the County to get over its obsession with having every person drop their every turd into a shiny white porcelain bowl of sparkling clean potable water, and then pipe it into a septic tank. Talk about wasteful!
Oh, now public health is an ‘obsession’.
Public health is a worthy goal, but equating public health to flush toilets is a belief rooted in pure ignorance.
Even Humboldt Public Health officials have admitted that despite thousands of “unpermitted” privies and composting toilets in rural Humbolt, there has not been even ONE documented case of disease or environmental damage resulting from this proven technology. Educate yourself on how a properly sited privy or properly constructed composting toilet works, how much water is saved, and how the fertilizer value of the waste can be reclaimed rather than “flushed away.”
Theoretically, you CAN get a permit for a composting toilet in Humbolt, although not ONE person ever has, because the County stupidly requires you to already have a “conventional” water-wasting septic system before you can even apply for your composting toilet permit. Then there are numerous inspections, and — I swear I’m not making this up — an annual “Bowel Movement Tax!” Again, the Central Scrutinizers love to complain about rural water use, but their policies and prejudices are in fact a big part of the problem.
What the county needs to do is look at a number of proven composting toilet systems, and approve several boilerplate designs that can be permitted without all the individualized inspections. And without the expense of all those inspections, perhaps they could do away with the “Bowel Movement Tax” as well.
Another point about rural water use is that just clustering people closer to certain towns does not reduce water use, in many cases it only increases it. For example, Redway and Garberville draw most of their water directly from the Eel River, and compared to town-dwellers, the rural residents I know use water FAR more carefully.
So if we want to conserve water more effectively, the town-dwellers could learn a lot from their friends in the hills. For starters, do you REALLY need to use that 30 gallons of water to wash your car every week, even in the dry part of summer? And is that golf-course really a good idea, the way it soaks up lakes of water?
I think it was Mark Twain that said: “nothing so needs changing as other people’s habits.” I think that explains a great deal of the current hostility towards our rural residents. They are a distinct minority, easily stereotyped, that mainstream urban and suburban residents can point to and say “there, those people out there are the problem, they’re the ones ruining the environment”… and then go drive their hybrid SUV to play a few rounds of golf on their water-sucking, pesticide laden golf-course, stop off at the supermarket on the way home for some food trucked from thousands of miles away, and then crank up the air conditioning in their oversized home, and top it all off by taking a nice crap in a porcelain bowl of clean tap water and then flushing it “away” to the energy-sucking, occasionally malfunctioning sewage treatment plan, and from there into the river or the ocean.
So my message to urban and suburban Plan A fans is: Concerned about the environment? Take a good, hard look in the mirror before you start pontificating about all the harm that “those people” out in the hills are doing.
RA, good show. Lots of facts.
What facts? Assumptions and hearsay more like it.
There are many studies that show disease is more easily spread by “privys” than flush toilets.
Pulling water from the rivers does far less damage to fish habitat then pulling it from the watersheds.
You are really of base if you think that taking all the people in Garberville and Redway and putting them on 40s in the hill will do less environmental damage.
I have lived in the hills and think it is a great lifestyle that should be allowed. But it is not without significant impacts that will be mitigated by the intentions of a few well meaning hippies turned real estate brokers.
Just living in the hills, does not make one a fisheries, wildlife, hydrology and public health expert.
One thing about this GPU process – more awarenes by the public to the dupings going on!
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Yo Bill, Google pops up ads related to what YOU are googling. Though I know you never want to pass up on opportunity to attack Healthy Humboldt, since they actually stick to the facts! Nice try.
Of course I never suggested that people should be moved out of Garberville and Redway and onto “40′s in the hills.” I was merely pointing out that folks in those towns also have impacts on the river.
The idea, which perhaps I didn’t make clear enough, is that communities like Redway and Garberville should also be looking at ways to store winter water and conserve water.
As far as the potential for spreading diseases, both composting privies and conventional septic systems, as well as conventional sewage treatment plants that discharge into rivers or the ocean all have the *potential* to spread diseases, if they are not properly built and properly maintained. And there is no question that among those options, composting toilets and privies use less water. In fact they essentially use none.
In reality, there have been NO cases cited where a privy or composting toilet in Humboldt has been shown to have spread any diseases to anyone, despite there being thousands of “unpermitted” composting toilets and privies in use around the county.
I think at a certain population density there would be a real problem with everyone having a composting toilet or privy, but in rural areas there just isn’t a problem. Applying the same rules to two very different situations just doesn’t make any sense in the real world.
“Just living in the hills, does not make one a fisheries, wildlife, hydrology and public health expert.”
No, but in my opinion it does tend to give people a better on-the-ground understanding of some of those issues than most of their urban and suburban counterparts.
“No, but in my opinion it does tend to give people a better on-the-ground understanding of some of those issues than most of their urban and suburban counterparts.”
That is also an opinion. It also gives you a bias.
“The idea, which perhaps I didn’t make clear enough, is that communities like Redway and Garberville should also be looking at ways to store winter water and conserve water.”
You were not clear and I agree with you. However, more than a few days of storage for those populations is a massive expense with little actual impact on the river.
I have lived and know many people who live in the hills. I can’t think of any that have or are putting in 4 months worth of domestic and agricultural water storage. Look how hard that has been for even a few land owners in the Mattole.
In reality, there have been NO cases cited where a privy or composting toilet in Humboldt has been shown to have spread any diseases to anyone, despite there being thousands of “unpermitted” composting toilets and privies in use around the county.
Maybe you are forgetting the hepatitis outbreak at Heartwood?
So what you are saying is that of all the dysentery cases in Humboldt County none have come from a outhouse? Is that your “reality”?
I don’t agree with you that the populations of Redway and Garberville not having significant winter water storage and therefore using lots of water during the dry season has “little impact on the river.” It seems to me that since (in my experience) town dwellers are far more wasteful in their use of water, their impact, per capita, is bound to be quite significant.
Water in the tributaries is very important to fish, but water in the main river is also very important. When too much water is drawn off in either place, or both, the river ends up hot and shallow, lousy for fish, and this is true whether the water is sucked out in a hundred small diversions in our creeks, or sucked out in one giant intake pipe near Redway. Either way, it’s water that is not available downstream.
If population grows significantly around Redway and Garberville, without serious winter water storage and conservation, this will have effects that are just as bad as those same people living spread out in the same watershed. Maybe worse, given the tendency of people in towns to be less conservative in their water use.
Of course the elephant in the room is the amount of water drawn off the creeks for ganja-growing purposes, and in general the mini-boom in rural real estata supported in large part by the greymarket ganja economy.
This factor underlies pretty much all the rural impacts issues we are facing. But with full Legalization perhaps only months away, we may want to see how that impacts demand for rural land (and water) before we pass a whole new General Plan based on anticipated problems that may not arise due to the coming changes in the ganja economy.
I expect that buying and living on rural land, including TPZ parcels, will become much less desirable in the coming years, as the relative advantage these more rural parcels enjoy due to their remote location will evaporate with Legalization.
I do forget the details of that Heartwood case. Remind me, was it proven that this was due to a composting toilet?
By the way, Heartwood isn’t a great example, because there are many, many people coming through there, it’s not like your typical homestead site. I think a case could be made that stricter rules should apply to places where lots of people live in relatively close proximity and/or a facility open to the general public attracts many people to the site.
“All the dysentery cases in Humboldt.”
How many is that? And how do they break down according to rural vs. urban and composting privy vs. flush toilets? If you have some real facts that point to a larger percentage of dysentery cases for people who have privies than people who have flush toilets, then you might be onto something. Otherwise you’re just making an assumption.
It’s a good idea to wash your hands (or use a dilute solution of peroxide if water is scarce) after taking a crap. This simple procedure will eliminate most poop-caused cases of disease transmission, whether your flushing your poo or dumping some wood-stove ash on it in your composter.
the RA has really good typing skills. approx.136 words in 2 minutes. 1 error(estata)
Wow, didn’t realize I was being monitored so closely! I guess I should take that as a compliment?
Actually, my typing skills are pretty lousy. The apparent speed you saw was the result of typing up one large post, then deciding to “cut” it up according to subject matter, posting the first part, and then pasting the second part into a seperate comment and posting that.
Any comment on the substance of my comments, as opposed to my typing skills?
I’m surprise nobody walked through the door that I accidentally left wide open for a clever comment.
I mean if someone opined that the “substance” of my last few posts was “a bunch of crap,” it would be hard to argue with that!
;)
There are many interesting back and forths in this discussion.
But I am puzzled by the posts that say Healthy Humboldt is against rural living or trying to demonize rural living. I looked at their website and I don’t see this at all. Actually, they seem to support rural living, they apparently oppose the merger ordinance and support the right of small TPZ timber owners to live on the land they manage. They do suggest that large, industrial TPZ parcels should require a permit and findings before building residences on less than 160 acre parcels, in accordance with state of CA TPZ laws.
I’m puzzled as to why some people continue to mis-charactarize the positions of Healthy Humboldt. And why so much negativity and name calling? They are a group of people, like yourselves, who are interested in advocating for what they think should happen in the General Plan. Why don’t you just state what you want in the Plan and why it is better? I think the discussion would be richer and of more value.
My personal feeling is that no one has the corner on the “environmental correctness” or “small carbon footprint” in HumCo, everyone of us and all our local jurisdictions have impacts on the planet and we all need to improve. So the less we can point fingers at the other say “bad” and the more we can point at ourselves and ask “what can we do”, the better.
and you seem well versed in the #2 business. a good read!
3:25,
It might be more polite if I just stuck to the terminology “Option A fans” but the fact is that Lovelace and his brainchild, Healthy Humboldt, have taken the lead in pushing for Option A restrictions on rural living. Of course on their website, as you put it, they “seem” supportive of rural living. It’s just that the policies they advocate as far as taking away the right to build a home on your TPZ or Ag parcel is anything BUT supportive of rural living.
They are all in favor of changes that would lead to more acreage being sold into corporate industrial timber ownership or to the super-wealthy (the only folks who would be able to afford to try to make their way through the discretionary permit process with all the studies, engineering, permit fees, lawyers, delays, and an uncertain outcome).
Now either Lovelace and his Healthy Humboldt compatriots actually don’t realize what the consequences of their proposed policies are likely to be (which is possible, I suppose, but if so that doesn’t reflect well on their level of understanding about rural land ownership dynamics)
OR
They know full well that disincentivizing small owner-occupied rural parcels will lead to more industrial timber ownership, and the gentrification of rural residency, but they’re fine with that.
So either they are a bit clueless about the potential unintended consequences of their preferred policies, or else they have a hidden agenda they don’t exactly advertise on their website. Maybe a bit of both.
That’s an apt observation New Anon. Another reason to question the wisdom of those waiting for their “dream house” on cut over land. there are many hundreds of rural parcels available in Humco. Why should we not protect our wildlife habitat which are the resource lands from the fragmentation that inevitably occurs when houses with their fences and irrigation water consumption are allowed?
“Fragmentation” into owner-occupied small timber holdings and homesteads
OR
The concentration of ownership into large industrial timber holdings (usually under out-of-area corporate ownership and control)?
Well, I’ll take the “fragmentation,” thanks very much.
Sorry, I prefer wildness.
So corporate-owned industrial timber with clearcuts, herbicide spraying and frequent (over)harvesting, along with a few trophy homes for the rich folks who can afford all the Opyion A bureaucracy: that’s going to promote “wildness?” You must have loved Maxxam.
If a legal parcel no longer even has the potential to have a single residence built on it without all the onerous bureaucatic burdens of Option A being met (and still maybe not, depending on the “discretion” of the Central Planners) then it’s either going to be bought by super-rich folks who can afford to get lawyered up and take their chances with Planning, or it’s going to end up being sold to large timber operators, most likely one of the huge out-of-area corporate-owned outfits that don’t care about our “wildness” or anything else but the short-term bottom line.
Unless you’re proposing the county buy up all the TPZ that they’re proposing to devalue and then turn it into a “wilderness area,” your position makes no sense. If a “wilderness area” really is what you’re proposing, then so much for the “productivity” of the TPZ land in question.
I should have said “so-called fragmentation.” I don’t know ANY TPZ owners who have put up fences that would block any wildlife passage. Cattle fences, yes (and there are already plenty of those on large TPZ and Ag holdings), but nothing that would stop a deer, or a bear, or a coyote, or a mountain lion, or any wildlife I can think of.
If you want to see real “fragmentation” take a flight in a small plane and view the patchwork of clear-cuts that characterize our severely overlogged industrial timberlands held in absentee ownership by out-of-area corporations. Then head over some of the small-TPZ homestead areas of Sohum and see the large areas of unbroken forest that have resulted from years of restoration, thinning, and conservative harvesting — your so-called fragmentation.
Get some knowledge of conditions on the ground and compare the real-world results of the small-TPZ ownership that we already have with the large-scale industrial timber ownership that is the actual alternative and will be one of the unintended(?) consequences of applying Option A restrictions to small TPZ owners. A relatively small number of houses and cabins here and there are a whole lot less harmful than those big clearcuts every 50 years.
I said wildness, not wilderness. I’m the last one to say that industrial timber has a good record in Humco. That doesn’t mean that industrial forestry can’t be sustainable and a huge asset to the economy. Large timberholdings should remain undeveloped to ensure that habitat and resource economy remains intact. There are plenty of rural parcels available for housing. Of course the failure of regulation makes my argument less compelling, but the failure of regulation cuts toward the rural lifestyle as well. To think that rural developers will collect their rainwater and maintain their roads, allow wild critters free access, not spill or use toxics, and continually expand their footprint is as realistic as accepting the wisdom of the forest practice rules.
Well that’s a more substantive response. Thank you for taking the time.
If Humboldt’s population, including its rural population was growing at something more than its actual glacial pace (with very likely contraction of both population and new rural development after Legalization), I might be more inclined to agree with the need for more legal limits on rural development.
But given how little growth there actually is, and that much of that growth in our rural areas has been facilitated by a greymarket ganja economy that needed remote areas to grow, and which is bound to melt away with the advent of Legalization, I tend to view the whole issue of “rampant rural development” as a maassive exaggeration at best, deliberate fearmongering at worst.
Option A is a drastic Drastic Solution desperately in search of a Major Problem to justify it. From my point of view that search has been quite fruitless.
“To think that rural developers will collect their rainwater and maintain their roads, allow wild critters free access, not spill or use toxics, and continually expand their footprint is as realistic as accepting the wisdom of the forest practice rules.”
There’s some truth to that, but removing barriers (such as onerous permit requirements for water storage tanks or the requirement to build a water-wasting conventional septic system, or the absurd system for getting a composting toilet permit), and providing education and incentives, these should all be tried before we go ahead and throw the baby out with the bathwater by preventing people from living out on their land at all.
And maybe it’s just the sort of people I associate with, but I DO see a lot of our rural residents who “collect their rainwater and maintain their roads, allow wild critters free access, not spill or use toxics…” and DON’T “continually expand their footprint.”
So far you’re stance is in alignment with HUMCPR’s The convergence of some really ugly episodes with building enforcement and the fear of regulating growth in the resource lands. I am not a member of healthy humboldt or any other org. However, as a 4th generation Californian pushing 60, a homesteader,wildfire fighter, and yes, a building contractor, my experience tells me we need to draw the developer line somewhere if only to PROTECT the rural lifestyle.
Well you’re entitled to your opinion, of course, but I don’t see where the very modest amount of rural development we have, and the liklihood of significant contraction after legalization, add up to the need to “draw the line” in such a drastic way as is proposed by Option A fans.
“Protecting the rural lifestyle” from nonexistent “rampant growth” by preventing a few hundred more people from residing on their TPZ and Ag parcels over the next decade reminds me of the old “sometimes you have to destroy a village to save it” line from the Vietnam War.
What Option A would do would be to “Protect the rural lifestyle” for the privileged few who can afford to play footsie with County planning for years on end, while forcing those not super-rich enough to jump through all those hoops to just sell out to Big Timber.
I think Reasonable Anonymous is going for 100,000 comments as a personal goal.
RA, there are no “drastic” restrictions in Alt. A. Rather, it leaves the existing undeveloped rural residential parcels available but would increase development in existing communities by making more options for smaller parcels, smaller houses, and housing appropriate for seniors (meaning less yard to maintain, closer to services and public transit). Everyone thinks the American Dream is a half acre lot with a 4 bedroom house, but the reality is that few people can afford it. The realtors and developers are the main proponents of that type for development, and it eats up way too much ag and timber land.
People in unincorporated communities like McKinleyville want better development that would benefit the town, making it less of a bedroom community and more of a town in and of itself. It’s not about limiting rural development, it’s about more town-style development along the lines of Old Town Eureka and the Arcata Plaza areas. Apartments and offices above storefronts mixed with 1 and 2 bedroom houses–the type of development we don’t have enough of here. Young families, single people, and seniors should have more options for home ownership than the typical Humboldt County developer offers.
No, I’m gonna stop at 99,999 in honor of the Eureka zoning change ballot measure that would limit the Big Box by the Bay to less than 100 sq. feet. Of course, like the City Council, you’ll just have to trust me that I won’t increase the limit later!
Anon 10:59,
The existing Rural Residential parcels aren’t the issue. In fact my understanding is that GPU Option A would actually slightly increase the supply of Rural Residential parcels. If it wasn’t for the severe restrictions on living on TPZ and Ag lands that are also proposed (see below), the Option A provisions related to rural living probably wouldn’t be very controversial at all.
And I have no problem with people in the more urban and suburban areas going for some additional infill, more “walkable” neighborhoods, mixed-use development, etc., if that is what they want. Of course aside from McKinleyville, most of the denser-population areas of the county are in the various municipalities, which have their own General Plans and therefore are really not going to be directly affected either positively or negatively, by the County’s General Plan. But be that as it may, again, I really don’t mind the infill, the mixed use, and so on if that’s what people want in their communities.
The issue you seem to be lacking an awareness of, and which is the hot-button issue throughout the rural county, is the severe restrictions that would be placed on the ability to build a single residence on a legal TPZ or Ag parcel. The right to obtain a “ministerial” permit (meaning as long as you follow all the rules and pay the fees they MUST issue you the permit) to build your own home on your own TPZ or Ag parcel has been in place in Humboldt basically forever and plenty of people have made their real estate purchases and life plans based on the idea that this right would continue. Many of our beautiful homesteads and very productive small family farms, the kind you see at the Farmer’s Market, would not exist today if this right had been eliminated in the last General Plan.
Now the proposal is that some people would not be allowed to build even a single home for their own family on their own land, or would at least be required to obtain a costly, slow, and uncertain “discretionary” permit — meaning you could follow all the rules, do the expensive engineering and Environmental Impact statements, pay all the fees, and then STILL be turned down at the “discretion” of our esteemed Central Planners (who frankly are seen as having a very strong bias against rural living and are therefore expected to use any excuse or no excuse to turn down such permits at their “discretion.”)
Now do you have a better understanding of where the concern are coming from? I don’t blame you for not catching onto this aspect of the GPU controversy, certainly you won’t learn about this issue from Healthy Humboldt’s propaganda.
At 11:02, that should have been “100,000 sq feet”
One problem is how do we weigh very tangible costs that would affect specific rural landowners against the more generalized hypothetical benefits that proponents of certain restrictions believe would result if their proposals were adopted?
Another problem is how the County would actually enforce increased restrictions, when the County is already demonstrably incapable of enforcing the restrictions that are already on the books. Placing dissenters you disagree with on the wrong side of the law is the easy part. Actually obtaining the results you want to happen is a much harder and more uncertain prospect.
These are not easy issues to resolve. Aside from political polarization, partisan posturing and the kind of oversimplified sloganeering that passes for dialogue on these blogs, the reason that these issues have not already been resolved is…that they are difficult issues that are not simple or easy to resolve. (sigh)
RA,this may help you understand the Healthy Humboldt position on rural lands:
http://www.resourceslegacyfund.org/pages/p_wildcal.html
yes, these are the people behind the MLPA too.
Or maybe you could just ask Healthy Humboldt people themselves, or go to their website.
And you could choose to just blindly believe the propaganda HH has on its website. That’s not a choice I would recommend, however.
Or you could take the cartoonish position that a chat with Darryl Cherney, who is apparently the mayor of Enviroville, will put to rest all your environmental concerns.
here’s some quotes from the RLLF external assessment:
“• RLFF operated “under the radar” to let grantees take credit for action, and to facilitate
action out of the public eye.”
“• Visible shifts can be seen in rural communities in the North Coast, Sierra and Desert
where PWC grantees are working, such that elected officials are more supportive of
conservation objectives.”
yes, one of the grantees was elected supervisor.
“• From a review of grant documents, we found evidence of 36 different policy initiatives
affected by PWC-funded work. Eighty-one percent were successful, and others showed
progress.”
“• PWC-grantees were involved in county-level planning initiatives in Amador, Calaveras,
Humboldt, Orange, San Diego and targeted counties in the Sierra.”
“• Humboldt County General Plan Update. PWC made five grants to organizations and
consultants working to inject wildlands considerations into the Humboldt General Plan
Update. In 2003, PWC funded Michael Smith and Steven Steinberg at Humboldt State
University to analyze existing infill potential of vacant and underutilized lands in
Humboldt County, develop alternative growth scenarios and conduct a public education
campaign. The expectation was that the infill analysis would show that the county could
continue to grow, without consuming its open space. PWC also funded the Humboldt
Watershed Council and consultant Terry Watt to carry out analysis and outreach so as to
have more effect on the outcomes of the planning process. HWC helped to create a
Healthy Humboldt Coalition involving conservation, affordable housing and healthy
lifestyle groups.”
i just don’t see that on the HH website anywhere.
i missed the best one:
“While the General Plan Update is still not complete, the Board of Supervisors selected an
alternative that allowed new development at urban densities and only in areas served by
sewer and water, thereby protecting 10,000 acres of resource lands from development.
According to the HWC, “This has been an excellent achievement for the Healthy
Humboldt Coalition, as all of the worst-case development scenarios have effectively been
taken off the table. Though certain provisions of Plan B still require attention, we now
have the opportunity to continue working to achieve the best-possible general plan, rather
than just fighting to prevent the worst.”
And your point with all the copy / paste, 1:06?
“Or you could take the cartoonish position that a chat with Darryl Cherney, who is apparently the mayor of Enviroville, will put to rest all your environmental concerns.”
Of course I never suggested that a chat with Darryl was the only thing you should do or the only factor you should take into account. But don’t let that stop you from making such a “cartoonish” non-response responses. I’m sure it won’t.
The cartoonishness is all yours.
How persuasive.
Unfortunately, “infill” is not being discussed in its entirety.
Unfortunately, most people seem to not understand that infill is increasing population loads within a finite space or area.
Unfortunately, most people do not understand that population loads means increased nuisances – both public and private.
Unfortunately, infill puts people into a packaged coffin, sardine style marketing campaign for servicing purposes (making up uses to take/scheme peoples money).
Unfortunately too, infill is the same as development where people lose land rights.
Now, to be fair, MOST FOR PROFIT subdivision developers are ALSO allowing the stripping away of property rights prior to resale (Planning, Title Co., etc.).
So, any way you slice it, when it comes to people understanding property rights, so many really don’t. It clearly shows everyday. Then again, less rights, less need to know, uhh hmm. In fact, government loves land divisions because of the schemes to make service fee employments and strip certain rights away (not talking rights due to project impact mitigations either).
Any person who has ever paid and ended up being played, will understand the truth about land, rights and society. As is always the case, more people = more problems = less opportunities in life.
Smart Money is on less people.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Are we all done sticking out our tongues at each other?
Consider what Anonymous has produced here: the Deliverable for which Healthy Humboldt and the Humboldt Watershed Council were paid by this far-off foundation. The Fund couldn’t care less how we live, what our issues are, what is in fact good or bad for anything–they’re hundreds of miles away in another state, and they’re spraying money across the landscape regardless of what all the little people actually want or do in their little lives, just as with MLPA.
The people of Humboldt County wren’t even told who had already decided everything. All we knew was that it was already decided without our participation. What we know now is how puny its local constituency is.
I wish there were a grant funder for leaving things alone.
You are assuming that without the funding what would occur here would be better for the environment and the long term quality of life here, Longwind? The fact that foundations from all political and special interest spectrums fund local projects all over the country doesn’t necessarily make it bad and certainly not as bad as funding by industry to justify their exploitation of our resources and populace. Since in most communities it is the developer class with the funds to pay for studies and push their agenda, we should be thankful that there are opposing interests to level the playing field somewhat.
You know I really don’t have a problem with the foundation, or HWC or HH having a position and getting their message out there, even though I disagree with a good deal of what they propose.
I just think people ought to take a fair look at other points of view. And I think the final approval or disapproval should be made by the voters in a referendum, not by just 3 supervisors.
Because we ALL have to live with the results, not just those who voted for those supervisors in those three districts.
Jane, my gripe is that these bags of money were delivered dishonestly, and I quote, ‘“under the radar” to let grantees take credit for action, and to facilitate action out of the public eye.”’ Yet the foundation’s local sock puppets kept yelping that decisions were being made in the open. They manifestly were not. When we protested, the sock puppets said we were making things up. We manifestly were not.
This didn’t level my playing field. It created a crooked playing field for me, and many others, to set straight. I would have preferred to sit on my porch.
That’s one view, Longwind. Using the “under the radar” quote repeatedly out of context doesn’t make your case any stronger. If you really want to know who is funding what it isn’t that hard to find when it’s a registered nonprofit, especially compared to finding out which LLC is funding “citizen’s groups” working for agenda of industry. That funding sometimes occurs “under the radar” for some projects shouldn’t be surprising the way that opponents divert attention away from the issue by focusing on the funder as if that somehow makes it bad. You are doing the same thing from a different tack.
In fairness, I don’t think that CPR is especially fond of discussing where the majority of its funding comes from either.
I’m less concerned about each sides funding than I am about the substance of the various policy options, and equally important, the nature of the final decision-making process.
Jane, you do have a gift for missing the point. The point is, we have a successful, democratic General Plan Update constitution which has been dismantled, illegally and without acknowledgment, except for the complaints of people who took the trouble to write the language being stripped from our Plan right now. And we have a Fund that is paying for this anti-democratic service, under the radar.
What the Fund, and a few locals, have bought is a fraudulent public consultation supplying pre-determined decisions, just as they bought with MLPA. The decisions were made from afar by interests too bashful to let on that their local voiceboxes aren’t in fact speaking for local values, but for outside interests that pay them to denounce folks like me as pawns of special interests. Isn’t it odd that that’s what they are?
Pat Higgins has spoken very eloquently about what a bad thing it is to let outside interests cook our local decision-making. Now he can denounce Healthy Humboldt too. So can you!
tra, HumCPR is a local group run by volunteers. Healthy Humboldt turns out to be nothing of the kind.
HumCPR is funded by developers, for developers and the only thing they want from you is your name on their roster so they can claim they are a rural grass root effort. But keep fooling yourself and attacking the people HumCPR tells you to attack like a good little sheeple.
Longwind , damn you’re good.
tra,
we may all live with it, but we all live it in a different way.
PJ,
As far as foundations and how they accumulated monies – a certain percentage of that funding collected through donations makes up the grafted portions through frauds, b.s., deceit, manipulations, schemes, etc… that people who donated really HAD stole in order to build a larger personal wealth strategy prior to making their humanitarian sorta philanthropical donations to various funds and organizations.
Heraldites can name one such person, I am sure of it!
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
my point jane, is that they are running ads stating the new general plan isn’t so bad for rural people and at the same time they are telling the people that are paying their bills (and probably for the ads) that the new plan they have rammed through is the one:
“that allowed new development at urban densities and only in areas served by sewer and water, thereby protecting 10,000 acres of resource lands from development.”
think about that. new development only in areas served by sewer and water. are you getting the picture yet? of course that is not in the ad, because it is “under the radar”.
Seems like a legitimate point. It sounds like Healthy Humboldt is telling the public in Humboldt County one thing with their radio ads, while at the same time telling their out-of-area financial sponsor something very different. Are they underselling the effect on rural parcel owners in their radio ad or are they overselling it to their funder? Or a bit of both?
CPR is telling people the new GPU isn’t so bad too. How do you know what they are telling the people who are paying their bills? Where did you get that “new development only in areas served by sewer and water” quote?
No one has presented any evidence that CPR is saying contradictory things to its donors on one hand, and to the public on the other hand. Someone has presented evidence that Healthy Humboldt is doing just that. To respond that the other side “might” be doing the same thing is not much of a response Jane. But maybe that’s the best you can do…
“CPR is telling people the new GPU isn’t so bad too.”
Really? I must have missed that.
I haven’t seen any evidence, just claims.
And furthermore, I didn’t say HumCPR was saying anything contradictory. I was just pointing out that HumCPR, according to their web site, is saying things are looking pretty good for property rights in the new GPU.
From the official HumCPR website:
Planning Commissioners Support One House per TPZ Parcel
categories Press, Press Coverage
Second Units – Allowed on Parcels Greater Than 160 Acres, Conditional on Smaller Parcels
I don’t know where all these “quotes” are coming from that Healthy Humboldt has rammed through restrictions on development to lots with public sewer and water available, or the origin of the accusations that they are lying to anyone about any thing.
ALTERNATIVE A WOULD LIMIT THE TIMBER INDUSTRY’S ABILITY TO SELL LAND FOR DEVELOPMENT WHILE ALLOWING SMALL LANDOWNERS TO LIVE ON THEIR LAND HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE YOU ARE BELIEVING LIES TOLD TO YOU BY THE TIMBER INDUSTRY AND REALTOR/DEVELOPER LOBBYISTS
right, a grass roots group of volunteers paid for those HumCPR newsletters? And I have some land in Florida to sell you…
When was the election held that made Ulansey President and Fennell Executive Director and who pays the salaries?
“…WHILE ALLOWING SMALL LANDOWNERS TO LIVE ON THEIR LAND”
Putting it in all caps doesn’t make it true, and “Harry & Louise” style radio ads doesn’t make it true either.
And Jane, look at the Anonymous posts at 1:04 and 1:06. The commenter says they are quoting an RLLF external assessment. Maybe they’re making it up, but I doubt it. Now, care to address the issue, rather than dodge it?
Is Healthy Humboldt overselling their effect on limiting new rural homes in what they tell their funders, or are they downplaying it in their radio ads? Or some of both?
Should Maxam have been allowed to subdivide and sell off it’s holdings for housing? Should Green diamond,Barnum,SPI? Or is there a greater societal and economic good in preserving resource lands? Cut and run is not a straw man argument.
I think its reasonable to have a very different policy for large industrial timber holdings as opposed to individual small TPZ landowners. It’s not all or nothing, and the suggestion that it is, well that’s a false dilemma. Equally as invalid as a straw man argument, from the point of view of logic (if anyone cares about logic, that is).
If the final GPU prevents large industrial timber companies from developing their lands, but allows small TPZ owners to build one house on their parcel (and perhaps a secondary “mother-in-law” unit) you’ll hear no complaints for me about that arrangement. Hopefully that will be the outcome.
If the anonymous had posted a link to the long list of quotes to assess their accuracy and provided the source for this EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT, the quotes would have more credibility and would make it possible to refute. Since anonymous chose not to provide the source’s name or a link to the source, I would assume he is hiding either the context or doesn’t think the source would be credible.
“right, a grass roots group of volunteers paid for those HumCPR newsletters? And I have some land in Florida to sell you…”
Jeeze, don’t be an idiot. Do the math and add up the value of all the ad’s, there are more than enough to pay for the cost of a newsletter. You may or may not like what they are saying but how they are paying for it is obvious. Advertising and dues from 4,000 members makes funding projects pretty straightforward.
How much are the dues, who pays for advertising and when are their meetings held?
And who is paying Fennell’s salary?
RLLF and the organizations who receive grants from them are, unlike HumCPR, registered nonprofits whose donors and donations are a matter of public record. HumCPR could be funded almost entirely by one or a couple of benefactors or from a broad membership, but we aren’t allowed to even the list of donors or even a membership list.
Jane,
I guess I should have pointed out the link to the Resources Legacy Foundation that Anon provided at 7:41…
http://www.resourceslegacyfund.org/pages/p_wildcal.html
From that page, I found the link to a PDF of the 240 page independent assessment prepared FOR the Resources Legacy Fund, and which touts the reported accomplishments of their various grantees. Here’s the direct link, if that works. If the link below doesn’t work, go to the above link and click on the highlighted word “here” at the end of the first paragraph.
http://www.resourceslawgroup.com/images/(07-0213)%20PWC%20Assessment%20Yaffee%20et%20al.PDF
By the way, if the report is accurate in its claims of accomplishments, it looks like I would approve of many of the Resources Legacy Fund’s projects.
Like I said the report is 240 pages, so I haven’t yet found the section that Anon claims to be quoting from. If you’re still reading this thread, Anon, a page number sure would be helpful! (By the way, the page numbers of the PDF are different from the page numbers on the scanned document, so please indicate which one you’re referring to).
And Jane, if Anon was making up the quotes, or misattributing them, or taking them out of context, I hope you are familiar enough with my style to realize that I’ll be happy to join you in slamming Anon if they did any of those things. I guess when I get through the 240 pages, or when you do, or when Anon checks back in with a page number, we’ll find out.
Plain Jane at 10:00,
Let me repeat what I said at 3:55.
“In fairness, I don’t think that CPR is especially fond of discussing where the majority of its funding comes from either.”
“I’m less concerned about each sides funding than I am about the substance of the various policy options, and equally important, the nature of the final decision-making process.”
Healthy Humboldt’s soft-selling of potential GPU effects on rural landowners in its radio ads, as opposed to what they apparently tell their grant funders and hard-core enviro supporters, well, that does not fill me with confidence in terms of their ethics, integrity, and credibility. It seems to me they are trying to “have it both ways.”
I have no problem with groups or individuals having an agenda and advocating for it, even if I disagree with it. Claiming two very different agendas for two different audiences, in effect having a “hidden agenda” and trying to glide over it with misleading Harry & Louise style radio ads…well, that does concern me. I’ll continue to dig into this and see what I find.
I skimmed through it, read the relevant sections. It’s purpose was critique to improve, but there was very little criticism, in fact they said, “In PWC, however, there is much, much more to laud than to lament in both the way that the program was administered and its on-the-ground impacts. Part of the reason the program was successful lies in the strategic, pragmatic and adaptive way that RLFF
implemented grantmaking. Indeed, many viewed the program as a model that other philanthropic organizations should use. Even the most critical of interviewees felt that the program was a “huge gift” to conservation in California.”
The “operating below the radar” comments were about the PWC strategy of allowing the people who wrote the grants and did the work with funding and expert assistance from PWC got the credit for it. Nothing very nefarious in allowing the people with the ideas and the muscle take the credit without crowing about your own assistance. The negatives of operating “below the radar” were less effective coordination between PWC funded programs and consensus.
continuing to read….
continuing to read
Jane,
I found the “…only in areas served by sewer and water…” quote in the pdf document I linked to above. That specific quote is on page 183 of the scanned document, which at least on my screen is the pdf’s page 209. The Humboldt General Plan section referring to Healthy Humboldt starts just before this on page 182 of the scanned document (page 208 of the pdf). Check it out for yourself.
I think its fair to say that what HWC and their offspring Healthy Humboldt boasted to their grant funder is quite a different spin than HH is giving in their Harry & Louise radio ads. They got some splainin’ to do.
Again, I don’t think the Resources Legacy Fund is some evil entity, in fact it looks to me like they do a lot of good work. The issue that Anon raised is that HH appears to be a bit two-faced about what they are trying to accomplish.
Apparently HH’s leadership tells their grant funders and hard-core supporters (yes I know some personally and they are quite clear about their desire to stop even small TPZ and Ag parcel owners from being able to live on their land) that they are working to limit any homebuilding to existing developed areas only, but their radio ad tells a very different story. It just seems dishonest to me. If you disagree, feel free to say why.
Jane at 10:31,
It looks like you hadn’t reached the relevant section yet. At least not the one I’m referring to. See the pages I pointed to above.
I agree that the “under the radar” quote doesn’t really apply in the way Anon made it out to. Minus one point for that!
But the “only in areas with sewers and water” quote is the one relevant to the criticism I’m making about HH apparently saying one thing to its funders and hard-core supporters, and something very different in its radio ads aimed at rural landowners. In my view there’s quite a discrepancy there.
Perhaps you can explain it away, or perhaps you think it doesn’t really matter? But anyway, the quote IS there, and it doesn’t seem to match up with the rhetoric in the radio ads.
I don’t understand that section, RA. They say the BOS selected an alternative that only allowed, etc, but they don’t say that it was actually in the new GPU. That sounds like they were successful in getting it included as a possible alternative, not that it has been chosen. Does Plan A restrict development in that way? Obviously they aren’t saying a particular plan has been chosen since in the same paragraph they state, “certain provisions of Plan B still require attention” and NOTHING has been chosen yet.
Further, what is meant by “development?” If that refers to subdivisions and does not refer to building A house on a parcel, it seems quite reasonable. I don’t know what rhetoric in what ad you are referring to. The ad linked here doesn’t say anything about “developmdents” but says you can build a home. Where’s the beef?
With all due respect, I think you’re swimmin in the rivers of De Nile, Jane. The paragraph in the RLLF document is what Healthy Humboldt is boasting about having advocated for: severe restrictions on rural building. Their radio ads fail to mention that goal. They are dissembling, to say the least.
Your defense approaches a Clintonesque level of “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”
Perhaps its time to send the RLLF a copy of HH’s radio ad alongside a reminder of what HH boasted of in their report to the funder.
Then RLLF can at least take the discrepancy into account when they evaluate any future funding requests from HWC/HH.
Having some considerable experience in the world of philanthropy, I can assure you that overblowing accomplishments and/or misleading the public about an organization’s true goals is very much frowned on by charitable foundations.
I don’t think so, RA. I think development refers to developers creating subdivisions, not single homes on parcels. Especially since that IS what HH’s ad says, what is favored by most, including HumCPR, and what is most likely to be the alternative chosen. I think only people looking for a reason to criticize without regard to fairness would define development as a single home on a parcel in order to bash HH for being dishonest. You may fit into that latter category.
I’m beginning to wonder about how reasonable you really are, RA. Do you REALLY think it’s likely that RLLF doesn’t know what’s happening here with regard to the GPU and has to get their reports from an external assessment or wait for HH to report to them? Absurd!
Jane at 11:48, if Healthy Humboldt’s new position is that all non-industrial small TPZ and Ag parcel owners should continue to have a right to a ministerial permit to build a house on their parcel, I’d be fine with that. That would certainly be a new position for them, and if you’re unaware of that, then you obviously haven’t been following the GPU debate.
HH has been pushing Option A, which would do away with the ministerial permit process (follow all the rules and pay your fee and they have to give you the permit) for these landowners, replacing it with a “discretionary” permit process (that would be prohibitively expensive and you can meet all the requirements and still be turned down at the “discretion” of Girard & Co). As far as I know Option A is still what HH is advocating for.
It’s no secret that Healthy Humboldt favors Option A but that does not restrict all new houses to areas already served by water and sewer. How expensive the discretionary permit process is and how likely they are to be turned down isn’t so well known. Why don’t you enlighten us, in dollars and percentages?
Plain Jane at 11:53,
As you can see from the 240 page report, RLLF is a large umbrella funding groups with a lot of irons in a lot of fires. So yes, I very much doubt that they are following GPU developments in little old Humboldt all that closely, and yes, foundations largely DO rely on grantees reports to keep abreast of the grantees progress (which sadly does not create much accountability from that end).
Typically grantees provide a shining report on their progress, which suits the foundations fine — they have a consultant compile these shining reports into a large document like that pdf file, which they then use to encourage wealthy donors to contribute to the foundation and increase its endowment. These documents also provide the backing for the foundation’s continued tax-exempt status (having skimmed through the large number of legislative/lobbying victories claimed in that document, I’m surprised they haven’t had difficulties with their tax-exempt status…but that’s another story) Having read through hundreds of grantee reports and foundation’s project evaluation documents over the years, I don’t think I’ve ever seen one that says that the foundation and the grantees are anything other than a smashing success; at best there are a few caveats acknowledging that they could do better, usually its pointed out that additional funding is called for to secure these improvements.
Some foundations are more serious about their monitoring and evaluation of projects than other foundations, from the pdf file I’d rate RLLF as pretty average on that score. On particularly large grants, an attentive and responsible funder will sometimes do a site visit from time to time, but certainly not on a monthly basis or anything. And I’d be VERY surprised if anyone at RLLF has heard the HH radio ads or compared those to what HH has reported to them previously.
So I do think that it will be a valuable service to make RLLF aware of how HH presents its rural development agenda to the community and how this doesn’t quite jibe with how they present their rural development agenda to the funder. “…only in areas with sewer and water…” is a far cry from the soothing claims made in the radio ad.
Wait a minute, RA. This report wasn’t their quarterly report or anything. This was for their use and only to evaluate their effectiveness and make recommendations for improvement. Believing you understand what RLLF knows about HH and the work they’ve accomplished by reading an outside assessment and don’t have other reports on the projects they fund is probably unreasonable. I see you’re sticking to the absurd claim that HH’s support of option A is contradictory to their radio ad and that they lied about their accomplishments. I’m sticking to my logical belief that development refers to subdivisions, their claim as reported in the external assessment is honest and consistent with development meaning subdivisions and not individual homes on parcels as well as HH’s publicly stated preference and what they say in their ad.
I’m going to bed.
“It’s no secret that Healthy Humboldt favors Option A but that does not restrict all new houses to areas already served by water and sewer.”
Ah and therein lies the rub. The RLLF report says that’s exactly what HH accomplished.
“How expensive the discretionary permit process is and how likely they are to be turned down isn’t so well known. Why don’t you enlighten us, in dollars and percentages?”
I suggest you go right to the horse’s mouth and call or write to Planning and ask them for the figures.
Of course even if you get an accurate percentage of past & current rejections, that doesn’t necesarily mean that it won’t be worse, or better, in the future. There’s a lot of uncertainty in all of this, which is one of the reasons that it remains so controversial among many residents. And why the HH radio ads, with their soothing elisions, are so misleading.
If “rural development” now only means “rural subdivisions” that would be swell. But that’s not at all the line that HH has been taking for the past several years, and that is not at all what Plan A is limited to, nor is “subdivision” (breaking up existing parcels into new parcels) the only kind of rural development that Plan A would put the brakes on. You do seem to be either genuinely confused, or else deliberately trying to confuse the issues, HH-style.
If HH wants to retreat to the position that potentially building a house on each smallholder-owned TPZ and Ag parcel, well that’s great. But as far as I know they’re still pushing Option A, which certainly would severely restrict the right to build a house on an existing TPZ or Ag parcel.
I mean did you miss the entire discussion over the last couple of years (and even on this very thread) about how even allowing a single house on a TPZ parcel is supposedly “taking it out of timber production” or building a house on an Ag parcel is supposedly “taking it out of Ag production?”
Seriously, its like you suddenly got a severe case of amnesia and just woke up and looked at this debate for the first time today. Go ahead and go to bed, and when you get up in the morning, do a little research. You could start by reading this comment thread from the top. If you still remember any of this tomorrow, that is.
I see that you don’t understand how foundations and grantmaking works. That’s understandable if you don’t have any experience in that area. I realize it can be kind of hard to believe that foundations hand out grants amounting to tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars and then have little follow-up or monitoring aside from self-reporting from the grantees. But I assure you, that’s the norm.
Now if you’re talking about a grant in the millions of dollars to a particular organization (a big international development project, that sort of thing) then there’s usually a whole lot more accountability, external evaluators, a designated liason between the foundation and the grantee, etc. And government grants, particularly large ones, tend to have much more vigorous monitoring and evaluation requirements
But at the level HWC/HH was funded, the usual requirement is that at the end of the grant year, the grantee must provide a (fairly brief) narrative summary of progress and accomplishments, an end-of-the-year financial summary of the “project,” (in this case HH), and ususally the 501 (c)(3) fiscal sponsor’s annual financial report (in this case HWC). And that’s about it. Again, if you look at that whole 240 page document, HH’s work takes up all of two paragraphs. So yes, I think they’re small potatos, and no I doubt RLLF staff spend any considerable amount of time monitoring this project. In general, the statements of accomplishments compiled in evalutions documents like that pdf are drawn from the grantees own end-of-year narrative report. Now it could be that RLLF is unusually attentive to its small grantees and closely monitors progress in Humboldt’s GPU process, but that would certainly be quite exceptional. I’m telling you what the norm is…if you don’t believe me, ask someone you know who is familiar with grantmaking processes for large private foundations giving modest-sized grants to small, local organizations. I am confident they will back up my assertions. Its been a few years since I wrote my last grant proposal, and then my last end-of-year report, but I don’t believe things have changed that much.
Anyway, back to the point, I DO think that the Program Officer at RLLF who is responsible for the HWC/HH grant might be a bit surprised to find out that HH portrays their position on rural development quite differently in their radio ads, than the way it is portrayed in the RLLF evalution document. Or maybe they won’t care. We shall see.
In the interest of fairness, and to perhaps spare you the embarassment of further unnecessary flailing and spinning and lawyerly wriggling, I’ll go ahead and point out what I recognize as the weakest assumption in my own argument: Namely the assumption that the summary given in the RLLF evaluation document was accurately drawn from HH’s own report to RLLF.
It IS possible that RLLF or their consultants misconstrued HH’s claims about its accomplishments or took something from HH’s report out of context and placed it into the evaluation document shown in that pdf. I’ll be surprised if that’s the case, but I’ll certainly admit its a possibility. The only way to know for sure would be to examine HH’s actual end-of-year report to RLLF. Those documents are (at least theoretically) available for public inspection, so perhaps someone on one side or the other will dig it up and take a look.
I’ll check back in here tomorrow to see what else you or others may have to say on the subject.
Pleasant dreams, Jane.
sorry, if you just search “humboldt” in the pdf, it takes you to all the quotes. development has a definition which is something like “increasing the use” of the land. development could be a house, a barn, etc. basically anything that wasn’t there before is “development” and it has nothing to do with a subdivision.
i would not have even read much of that report but i caught the phrase “under the radar” and i thought it was a strange thing to have in a report. then i read about how they were shaping legislation and had been successful on the North Coast and the rest of it.
longwind has it right. large, out of the area moneyed interests have been shaping the general plan under the guise of “local” while the real locals have been painted as shills for big timber and development.
the main function of this RLF program is to preserve wild places in california. nothing wrong with that, they have spent tens of millions of dollars buying up land and it’s their money.
it is a little disturbing though when you couple these land purchases with the proposed rural policies that many people have stated will drive rural land prices down, preclude the smaller rural holdings, and eventually consolidate the land into 600 acre parcels. i previously thought this was so odd since the only beneficiary of such a policy seemed to be big timber and i couldn’t see the county doing anything to help them, but now i see there is somebody else out there with the money to buy up land in large tracts. and they have been giving grants to shape out rural land use policies that favors their purpose. under the radar.
Jeezus RA, don’t you sleep?
“It’s no secret that Healthy Humboldt favors Option A but that does not restrict all new houses to areas already served by water and sewer.”
“Ah and therein lies the rub. The RLLF report says that’s exactly what HH accomplished.”
No rub there. HH favors Option A which does not restrict all new houses to have access to services and the RLLF report doesn’t say that is what they claimed to have accomplished. Option A severely restricts development on rural lands which is what the report said HH had accomplished (getting that alternative into consideration) but allows a house on rural parcels, although not automatically.
“If “rural development” now only means “rural subdivisions” that would be swell. But that’s not at all the line that HH has been taking for the past several years, and that is not at all what Plan A is limited to, nor is “subdivision” (breaking up existing parcels into new parcels) the only kind of rural development that Plan A would put the brakes on.”
Plan A doesn’t “put the brakes on” homes on rural properties. Not granting automatic permits is not prohibiting home building. Since HH has always publicly favored Plan A which does not prohibit home building on rural lands, they haven’t retreated from anything. Their radio ad is accurate even if you think they were opposed to any rural homes. Nothing in the ad could be construed as saying a house on every parcel was what HH wanted nor that they were responsible for the result. It is a factual ad to correct the inaccurate claims being spread about the GPU.
I don’t know what people on this thread say has to do with HH’s desires regarding building on ag or TPZ parcels. Who is the spokesperson for HH that posts here?
“I suggest you go right to the horse’s mouth and call or write to Planning and ask them for the figures.”
I’m shocked that YOU would ask me to find the evidence to support your claims. I believe you have taken more than one poster to task for doing the same. You said they would be “prohibitively expensive” which should mean you know how much it costs, unless you are just parroting what others have said and really have no idea how much they cost. The same for the level of discretion Girard could wield in denial of permits and keep his job, even if the BOS stays tilted to the environmental side.
“But at the level HWC/HH was funded…….. And that’s about it. Again, if you look at that whole 240 page document, HH’s work takes up all of two paragraphs. So yes, I think they’re small potatos, and no I doubt RLLF staff spend any considerable amount of time monitoring this project.”
The external assessment states, “This report summarizes our analysis and conclusion. Much of it is written as a series of declarative sentences that highlight our key observations and lessons, followed by the quantitative and qualitative evidence that supports the statements. We used data that analyzed the program from the multiple geographic scales: statewide, regional or focal area, and individual grantees. We reviewed an extensive set of grant documents, used a grant database established and maintained by RLFF to track their grants, carried out interviews with 64 respondents, including staff, grantees and statewide observers. These sources of information provide quantitative and qualitative information which underlie our observations. We believe there is valuable information in both the statewide perspectives and the individual anecdotes and stories, and have attempted to capture them here.”
Assuming they just asked the grantees to write a report on their accomplishments and accepted that as fact is absurd and, as the report states, that isn’t what they did.
You have to assume that Healthy Humboldt are serial lying fraudsters, that RLLF and their hired external assessors are naïve dupes, and that Option A will allow Girard to block all rural home building, even though Option A doesn’t say that, to buy into what you are selling. On the other hand, assuming that the external assessment’s use of the word “development” meant rural subdivisions makes all the perceived inconsistencies disappear. It squares with HH’s consistent favor of Option A which does not prohibit homes on TPZ or ag parcels but does severely restrict development, and is one of the possible alternatives (which is what the report stated) as well as the HH quote that it “removed the worst case scenario” (developing TPZ / ag lands). You know Occam’s razor?
As I have stated previously, I’m not a policy wonk and haven’t read much of the GPU in any of its incarnations and that isn’t what this is about, but rather the unfair attack on and misrepresentation of Healthy Humboldt’s ad and their honesty with both the public and their funder, RLLF, which was attacked as an “under the radar” ecomafia based on a sketchy reading and biased summary by people opposed to them of an external report written for the purpose of improving their organization’s efficiency. And no, I don’t speak for either, nor am I a member of HH, donor or grantee of RLLF. The views expressed are entirely my own and nothing I have posted should be construed as the views of anyone but myself.
“development has a definition which is something like “increasing the use” of the land. development could be a house, a barn, etc. basically anything that wasn’t there before is “development” and it has nothing to do with a subdivision.”
There is no definition of development given in this report. The dictionary definition of development relevant to its usage in this context is:
A large group of private houses or of apartment houses, often of similar design, constructed as a unified community, esp. by a real-estate developer or government organization.
another source
A group of dwellings built by the same contractor.
Okay, PJ, apparently you have decided to stake your argument on the novel claim that the term “rural development” as used in the GPU debate only refers to multi-house subdivisions now, despite the fact that this is not at all how HH or any of the Option A folks, or for that matter anyone else has used the term for the past several years. You’re in deep, deep denial and/or determined to remain willfully ignorant. That’s your prerogative.
When did dictionary definitions of words become a “novel claim?” Please provide a source for your repeated claim that Option A blocks all home building on TPZ land. A link to Healthy Humboldt’s site or a direct quote from an HH spokesperson which supports your view of their agenda would be helpful as well.
Personally, I’m sick of your personal opinions, unfounded superior attitude, snotty comments instead of evidence to support your claims.
“you repeated claim that Option A blocks *all* home building on TPZ land.”
I don’t believe I made any such claim. Show me where I did and we can take it from there.
“personal opinions, unfounded superior attitude, snotty comments”
Oh that’s rich coming from you.
I refuted ALL of your claims with direct quotes, dictionary definitions, copy / paste from the report that you used to attack Healthy Humboldt. Your denial that you have ever claimed Option A blocks all development or that Healthy Humboldt wants to block all development is ludicrous since that is the basis of your attack, i.e. HH lied to their benefactors in claiming they were successful in getting a development blocking alternative considered and they are misleading in their ad since they always favored blocking any homes from being built in the TPZ.
1. If Option A does not block all home building on TPZ land and HH supports Option A, HH does not favor blocking all home building. Option A does block development (dictionary definition of development, not yours).
2. If development means what the dictionary says it means, there is no contradiction between the report about Healthy Humboldt’s accomplishments and their actual accomplishments and there is no discrepancy between what HH says it is working for and the radio ad.
3. Instead of making any attempt to refute my fact and logic filled responses to all your insomniac claims, you just posted insults.
Jane,
If your dictionary says that “development” only means a multi-unit subdivision, I think you need a new dictionary!
It took me all of 2 minutes and the first dictionary entry I clicked on to find BOTH the broader definition of development as:
4 The process of putting new buildings on land.
“The land was sold for development.”
(Exactly the complaint being made about TPZ parcels where someone wants to build a home…try reviewing the debate between Eric Kirk and Bill Barnum upthread).
AND the narrower interpretation you’re staking your argument on:
4 a. A group of buildings that have been built together on a piece of land.
“a new development on the edge of town”
(Like Forster-Gill, for example).
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/development
Just as a little reminder, here’s the way HH’s “accomplishment” was phrased in the RLLF doc:
“… the Board of Supervisors selected an
alternative that allowed new development at urban densities and only in areas served by
sewer and water…”
If it was phrase “…that allowed new housing developments at…” then your interpretation would make more sense.
RA 6/17 at 4:00 PM
““Option A fans” but the fact is that Lovelace and his brainchild, Healthy Humboldt, have taken the lead in pushing for Option A restrictions on rural living. Of course on their website, as you put it, they “seem” supportive of rural living. It’s just that the policies they advocate as far as taking away the right to build a home on your TPZ or Ag parcel is anything BUT supportive of rural living.”
RA at 6/18 7:15 pm: “Seems like a legitimate point. It sounds like Healthy Humboldt is telling the public in Humboldt County one thing with their radio ads, while at the same time telling their out-of-area financial sponsor something very different.”
which was in response to:
Anon at 6:43 p.m post:
“they are running ads stating the new general plan isn’t so bad for rural people and at the same time they are telling the people that are paying their bills (and probably for the ads) that the new plan they have rammed through is the one:
“that allowed new development at urban densities and only in areas served by sewer and water, thereby protecting 10,000 acres of resource lands from development.”
think about that. new development only in areas served by sewer and water. are you getting the picture yet? of course that is not in the ad, because it is “under the radar”.
So, RA, does HH oppose any home building in areas not served by sewer and water which would have the result of not allow ANY homes on rural TPZ lands OR do they oppose developments (A group of dwellings built by the same contractor) in areas not served by sewer and water which is Option A?
“If your dictionary says that “development” only means a multi-unit subdivision, I think you need a new dictionary!
It took me all of 2 minutes and the first dictionary entry I clicked on to find BOTH the broader definition of development as:
4 The process of putting new buildings on land.
“The land was sold for development.”
I SAID the RELEVANT definition for development used in this context, not the ONLY definition for development. Your definition doesn’t contradict mine and neither does using it in a sentence.
“Your denial that you have ever claimed Option A blocks all development or that Healthy Humboldt wants to block all development is ludicrous since that is the basis of your attack”
Ah, I see. Even though you can’t point to anywhere that I supposedly claimed that Option A blocks *all* development, or that HH favors blocking *all* development, it MUST be true, because YOU say it’s the basis of my attack.
Perhaps you aren’t familiar with the logical fallacy known as “begging the question,” or “question-begging.” Since you seem to have difficulty finding definitions that don’t back up your assertions, I’ll help you out:
“An argument that improperly assumes as true the very point the speaker is trying to argue for is said in formal logic to “beg the question.” Here is an example of a question-begging argument: “This painting is trash because it is obviously worthless.” The speaker is simply asserting the worthlessness of the work, not presenting any evidence to demonstrate that this is in fact the case.”
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/begs.html
“If Option A does not block all home building on TPZ land and HH supports Option A, HH does not favor blocking all home building.”
Again, please identify where I supposedly claimed HH favored blocking “all home building.” Or keep debating your hastily-constructed straw men. Your choice.
“Option A does block development (dictionary definition of development, not yours).”
and
“If development means what the dictionary says it means, there is no contradiction…”
See my 2:21 post. You need a better dictionary, and/or better reading comprehension skills.
“Instead of making any attempt to refute my fact and logic filled responses to all your insomniac claims, you just posted insults.”
Oh, and “unfounded superior attitude, snotty comments,” that must have been one of your “fact and logic filled responses.” Apparently you can dish it out, but can’t take it…I find that’s a common problem among those with “unfounded superior attitudes.” Heh.
“I SAID the RELEVANT definition for development used in this context, not the ONLY definition for development.”
Oh, I see, so you are the final arbiter of which definitions are “relevant.” Good to know.
It’s become obvious that you either don’t bother to read posts before you respond or you don’t understand them and I’m not wasting any more time in the futile pursuit of an honest discussion with you. Have a good life.
Well, that’s interesting… you quote me several times at 2:24, but neither of your quotes contains any statement from me that backs up your assertion at 1:20 that I have supposedly claimed that Option A prohibited or HH advocated for preventing *any* rural home-building.
I HAVE referred to HH favoring “restrictions” on rural building and removing your *right* to build on TPZ land (with the ministerial permit process it is the owner’s “right” to build the home, whereas the discretionary permit process would transfer the “right” to make that decision to Planning). Do you dispute my actual statements, or only the made-up one you attribute to me at 2:24? It makes a difference.
“So, RA, does HH oppose any home building in areas not served by sewer and water which would have the result of not allow ANY homes on rural TPZ lands OR do they oppose developments (A group of dwellings built by the same contractor) in areas not served by sewer and water which is Option A?”
Well that brings us right back to the problem, Jane. If you read the text of the RLLF statement, the rather all-encompassing word “development” is used, not the narrower phrase “housing developments” which might reasonably be construed as equivalent to “multi-unit subdivisions.” The former lends itself to the broader definition of any new building on land, the latter to the narrower definition of a multi-unit subdivision. You really can’t see that?
Jane at 2:46,
I’m tempted to reach the same conclusion about you, at least on this issue. But instead I’m going to choose to believe that we have simply have an honest disagreement on how to interpret the word “development” in the context in which it is used in the GPU and TPZ debates.
From the County’s web page: “The Planning Division is responsible for planning and facilitating land use development based on the policies of the General Plan…”
So, is land use “development” in the context of the General Plan only referring to multi-unit subdivisions (“housing developments”), as you seem to think, or does the term “development” in the context of the General Plan refer to the more broad definition of development as any new building? I think the answer is pretty clear.
Okay, so the original Option A language, supported by Healthy Humboldt, reads:
“FR-P9. Residential Construction on TPZ Zoned Parcels: Preserve continued viability of timber production on TPZ zoned parcels by requiring demonstration of active management for timber production prior to issuance on new residential permits…Residential uses shall be limited to individuals…necessary for the management of timberlands…” [Just to be clear, the "..." parts referred to Industrial Timber zoning, which is a separate issue.]
So, to summarize, Option A WOULD have banned any houses on TPZ that were not found to be “necessary for the management of timberlands.” This is what I refer to as “severe restrictions” on TPZ homebuilding and a discretionary permit. And Healthy Humboldt supported that original Option A language. Then the Planning Commission rejected that policy in a 4-1 vote, but of course it will be up to the Supervisors to make the final decision. Unless Healthy Humboldt has backed down from its support of the original language, it seems fair to day that HH supports severe restrictions on building even a single primary residence on a TPZ parcel. I guess you could quibble with the word “severe,” which is obviously more a matter of opinion than provable fact.
So, Healthy Humboldt’s ad seems to be taking credit for the more lenient standard adopted by the 4-1 Planning Commission vote, without noting that they opposed (and still oppose?) that more lenient standard. And the final decision hasn’t yet been made by the Supervisors, so the risk of the Healthy Humboldt / original Option A language being adopted is still very real, not that you’d ever guess that from just listenting to the HH radio ad.
I stand by my earlier statement describing the HH radio ads as being characterized by “soothing elisions.”
In case you STILL want to try to argue that HH and its allies have never tried to limit the right to build a single residence on an existing TPZ parcel, you might want to take a gander at what HH’s Jen Kault and ally Ralph Faust had to say at the Planning Commission meeting. From Daniel Mintz’s article in the Independent, 4/20/10:
“The current county ordinance allows one residence per every 40 acre TPZ parcel…Jennifer Kalt of the Healthy Humboldt Coalition said 35,000 acres of TPZ land has been “broken down into smaller parcels” in the last 12 years. Proposals from Barnum Timber and Southern Humboldt’s Hilltop Ranch would add 12,000 acres and 50,000 acres respectively to that, she continued.” [Its important to note that this refers to breaking up large ranch/TPZ ownership into smaller ownership *along existing parcels line* NOT actual "subdivision" which means creating smaller parcels out of larger parcels... - RA]
“Commissioner Ralph Faust…said the rest of the state law talks about preventing timberland conversion to urban uses and discouraging the expansion of urban services into timberland. ‘How can a legislature that says that is the purpose of its law then go on to say that any parcel zoned TPZ gets a residence? How does that limit urban expansion into timberlands? It does precisely the opposite,’ he said.”
Again, the bogeyman Kalt and Faust were so concerned about was exactly the issue of allowing a TPZ owner to build a residence on a TPZ parcel without a discretionary permit, which, incredibly, Faust went so far as to call “urban expansion into timberlands.”
Still want to argue that HH and its allies were never opposed to continuing the right of TPZ owners to at least build one residence on their parcel?
They lost that battle at the Planning Commission, but the PC only makes recommendations to the Supervisors, who will make the final decision. Has HH now committed to abandoning that Option A policy and only opposing “subdivisions / housing developments” in those rural TPZ areas? If so, that’s news to me.
I guess now its pretty clear why you bailed out on this discussion…
The “dictionary” use of a word doesn’t count in this one. Option A – no houses built on land that doesn’t have sewer and water. Then where is any building on rural land that may not have “sewer”? but may have water available, but maybe not the kind of water we are talking about.
Ask yourself – does Cutten have sewer? Try to apply what is being considered to the various subdivisions that are trying to be pushed through and does it actually apply. I don’t think so but Eureka would have to put in a very expensive sewer and water expansion for Forester Gill to be built. The BOS approved a “development agreement” – anyone thought about what this will mean? Could this mean the County will have to build their roads that other developers have to build themselves? Why did Forester Gill bring this up with the County over a year ago? There are some questions here that someone needs to answer that are still on the development table that are not being discussed by the Planning Commission and the County and Kirk Girard and his minions yet.
The problem with your argument, anon, is we weren’t dealing with the GPU definition of “development” is but the external assessment’s definition of development which wasn’t given. The GPU has a clearly stated definition of development:
“As defined in California Government Code Section 65927:
Development means, on land, or in or under water, the placement or erection of any
solid material or structure; discharge or disposal of any dredged material or of any
gaseous, liquid, solid, or thermal waste; grading, removing, dredging, mining, or
extraction of any materials; change in the intensity of use of land including but not
limited to subdivision pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (commencing with Section
66410 of the Government Code), and any other division of land except where the
division is brought about in connection with the purchase of such land by a public
agency for public recreational use; change in the intensity or use of water, or of access
to thereto; construction, reconstruction, demolition, or alteration of the size of any
structure, including any facility of any private, public, of municipal utility; and the
removal or harvesting of major vegetation other than for agricultural purposes, kelp
harvesting, and timber operations which are in accordance with a timber harvesting
plan submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practices Act of
1973 (commencing with Section 4511 of the Public Resources Code).
As used in this section, “structure” includes, but is not limited to, any building, road, pipe,
flume, conduit, siphon, aqueduct, telephone line, and electrical power transmission and
distribution line. “Development” does not mean a “change of organization”, as defined
in Section 56021, or the “reorganization”, as defined in Section 56073.”
So in the GPU, development COULD mean anything from a pipe or electrical line to a subdivision so isn’t relevant to the discussion of what the external assessment meant by development. My choice of what it means, which is consistent with both the dictionary and some usage from the GPU, is compatible with Healthy Humboldt’s publicly stated view and the external assessments’ view of their accomplishments, i.e. no development (meaning subdivisions) will be allowed that don’t have access to water and sewer. And yes, Cutten has sewer.
PJ,
Care to at least respond to my 4:22 and 4:43 posts, which (it seems to me) make quite clear that Option A, supported by HH and its allies, WOULD have stripped TPZ owners of their right to a permit to build at least a single residence on a given TPZ parcel?
Has HH abandoned that stance now that the Commissioners voted 4-1 against the HH / Option A position? Has HH committed to not trying to get the Supervisors to include that Option A language in the final GPU against the Commissioners’ recommendation?
or perhaps you “don’t bother to read the posts or don’t understand them.”
RA, I’ll argue that point. What Healthy Humboldt has advocated for is limiting residences on Industrial Timberland (IT), a proposed new zoning designation, to 1 house per 600 acres, while Plain Old TPZ (T) would be allowed 1 house per parcel down to 40 acre parcels as it is today.
Here is the wording of Alt. A for policy P9 in the Forest resources section, with Healthy Humboldt’s suggested additions in caps:
FR-P9. Residential Construction on TPZ Zoned Parcels. Preserve continued viability of timber
production on TPZ zoned parcels by requiring demonstration of active management for
timber production OR FOREST ECOSYSTEM SERVICES prior to issuance on new residential permits
and by mitigating the impacts of residences on water resources, biological resources,
SALMONID HABITAT, wildland fire potential and public services.
and here is the Alt. B version:
FR- P9. Residential Construction on TPZ Zoned Parcels. Require continued viability of timber
production on TPZ zoned parcels containing residences by mitigating the impacts of residences on timber harvesting, water resources, biological resources, wildland fire potential and public services.
Now how do you get from this that Healthy Humboldt is advocated for no residences on TPZ?
Jane, Jane, Jane, the Heading of that two-paragraph section in the RLLF evaluation is “Humboldt County General Plan.” The very sentence that contains the “an alternative that allowed new development at urban densities and only in areas served by sewer and water” also contains the phrase “Humboldt County Genaral Plan.” So how is it that you think their use of the term “development” is NOT in the context of the General Plan?
Some people apparently don’t understand that negotiation is asking for more than you expect to get to obtain what you desire.
McKinleyvillan, look at the Kalt and Faust quotes in my 4:43 post. Their concern is not (or at least has not been in the past) only the big timber holdings, it’s been all TPZ. If they’ve modified their views, great. They’re welcome to join the rest of us in the real world, where a single house on a TPZ parcel is not considered “urban expansion into timberlands.”
Actually, no one is advocating for no development except where there is water and sewer. Just to clarify. Alt. A would focus more development in existing communities than Alt. B or C would, but no one has said there should be none elsewhere.
This is from the Rural Lands section of the Land Use element:
Alternative A and B:
RL-G2. Rural Land Development. Homestead style independent living on rural residential lands with minimum fire risks, impacts to water resources, public serviced demands and conflicts with resource production.
Voter @ 5:35:
I appreciate your substantive response.
Here’s the problem: In the proposed new Alt A version you cited, the words “require the demonstration of…prior to issuance of new residential permits” still sounds to me like it would require you to obtain a discretionary permit from the Planning Department, and in order to do so, would be required to prove your “active management” for either timber production or “forest ecosystem services” before you could be issued a permit. Do you dispute that this is just a slightly differently worded “discretionary permit” requirement?
Yes, the part they are proposing to add would allow you to try to prove to the county management that your demonstrated “active management” for “forest ecosystem services” justified your need for a residence. (Hmmm, would letting previously cut-over areas grow back to mature forest over the next 50 years actually satisfy the criteria for “active management?” I kinda doubt it.)
Now, sure, *I* think there could be plenty of good arguments for why residing on your property would help improve the “forest ecosystem services,” and that the various mitigations could be accomodated.
The problem is that you’re asking us to trust that Girard and Co. would agree, and that Planning’s discretionary permit process would not be prohibitively expensive, lengthy, onerous, convoluted, and involve a very uncertain outcome, and that all applicants would be treated equally by Girard & Co, without favoritism to preferred individuals (see Girard’s shilling for Dimmick in the Reggae case as an example of why such a concern is well-founded). Thanks, but no thanks.
As far as I can tell, its still a discretionary permit process, and as such it still would remove the current right to a ministerial permit process to build a single house on a given TPZ parcel.
Voter at 5:43,
Now you’re referring to land zoned “rural residential.” Not TPZ. I know, it’s confusing. And that’s what HH’s radio ads’ soothing elisions are counting on.
“Some people apparently don’t understand that negotiation is asking for more than you expect to get to obtain what you desire.’
Oh, so what HH originally said they wanted wasn’t what they really wanted, it was just a bargaining chip?
But what they say they want *now* IS what they really want…unless of course they compromise further and then it isn’t. Uh-huh.