Home > Uncategorized > Fennell to head HumCPR

Fennell to head HumCPR

lasthopeFormer 2nd District supervisor candidate Estelle Fennell is the new face of the developer rights group HumCPR, according to the Times-Standard.

An ad for the position of executive director appeard in papers last month, with a corrected version posted to the Humboldt Herald.

Property and development rights were hot issues during the last election season.  Fennell initially held back her position on the subject, saying it was inappropriate to talk about things she would be voting on if elected.  Later, during a KEET debate she said people have an “absolute” right to build on any property they purchase.

Such misconceptions will likely be addressed in real estate disclosure forms currently under development by the County.  The forms will assist property buyers in their due diligence to understand restrictions and conditions that may come with the property before they buy.

  1. Anonymous
    January 16, 2009 at 8:50 am

    Agree with them or not, this is probably the most brilliant political move of the decade. It alligns at least 65%+ of the voters in the second district and probably the entire county under one banner on property and general plan issues. It gives massive credibility and political power to Fennell and to Ulansey. The redenck and hippy coalition is complete.

  2. Chris
    January 16, 2009 at 8:54 am

    Agreed. Brilliant move.

  3. gulo gordo
    January 16, 2009 at 8:59 am

    Confirms both the cunning of CPR, and the wisdom of 2nd district voters.

  4. January 16, 2009 at 9:02 am

    The redenck and hippy coalition is complete.

    I’d exercise some caution on that. Estelle isn’t the most unifying character in SoHum after the Reggae kerfuffle. But this will be interesting.

  5. Da Man
    January 16, 2009 at 9:09 am

    Reggae Schmeggae. It’s a brilliant move and a grand alliance. Go get ’em Estelle.

  6. January 16, 2009 at 9:13 am

    It’s an interesting choice. Possibly a formidable choice.

  7. January 16, 2009 at 9:35 am
  8. Anonymous
    January 16, 2009 at 9:44 am

    Congratulations, Estelle!

    So we all like HumCPR now? I thought it was a “propaganda-heavy developer-rights group.”

  9. Anonymous
    January 16, 2009 at 9:54 am

    Interestingly, most of us didn’t think they were so bad before. This announcement confirms it.

  10. January 16, 2009 at 10:18 am

    most of us didn’t think they were so bad before.

    That must be why all their candidates lost their bids for election.

  11. Eric Kirk
    January 16, 2009 at 10:58 am

    Reggae is local to Sohum. It shouldn’t be a factor.

  12. longwind
    January 16, 2009 at 10:59 am

    Right here in Humboldt County, career opportunities in compromise! Will wonders never cease.

    The General Plan says 3/4 of the county’s ‘homestead-size’ parcels–40s and under, I believe–are in the southern third of the county. Estelle’s a natch in more ways than one.

  13. Lodgepole
    January 16, 2009 at 11:00 am

    The giant is waking up folks.

  14. average Eurekan
    January 16, 2009 at 11:06 am

    Up to this point HumCPR has functioned as a stealth developer-rights group, spewing propaganda and buying ads that conflate as “homesteader rights,” the right to build on TPZs to create and ever-widening sphere of Humboldt mini-ranches and wilderness trophy homes outside of traditional areas of growth. Thus, they had little credibility from the get-go in the eyes of those who saw through their property-rights smokescreen.

    It will be interesting to see whether Estelle can grab the tiger by the tail and tame it, or whether they co-opt her to become the new mouthpiece of unrestricted and unrestrained development in Humboldt. Judging by her equivocating response to potential Big Box mall development in Fortuna during the fall debates (“Let Fortuna do whatever it wants,” to paraphrase), I can’t say I’m hopeful. But I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt as we wait and see.

  15. January 16, 2009 at 11:17 am

    And there you have average-Eurekan, unable to understand why property owners would want to protect their rights unless they were evil developers all.

    The only smokescreen came from the enviro/Lovelace/Baykeeper/Ken Miller little boys club, trying to fan the flames of hatred.

  16. the last stone
    January 16, 2009 at 11:18 am

    curiouser and curiouser…

  17. Ed
    January 16, 2009 at 11:19 am

    way to go Estelle, you’re now heading a group represented by a lawyer with a life sized cardboard statue of George Bush and another who represented the county in the pepper spray lawsuit.

  18. January 16, 2009 at 11:20 am

    The only smokescreen came from the enviro/Lovelace/Baykeeper/Ken Miller little boys club, trying to fan the flames of hatred.


    Perhaps they should’ve taken a tip from HumCPR and poured their mythical riches into a fear mongering ad campaign.

  19. Not Surprised
    January 16, 2009 at 11:35 am

    Estelle was intended to be a spoiler in the election and now she shows her true colors, siding with the developers who will destroy the rural lifestyle of southern Humboldt.

  20. Anonymous
    January 16, 2009 at 11:36 am

    The property owners don’t want to protect rights, they want to create new ones.

  21. slam
    January 16, 2009 at 11:58 am

    Absolute properties rights? Does anyone really believe in this?

    I am so glad i voted for Cliff right now.

  22. Walt
    January 16, 2009 at 1:56 pm

    I’m a little amazed. Do Estelle and CPR really believe if I buy a chunk of land I have the right to put a casino, a nuclear waste dump or a meth processing plant on it? Are they arguing that people can build charter schools on earthquake faults or in tsunami zones? Would they argue that they have the right to put septic systems on land that won’t perk? What, if any, limits WOULD they accept for property owners?

  23. January 16, 2009 at 2:09 pm

    HumCPR is NOT about developers per se.

    It IS about people who bought a house, bought some property, bought a lot, bought some land, intend to live in or build and live in a home on that land. Maybe raise some cows, sheep, goats, chickens, naybe plant some apple trees, maybe have a garden and live a self-sustaining, off the gird as much as possible lifestyle.

    It is about real people who make their house payments, house insurance payments, and utility payments.

    Who may want to add a shed, a chicken house, a barn, a greenhouse (pot or non-pot), may want to fence a pasture… who knows, they may want ot put in a pond, or a swimming pool, or a tennis court, not unheard of, you know.

    Yes, some may split off lots, in order to pay for the house, get themselves in a position where they are not a slave to a mortgage, may want to split property to allow their kids to also build a home.

    WHY this group of people has been branded as developers, simply because they are more accepting of development, is incomprehensible.

    It is controlling rhetoric of the heraldo/Lovelace/Miller stripe, trying to brand the people they can’t control in order to marginalize them.

    It is very dangerous when the people you are seeking to marginalize and write off are the backbone of our successful communities and our society, the stable, hard-working people who buy, own and maintain their properties.

    C’mon, Walt, surely you know some of these people, and you know full well they don’t want to put in a septic system that will fail.

    Why do you insist on trying to make this about myopic miniscule points like that? Of course they accept limits. EVERY property owner does.

    The question is, are they going to accept newer and more restrictive, more intrusive rules put in place by activists who have absolutely NO stake in anything related to individual property.

  24. January 16, 2009 at 2:18 pm

    Miller and Lovelace (since you brought them up) don’t own private property? And only people who own property want unrestricted development on private property? Wow.

  25. anonymous says
    January 16, 2009 at 2:20 pm

    “Do Estelle and CPR really believe if I buy a chunk of land I have the right to put a casino, a nuclear waste dump or a meth processing plant on it?”

    God your question is so lame………of course they don’t.

    I am one of the 2,000 plus members of HumCPR. I am an environmentalist and do restoration work for a living. I also live on my little piece of land with my family and I believe that it’s critical to have a group like HUM CPR looking out for us and our rural way of living. The county needs to include our perspective when crafting a plan that will affect our time honored way of life.
    Estelle Fennell is a great choice.

  26. January 16, 2009 at 2:22 pm

    Oh, they own it, and they also want to restrict what other people do – go back and watch the TPZ hearings, heraldo, even if you were a participant in them. tell us what you hear coming from that one faction.

    Look at Lovelace, Humboldt Watershed Council/Healthy Humboldt Project – and where the money was coming from and why. It is very very clear. Do not let people move out into the country. It is in the mission statement.

    Couch it in all the nice terms you want, the TPZ thing exposed a whole lot more than anyone ever dreamed existed when it comes to that little group.

    You don’t like HumCPR because they get in the way of that agenda. Pure and simple.

    Cue the “Rose you’re an idiot” response.

  27. January 16, 2009 at 2:26 pm

    So many insinuations, yet so little said.

    Why don’t you post the Healthy Humboldt mission statement, and tell us about the money using some verifiable facts.

    You don’t like HumCPR because they get in the way of that agenda. Pure and simple.

    You don’t like HWC because it opposed Pacific Lumber. Pure and simple.

  28. "One-born-every-minute"
    January 16, 2009 at 2:28 pm

    Get a clue you incredibly naive suckers.

    There won’t be any “rural lifestyle” if the CPR agenda for unrestricted development prevails. Think elbow-to-elbow suburban sprawl and dried up creeks and wells. Oh yeah– no fish either! Think the Santa Cruz hills for a picture of our future under the developer-elite crowd.

    CPR is a front and the only question is whether Estelle is a dupe or an instrument of the arkley/kramer/renner/barnum/et al syndicate.

  29. Development Coming Soon
    January 16, 2009 at 2:53 pm

    There will be bonds to build the infrastructure for the developments with the votes to support them which will price the subsistence, off the grid people right off their property unless they go in for farming in a big way, then lose their property through seizure. They aren’t good for property values anyway with their rough appearance, ramshackle houses and anti-social views.

  30. Anon
    January 16, 2009 at 3:12 pm

    2:28 What BS you are spilling!
    I am one of those CPR folk who live the “rural lifestyle” that raise my children in a “rural lifestyle” and plan on seeing my grandchildren raised in the same “rural lifestyle”. As many of the members of CPR are! The thought of selling our property (in the middle of BFE) for “elbow-to-elbow” suburban cracker jack homes is unthinkable!
    Pull your head out and think realisticly! Property rights!
    Who are you calling naive!

  31. January 16, 2009 at 3:29 pm

    have you seen Ken Miller’s letter to the editor in the Journal?

    Now THAT is hysterical!

    Why does this man have such a need to pee on other people’s trees, and try to stake claim on them?

  32. Not A Native
    January 16, 2009 at 4:03 pm

    One Born … is absolutely on right target.

    As just one example, the problems of water quality on the Mattole and South Fork Eel are due to development, whether it comes in the form of large projects or as a thousand cuts by individuals doin’ their thing. The impacts on the environment are similar.

    The “new settlers” transition to become the “old guard”, determined to lock in profit from their now less rural holdings. Essentially they have transfered the wealth of rural nature to themselves by making it less rural.

    And the social result is more pressure to develop even more remote lands because, like Walmart, its always cheaper. Healthy Humboldt has a vision to tamp the cycle down and allow for more people to live well and not continually develop new land at the rate it has been.

    Estelle is a current personification of the “hippies” transitioning to “old guard”. But she’s no Roger Rodoni. I just don’t think the interests of the powers behind CRP and SoHum pot growing landholders are close enough for a near term electoral win. CPR’s only appeal is a phony “scare”. When that becomes absolutely clear in the adoped General Plan, CPR will have nothing to sell.

  33. January 16, 2009 at 4:20 pm

    Funny typo, there, Native – adoped.

  34. Carlos Quilez
    January 16, 2009 at 4:27 pm

    Since the Humboldt Watershed Council has been brought up, I think it proper to present our mission statement. It is as follows:

    About the Humboldt Watershed Council

    The Humboldt Watershed Council is an organization of Humboldt County residents and property owners who are concerned with the continuing degradation of our watersheds, and the tremendous impact this has upon our safety, property, and quality of life.

    We believe that maintaining the health of our watersheds is important not only for wildlife and the environment, but for the people and industries that call Humboldt County home.

    We believe that a healthy environment is key to a healthy economy, and support efforts to create and maintain a sustainable timber industry by conserving the resource base upon which it depends.

    Our Mission

    The purpose of the Humboldt Watershed Council is to educate the public and its government agencies an the issues of Public Trust related to air, land, and water, and to serve as a community-based venue for the defense of this trust and related private property rights through social, legal, economic, and political remedies.

    What We Stand For

    • Preserving the health of our watersheds, for the benefit of the wildlife, residents, and industries that depend upon them.

    • Keeping nutrient-rich soil on our slopes, where it can grow trees, rather than in our creeks, rivers and bay.

    • Ensuring the long-term health of our timber industry by conserving the resources upon which it depends.

    • Diversification of our timber industry, to increase opportunities for local ownership.

    • A local economy based on value-added forest products, rather than raw logs.

    • Restoring fish habitat, and encouraging natural genetic diversity.

    • Providing a voice to advocate for local communities in addressing resource issues.

    • Simplified forest regulations for small, independent land owners and foresters.

    • Protection of virgin forests and endangered species. Constructive dialogue that focuses on solutions rather than obstruction.

    If someone want to argue that this is a bad thing, well then so be it.

    Carlos Quilez
    Humboldt Watershed Council

    January 16, 2009 at 5:22 pm

    I appreciate the well worded and longer posts. It allows a reader to spend time in thought with regard to the various positional interests.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  36. Anonymous
    January 16, 2009 at 5:35 pm

    Well, if Carol is happy with Estelle joining up with HumCPR, it must be a good group.

  37. average Eurekan
    January 16, 2009 at 5:37 pm

    Well said, Carlos.

    And here’s the cold, hard, on-the-ground reality, folks: Of the hundreds (perhaps 500-700) properties on the Humboldt County Multiple Listing Service (MLS) at any given time (not including unlisted properties), there are dozens upon dozens (I’d say over a hundred) of of rural and semi-rural opportunities for land to be purchased, right now, with and without improvements. The best prices out there are ALWAYS rural raw land that’s already zoned for single family development.

    So the way I see it, Rose, you’re just crying crocodile tears.

  38. anonymous says
    January 16, 2009 at 6:02 pm

    Hey, arkley has nothing to do with Humboldt CPR,.He’s not a member nor has he given any money to them. Get your facts straight, if that’s possible

  39. January 16, 2009 at 6:30 pm

    I’m amused.
    I didn’t think much of HumCPR before (good or bad). But now I’m hopeful that local politics will keep me well entertained.

  40. January 16, 2009 at 6:46 pm

    Estelle was on KMUD news tonight talking about the county “planning people out of their homes.” Looks like she’s happy to carry on with the scare tactics.

  41. Anonymous
    January 16, 2009 at 6:46 pm

    Nice photo of Estelle, rasta colors would have been cooler. I hardly think that with two thousand members there is any last hope or last gasp involved. I predict nothing but growth in their future.

  42. Anonymous
    January 16, 2009 at 6:57 pm

    So Carlos, just when are you going to start telling the truth about how your carefully crafted statement effects real people and real families? HumCPR could likely adopt the same mission statement. We all know what matters is how the concepts are implemented. Please tell us the clear and unambigous truth of how you intend to implement your goals, what specific rules are you endorsing? We all really want to know.

  43. Ed
    January 16, 2009 at 7:14 pm

    Well said Carlos, glad you’re there.

  44. January 16, 2009 at 7:24 pm

    The Democratic Central Committee must be so confused. First they support Mark and Estelle despite obvious differences when it comes to the General Plan. Now they have to contend with the deeper battle lines being drawn.

    Do the Dems think the county is “planning people out of their homes” as Estelle said on KMUD tonight? Inquiring minds…

  45. Ptown Pirate
    January 16, 2009 at 7:35 pm

    • Preserving the health of our watersheds, for the benefit of the wildlife, residents, and industries that depend upon them.

    wildlife, residents, and industry. Listed in order of importance I presume.

  46. average Eurekan
    January 16, 2009 at 7:36 pm

    Riffing off of Not a Native’s last post up there:

    Estelle smells too culturally “different” to the Fortuna crowd (where the majority of the Second District voters are), to get behind electorally. Likewise for the SoHum crowd in regard to Johanna. That’s why she lost.

    I think it’s unlikely, though not impossible, for another Roger Rodoni to emerge; that is, a charismatic individual both constituencies can get behind and propel into office. Clif seems to be the “Jimmy Smith” of the Second: a moderately-liberal nice guy who bridges enough demographics to win, and more importantly, be real tough to beat.

    Watch him and see.

  47. January 16, 2009 at 7:41 pm

    That’s very nice, Carlos. But THAT is not the mission statement in question. It is the grant maker’s mission, it is what the money is paid for and accepted for, it is the grant maker’s agenda that is being pursued.

    Check it out, Carlos.

  48. Anonymous
    January 16, 2009 at 7:41 pm

    Heraldo, I have a strong feeling that a big part of why Estelle got the nod from the Humboldt DCC is because of her personal connections to Greg and Carol Conners and the personal politicking they were willing to do for her to get her the endorsement.

    It’s not that Clif’s politics or positions were less in line with the DCC’s than Estelle’s. It’s just that he didn’t know anyone on the committee.

    “Politics is all local.”

  49. Anonymous
    January 16, 2009 at 7:43 pm

    Rather, “All politics are local.”

  50. January 16, 2009 at 7:47 pm

    You may be right there, but the other issue is that Clif is not a Dem, so they couldn’t endorse him.

    But clearly, there were more than just technicalities involved.

  51. Eric Kirk
    January 16, 2009 at 9:26 pm

    I’m amused.
    I didn’t think much of HumCPR before (good or bad). But now I’m hopeful that local politics will keep me well entertained.

    Me too. These developments are to a politics geek like me what a bachman’s warbler is to a bird watcher.

  52. Local Options
    January 16, 2009 at 9:38 pm

    Good to know that our families lives are here for your amusement. If we put on a good performance will you throw peanuts?

  53. Samoasoftball
    January 16, 2009 at 10:44 pm

    7:41pm-Clif knew plenty of people on the HCDCC. Clif belongs to no party. Estelle is a Democrat.

  54. January 16, 2009 at 11:29 pm

    PEOPLE! It is not a partisan thing! Is it? What? No Democrats own property? No Democrats want to build houses? Are you nuts? Democrats don’t care if their property rights are stripped on a whim, in one day with no notice, for no real reason?

    I don’t know what planet you live on.

  55. January 16, 2009 at 11:52 pm

    Funny, such sweeping falsities are what you claimed above:

    The question is, are they going to accept newer and more restrictive, more intrusive rules put in place by activists who have absolutely NO stake in anything related to individual property.

    At least you recognize your folly.

  56. russell madden
    January 17, 2009 at 1:06 am

    Heraldo is one of those commie types who doesnt like public ownership of property, it would be better managed in the hands of the government! the county should tell us where to get our water where to build our homes where to build our roads, what our homes can look like, how many we can have, on top of all the tax’s we get to pay them so that they can be capable to tell us what to do! Thank god we have the county planner up in eureka to help run the policy of the rural areas. Maybe even someday some of them will actualy visit the rural areas of humboldt that would sure be a suprise! Its the wealthyer yuppie class that wants to “preserve” the rural areas so they can stay beautiful! No Development! infact they would mostlikey rather have us run off our land so they can turn the whole place into a government owned state park or preserved space. These urban hip yuppies (heraldo types) seem to love the idea of nature since its becoming a cool hip term just like “organic” and “green”. Yet none of them know what it takes to actualy live at one with nature! Living off the land may not always look pretty but its no one in eurekas buisnes what i do on my property that isn’t affecting anyone! People forget the small towns in Humboldt county used to be boom towns of there own and they deserve a chance to survive and continue to grow! Limiting our growth is like putting a limit on your community’s potential and economy! If you dont want Santa Rosifications stop trying to relocate everyone to the urban areas of the county! not everyone wants a condo in eureka or some tract home in Mckinleyville! Let the rural people continue to live with there own freedom! Stop trying to create more and more buracracy that only adds to the problems of wastefull government! Once all the citys become police states where you might as well be in prison you all are gonna wish you still had an option to live in the country side before you designated it “human free zone”.

  57. Greg
    January 17, 2009 at 6:20 am

    Carol and I have known Clif longer than we have known Estelle. As Richard points out, Clif was not eligible for the Democratic endorsement.

    We supported Estelle in the campaign because we thought she was the best candidate. The campaign is over. We have congratulated Clif the other night. He was busy taking notes at the Humboldt Literacy Project’s recognition night. Hopefully he can find a way to help HLP. 30% of the population here is functionally illiterate.

    We can speculate on what kind of job Clif or Estelle or Obama, will do in office, but it’s better to watch and participate as things happen. Get involved somehow, that’s my advice.

    “The Democratic Central Committee must be so confused.” What else is new? But we muddle on through, taking votes and going with the majority, as democracy is meant to operate.

    Have a great weekend, all. Enjoy the inauguration.

  58. humboldturtle
    January 17, 2009 at 6:46 am

    Voting? Going with the majority? Heraldo, I thought you and your DUHC types were all about consensus. Y’know, where you make decisions by stifling dissent and limiting discussion?

    Oh, sorry. That’s the Greens. It’s the Dems who take votes and go with the majority.

  59. Walt
    January 17, 2009 at 7:01 am

    I guess I’m still unclear on the concept here. Can CPR people tell us specifically what the planning department is doing that enrages you? Rose, you indicated septic tank requirements would be OK, but what about density limits in areas where the soil won’t perk? My understanding of the TPZ rules is that you get a tax break if you promise not to put up new houses. So if you buy a chunk of land in a TPZ, get the tax break, then want to put up more houses anyway for rentals, that’s OK? Yes, I do know and like people who have done this (not all of them Bill O’Reilly fans), but I don’t think it’s right. I’ve built two houses since I moved to Humboldt, and I jumped through all the hoops. Knowing a little about construction, the rules generally don’t seem unreasonable to me. How would you change them, and why? (and please, anti-communist zoning philosophy doesn’t help)

  60. Anonymous
    January 17, 2009 at 7:55 am

    The issue is really too deep for this blog. Walt, you do not have a grasp on the TPZ issue. Houses have always been allowed on TPZ. You do not get a tax break on the house, or any other improvements, only on the timbered land. Actually, any use is permitted in TPZ as long as it does not SIGNIFICANTLY detract from the growing of timber. The planning department wants to change the rules to say that in order to build a house on TPZ you have to prove that the house is necessary for producing timber, which is crazy since trees grow whether a home is there or not. When grilled about this requirement senior planner Tom Hoffweber could not come up with a realistic circumstance where one would have to have a home to grow timber.

    If you can make it past that hurdle, there are a myriad of new obstacles they are putting in place to ensure that not matter what, you still can’t build on TPZ. The bulldozer comment Hoffweber made indicates their attitude, they need to “teach us a lesson”.

  61. January 17, 2009 at 8:38 am

    Gee, Russell, did you read all those talking points out of a HumCPR pamphlet? The sky is falling!

  62. Anonymous
    January 17, 2009 at 8:49 am

    Walt, mon ami, You bring up some interesting points. Did you know that you already cannot build where the soil won’t perk, at least not without “fixing” it with an alternative system? Those rules have been on the books for decades and work most of the time. The tax break issue has been beat to death, find out for yourself. It is at least arguable that there is no tax break, but look it up, don’t believe me or anyone else. The HumCPR folks are not arguing for any more density allowances than currently exists in the hills, actually, in many cases it may well be less. Currently on TPZ you generally get one house and in specific cases possibly two. What is done without permits is a different issue and probably not directly related to what should or should not be permitted. Your right, generally, the existing rules are reasonable, they work, the hills are not covered with blight and sprawl and so long as we do not allow rampant subdivision they never will be. That is why HumCPR is suggesting that the rules for existing parcels stay more or less as they are. Legal parcel=one house. Subdivision is a different animal and can in fact contribute to the dreaded sprawl. Subdivisions need to be carefully evaluated and only allowed where it makes sense, they require a different set of rules and community input.

  63. Ed
    January 17, 2009 at 8:58 am

    what are these “myriad of new obstacles”?

  64. Anonymous
    January 17, 2009 at 9:08 am

    Russell sounds like another Diesel Dope grower that wants to tear up the hillsides with his new tractor. “Trust us” the DDGs say. “Don’t look this way”.

    Everyone, especially the real estate agents, know that Diesel Dope is the only thing making land payments, keeping prices high and pushing rural development.

  65. Lodgepole
    January 17, 2009 at 9:25 am

    7:55 and 8:49, very well put.

  66. Anonymous
    January 17, 2009 at 9:28 am

    Estelle is an awsome choice. She will likely moderate Ulansey’s rhetoric a little, build a lot of bridges and open many eyes. HumCPR was a force before, now they may be unbeatable. This was a genius move that will serve the community well. Which is why the extremists on both sides seem to be shaking a little in both their logging boots and their birkinstocks.

  67. Eric Kirk
    January 17, 2009 at 9:33 am

    Good to know that our families lives are here for your amusement. If we put on a good performance will you throw peanuts?

    Of course. It’s always about you.

  68. January 17, 2009 at 9:33 am

    She will likely moderate Ulansey’s rhetoric a little

    That’s doubtful after her interview on KMUD last night where she suggested the county is “planning people out of their homes.”

  69. Lodgepole
    January 17, 2009 at 9:43 am

    Hey Ed, it’s called CEQA.

  70. Anonymous
    January 17, 2009 at 9:49 am

    Which is why the extremists on both sides seem to be shaking a little in both their logging boots and their birkinstocks.

    Now, see, I had the opposite reaction. I thought, “Well, apparently she’s been an extremist all along. Now we know her true colors.”

  71. gulo gordo
    January 17, 2009 at 9:52 am

    30% of the population here is functionally illiterate.

    the county should tell us where to get our water where to build our homes where to build our roads, what our homes can look like, how many we can have, on top of all the tax’s we get to pay them so that they can be capable to tell us what to do!

    And only about half those who can read can write their way out of a wet paper bag.

  72. average Eurekan
    January 17, 2009 at 10:15 am

    We’re beginning to scratch the surface of the house-eligibility-on-TPZ issue that was discussed quite in depth in a post that Heraldo did about HumCPR a while back. Link, H???

    As I recall, the crux of the issue boils down to one’s interpretation of the zoning language regarding residence-building eligibility on the parcel, vis-a-vis its relationship to the harvesting of timber – a relationship that Tom Hofwebber correctly perceives as rather malleable.

    I understand and support the Planning Department’s apparent bid to be more restrictive in its interpretation of whether to allow a residence on land zoned TPZ. As Not a Native said in his post above, the “death-by-a-thousand-cuts” reality of the road-building, service requirements, and general environmental impacts that a residence incurs upon a TPZ, over the long term, is considerable, especially when compared to a TPZ that may be logged but not built on. I know firsthand because I lived out in the Humboldt hills for fifteen years.

    I think that folks need to realize there’s already a hell of a lot of homes out in the hills, for sale and otherwise, to be utilized. The party of relaxed-attitude from planners regarding building on TPZs couldn’t go on forever, and folks need to realize this, if they want to keep Humboldt Humboldt!

    This is what I perceive to be at the core of the Humboldt Watershed Council’s message.

  73. Anonymous
    January 17, 2009 at 10:39 am

    Thank you “Average”. Finally someone on the urban green side who is willing to admit the true agenda. Acknoledging the previously unstated Watershed Council goal of stopping any more homes from being built in the rural areas. With the truth on the table a reasonable discussion can begin. Both sides have legitamate concerns but they need to be addressed in an open and above board way with an open mind and a truthfull laying of the cards. We may well disagree but I sincerely thank you for your honesty. Keep it up.

  74. Anonymous
    January 17, 2009 at 11:00 am

    I don’t have a problem with people building anywhere. But if you build outside a city center, you pay for the roads, sewer, electricity and other luxuries to access and live on your property. That’s pay for the creation, but also the maintenance of said luxuries.

  75. January 17, 2009 at 11:04 am

    Oh, give me a break – it wasn’t Humboldt Watershed Council’s message. they were all about Palco all the time Palco Palco, Palco. But the spin off, Healthy Humboldt was about the General Plan ReWrite. It is about stopping “sprawl.” That is the carefully chosen word they use to convince you that they’re right. Not to ask anymore questions, and not to get in their way.

    What it really means is, if you dream of owning some land, or of building a home on 20, 50, or 160 acres someday, kiss that dream goodbye. they want you in town, on the grid, with cable TV and city water and sewer. You’re much more manageable that way.

    But what’s really funny is that they say nothing when what some those guys (like Schectman/Vilica) do with their property is “build” rows and rows and rows of 40+’ greenhouses, cut roads in illegally, and pollute streams.

    But god forbid someone would want to build a house.

    First you have to figure out why Ken Miller is so interested in other people’s business. Why he wants to control what others do with their property.

    Even funnier is his ‘scary, heraldo!’ letter to the editor in the Journal re: Richardson’s grove. You must be kidding me. Fixing potholes causes problems?

    And who is Ken “mad river bluffs boondoggle’ Miller to be talking about expensive boondoggles? He doesn’t like it unless it saves his ass.

  76. January 17, 2009 at 11:07 am

    Anonymous appears to be deliberately misinterpreting Average Eurekan’s comments. AE noted above that there are hundreds of rural living opportunities in Humboldt right now that are not on TPZ.

    I’ve never heard HWC say the county should stop people from building in rural areas. Unless you can find a direct quote you’re just blowing smoke.

  77. January 17, 2009 at 11:13 am

    Scary Heraldo letter? You’re so sad, rose. I disagree with Miller on Richardson Grove, but don’t let it stop you from making shit up to support your lame brained conspiracy theories.

    The only support I hear for Vilica/Josh Hedlund is from HumCPR. Josh is a member, perhaps even a founding member.

    As for HWC, they were standing up for people’s trampled private property rights back when Vilica was busy illegally diverting streams to water their massive marijuana grows.

    January 17, 2009 at 11:18 am

    TPZ and locking the “outer limits” of land up for good – this is the agenda (FEDERAL WILDLANDS PROJECT too).

    Grants may be used by those “public officials” in the future who want to lock the land up. This issue has been blown way out of proportion. Property owners have a “right” to do that which they want within reason to their property. California Real-Estate Laws have always applied since inception.

    The attempts to usurp current laws by “land Lock lovers” is again, The Agenda; especially when “current public officials” will not ENFORCE EXISTING REAL-ESTATE LAWS because they deceitfully will not acknowledge that such laws exist in an attempt to “act out” their “creationist” denials through political rhetoric exclaiming that there is nothing in law to enforce current General Plan guidelines and rules, county ordinances, state laws, etc..

    The General Plan Process has been a SUPERVISORIAL AND SUBORDINATE FRAUD SINCE DAY 1!

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

    January 17, 2009 at 11:21 am

    Forgot to opine,


    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  80. Anonymous
    January 17, 2009 at 11:25 am


  81. Anonymous
    January 17, 2009 at 11:30 am

    So where is the link to HumCPR’s support for Schectman/Hedlund? There is no link because that statement is the real bullshit.

    As for “Averages” reference to rural living opportunities he/she was clear that those “opportunities” were existing homes not “new” opportunities. While there is a legitamate argument that many of the proposals in the new general plan would even preclude rebuilding homes that burn down that is not the point being made. “Average” truthfully stated that the Watershed Council’s goal was to stop new homes on TPZ (some 98% of Humboldt land), I applaud his/her truthfullness even if I disagree.

    You are, of course correct, Watershed Council doesn’t state that they want so stop all building on TPZ but that doesn’t mean it not the truth. Of course they could easily solve the confusion by fully, completely, and truthfully stating their position for all to see. Do they believe that people should be able to build their homes on existing legal parcels of TPZ or otherwise? Yes or No? Of course they don’t and won’t issue such a clear and unambiguous statement, I wonder why?

  82. Anonymous
    January 17, 2009 at 11:32 am

    Ed you really have to read the old plan and the re-write. The difference in the document size should be clue enough.

  83. January 17, 2009 at 11:43 am

    I don’t know of any links to HumCPR’s support for Schectman, but Hedlund was/is a member of HumCPR. He’s been involved since the beginning, but maybe not so active now with his federal indictment. As noted previously on the Humboldt Herald:

    HumCPR has modified its website, curiously removing its list of supporters. Perhaps it was the most inconspicuous way to scrub convicted land speculator Josh Hedlund from its list of champions.

  84. Carlos Quilez
    January 17, 2009 at 12:02 pm

    Sorry for my non-hysterical approach, I know it’s not nearly as fun. Hysterics are fun, get you all wound up, indignant and all that jazz. Conspiracies are fun too. All sorts of hidden motives, nefarious characters, backroom deals and all that good stuff. Fun, fun, fun. But not reality. The Humboldt Watershed Council has nothing to hide. We are a transparent in our work and our work is often done in public. I don’t know of any occasion where we opposed the building of a legally up to code house in a legally build-able parcel. Again, sorry. I know it’s not fun to add to hysterics. But there you have it.

    Carlos Quilez
    President, HWC

  85. Anonymous
    January 17, 2009 at 12:37 pm

    Funny, I checked and there is a supporter list on their site. Hedlunds not on it. Sure a lot of Dems though. Perhaps he was a supporter and is not now or maybe he never was. I don’t know. I do know I have never seen him at any of their events. I suppose you could probably ask him what his involvement is or just continue to spin.

    Speaking of spin. Thanks Carlos for a little more. Obscure off the point statements about the lack of opposition to building in the past tells us nothing of your organizations goals for the future and are nothing more than the noble sounding generalizations in your mission statement. If there is nothing to hide, and there may well not be, then put the rumors to rest with a clear position statement on your plans for FUTURE homes on TPZ. Homes allowed or homes not allowed? It’s not reall that hard to be precise.

  86. Eric Kirk
    January 17, 2009 at 12:37 pm

    Heraldo, there is a list of supporters up now. Hedlund is not on it, but there are more Southern Humboldt names up now, or at least more that I noticed.

  87. Eric Kirk
    January 17, 2009 at 12:37 pm

    Previously noticed that is.

  88. January 17, 2009 at 12:52 pm

    HumCPR removed its list of supporters early last year. It’s amusing they reposted it without Hedlund’s name. He was on the old list. But like I said, perhaps it doesn’t look so good to have a high profile federally indicted person on your list of supporters.

    Perhaps he’s never been to a public CPR event, but his early involvement at Supervisor and Planning Commission meetings brought attention to himself and Vilica. Things backfired when he filed several building permits for Vilica’s TPZ lands the day the TPZ moratorium was passed. This was how so many came to learn about his involvement with Schectman, as Schectman was called to appear at a Supes meeting the day there were 100’s of people there to speak about the moratorium. It was posted to the Humboldt Herald here: The Vilica Mess.

  89. Eric Kirk
    January 17, 2009 at 12:58 pm

    Well, it’s a unique political list anyway. It even has my very first client on it.

  90. Anonymous
    January 17, 2009 at 1:02 pm

    Don’t recall seeing his name on a list, got a link? Perhaps he did, but no longer supports then? Who knows? As was suggested, ask him if it is sooo important. I did see a couple thousand other names and as Eric noted many from SoHum. Probably a lot more to come, lets watch and see.

    Here’s a link:


    Looks like Carol’s at least open minded, might find her name on the list soon.

  91. January 17, 2009 at 1:06 pm

    There’s no link because they took down the list with his name on it.

    Looks like Carol’s at least open minded, might find her name on the list soon.

    That’s a non-biased assessment, I’m sure. I expect to see her name on the list now that Estelle is the Executive Director.

  92. Anonymous
    January 17, 2009 at 1:08 pm

    Funny I don’t see a supporter list for the Watershed Council. Actually can’t find a site at all. Can you provide a link for this mystery group that Carlos says “has nothing to hide”. Who are their supporters? Their Board? Their position statements?

  93. January 17, 2009 at 1:09 pm

    I agree that HWC should have a website. They are woefully behind the times.

  94. Anonymous
    January 17, 2009 at 1:17 pm

    So lets see. HumCPR has a site (though woefully unartistic) with written position statements (some I agree with, some not). HumCPR lists it’s Board Members. HumCPR lists thousands of supporters. HumCPR has it’s office in a visable location where you can see who is coming and going. Hum Watershed Council does none of the above and yet they are the above board group with “nothing to hide”. Am I missing anything in this picture?

  95. January 17, 2009 at 1:19 pm

    Perhaps if HWC had mysterious big money funders they, too, could afford a store front office.

  96. Anonymous
    January 17, 2009 at 1:23 pm

    Perhaps they do!

    I forgot, HumCPR states their funding comes from their supporters which they list. HWC gives no list of supporters or funders at all.

  97. Anonymous
    January 17, 2009 at 1:29 pm

    they got 200K a few years ago were funding lovelace to the tune of 35k/year. money is coming from somewhere.

  98. Anonymous
    January 17, 2009 at 1:39 pm

    Another thought is that the Watershed Council could afford a store front office if they had two thousand supporters.

  99. Eric Kirk
    January 17, 2009 at 2:00 pm

    Or maybe it’s just easier to raise money for property rights causes than environmental causes.

  100. Anonymous
    January 17, 2009 at 2:01 pm

    why would it be easier to raise money for property rights?

  101. Anonymous
    January 17, 2009 at 2:06 pm

    Or maybe they would have two thousand supporters and an easier time raising money if they just put out clear position statements and not double speak. Or maybe they just don’t have broad public support for extremist positions and there is nothing they can do about it.

  102. Anonymous
    January 17, 2009 at 2:08 pm

    This is not a good thing at all in my opinion. The people in southern Humboldt that were concerned over Estelle’s Reggae connections were rightly concerned on the basis of the abuse of power she showed in that conflict. But there have been other abuses of power and position in applying her own personal agenda and special interest. They are all documented. The first was documented in the Reggae trial. It is unfortunate that legitimate news sources didn’t cover the trial and bring out the documented facts. Secondly there are examples that can be found in the archives of the KMUD news segments Fennell planned and directed.

    Putting someone with this type of background into a public service position is undermining the credibility not advancing the credibility of the organization. It is a sad day to see those in a position to make a difference make such a poor choice in leadership.

    Let’s hope that the sacks full of underground money aren’t behind this appointment or won’t be joining in any time soon. Our local government needs to be cleaned up and the abuses and conflicts of interests should go out the way of Bush, Cheney, and Blagojevich. This isn’t a step forward but a giant leap backward in that regard.

  103. January 17, 2009 at 3:06 pm

    not double speak

    Speaking of Orwell, I found these bullet pointed statements about CPR’s activities on their website:



    That is hilarious coming from an organization who says the county is “planning people out of their homes.”

  104. Anonymous
    January 17, 2009 at 4:23 pm

    We sure wouldn’t want any manipulations and misrepresentations exposed would we? Are you suggesting it would be okay to let officials lie and cheat?

    Insisting on honesty, integrity, and accountability in our politicians and public employees might be a waste of effort and time but we should still try.

  105. January 17, 2009 at 4:35 pm

    No, we should expose manipulations and misrepresentations. But when the folks claiming to do so are guilty of the same M & M’s we should laugh at the hypocrisy and be careful about taking their claims seriously.

  106. Anonymous
    January 17, 2009 at 4:38 pm

    Why don’t you just elect honest people in the first place? Oh, that’s right, because you’d be “throwing your vote away.”

    You made your bed. Sleep in it.

  107. Anonymous
    January 17, 2009 at 4:39 pm

    Your right, thats why so many are concerned about groups like HWC. Probably also has something to do with why their membership is so small and they apparently have trouble raising money.

  108. January 17, 2009 at 4:50 pm

    their membership is so small and they apparently have trouble raising money.

    How do you know if their membership is so secret, as you say?

    Why don’t you just elect honest people in the first place? Oh, that’s right, because you’d be “throwing your vote away.”

    Which honest people weren’t elected?

  109. Anonymous
    January 17, 2009 at 4:54 pm

    If the HWC membership is not secret please provide the link to the list. Their directors, funding, and straightforward position statements on the issues would be helpfull as well. Thanks!

  110. January 17, 2009 at 4:55 pm

    You mean you don’t know these things yet imply they have a small membership? Are you psychic?

  111. Eric Kirk
    January 17, 2009 at 5:10 pm

    why would it be easier to raise money for property rights?

    More money in terms of vested interests. “Property rights” is usually the battle call for companies who don’t like environmental regulations. Environmental causes most often go up against much more money than they have at hand. That’s why some environmental laws provide for attorney fees for the plaintiffs pursuing enforcement of environmental laws, although unfortunately those provisions are being abused and I suspect they will be eliminated eventually.

  112. Anonymous
    January 17, 2009 at 6:19 pm

    “Property rights” is usually the battle call for companies who don’t like environmental regulations.

    Really? Because it’s my battle cry for a conservation easement that can’t just be nullified by a court’s say so after I’m dead.

  113. Josh Hedlund
    January 17, 2009 at 8:02 pm

    Estelle is a great pick. The folks behind HUM CPR continue to fight for our rural property rights while Heraldo babbles on with his personal agenda. While I agree with HUM CPR’ s mission and message, I am not involved with funding or founding this grass roots organization. I (nor any company I am associated with) have ever been involved with illegally diverting streams or malicious damage to the environment. If you continue to want to slander and defame please be civil and send me an email at joshhedlund@yahoo.com or call me at 415-850-7118. I promise to keep our communications private.

    Rose, if you would please stop referring to Schectman in regards to me or any company I am associated with. I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.

    Heraldo, you should be aware that comments like “Things backfired when he filed several building permits for Vilica’s TPZ lands the day the TPZ moratorium was passed.” discourage rural landowners from making application to “legalize” homesteads for fear of selective enforcement against them.

    Please leave my family name out of your mudslinging.

  114. January 17, 2009 at 8:32 pm

    Since when isn’t Schectman involved. Wasn’t his office the address for your LLC’s? What’s the story with that?

    Heraldo, you should be aware that comments like “Things backfired when he filed several building permits for Vilica’s TPZ lands the day the TPZ moratorium was passed.” discourage rural landowners from making application to “legalize” homesteads for fear of selective enforcement against them.

    Frame it that way if you wish, but the events of that day are part of the public record. Hundreds of people were at the Supes meeting, which was also televised, when you and Schectman had others fall on the sword for you so you wouldn’t have to answer any questions.

    You knew the Vilica issue was on the agenda that day in November 2007. Why didn’t you appear before the board and explain they had the Schectman connection wrong, if that’s the case as you suggest. It’s not as if you weren’t in the neighborhood. Several people saw you in the lobby before the hearing.

  115. Carlos Quilez
    January 17, 2009 at 11:50 pm

    Sorry we don’t have a web-site. We’re working on it and hopefully we’ll have one up soon. Yup, we’re behind the times. We’re doing the best we can with what the resources we have.

    Carlos Quilez
    President, HWC

  116. Anonymous
    January 18, 2009 at 9:05 am

    Hey Carlos, Glad to have established you are paying attention here. How about that clear statement about your organizations goals with respect to future TPZ land use? Do you believe that individuals should, or should not, be able to build their homes on existing legal TPZ parcels? I think it’s yes or no, but any straight forward response would be great. Many of us who might like to support your group would really like to know your clear stance. How bout it?

  117. Annonymous
    January 18, 2009 at 10:04 am

    The stereotypes are outdated. It is not only the public officials who are misleading and making incomplete statements. The special interest parties have developed the same practices. However the special interests are rarely called to task for using these practices. They are assumed to be telling the truth because, well, their just community folks.

    In my opinion this social mentality allows the truly rotten big fish to take over the pond. And from my experience that has been just what has happened. The lack of investigating backgrounds of public appointees. The lack of a true investigative press in Humboldt. The free flow of underground money has allowed several questionable people to be placed in county positions. Most of the time these people make rather objective decisions until faced with their special interest pressure. Then things get rather dicey and shady to say the least. But no one ever looks into it. Not seriously. No one ever talks about it. Not seriously.

    You can’t talk openly when you, as a neighbor, are compromised because “you–yourself” are not perfect and fear the retribution.

    I’d like to see Estelle’s tax returns and see a net worth audit done on her holdings. She is a public figure now. In Humboldt this should be standard practice for public officials. It would go a long way to weeding out the corrupted interests.

    I am not pro or anti-anything except corruption. Corruption grows like a bad fungus and spreads rather quickly until the damage to your local systems can’t handle the load anymore. Only then do you start seeing it for what it really is.

    Answer the real questions on land use there are some valid ones but watch out for those special interests. They will be back to bite us all someday.

  118. Red Hummer
    January 18, 2009 at 10:50 am

    Good thing we have Heraldo’s fungus fighting bathroom cleaner to keep that corruption in check. And letting things air out on the blog will keep the mildew damage to minimum.

  119. January 18, 2009 at 10:57 am

    Carlos – I am happy to hear that you are now the PRESIDENT of “Humboldt Watershed Council” and are committed to openness and transparency. I assume that also means honest answers to questions.

    Question #1 – Is “Healthy Humboldt” a “Project” of “Humboldt Watershed Council?”

    You do know what a “Project ” is, don’t you?

  120. Eric Kirk
    January 18, 2009 at 10:58 am

    I’d like to see Estelle’s tax returns and see a net worth audit done on her holdings. She is a public figure now. In Humboldt this should be standard practice for public officials. It would go a long way to weeding out the corrupted interests.

    1. She’s not a public official, and there are no laws governing the conduct of “public figures.”

    2. Even public officials are entitled to their privacy if they want it. Many candidates release their tax info for PR purposes, but it’s not mandatory.

    3. If you’re implying that she or anyone else receive money illegally, it’s not going to be on their tax forms. Duh.

    January 18, 2009 at 11:28 am

    Development Project?

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  122. Anonymous
    January 18, 2009 at 11:41 am

    Even public officials are entitled to their privacy if they want it.

    Eric, public figures have no expectation of privacy under the law.

    That’s a different issue than release of tax records, but you mixed the two, so I’m clarifying.

  123. Eric Kirk
    January 18, 2009 at 12:35 pm

    Eric, public figures have no expectation of privacy under the law.

    Uh, sorry. Yes they do.

  124. Anonymous
    January 18, 2009 at 12:40 pm

    Both of these groups appear to have hidden agendas- HWC would generally be in favor of more restrictions on TPZ property. They see this as an opportunity to further protect the hills from greater development. HumCPR cares more about property values than anything. They are in favor of lessoning any restrictions that would make their lands more valuable. The ability to subdivide a parcel, and build a single family house on each subdivided piece would make many TPZ parcels a very attractive investment.

    Pretty simple agendas in my mind-

  125. Eric Kirk
    January 18, 2009 at 1:11 pm

    Well, maybe Estelle can broaden the agenda. If she wants to be effective, she’s going to have to.

  126. Anonymous
    January 18, 2009 at 1:39 pm

    12:40, HumCPR has never even remotely suggested that any rules or restrictions be lessoned. Hasn’t happened, not once. You shouldn’t believe everything you read here. I suggest you find out the fact for yourself. Ulansey regularly says that subdivisions need to be looked at carefully and evaluated based on community desires.

  127. Annonymous
    January 18, 2009 at 2:02 pm

    The point made wasn’t about the law. It is about being above question and ensuring the public that you are there to do the job intended. Tax records are one thing. A net worth audit is what is needed to screen out those using the underground market for personal gain (hence having alliances with with special interest groups that have questionable respect for authority, rules, and regulations).

    The standard of law isn’t the only prevailing code in a community. Ethics and integrity standards are set by the individual, the family and friends of the individual, and the community at large.

    Ethics in public service is crucial to securing a democracy. Without ethics checks and balances created to exclude corrupt and self-interested activities are left only to the application of the law. That would be fine if the law was interested or had the resources to effectively sort out problems and clear them out.

    Why do we have to wait for criminal activity to come to light and then spend the money and emotional reserves to clean things up after the damage has been done. It seems to me that simple questions and screenings can be done as a cheap effective measure to make sure no mini Madoffs are running around claiming to have the community’s interest at heart.

    Why would someone wanting to go into public service turn down a net worth audit? The total amount of their worth doesn’t have to be made public just authenticated that they can support their net worth with recorded income and records.

    I can only think of one reason why someone going into public service would refuse to be this open. I am open to hearing others.

    It certainly would go a long way in this county to weeding out certain influences in county government that are not really servicing the public interest all the time.

  128. Anonymous
    January 18, 2009 at 2:46 pm

    Uh, sorry. Yes they do.

    You’re obviously not a photographer.

  129. Eric Kirk
    January 18, 2009 at 3:47 pm

    No, I’m not a photographer. But I’m not certain what that has to do with the legal right to privacy. When you’re talking legal rights you’re talking rights against government compulsion to reveal anything. There are certain items of information a candidate must provide to run for office. Beyond that they have the same rights as everyone else.

  130. Ed
    January 18, 2009 at 5:11 pm

    I know quite a few folks in sohum and in rural settings all over northern Ca. and I have lived a rural rustic lifestyle since 1970. As one who listened to Estelle with great gratitude and appreciation on the KMUD news, it’s a little shocking that she would buy into the obvious manipulations of the development industry. Anyone with a good eye should know the difference between real threats to rural living and the desperate clawing of those who want to exploit our natural heritage.

  131. Anonymous
    January 18, 2009 at 5:16 pm

    Ed: You should probably keep an open mind and meet with Estelle and Ulansey. Could be a bigger suprise than you think. Either way it would seem a good idea to find out the facts.

  132. Anonymous
    January 18, 2009 at 5:20 pm

    HumCPR has never even remotely suggested that any rules or restrictions be lessoned.

    They haven’t said it yet, but that is their motive. Its all about property values. Nothing much more. Remember Pierson’s kids on the cover of the Journal? “Don’t take away my college tuition.”

  133. Ed
    January 18, 2009 at 5:32 pm

    Don’t throw “the Facts” at me. I’m well aware of Ulansey’s views and Estell’s practice of skirting issues when running for office, only to reveal any real positions when it pays to do so. As someone who knows what happens in California when developers use the “property rights” slogan to further their goals , my caution reminds me to follow the money.

  134. Anonymous
    January 18, 2009 at 5:43 pm

    Sorry, didn’t mean to confuse you with “the facts”, just thought you might be interested in “the facts”. Guess not. I certainly don’t want to get in the way of your condemnation of people for what they might at some point say. Of course until they do, they “might” not, then how will you look?

  135. January 18, 2009 at 5:49 pm

    Huh? What facts did you present. All you offered was an assertion that anyone who doesn’t swallow the HumCPR line must not have the facts. Perhaps you should lay out the facts as you see them so we can get beyond simple insinuations.

    January 18, 2009 at 5:52 pm

    Super-Inflated AND Unjustifiable Property Values is the basis for the taxation method that partly landed California where it is economically. How about the insurance premiums homeowners got stiffed on for super-inflated Real-Estate valuations? How about that Ballot measure for the GOB tax on property owners in the McKinleyville Unified School District – a measure which was calculated against higher, super-inflated valuations prior to the Real-Estate meltdown. The General Obligation Bond analysis done by KNN from Oakland was a sham, insider set-up based upon some variables present in the Bay Area and not Humboldt County. Declining enrollment, declining values, foreclosures, lower Fair Market values, lack of development to increase # of homes, etc…This measure is quite possibly going to blow up in the School Districts face if Real-Estate values stay plunged – Karma.

    So, apparantly it is about the kids – kinda like Social Security, Medicare, etc… Ponsai Scheme to benefit the insiders through the frontloading of taxes based upon DEBT FINANCING that devalued properties and it’s owners will pay. I kinda felt bad for the gal chosen in representing the firm because she could not answer any question posed by the General Public without shaking a bit when answering those certain questions. She did say that there was “no guarantee” that the measure would work out. People in the crowd moaned.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  137. Lodgepole
    January 18, 2009 at 5:54 pm

    Ed, in this case it appears their goals are to not have their rights taken away. Nothing too sinister about that.

  138. January 18, 2009 at 5:55 pm

    Heraldo, we do not even know each other – only through the blogs and emails and I do not know your identity. However, I am surprised that you would assume I would join HUMCPR just because Estelle is the executive director. I think this situation with Estelle being executive director has your feathers a bit ruffled. It was news to me, too. I knew Estelle was working on something and needed to have a job, but was not forthcoming until it was in the Times Standard. All I have said was that it is interesting, a smart move on behalf on the group. Hopefully, she will calm some of the rhetoric from the group like we heard during the TPZ moratorium.

    Myself, I do support some environmental groups. I live on a small parcel of land and have no need to join HUM CPR. Maybe think positively? Perhaps Estelle could help bridge the so-called opposing groups. You may find out you have more in commen than you think.

    I may be too idealistic, but there is hope! Meanwhile let’s keep blogging. It has been pretty boring lately in blog land, and this gem woke us all up! Keep typing, bloggers!


    BTW, I love what you did with the picture of Estelle. Cool. I agree with anonymous, reggae colors would be awesome.

  139. Ed
    January 18, 2009 at 6:11 pm

    I understand humcpr is endeavoring to be reborn as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit org. Wow ,if the feds buy that, think of the golden investment opportunities for tax wise folks like Barnum, Simpson, Emerson, and any other large timberland owners and those that profit from rezoning and land transactions. I remind you that 40 thousand acres per year of timberland is lost to development in Ca.

    January 18, 2009 at 6:41 pm

    And 95% of California’s Riparian areas are damaged and dysfunctional.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  141. Ed
    January 18, 2009 at 7:02 pm

    And that’s the legacy we have due to unwise use of extraction and development Hench. Where is the outcry for conservation? The industrialists scramble for the last of our resources like offshore drilling as if there won’t be any future generations and it’s the same with our water. Just ask folks in the Mattole how residential water use has worked out there. Multiply that by a hundred and you have the result of CPR’s investments.

  142. January 18, 2009 at 7:04 pm

    Carol, sorry if I jumped to conclusions. From what I’ve seen on the blogs you are extremely loyal to Estelle. Perhaps that won’t translate into you officially joining HumCPR.

    I’m both surprised and not surprised by this announcement. While on the campaign trail she repeated that she would represent everybody in the district, which, of course, is impossible. At least now she is defining her position.

    Perhaps Estelle could help bridge the so-called opposing groups.

    There clearly are opposing positions in this debate. HumCPR has done its best to co-opt various issues, like code enforcement, in order to make itself look bigger. As noted by Ben on Eric’s blog:

    I attended one HumCPR meeting in the flush of the Code Enforcement raids. I had a very uneasy feeling that I was being conned. They were using the code issue to promote their problems with TPZ regulation. An entirely different issue. In addition, they were asking for money for an organization which was not primarily interested in code enforcement but rather issues of zoning and development.

    If Estelle is hoping to bridge the divide she’s off to a bad start. By claiming the county is “planning people out of their homes” she relies on typical HumCPR distortions and fear-mongering, which will not win any support from opposing parties.

    While I would like to give her the benefit of the doubt that she is simply ignorant rather than purposefully misrepresenting the General Plan Update, it’s hard to believe that she, as a longtime newscaster and recent candidate during a campaign where this issue was paramount, would say something so far from the truth. It’s disappointing.

    The image on this post was made using obamiconme. I’m glad you liked it.

  143. January 18, 2009 at 7:18 pm

    Very well, Heraldo, your apology is accepted.

    Let’s just wait and watch. It will be interesting to see how all this unfolds. Meanwhile, I am glad that Estelle has a job.

  144. Not A Native
    January 18, 2009 at 7:47 pm

    Ed and Anon 12:40 pretty much have this issue nailed.

    The basic “problem” for tmber companies is that cutover land requires a very long holding time to realize a return. And there are costs and risks during that long time. But selling it under that condition doesn’t realize much because any potential buyer is faced with the same money pit situation. The profitable solution is to create a more valuable immediate market for that land.

    January 18, 2009 at 8:02 pm


    often the developer follows the conditions set forth through mitigation; then, the buyer destroys the mitigations by breaking the development standards. I can attest to this as a witness since I have documented buyers doing their dirty deeds. Mitigation is just paperwork for which public officials do not have the gonads to enforce after the fact because it is all about just getting the development pushed through for TAX VALUATIONS added to the local COUNTY TAX ROLL.

    Here is an example of flawed development – Fire accessibility turnarounds and A.D.A. standards. The fire departments do their sign off with NO vehicles present in the subdivision because no buyers yet exist. After the fact, the turn-around is half of what is was when inspected for sign-offs because of the parking of vehicles in that turn-around.

    How about street sweeping in new subdivisions? Nope, just piles upon piles of silt that drain into the sub-structures.

    How about sidewalk blockages? Yes, buyers park their vehicles on the sidewalks, thus eliminating the ingress and egress for any pedestrian.

    Again, it is really about tax dollars garnered through a fraudulant planning process.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  146. average Eurekan
    January 18, 2009 at 8:55 pm

    … but at what price her soul?

  147. January 19, 2009 at 7:44 am

    They haven’t said it yet, but that is their motive. Its all about property values. Nothing much more. Remember Pierson’s kids on the cover of the Journal? “Don’t take away my college tuition.”

    And you really truly see something evil in refinancing your home or property in order to put your kids through college?

    You may mortgage your own future by doing so, but you allow them to enter life debt-free. No $120,000 + in student loans to struggle to pay back.

    You’re an ignorant fool if you think property rights is just a slogan, or that preserving property values is a sinister thing.

  148. Anonymous
    January 19, 2009 at 8:14 am

    Rose, spinning again. The property values that you are “preserving” are based on assumed rights. The rights don’t exist so now HumCPR wants to change the laws to create new “rights”. And if the creeks dry up, silt up or are polluted, or wildlife is displaced to extinction, or traffic issues grow, that is not their problem.

  149. average Eurekan
    January 19, 2009 at 10:05 am

    Greg Pierson’s kids protesting with signs that say, “You’re taking away my college tuition!” is the biggest and possibly most ironic joke in the world – that is, the kids of one of the county’s most-landed scions, slummin’ it.

    What will we have next? Elizabeth Arkley parading around with a sign in front of the next Coastal Commish meeting that says, “You’ve taken away the $ for my next boob job?”

  150. kaivalya
    January 19, 2009 at 10:21 am

    “distortions and fear-mongering” is how I would describe John Beslow’s article “Could Alternative A save your life?” John was representing both Healthy Humboldt and DUHC when his article was published in the Green Wheels newsletter.

  151. January 19, 2009 at 10:33 am

    I just re-read Beslow’s article and didn’t see any fear-mongering. What part specifically are you talking about?

  152. Anonymous
    January 19, 2009 at 10:38 am

    Sounds like Rose is admitting that the Hum CPR agenda is to protect and enhance property values

  153. Ed
    January 19, 2009 at 10:51 am

    Kaivalya, if promoting exercise is fear mongering, then our doctors must all be guilty of mongery in the first degree.

  154. kaivalya
    January 19, 2009 at 10:54 am

    John uses selective corollary information to create an argument that a general plan update “could save my life”. Give me a break…

    Corollary information and inductive conclusion are a classic means of created an argument from a distorted reality. Then conclude that the readers life is immediate danger, and you have the perfect recipe for meaningless political rhetoric. Simply get Ann Lindsay to repeat and stir, then it must be true!

    Surely Heraldo you know this recipe well.

  155. kaivalya
    January 19, 2009 at 10:55 am

    Ed, so people in unincorporated areas don’t exercise?

  156. January 19, 2009 at 10:58 am

    Then conclude that the readers life is immediate danger

    The article doesn’t say that. But diseases such as diabetes and cancer are becoming epidemic, no argument there.

  157. Ed
    January 19, 2009 at 11:02 am

    There are plenty of folks in and out of town who don’t get enough exercise, just as there are many who do. It’s still not fear mongering to acknowledge the benefits to the majority

  158. kaivalya
    January 19, 2009 at 11:19 am

    Ed, first of all, there are “towns” that are in unincorporated areas.

    Secondly, it’s people who exercise (or not), so deal with the people directly, as doctors do. Are land use issues really the most direct way of promoting health? What about banning unhealthy foods, cigarettes, etc.? I suspect that would be met with overwhelming protest. Don’t people have the liberty to live an unhealthy lifestyle if they choose anyhow?

  159. January 19, 2009 at 11:25 am

    Anonymous – we ALL need to protect property values. You’re crazy if you think otherwise. Crashing property values are already affecting state revenues and everything else.

    John Beslow’s article “Could Alternative A save your life?” John was representing both Healthy Humboldt and DUHC when his article was published in the Green Wheels newsletter.

    “Healthy Humboldt” a project of “Humboldt Watershed Council” – funded by a grant from the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, a Sacramento based charitable organization dedicated to conservation. The foundation awarded the Watershed Council $125,000 as part of its “Preserving Wild California Program” – “a five year, $150 million effort to protect wild lands and rivers across the state,” according to its website.

    Sounds so good, doesn’t it? To protect ‘wild lands.’ Who could be against that? But read on – and all Lovelace’s catchphrases show up – ‘sprawl’ ‘infill’ – and ALL the people who sat next to him in meeting after meeting, thinking he was there just like them, had NO idea that he was being paid to direct things in a certain direction.

    Where’s Carlos?

  160. Anonymous
    January 19, 2009 at 11:25 am

    “Are land use issues really the most direct way of promoting health?”

    There are many studies that say a strong “yes” to that question.

  161. Anonymous
    January 19, 2009 at 11:29 am

    So Rose, if protecting/promoting the development of diesel dope grows keeps property values high, then we should do it?

    This is most of what HumCPR’s agenda will really do.

  162. January 19, 2009 at 11:31 am

    I love it when rose uses her psychic powers to tell us what “ALL the people” were thinking.

  163. Red Hummer
    January 19, 2009 at 12:10 pm

    Some good points, some not so good. Thanks for injecting some humor average E.

  164. longwind
    January 19, 2009 at 12:31 pm

    Oh please. The very suggestion that Eureka or McKinleyville are ‘healthier’ than a homestead according to Berkeley grad students who ran software to prove it, is so ludicrous on its face that only a highly placed county bureaucrat could make this argument. I thought.

    The county is empowering people who’ve never even set foot in our county, let alone in our countryside, to crunch numbers generated by abstract data sets in order to create policy pronouncements based on divisive stereotypes. This is instructive purely as a model for how dysfunctional and propaganda-driven county decision-making gets if the public stops paying attention.

    In order to make meaningful decisions about rural planning, since no rural planning classes exist, and no rural planners are employed by the county, the county has to talk to rural residents. And lay off these freelance urban planning grads getting $100k contracts to tell other urban planning grads what they learned in urban planning class. This stuff is just embarrassing.

    If we’ve an actual concern about public health, we might extend services to the reservations where rural illness clumps, and build incentives for small footprints and healthy self-reliance into rural building codes, to institutionalize the advantages of low-impact rural living. Then we can sneer at the fat city dwellers who shop at Winco with statistical certainty. I’ll draft the program for just $75k, if I can hire my friends like the county does.

    I wish HumCPR all the best in going against this spew with what I hope will become more nuanced spews of their own. Eventually this popaganda war may evolve into meaningful discussion.

  165. Eric Kirk
    January 19, 2009 at 12:37 pm

    Anonymous – we ALL need to protect property values. You’re crazy if you think otherwise. Crashing property values are already affecting state revenues and everything else.

    We don’t ALL need to. I’m certain buyers would be quite happy with dropping property values. Markets are all about perspective.

  166. Eric Kirk
    January 19, 2009 at 12:45 pm

    Ed, so people in unincorporated areas don’t exercise?

    I think that was a gross overgeneralization, but on a personal level my exercise did decrease when I left San Francisco. I used to live in the Mission District and worked downtown. I made a habit of taking the bus and walking everywhere largely because looking for parking often took more time.

    But I remember a college friend from the Los Angeles area accompanying me to a visit to SF and he remarked “why are all these people walking? Where are they going?” Everything is much more spread out in L.A. It’s not necessarily true that you walk more in an urban area, even if the opportunities present themselves.

    I remember getting a haircut on Mission Street. The woman cutting my hair complained that she’d gotten her third parking ticket in a month. She lived in Daly City, so I asked her why she didn’t just take BART, the 24th street station being half a block away. Her response was almost defiant, “I pay a lot of money every month for this car and I’m going to use it!”

    January 19, 2009 at 12:46 pm

    Here is a cure for land expansion – STOP HAVING CHILDREN.

    Oh wait, then there are no taxpayers to pay for the retirements of generations past; especially since the hard working taxpayers’ retirement benefits are virtually insolvent for so many elderly folks who entrusted trust in the wrong political representatives and economic financiers. Eyes wide shut folks?

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  168. Anonymous
    January 19, 2009 at 12:47 pm

    Those darn studies, that darn data. Land use is not the only impact to public health it is just one of the biggest. Seems longwind is confusing urban, suburban and rural planning and its impacts. If Winco is the only place where longwind interacts with townies then maybe his data set is a bit skewed.

    Most of the people I know that shop there are rural and suburban, but not particularly fat.

  169. kaivalya
    January 19, 2009 at 1:09 pm

    That’s just it, it’s often culture as much as opportunity that promotes peoples daily movement. The idea that proximity to marketplaces, schools and workplaces directly promotes health is based on a normal cultural model. What if people don’t have to leave their hill for food and/or educate their children without public school? How does the “counter-culture” represent itself? Didn’t Estelle say something about “protecting permaculture” on KMUD the other day?
    I’m even for in-fill, but how to we safeguard against the gentrification that has soiled SF and other urban areas.

  170. longwind
    January 19, 2009 at 1:15 pm

    Sorry 12;47, I was just practicing thinking like a planner. Won’t do it again, I agree it was stupid.

    But do you really think what the planning department permits you to have out your window is what determines how much tv you watch, what food you eat, whether you exercise, etc? The planners seem to, and they do declare with Eric (in that very study) that the Manhattan model of universal public transit and routine walking is the healthiest lifestyle option–because they’ve never heard of a rural homestead–but that’s a quibble in the enormity of what they don’t know about rural living.

    The point really is, so fricking what? Our low-density, crappy-transit towns (and suburbs, and rural areas) will not Manhattanize no matter how much money is wasted on nonsensical studies commissioned from ignorant outsiders. That’s the point, no matter what category of ignorance they pile higher and deeper on our dime.

    And don’t call me anti-intellectual either. It’s because I think about this that it offends me, even after it insults me. Why not have an intelligent policy instead?

  171. Anonymous
    January 19, 2009 at 1:27 pm

    WHAM, POW, ZING, Holy grey matter Batman. There is actually starting to be intellegent thought and coherent conversation here. We might actually start to find some answers.

  172. Anonymous
    January 19, 2009 at 5:09 pm

    Okay I’ll bite. Whose idea or standard of intelligence are we using. Pick a viewpoint. Every person has one. Each one will be different.

    Guard? Whom and what are we guarding against? Some other people’s wants and needs? Outsiders? People who, well, you know, aren’t like us?

    Controlled economic development is a decent notion but it has been grossly taken out of context by the people who promote fear and division between ideas. Intervening in community development beyond a sound zoning and structural policy is protectionism. That may be what many people want. But don’t fool yourself into who and what you are protecting yourself against and don’t complain when other communities make rules to protect themselves against people like, well, you know, you.

    The concept, in my viewpoint, should be to take the best of all viewpoints and blend together what works for the good of the Earth and ALL the human beings.

  173. January 19, 2009 at 6:03 pm

    Oh please. The very suggestion that Eureka or McKinleyville are ‘healthier’ than a homestead according to Berkeley grad students who ran software to prove it, is so ludicrous on its face that only a highly placed county bureaucrat could make this argument. I thought.

    Amen, longwind.

  174. Eric Kirk
    January 19, 2009 at 6:33 pm

    I’m even for in-fill, but how to we safeguard against the gentrification that has soiled SF and other urban areas.

    Well, mark my words. Unbridled development will lead to gentrification. I watched it happen to the San Mateo County coast in the 1980s, as the old guard fought us relentlessly on controlled growth ultimately bringing in more affluent liberals from the city until they completely lost power. The upside is that the tunnel alternative to the proposed 4 lane freeway bypass of Devil’s Slide never would have happened but for the gentrification and ascent of “quality of life issues.” The downside is that the working class I was raised in is gone. Cleansed.

    And the irony here is that the “rural values” concept is at its core elitist. We’re so pure and “in touch with nature,” unlike those brown hoards in the cities. Yes, I understand how unfair that frame seems. But when you break the argument down, that’s what we’re left with.

    As for the “Berkeley grad study” it’s the ultimate expression of provincialism to reject a study you know nothing about simply because you don’t like the conclusions it points to.

  175. January 19, 2009 at 6:36 pm

    And the irony here is that the “rural values” concept is at its core elitist. We’re so pure and “in touch with nature,” unlike those brown hoards in the cities.

    Oof! Well said.

  176. Eric Kirk
    January 19, 2009 at 6:37 pm

    And by the way, whether the study is accurate or not, I don’t believe that a development policy should be based on whether the residents are getting enough exercise or not. I’d just as soon support publicly funded gym membership, which would probably save the government money if we eventually have national health care.

    January 19, 2009 at 6:44 pm

    Yes, a development policy should be about the land and people’s rights to use that land respectfully.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  178. Eric Kirk
    January 19, 2009 at 6:56 pm

    Oof! Well said.

    Yeah, but now I’m going to hear all sorts of whining about how I “played the race card.”

  179. Anonymous
    January 19, 2009 at 8:43 pm

    So Longwind, when was the last time you were called provincial? And all of us who have lived in the hills for so long are now “elitist” and genrty. Last I checked Eric, the genrty had someone else to cut and stack their wood. Are you really that far out of touch with the reality of your friends and neighbors? The “rural lifestyle” of Humboldt is so far removed from the San Mateo of your fears that your comparison is absurd. At least for the next three or four thousand years.

  180. Anonymous
    January 19, 2009 at 9:02 pm

    the study doesn’t make any sense. Anne Lindsay presented this study to a bunch of doctors too. “Waste of time” is what I heard from my doctor. my crazy doc thinks diet and exercise are keys to being healthy. next time you go to the doctor, rather than giving information like exercise habits, family history, and eating habits, just tell them your address and see what type of diagnosis you get.

  181. Eric Kirk
    January 19, 2009 at 9:08 pm

    The “rural lifestyle” of Humboldt is so far removed from the San Mateo of your fears that your comparison is absurd. At least for the next three or four thousand years.

    Famous last words. We got that in San Mateo County. They got it in Marin and Sonoma counties, and in Contra Costa. Not to mention Bellingham, Washington, Eugene Oregon, and the Oregon Coast. “It’ll never happen here.” Great epitaph.

  182. January 19, 2009 at 9:53 pm

    Too bad we didn’t cut it off long ago. None of you guys would have houses. The places where you live would all still be fields.

    How many people here are ‘from here?’

    How many have been here since
    the 60s
    the 70s
    the 80s
    the 90s
    the 00s

  183. Anonymous
    January 19, 2009 at 10:13 pm

    What is your point Rose?

  184. Eric Kirk
    January 19, 2009 at 11:51 pm

    Too bad we didn’t cut it off long ago. None of you guys would have houses. The places where you live would all still be fields.

    And maybe that would have been for the better, I can’t say. But how big should the county population get? 200 thousand? 500 thousand? A million? I mean, surely there must be some cap in mind before we lose the precious rural character all this development is somehow going to protect.

  185. Anonymous
    January 20, 2009 at 6:30 am

    i think the point is your hypocrisy, 10:13. you move here and then chastise people for doing the same thing you did, except you don’t call them people, you call them development after you get here. Eric, are you truly foolish enough to believe Humboldt is anything like San Mateo or Marin? we don’t have jobs and we’re not close to any job center. if you haven’t noticed, legitimate business is frowned upon in Humboldt.

  186. Eric Kirk
    January 20, 2009 at 10:39 am

    For the record, I haven’t chastised even one person for moving here.

  187. longwind
    January 20, 2009 at 11:58 am

    Getting called ‘provincial’ and ‘elitist’ in almost the same cyber-breath gives a pretty good flavor of the reasoning we country folk are up against here. Another one is the suggestion that we can somehow regulate against wealthy people privileging themselves over poorer people. That’s not even a popular lost cause.

    A more lost cause is the argument that rural protection protects anyone or anything but the patient rich who pay their way through obstacles to what they want. This is not theoretical. Eric, look out your car window next time you drive to Mendo town. While the anti-growth regs of the Cal Coastal Commission have prevented the Mendo coast from going full Miami, its failures, in mile after mile of expensive consumer construction tucked behind viewbreaks disguised as windbreaks, shows the fate that awaits Humboldt’s rural areas in the absence of sound policy, if you’re right that we’re just an unripe San Mateo about to squish onto the ground.

    The problem with banning development of the patent parcels underlying large acreages is that it is illegal to do so. Those Homestead Act parcels were created to support homesteads, though heaven knows plenty of fraud kept homesteading to a minimum. A complementary county fraud pretending to restrict what anti-environmental lawyers have known how to evade for decades will achieve the opposite of its stated intention: it will make it so expensive to build in Humboldt country that only mcMansions will apply. Their owners will of course demand the services they had to spend so much money to pine for. And we poor schlubs who don’t truck with expensive land-abuse lawyers will lose our rights to live much more lightly in areas where we have never expected county services.

    This is back-asswards. Why is it even proposed by enviros who know to our sorrow the status of the law? A great truth of industrial America was that regulations are written by the rich, for the rich. Post-industrial regulation hasn’t shifted in intention one whit. How can authentic greens defend such thinking?

    Incidentally, this is why so many people demand that these issues be discussed and debated.

  188. Annonymous
    January 20, 2009 at 8:20 pm

    Well people you can make your plans and policies based on “fear” of what might happen or you can make your plans and policies based on the outcomes everyone agrees upon.

    Basically do you want to remain in the Bush era or come into the light and join the Obama era. Your choice.

  189. Anonymous
    January 20, 2009 at 8:38 pm

    Hum CPR wants to see the $$$

    Deregulation is the key

  190. Anonymous
    January 20, 2009 at 9:08 pm

    I thought it was the planners and HWC folks who were making their plans and policies out of fear of the san mateo plague. This does not square with your President Obama statement. It is President Obama now, have a little respect.

  191. Not A Native
    January 20, 2009 at 10:45 pm

    Lets be honest. The people who claim that living on far rural land is living lightly are deluding themselves or lying.

    Their houses, roads, fences, vehicles, domesticated animals, gardens, water diversions, energy usage, refuse, exotic plants, chemical substances, synthetic materials, discarded manufactured nondegradable items, land clearing and grading, and exclusion of unwanted wildlife constitute significant impacts to the status quo before their habitation. And the trend is for those impacts to increase when they believe their progeny have a right to live nearby.

    All those things are needed to sustain fulfilling human lives. I wouldn’t advocate denying them to any person. Lets have what we need as humans, while not taking more than we have to from other living creatures.

    We have great ability to adapt to many environments, most other life can’t. We have choices. The land we use is taken from other life that doesn’t have choices.

    We should take only enough to meet our present needs. Not take because we have an emotional desire to impose our will and have life and death power over other things and to possess, commandeer, and control them.

  192. Ed
    January 20, 2009 at 10:57 pm

    what Nan said

  193. Anonymous
    January 21, 2009 at 6:46 am

    it seems we have a fundamental disagreement about property rights. I support yours but just because the environmental impacts of your home were 50 years ago, it doesn’t mean they were any less. If you consider the fact that all cities were once wilderness and look at impact of Arcata vs. Fieldbrook, which has done more to impact the environment negatively?

  194. longwind
    January 21, 2009 at 9:20 am

    NAN, let’s be honest. Your leonine brain-noodles eat your own intelligence.

    Theory is not some skeleton that reality hangs on. Theory does not underlie reality. Theory is at bottom a metaphor, which we use to compare the concrete to the abstract, for the purpose of illuminating the real. We do this by cyclically regrounding our theories in what we’re theorizing about. That’s the scientific method, and for all its limitations it does more than noodling can do.

    The problem is, your theories tend to crush reality under your precious abstract absolutes. You have no more idea than my cat does how lightly people may live in town or country, but my cat doesn’t confuse herself with theory. Her thinking is more informative than yours. If intellectual noodles were rocket fuel, you could fly to Uranus and back on noodle power–but you couldn’t tell us what’s out your window. It’s not abstract, it’s not theory-bound. It exists. It’s real. There’s so much more to heaven and earth than is dreamed of in your . . . whatever, Horatio.

    I say this with genuine respect and affection for the power of your thinking. But as I may intoxicate myself on spirited rhetoric, you may abuse your powerful intellection in sterile fulfillments. Fun’s fun, but we have worthy subjects here. Let’s keep it real.

  195. Eric Kirk
    January 21, 2009 at 11:32 am

    Well, the impact on the rivers correlating with increases in rural development over the past couple of decades is real. We can argue whether there’s causation, but there’s no dispute as to the correlation.

    And whether state law can trump the legal status of historical federal parcels depends on a number of factors. Obviously it’s not quite as simple as you suggest, as the McKee case makes clear. I recently came across a law review article about 4 years old (pre-McKee) which deals with some of the issues, and the impact of parcel post loopholes for developers on California’s agriculture and open spaces. I’ll post the link later on.

  196. longwind
    January 21, 2009 at 12:19 pm

    1) The McKee case never took up the issue of patent parcels. It was about the Williamson Act, remember?

    2) Your logic suggests, just to speak of our South Fork Eel in SoHum, that the development of the Meadows residential subdivision, the Meadows industrial park, and greater Benbow somehow doesn’t correlate with what you disapprove of, since those vastly increased uses over the last 20 years are ‘urban,’ not ‘rural.’ But those are increased draws that we don’t have to theorize in a vacuum about. Why don’t they figure in your ‘correlations?’

    3) Rural development of the South Fork has not hugely increased ‘over the past couple of decades.’ It was already in place. Drought has increased. Urban drawdown has increased. And rural users, unlike their city neighbors, are spending time and money reducing their water use. Why haven’t you advocated a cutback or freeze on Service District deliveries?

    4) Seriously, where does this bias against rural living come from?

  197. Anonymous
    January 21, 2009 at 12:57 pm

    “And rural users, unlike their city neighbors, are spending time and money reducing their water use.”

    What BS. With “growing” affluence in the hills came pools, washing machines, expanded gardens, 3 bathroom homes all using many times more water than say 20 years ago.

  198. Anonymous
    January 21, 2009 at 1:01 pm

    “Seriously, where does this bias against rural living come from?”

    Nothing against rural living, just the hypocrisy that it has little or no environmental consequence.

  199. Eric Kirk
    January 21, 2009 at 1:03 pm

    1) The McKee case never took up the issue of patent parcels. It was about the Williamson Act, remember?

    Au contraire. The case took up a number of issues with numerous and extensive briefs and McKee’s plan was/is for lot line adjustments in conformance with the patent parcels. The issue which has been decided is whether the Williamson contracts predating the 1978 revision of the Act prohibits subsequent applications of the revision, and the appellate court overruled the trial court and said no. The appellate court did not explicitly prohibit the proposed lot line adjustments, but remanded the to the trial court to “fashion a remedy” consistent with the decision. The impact of the patent parcel status on the Williamson Act and vice-versa is still up in the air, but the implication the county is going to argue is that the Williamson Act contracts trump the patent parcel status. Since TPZ was explicitly stated to replace the Williamson Act with regard to timberland, all of the legal rulings will probably apply.

    Here’s the law review article I was talking about.


  200. Eric Kirk
    January 21, 2009 at 1:11 pm

    Rural development of the South Fork has not hugely increased ‘over the past couple of decades.’ It was already in place. Drought has increased. Urban drawdown has increased. And rural users, unlike their city neighbors, are spending time and money reducing their water use. Why haven’t you advocated a cutback or freeze on Service District deliveries?

    No, I can tell you that development has increased very significantly in the past couple of decades. I’ve been involved in the litigation to prove it. I’m not sure which “urban drawdown” you’re speaking about, but Garberville doesn’t draw from the river, and Redway has only had maybe 2 or 3 new buildings constructed in the past decade. If they’re drawing water to sell to other communities, then that should probably stop.

    There have been two droughts in the past since the subdivision takeoff of the early 70s, one in the late 70s and one in the late 80s. We skipped a decade. But I don’t know that this drought is any more severe than those two. If not, then what is the variable?

  201. Ed
    January 21, 2009 at 1:13 pm

    I’d like to believe rural residents are spending time and money reducing water usage. I for one use about 50 gallons a day and have a greywater system for landscaping. However, I’m the only one in my immediate neighborhood doing this. The local farmers use huge amounts of water as I’m sure they do in your neck of the woods Longwind. I don’t read the comments as bias against rural living, many who enjoy the rustic life are the ones who know just what can happen if the carrying capacity of their locale is not carefully planned.

  202. longwind
    January 21, 2009 at 1:47 pm

    In order: irresponsible water use can and should be scrutinized. I don’t know the Palm Springs-style homesteads that you describe, but I can believe they’re out there. And your point is that there are no such pools and multiple toilets in town? Why not engage with the people working to encode responsible rural practices–and consider spreading those values among you and your neighbors, speaking of hypocrisy?

    No argument that humans don’t have footprints. We do. Big argument that we can’t and don’t live lighter in low densities than in hives of subsidized services, as we want to. We can make sensible lifestyles more conscious and even code-worthy, but not without information and cooperation. We won’t get there like this.

    Eric, I guess you don’t know that the Meadows Industrial Park, with 30-odd commercial sites operating and more under construction, all built in the last decade, is watered by the Redway Community Services District. Or that Garberville draws down the Eel River aquifer. Now you do.

    Ed, you’re absolutely right that farmers are California’s, and the world’s, river killers. They draw 80 percent of the water used in California even now, with ‘strong’ conservation measures discouraging some profligacy and waste. They’re less of an influence in our area because ag isn’t very big around here (oops, I have to exempt pot from that, I admit I’m thinking of orchards and row crops which are huge suckers elsewhere in the state), but I agree that past practices here too have to change for our ecosystem to have a chance against global weirding. And of course it and we may be doomed anyway. The point I mean to make is that urban carrying capacity has never been discussed. Rural carrying capacity is the subject of organized opprobrium, with no information behind it. But careful planning, if it were to occur, surely would begin where populations and consumptions are vastly concentrated, with obvious ill effect. Why doesn’t it?

  203. Anonymous
    January 21, 2009 at 1:47 pm

    In looking at the trail of comments both here and on similar threads and other even unrelated sites I am close to the conclusion that the respective sides will never be able to convince the other of the merits of their argument. This, dispite the fact that both have valid points. Perhaps we would be better off, in a sense, giving up the impossible attempts at conversion and instead focus on finding compromise solutions that meet many of the desired goals of all sides. The combined energy and resources that are being spent on fighting and attempting to force compliance might, if focused, actually achieve 90% of what we respectivly want if pointed at solutions instead of war. In an extreme example, we all shake our collective heads at the inability of the waring factions in the middle east to sit down a calmly resolve differences and create compromise for the greater good yet we do the same on our own scale with different but still catrastrophic results. We all seem to see ten solutions to the problems of others but are unwilling to attempt to find any to our own.

  204. Not A Native
    January 21, 2009 at 2:27 pm

    Frankly Longwind you have added nothing to refute the environmental impacts I enumerated attributed to far rural living, as it really is. And you can’t because they are true.

    Your non response would also apply to the Earth orbiting the Sun, Evolution, Ozone Depletion, Logging and Erosion, Global Warming, DotCom/Housing bubbles and cigarettes/asbestos/dioxin causing cancer. They’re only mere “theories”.

    As long as you personally aren’t inconvenienced, no problem exists. And when you are affected, you’ll howl you’re an innocent victim and demand that the real culprits be punished.

    Getting what you want isn’t the most important thing for you, its the only thing. I don’t expect you to change, that’s not my intent.

    A person who is pretending to be asleep can’t be awakened. And it’s impossible to make a man understand something when his livelihood depends on him not understanding.

    The truth of what is going on is becoming widely known and accepted. And people are acting on that knowledge. Thats good enough for me.

  205. Eric Kirk
    January 21, 2009 at 2:34 pm

    Eric, I guess you don’t know that the Meadows Industrial Park, with 30-odd commercial sites operating and more under construction, all built in the last decade, is watered by the Redway Community Services District. Or that Garberville draws down the Eel River aquifer. Now you do.

    Didn’t know about the last part. I’d been told Garberville drew water from springs.

    As for the Meadows, I don’t know what the water draw is, but the businesses employ people from the townships and hills alike. I’d say the use warrants some priorities.

    The big draws are for agricultural concerns, legal and illegal. The scale of those operations have increased probably faster than the residential development. That’s the elephant in the room.

    What I would like to see, with all of these Sohum people signing up with CPR, is some candor. Are they resistant to all increases in land use regulation, or just for their own back yard? Have they rethought their support for tree sits and logging regulations. Do they now empathize with the community 45 minutes to their north, or is this strictly a NIMBY trend? Hopefully, Estelle can answer some of these questions as she is now the advocate/emissary.

  206. Chris
    January 21, 2009 at 3:52 pm

    Well said 1:47. Fortunately, there are many of use, who despite our leanings, understand the necessity of compromise. I think Estelle can bring these people together for positive change, and perhaps even mellow out CPR’s vibe a bit, which would help them out in the long run IMO.

    Eric…I am in total agreement with your statement regarding candor. This is not limited to SoHum. I hope everyone can be more supportive of people’s right to periodically harvest their timber in a responsible manner.

  207. Lodgepole
    January 21, 2009 at 5:38 pm

    Gosh, and all this time I thought it was about timber. What’s that word, conflate?

  208. kaivalya
    January 22, 2009 at 9:47 am

    Some more candor and inclusive dialogue sounds like a great idea. I don’t know much about HumCPR other than there are those within Healthy Humboldt who percieve themselves to be “at war” with Hum CPR. All the more reason I don’t want to engage in the General Plan Update process.

  209. January 22, 2009 at 10:29 am

    I don’t know much about HumCPR other than there are those within Healthy Humboldt who percieve themselves to be “at war” with Hum CPR.

    Who would that be? Based on this thread it appears to be the other way around.

  210. kaivalya
    January 22, 2009 at 11:00 am

    I was quoting the GW meeting minutes. Aren’t you on the list H?

  211. January 22, 2009 at 11:02 am

    Apparently not. What’s GW? I thought we got rid of him.

  212. longwind
    January 22, 2009 at 11:18 am

    I share your reluctance, kaivalya. At its most civil this discussion has Eric asserting au contraire to a straightforward point he expends considerable verbiage then not contradicting at all. Less civilly I’m called a self-deluded liar for knowing that we live on less than a tenth of the average electric inputs of city dwellers, which we provide for ourselves from systems that would fit on the back seat of a car. ‘Nuff said about my “energy usage, refuse, exotic plants, chemical substances, synthetic materials, discarded manufactured nondegradable items, land clearing and grading, and exclusion of unwanted wildlife” crimes. I couldn’t compose such a list of evils, let alone be guilty of them all. I’m also accused of fronting for diesel dopers, though I don’t know any to get my paychecks from.

    All these opinions without evidence alarmingly suggest that this dialog isn’t beginning, let alone ending. Too bad.

  213. January 22, 2009 at 11:23 am

    Do you check your mail, Heraldo?

  214. January 22, 2009 at 11:35 am

    Every day.

  215. kaivalya
    January 22, 2009 at 12:36 pm

    OK H, I’ll spell it out for you – GreenWheels has expressed being “at war” with HumCPR in their weekly meeting minutes. I haven’t been to or get the meeting minutes for HumCPR so I genuinely don’t know if they percieve it the same way.

    Either way, I feel like a civilian casuality. Blessed are the peacemakers, right?

  216. January 22, 2009 at 1:09 pm

    Thanks for spelling it out. It’s not the first time I’ve been foiled by Humboldt County’s alphabet soup.

    Whether or not CPR says they’re at war, they’re busy whipping up the troops for battle to stop the mythical threat of the county “planning people out of their homes.”

  217. kaivalya
    January 22, 2009 at 1:32 pm

    It might just be a mythical threat, then I don’t understand why GreenWheels and Healthy Humboldt need to wage a “war” in response. Shouldn’t the facts and truthiness speak for themselves?

    When war is waged the “you are with us or against us” attitude prevails and compromises can’t be found. This has been my experience with GreenWheels and HealthyHumbodt.

  218. January 22, 2009 at 1:55 pm

    Can you give some examples? I must have missed the Bush-speak coming from Green Wheels and Healthy Humboldt. Instead, their reps offer articulate comments at meetings, and Green Wheels follows the issues on their blog and semi-regular publication.

    HumCPR on the other hand appears ready to whip people into a frenzy and will happily sacrifice the facts to do so, as with the “planning people out of their homes” comment. It’s not hard to miss the rhetoric, and many have expressed here that perhaps Estelle can calm the overbearing style. So far that appears unlikely as she is now repeating the scare tactics.

  219. oldphart
    January 22, 2009 at 2:02 pm

    The root cause of all of this misinformation, as always, is “them”.

  220. oldphart
    January 22, 2009 at 2:03 pm

    to clarify: those who are not us.

  221. anonymous says
    January 22, 2009 at 2:43 pm

    I went on KMUD’s news archive to listen to Estelle’s interview last week. You are misquoting Estelle’s words about planning people out of their homes. Her verbatim comment was ” I dont’ believe it is neccesary to plan people out of their homes”. And you also have to listen to the whole interview to understand where that sentiment came from. I understood it to mean that if the county continues with their plans and criteria regarding building homes on rural land, then it is a real possibility that it would be extremely difficult for people to build their home on the land that they worked so hard to get; essentially planning people out of their homes that they wanted to build.

  222. kaivalya
    January 22, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    As I stated previously, it was in GreenWheels’ own meeting minutes that they describe themselves at war with HumCPR.

  223. Not A Native
    January 22, 2009 at 3:19 pm

    Yeah, the Government has planned me out of the million dollars I wanted to get for selling my property. If I want something the Government has no right not to let me have it. Don’t you dare move MY cheese? WAAH

  224. Anonymous
    January 22, 2009 at 3:24 pm

    Check out Christina Bauss’s article in the Independent for a unbiased assessment of the Ulansey/Fennell coalition. Greenwheels, Healthy Humboldt and Heraldo can be at war with whoever they want but Ulansey and Estelle are saying that what is needed is a fair conversation and an open mind, that will resonate with the populace. Probably what we should have been doing all along.

  225. Red Hummer
    January 22, 2009 at 3:31 pm

    How about a link, or perhaps we could get Christina would post it?

  226. Anonymous
    January 22, 2009 at 3:40 pm

    Um, kaivalya, just because someone says something at a meeting and it makes it into the minutes does not mean it is a policy or statement of a group as a whole. You seem to really be wanting to repeat this statement over and over as if you are trying to brand the group. What is your motivation?

  227. kaivalya
    January 22, 2009 at 4:20 pm

    Anon 3.40, the statement was made by the ExecDirector of GreenWheels, who also happens to be the policy researcher of Healthy Humboldt.

    As for repeating the statement – it seems to work for Heraldo. I aspire to master agitprop as well as he has.

  228. Anonymous
    January 22, 2009 at 5:16 pm

    Just what are the qualifications to be Ex Dir and policy researcher for these groups anyway. Just how does Chris’s experience stack up to Estell’s. She was an informed news director for 17 years among other things. How long has Chris even lived in the area he now proclaims to represent.

  229. Lodgepole
    January 22, 2009 at 5:31 pm

    Kaivalya- Bingo!

  230. Anne Aside
    January 22, 2009 at 5:35 pm

    This is a ‘Soylent Green Blog’. One where we chew and chew on each other til we realize it is Us that we are chewing on.

  231. Chris
    January 22, 2009 at 8:03 pm

    Anne Aside…no kidding!

    I am equally amazed and dissapointed at how mean some people choose to be just for the sake of wanting to be right. A very ineffective way of trying to communicate IMO. What’s with the haters?

  232. kaivalya
    January 22, 2009 at 9:27 pm

    Anne Aside,
    Agreed. When we fling shit at eachother, then it’s feces for dinner.
    Heraldo, you taste like crap!

  233. January 22, 2009 at 9:31 pm

    Mmmm…glad to see you denounce the “war.”

  234. quietly
    January 22, 2009 at 9:46 pm

    let’s see what she does

  235. January 23, 2009 at 8:54 pm

    Ummmm, Carlos? Project? Yes or no?

  236. Dave
    January 24, 2009 at 10:48 am

    Money is a powerful motive. Owners of properties zoned TPZ get a HUGE break on their property taxes. The state law creating the option for counties to zone properties as TPZ requires several restrictions, which includes limiting the development to one house per TPZ and adjacent same-owner TPZ parcels. In addition, roads and outbuildings needed to service timber or agricultural property are permitted. The objective of the tax break is to provide incentives for working timber and ag lands to continue operating by allowing a very substantial property tax reduction on those lands.

    If Mr. Ulansey and others owning large parcels under TPZ zoning wish to have full development rights, they can apply to withdraw their property from TPZ and pay full property taxes like those owning property under other rural zoning designations.

    “Protecting rural values” = “protect our huge property tax reduction”?

  237. January 24, 2009 at 5:17 pm


  238. January 24, 2009 at 5:23 pm


  239. January 24, 2009 at 7:38 pm

    Open and transparent?

  240. January 24, 2009 at 7:40 pm

    Do you have an actual question, or is your elbow stuck on the “s” key?

  241. January 24, 2009 at 8:05 pm

    I’m asking Carlos.

  242. January 24, 2009 at 8:14 pm

    An actual question or you just like to purr his name?

  243. 421
    January 24, 2009 at 8:35 pm

    Dave how much of a break? You are full of it, the break isn’t even a break, the taxes delayed and are paid at the time of harvest.

  244. January 25, 2009 at 10:13 am

    C’mon, Carlos. That’s only the first question. It’s the easy one.

  245. Anonymous
    January 25, 2009 at 10:21 am

    Rose, you’re creeping me out.

  246. Dave
    January 25, 2009 at 11:18 am

    To 421:

    The yield tax is collected when the trees are harvested from both TPZ and non-TPZ zoned lands, but is part of the picture, so please read on – excuse lengthy response, but no other way to cover your question adequately.

    The State Board of Equalization provides the County with values to be used when assessing property taxes for lands in TPZ, ranging from a high of $248 per acre to a low of just $49 per acre. The property is then taxed normally at 1% of this assessment value, so a person with 160 acres of timberland would pay taxes of from $397 to just $78 for their entire property.

    If a landowner builds a home on their TPZ land, one acre of that parcel is re-assessed at the per-acre value paid for the land, but the overall taxes are still far below those paid by even the smallest of residential properties.

    The following three case studies are based upon real examples in Humboldt County.

    Landowner A
    Landowner A has 136 acres of Site Class II redwood. His property would be assessed at a value of $202 per acre, for a total of $27,472 for 136 acres. 1% of this assessment value is $274.72. Landowner A built a house on his land, so one acre of his property is re-assessed at $4,500 (the per-acre price he paid for the land.) 135 acres at $202 each, plus one acre at $4,500 equals a total assessment value of $31,770. 1% of that would be $317.70 in annual property tax for 136 acres of timberland with a homesite. Compare that with the property tax bill for a small residential lot.

    Landowner B
    Landowner B lives on a half-acre rural-residential lot adjacent to 175 acres of redwood timberland that was purchased at $15,429 per acre. At Site Class III, the property is assessed at a value of $176 per acre, for a total of $30,800. The tax on the property would thus be $308 per year. Landowner B’s unimproved property value is $75,000, so he pays $750 per year in tax for his property. If his house were on the adjacent TPZ property, then one acre would be re-assessed at $15,429. So, 174 acres at $176, plus one acre at $15,429 equals a total tax assessment value of $46,053, for an annual property tax of $460.53. This compares very favorably to the $750 he currently pays for his ½ acre lot.

    Landowner C
    Landowner C bought two 80-acre parcels of timberland with comparable stands of Site Class III redwoods. However, one parcel is in TPZ and the other is zoned AE. As Site Class III redwood, the TPZ parcel is assessed at $176 per acre, for a total of $14,080, and pays property tax of $141. The AE parcel is assessed at its full purchase value of $800,000, and pays property tax of $8,000. If Landowner C were to build a house on the TPZ parcel, one acre would be re-assessed at its purchase price of $4,000 per acre, bringing the assessment value up to $17,904 with a property tax of just $179. This compares very favorably with the $8,000 annual property tax on the AE parcel.

    On a related note, consider these luminary’s nuggets of wisdom:

    Humboldt County Planning Commission, August 26, 1976

    “Commissioner (Jerry) Partain stated that… it would be possible to divide the property, erect a home on each parcel and use the TPZ as a tax shelter.”

    “(Humboldt County Assessor) Ray Flynn… suggested that the Commission set a minimum size parcel of 160 acres and completely eliminate single family dwellings from the zone.”

  247. January 25, 2009 at 11:56 am

    hey, 10:21, he promised openness and transparency.

  248. January 25, 2009 at 12:15 pm

    Did he promise to respond to creepy stalkers?

  249. January 25, 2009 at 12:24 pm


    Just for comparison’s sake what would the yield tax be on a typical site II harvest?

    And, is there no additional property tax for “improvements” or the buildings themselves on TPZ land?

    January 25, 2009 at 12:36 pm

    Don’t forget the increased tax percentages above and beyond the 1% base tax. Every year, up to a 2% COLA tax adjustment is set by the state legislature; therefore, the tax figures given above are inaccurate when considering the “full tax load”. With Real-Estate values plummeting, tax credits are to be legally applied. Whether they are or are not being applied can only be “fully discovered” by that individual property owner. Don’t expect everyone to be treated fairly by the tax collectors. Those, like myself, communicate the essences of fraud commited by political insiders and subordinate tax appraisers. The punishment is violation of individual Civil Rights and individual Due Process cover-ups. However, technology is a wonderful tool to incorporate.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  251. peanuttygallery
    January 25, 2009 at 12:48 pm

    can she walk her stalk?

  252. 421
    January 25, 2009 at 12:59 pm

    taxes are paid on the improvements. the tpz lands are not subdividable, therefore less valuable. you are forgetting the reason for the deferred taxes is the agreement to not significantly reduce the the lands ability to grow timber. also, if you have people adjacent to tpz who do not think it is fair, why do they not place their timberlands into tpz. answer:diminished value.

    January 25, 2009 at 1:30 pm

    Therefore, to build a house on TPZ land is to increase tax value, especially if done where trees are not harvestable – like an open patch or part of the parcel one can’t get to with equipment to harvest, etc… Overall, the ability to steward TPZ land is economically and environmentally more feasible for everyone involved if that TPZ owner is living on that particular parcel site. Subdivisions for multiple parcels and homes is obviously against the current policy to maintain harvestable TPZ land. Further, there is a process to “opt out” of an agreement by that individual property owner, albeit an expensive one.

    This issue is blown way out of proportion.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  254. Anonymous
    January 25, 2009 at 1:47 pm

    Rose is no more of a “creepy stalker” than you are, Heraldo – Home Depot, HumCPR, and oh yeah, anything Arkley.

    Thing is, transparency is good; you’re keeping em honest in your own way, and so is Rose. If trying to get someone to give her an honest answer to honest questions is creepy stalking, give me more, both from you Heraldo and Rose.

  255. Anonymous
    January 25, 2009 at 2:40 pm

    Uh, Rose is the definition of cyber-stalker. I’ve never seen any women more obsessed with a man than she is with Paul Gallegos. It’s like he rebuffed her advances in high school, or something like that.

  256. Chris
    January 25, 2009 at 4:53 pm


    Typical Site II harvest of 500MBF of redwood would equate to a Yield Tax of approximately $10,000.

    This assumes a stumpage value of ~ $700 based upon the BOE’s harvest schedules for this past summer.

    Yield Tax is essentially 2.9% of net.

  257. Anonymous
    January 25, 2009 at 4:54 pm

    Uh, do you deny that PVG has made a complete clusterf*u* of the DA’s office, which is worthy of scrutiny, just as Heraldo has made Arkley and his shenanigans worthy of his/her scrutiny.

    Both PVG and Arkley need these blogs scrutinizing their moves as their past actions have proven.

  258. January 25, 2009 at 5:09 pm

    Call it stalking if you want, in Humboldt Watershed Council’s case it’s playing the Kevin Bacon game – with the activist groups around here – who is who? Who is pretending to be who, who is trying to look big by having 4 or 5 groups, and calling them a “growing coalition?” Who funds who, who shares grant money? All pretending to be “grassroots.”

    A family tree might help – “ERF” is “Baykeeper” – “Baykeeper” Pete is now NEC – “Healthy Humboldt” is sending out packets with a c/o NEC address – oh-so “Healthy Humboldt” is a “project” of “Humboldt Watershed Council” which is/was Ken MIller is was Salmon Forever, and that’s just for starters. Then there’s all the DUHC aliases, which it looks like Kaitlin(DUHC) will be trying to bring in as stakeholders in water board business…

    People need to know when they are being conned.

    Poor Carlos wanted help fighting the gravel guys, but I doubt he’ll cotton to all this crap. But somebody needs to bring him up to speed real quick if he is going to act as “President” of “Humboldt Watershed Council.” And since he claims to be the president, and claims to be open and transparent, let’s have some answers.

    Like I said, my question above is the easy one.

  259. January 25, 2009 at 5:21 pm

    If you don’t know the answer to the questions how do you know anyone is being “conned?” You’re obviously not looking for facts, just carrying out your usual conspiracy theories.

  260. January 25, 2009 at 5:35 pm

    Perhaps you should learn how to use the Google. According to Hank Sims (who debunked your earlier conspiracy theory, rose):

    For years there have been rumors that the nonprofit organization [HWC] for which [Mark Lovelace] work[ed] is funded wholly or in large part by a single, wealthy individual who is associated with any number of left-wing causes in Humboldt County. Shouldn’t Lovelace have to disclose that?

    We won’t name the individual, because it turns out that the rumors in question are demonstrably false. The Humboldt Watershed Council files tax returns every year. Because it is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation, those returns are public. Here’s what they show.

    The organization took in little money between 2000 and 2004. Donations ranged between $10,000 and $50,000 annually, with most years at the lower end of the scale. Then, in 2005, it took in a massive donation, relatively speaking: $121,000. The large surplus of funds allowed the council to spend a great deal the next year, while the fight over the county general plan was raging particularly hot. The money was directed to the “Healthy Humboldt Coalition,” a joint project of the Watershed Council, the Northcoast Environmental Center and the Sierra Club that advocates for “smart growth”-style land use planning.


  261. Not A Native
    January 25, 2009 at 5:58 pm

    Dave, thanks for the data that demonstrates the property tax financial incentives that are a basis of the TPZ “rural lifestyle”. A TPZ dwelling truly is a property tax shelter and of course the promoters know that very well.

    Far rural living burdens society with most of the costs that compact living does and many more environmental externalized costs. Schools servicing sprawling rural areas have much higher per student costs that compact districts and have to be allocated additional money per student because of that.

    And the utility infrastructure isn’t part of the property tax equation. Urbanites pay additional amounts for their water, sewer, and waste disposal services, beyond property taxes.

    Extending long roads, and providing public safety services including massive fire protection all are much more expensive percapita for rural living. And even though higher governmental costs being incurred on their behalf percapita, rural livers still complain they don’t get response time parity for police and other government services like transit and public health.

    In fact, congress is considering allocating billions of dollars of public money to extend communications services to rural lifestylers. Commercial telecom companies find their urban ratepayers refuse to futher subsidize rural lifestylers.

  262. Lodgepole
    January 25, 2009 at 6:03 pm

    121k could buy some serious land.

  263. January 25, 2009 at 6:13 pm

    More to the story, heraldo.

  264. January 25, 2009 at 6:13 pm

    I’ll wait for Carlos.

  265. January 25, 2009 at 6:14 pm

    Unless – hmmm – maybe you are privvy to the answers. Maybe you are the one i should be asking after all.

  266. January 25, 2009 at 6:15 pm

    No, you will continue to ask loaded questions while pretending you know some sort of criminal motivations on the part of your political foes.

  267. January 25, 2009 at 6:17 pm

    I just googled answers for you since you’re apparently google-impaired.

  268. January 25, 2009 at 6:53 pm

    What? Hank’s story? Is that what you are referring to?

  269. January 25, 2009 at 6:54 pm

    Who said anything about criminal motivations?

    I asked if “Healthy Humboldt” was a “Project” of “Humboldt Watershed Council.”

    Nothing criminal there.

  270. January 25, 2009 at 6:59 pm

    As noted in the link above you accuse HWC of money laundering.

    You said:

    Mark said – for the first time – that Healthy Humboldt is a “project” of Humboldt Watershed Council which is Ken Miller, which is Salmon Forever, and whatever other name of the week they have decided to float to pretend they are bigger than they are. “Project” is another word for money laundering, and it means that it belongs to Lovelace and Miller, much to the dismay of all those who thought by their participation that they really had a say in what “it” does. Don’t believe me, guys? Just try changing course a bit and see how far you get. It’s a shell game designed to manipulate public opinion and further Miller’s goals.

    I’ll be interested to see that “coming clean” of all the financing, but I wouldn’t be holding my breath if I were you.

    Hank discredited your theory a few days later. Perhaps you forgot to exhale.

  271. January 25, 2009 at 8:30 pm

    Yes. I know what Hank reported.

    Like I said. I will wait for Carlos.

  272. January 25, 2009 at 8:39 pm

    Uh-huh. How sad to be a stay-at-home-nightmare yet your “research” is limited to sitting by the blog waiting for Carlos to answer convoluted questions. Pathetic.

  273. January 25, 2009 at 9:34 pm

    I have time.

  274. McKinleyvillan
    January 25, 2009 at 9:56 pm

    Rose, you are so thick headed. Protecting wild lands and smart growth go hand in hand. Try visiting the Bay Area sometime, or anywhere else where there is any real planning, and you’ll see what it means. Ask Jill; she gets it. What we have had here is planning by default, or in other words, shove the development in wherever no one is watching (McKinleyville, Tooby Ranch, etc).

    I know that you’d rather think it’s all a big conspiracy, but reality calls.

  275. Anonymous
    January 25, 2009 at 10:14 pm


    Did Heraldo name his blog Watch Rob? No.

    Did Rose name her blog Watch Paul?

  276. 421
    January 26, 2009 at 7:28 am

    I thought we were trying NOT to be like the bay area. you guys need to get the story straight.

  277. Anonn
    January 26, 2009 at 9:00 am

    I think the idea 421 is to get out of the house every once in a while. It’s healthy. It’ll make you appreciate Humboldt that much more-

  278. January 26, 2009 at 9:12 am

    Hey, I’m not the one dressed up in “ghosts and goths” costumes and holding meetings in front of Borders on the Mall. :)

  279. 421
    January 27, 2009 at 6:52 am

    Very informative Anonn, the comment was directed at McKinleyvillan’s comment suggesting we need to visit the Bay Area to see what real planning looks like. I thought we were trying to preserve the rural atmosphere. Please explain how bay area densities will preserve the rural lifestyle of Humboldt residents. My favorite part is how you make assumptions about my lifestyle. I really like that.

  280. McKinleyvillan
    January 29, 2009 at 9:12 pm

    The Bay Area is the lesson in too little too late, but now they’ve figured out a lot. Humboldt County needs to face the fact that we are part of the state of California, therefore the state laws actually do apply here. Not that you can tell =byt he way things are done, good ole boy style.

    If the Bay Area hadn’t seen what was coming 30 years ago, do you think there’d be 1 million acres of preserved open space? Keep in mind that many of these acres are working ranchlands, not just parks that the extremists like Arkley like to spout off about.

  281. February 7, 2009 at 11:25 pm

    please stop referring to Schectman in regards to me or any company I am associated with. I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.

    For the record, Schectman is still Vilica’s Agent for Service of Process according to the Secretary of State.

  282. August 10, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    Just awesome topic! Thanks for the sharing, I also found a useful service for forms filling. I am sure at least once in your life you had to fill out a form. I use a simple service http://goo.gl/Cd8UN6. for forms filling. It definitely makes my life easier!

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s