Home > Uncategorized > 1976 Article about Alternative Owner Builder

1976 Article about Alternative Owner Builder

Below is a 1976 article from the Arcata Union newspaper.  If you can’t read it, try downloading the pdf.

AOB-Union

  1. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    July 1, 2009 at 7:19 am

    Microfiched to PDF? Historic articles sure shed light on the “processions of truth”. There was a good article write-up by T-S explaining the “internal misconducts” of the Planning Department prior to the switch over of the name to CDSD back in 1995-96ish. It was front page material too.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  2. Anonymous
    July 1, 2009 at 7:20 am

    Why is there no byline on the article? What week was the article published?

  3. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    July 1, 2009 at 7:28 am

    Another eye-opener – The county supervisors have spun their wheels for 30 years over the same issue thereby providing an excellent example verifying the political rants and criticisms by the general citizenry of elected county supervisors not doing their job; nor, doing their job efficiently and honestly. Then again, the citizenry allowed this to happen because of believing supervisorial rhetoric instead of monitoring a completed and successful petitioning over an issue that was never navigated politically by the Board of Supervisors.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  4. July 1, 2009 at 9:07 am

    The article was published June 24, 1976. Good question about the byline.

  5. longwind
    July 1, 2009 at 9:22 am

    Boy do I agree, Jeffrey. It’s worth noting that every party in this 30-year paralysis-play has recited the same lines–saying the same things, doing the same nothings–all that time. But county staff does get tag-teamed every two or three decades, replaced spent ones with laboriously trained subsidiary slogan-repeaters.

    The United Standers are now hitting their 70s . They are still saying exactly what Ted Kogon and the rest of them said then. The Supes will support anything that keeps them in office, yet suffer such a stark fear of exercising their powers of office that their reform statutes become as meaningless as a telephone consultation with the Planning Department. There the logjam lies, and lies, since 1975.

    Thanks for the history, Heraldo. The Code Enforcement Task Force Report quotes findings from the 1976 and 1988 Grand Jury reports, and 1988 Planning Commission recommendations, that are still spot on. 1988 is the most yeasty year to get this Groundhog Day experience, when more than 4000 people gathered at multiple meetings at Redwood Acres to say all these things yet again, so overwhelmingly that the county backed off on acting out for 20 years. There’s an institutional memory loss in the county, but not in the country.

  6. McKinleyvillan
    July 1, 2009 at 10:42 am

    Interesting quote re: separating people who build for shelter from those who build for profit. The 21st century incarnation of United Stand should be reconsidering their alliance with those who build for profit, because in the end, the realtors and developers have only their own interests at heart. HumCPR’s board and financial Backers (pun intended) don’t really understand the homesteaders’ concerns, they are just using them for their own purposes.

  7. HumRed
    July 1, 2009 at 11:05 am

    Please give objective evidence of your statements. The statement ” the 21st century incarnation of the US etc.” would indicate your belief in some form of reincarnation. Sounds like same old prog’y garbage to me.

  8. Da Man
    July 1, 2009 at 11:49 am

    Does this mean that “People who build for shelter” should be able to build dwellings that are unsafe and without consideration of building codes, whether the victims of whatever happens are themselves or those that might buy their dwelling? Or is there another principle here that I’m too dense to grasp? Should the presence of a profit motive be the threshhold for application of building and safety codes?

  9. Ed
    July 1, 2009 at 12:01 pm

    No. Yes. And no.

  10. Mr. Nice
    July 1, 2009 at 12:04 pm

    Does this mean that “People who build for shelter” should be able to build dwellings that are unsafe and without consideration of building codes, whether the victims of whatever happens are themselves or those that might buy their dwelling?

    As if people pay any attention to building codes whatsoever. All these codes are is a false sense of security. People will rent a thrashed house in Eureka thinking it must be okay because it has to be up to code because code enforcement would have enforced the codes, right? Wrong.

  11. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    July 1, 2009 at 12:38 pm

    The California Building Code needs this word, ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ UNIFORM ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆, as in the former Uniform Building Code. For residential SFR purposes, the building codes are overly restrictive; therefore, relaxing the code to encourage HOZ’s (Mack Press) is utterly INCRIMINATING of the idea that codes are again, ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆. Relax the codes for ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ ALL SFR’s ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ to achieve uniformity. When alternate styles of living are presented, accept those styles and allow it appropriately. No need to treat each SFR project like a “high rise building” needing the litmus test standard applied. This issue is very, very easy to reconcile when political agendas don’t muddy up the waters.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  12. Ed
    July 1, 2009 at 12:50 pm

    If one doesn’t like the idea of reincarnation due to it’s “progy” associations, perhaps one might adhere to the notion of reintarnation, which means coming back as a hillbilly.

  13. 421
    July 1, 2009 at 1:50 pm

    reintarnation, that is a great one.

  14. Mr. Nice
    July 1, 2009 at 2:10 pm

    Alright so, taken from the internets…

    Hillbilly Vasectomy

    After their 11th child, a hillbilly couple decided that was enough, as they could not afford a larger bed.

    So the husband went to his veterinarian and told him that he and his cousin didn’t want to have any more children.

    The doctor told him that there was a procedure called a vasectomy that could fix the problem but that it was expensive. ‘A less costly alternative, ‘ said the doctor, ‘is to go home, get a cherry bomb, (fireworks are legal in hillbilly country) light it, put it in a beer can, then hold the can up to your ear and count to 10.

    ‘The hillbilly said to the doctor, ‘I may not be the smartest tool in the shed, but I don’t see how puttin’ a cherry bomb in a beer can next to my ear is gonna help me..

    ”Trust me,’ said the doctor.

    So the man went home, lit a cherry bomb and put it in a beer can. He held the can up to his ear and began to count!

    ‘1’

    ‘2’

    ‘3’

    ‘4’

    ‘5’

    At which point, he paused, placed the beer can between his legs and continued counting on his other hand.

  15. Da Man
    July 1, 2009 at 2:25 pm

    Ed- What’s the priciple I’m missing?

  16. Peter
    July 1, 2009 at 2:32 pm

    I’m delighted to see this history posted. It represents maybe one tenth of one percent of what United Stand can tell you about. If the above gets your attention, stick around… The theme is consistent throughout. It isn’t that the Planners don’t do anything right; it’s that they keep on doing certain things wrong, and neither the Board nor the Planning Commission seem to care, which caring should be (I’m showing my age) the foremost purpose of a democratic government, right?

    The Board of Supervisors is considering the Housing Element on July 28 (it has just been approved by the Planning Commission, who would rather not hear this kind of criticism and who, as far as I can tell, made no modifications whatsoever as a result of it). We’ll try to post a fairly full analysis of the state of things from our point of view before then. We are particularly concerned about the massive amount of stuff (169 items in the last 16 pages alone of the Housing Element draft) that the Planning Department plans to simply remove from the Housing Element. We helped write a bunch of those things; they deal with important matters ranging from helping the homeless to public participation in planning, to easing building regulations, etc. etc. etc. Almost none of these things have been actually implemented, although many of them have been in place for a quarter of a century. Now that NOBODY is holding them accountable, the Planning Department thinks they can get away with simply dumping them. What do you think? I think they can and I think they will, unless enough folks arise en masse as we did in 1988 to just say no. We in United Stand are too old to be leaders this time; our role is to be advisors and pass on what we have learned to whoever is listening and willing to act. More to come… BTW, I may be wrong, but I think CPR is getting a bum rap. They seem to me to be genuinely concerned with basic property rights, and they welcome input from any group of property-owners. There are several such groups; each could be accused of “using” the other, but my impression is that the best way to test them is to go to their meetings and present your point of view. Then see how they deal with it. If you don’t play, you can’t complain if someone else wins the game, and CPR is currently the only group I’m aware of that seems to be trying to be inclusive. (They also have a lot of members [potential power].)

  17. HumRed
    July 1, 2009 at 2:37 pm

    I have no problem with reincarnation. You missed the point, which of course is not a surprise. McKillen whole premise is garbage. No objective evidence that what he, she or it is saying is based on fact. It assumes that homesteaders are not smart enough than to get involved with people who would take advantage of them. This is not the truth as you well know. That anyone who is a builder or developer is without feeling, and that HumCPR is made up of just builders, developers, and homesteaders. this is also not true. Look at membership list and you will see this is not true. Also that building for profit is = to a bad thing. This is all prog’y garbage and if you are not smart enough to see it, well that is where you are in the chain of things, talk about reintarnation. I have been called paranoid, stupid, drunk, and retarded, by folks on this list so don’t take it so hard.

  18. Anonymous
    July 1, 2009 at 2:38 pm

    Mc Villan, Your comment re: HumCPR board and supporters holds no water, in fact in many cases they are homesteaders. Your propaganda might have worked a couple of years ago when they first started. Now with a history of firmly sticking to their stated goals and their steadfast support of rural property owners of all types your spin no longer works at all. There is a reason that their membership has grown to the thousands and continues to grow, it’s because they have stayed true to their message, have never supported subdivision, and continue to support the lifestyle choice many of us sought when we moved here long before you and urban move them all into town crowd showed up.

    In many ways contributions to HumCPR are more effective at preserving the Humboldt environment and way of life than contributions to the boutique so-called environmental groups in Arcata that are trying to force us all into their private urban dream. The established (older) groups like EPIC who were born of a ruralist ideal, and there still lies their principal support, should be looking at HumCPR more as allies serving a very similar constituency with very similar goals and ideals. There is far more in common between mainstream environmentalism and HumCPR than there is with radical extremest urbanism.

  19. Anon
    July 1, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    Will a representative from Hum CPR please state their stance on a minimum TPZ parcel sizes? For instance, do they support a property owner subdividing a 160 acre parcel into 4 separate lots? 8 separate lots? And would each of these new lots be guaranteed the right to develop one home?

  20. Anonymous
    July 1, 2009 at 3:23 pm

    HumCPR has not taken a stance on any subdivision. Their clear stated position is that people should be able to build on EXISTING legal parcels with a reasonable ministerial permit. Pretty clear and straightforward unlike the spin and half truths from Jen Kalt and the Healthy Humboldt urban Arcata crowd.

  21. Anon
    July 1, 2009 at 4:18 pm

    Why not take a stance with respect to subdivisions? Is there no unanimous opinion within the member base? Or would it create a too obvious link to the real estate/developer crowd?

  22. Anon
    July 1, 2009 at 4:23 pm

    This is from the T-S forums:

    “If you currently have a parcel under 160, then you would have the right to build a home (but might have to roll out of TPZ and pay regular property taxes). Moving forward, any TPZ lot at 160 or more would have the right to build a home, unless the owner has more than 5,000 acres, meaning the timber companies. Subdividing to lots smaller than 160 wouldn’t be given the right to develop an additional homesite, they would just have one per parcel.”

    ” the draft GPU calls for smaller TPZ parcels to be rolled out with a much easier process than the current process, which requires a vote of the Board of Supervisors. So though you’d have to start paying regular property taxes, you’d be allowed to build a house with no conditional use permit, just a ministerial permit (meaning building codes apply, whether AOB or regular). No one is even proposing that only people with 600+ acres should be allowed to build a house–this is one of the Great Lies HumCPR is spreading.”

    Seems that Hum CPR should have a clear stance on subdividing. Please do tell us if there is anything unreasonable about the above stated guidelines.

  23. Anonymous
    July 1, 2009 at 4:34 pm

    Ah mon Anon, the error of your ways is clear. If it were only true that you could rely on the T-S forums for factual information. If you actually check the facts you will find that under Alternative A as was just passed with respect to the Housing Element no houses will be allowed on any TPZ parcel under 600 acres unless you can prove your trees need a house to keep them company among other arbitrary and discretionary requirements. Smaller parcels would require a Conditional Use Permit which can take years and tens of thousands of dollars to obtain making rural living an option for the wealthy. I will refrain from suggesting that you are deliberatly spreading lies as it appears but I do suggest you check your facts.

  24. Anonymous
    July 1, 2009 at 5:28 pm

    Where in the quote 4:34 does it mention that this proposal is Alternative A?

  25. Anonymous
    July 1, 2009 at 5:38 pm

    where in the Housing Element does it say that, 4:34? Citation please, because I believe you are wrong.

    Also I recall a HumCPR rep saying at the June 11 hearing that they want houses to be allowed on every parcel, including patent parcels and “shaded” parcels (those are the unbuildable parcels that have been sold and resold without the buyers ever being told that they were unbuildable).

  26. Skippy
    July 1, 2009 at 5:40 pm

    Jen Kalt’s most recent piece in Econews began with a section on Better Rural Planning. The article included:

    * The statement “Policies appropriate to the Humboldt Bay area, where development pressures are greatest, are not necessarily appropriate for more rural areas of the county.”

    * A statement of support for AOB (which unfortunately is not included in Alternative A, but I’m pretty sure it will be in whatever the final GPU is, given the amount of public support that has been expressed for it).

    * “In salmonid-bearing watersheds that are temperature impaired, new residential construction could incorporate water conservation methods such as rainwater harvest and seasonal storage tanks.” (This implies that new residential construction in these areas wouldn’t necessarily have to dry up our waterways, and therefore some additional rural housing shouldn’t be anathema to environmentalists on that basis.)

    * “Alternative sewage disposal systems — such as composting (waterless) toilets and graywater — could be encouraged on owner-builder properties.” (Yes, they “could be encouraged,” and that would be great, but of course the first step would be that they should at least be *allowed!*)

    * She defines “sprawl” as low-density housing developments of 1-10 acres per residence, which would seem to imply that a residence on a 160 acre or 40 acre existing parcel isn’t what she would consider “sprawl.” (And of course most people would agree that such rural homes aren’t what they mean by “sprawl” either.)

    So all of this sounds a whole lot like what rural residents and landowners, homesteaders in particular, have been advocating for. Seems like Kalt, at least, has got the message, or at least a good part of it, about what responsible rural residents would like to see in the future.

    Could it be that we might be seeing some convergence toward a sensible point of view that recognizes that rural residences can have some negative consequences, but also recognizes that most of those negative consequences can be averted through the adoption of appropriate technologies?

    It’s nice to see that Kalt is recognizing the legitimacy of this point of view. However, the real test will be whether any of these things are actually implemented (AOB, composting toilets, etc.) or whether this is just another round of lip service, which as the above article and Peters’ comments show has been done plenty of times in the past.

    So it’s nice that she favors AOB, but worrisome that Alternative A, which she has advocated for, does not even mention AOB. And it’s good that she seems to have moderated her tone from the last article’s claim that rural residential development is even more harmful than industrial logging. But will this more conciliatory tone prove meaningful, or is it just window-dressing for a GPU that nonetheless greatly curtails the ability of folks to build a home on existing rural parcels?

    Stay tuned…

  27. 421
    July 1, 2009 at 6:30 pm

    must have heard from some rural benefactors.

  28. July 2, 2009 at 5:50 am

    Would someone from United Stand, maybe Peter C if he is still active, please contact me?
    Meditor@sierracountyprospect.com

  29. Anonymous
    July 2, 2009 at 9:28 am

    Please point out were Kalt’s view is changing. Maybe you are finally listening instead of screaming.

  30. anonymous says
    July 2, 2009 at 9:51 am

    why don’t these so called city enviro’s like jen kult and “healthy humboldt” crowd take a strong stand for the thousands of rural homesteaders that HumCPR represents? Will they come out and fully support our property rights?
    No they won’t because they don’t support rural homesteaders and our rural lifestyle and have many times demonized us as polluters.
    I am a member of HUMCPR because they are the only ones that recognize our concerns and are willing to go to bat for us at the county level. “healthy humboldt” supports regulations that would make it next to impossible to live rurally. Especially when dealing with “discretionary” use permits. Currently it’s next to impossible to even get an AOB permit and if the county adopts the healthy humboldt plan= kiss aob goodbye because it will be Extremely difficult to pass all of the requirements as well as the Fee’s.
    healthy humboldt is out of touch with rural living and the families that make that their living choice.

  31. Anonymous
    July 2, 2009 at 10:02 am

    Considering over 95% of rural dwellers are not complaint with current regulations, I have a hard time believing any new ones are anything to fear.

  32. anonymous says
    July 2, 2009 at 10:21 am

    anon says:”Also I recall a HumCPR rep saying at the June 11 hearing that they want houses to be allowed on every parcel, including patent parcels and “shaded” parcels (those are the unbuildable parcels that have been sold and resold without the buyers ever being told that they were unbuildable).”

    You either didn’t listen properly or are intentionally spreading disinformation about HUMCpr.
    I was at that meeting and clearly heard HumCPR admonishing the County for allowing these “shaded” parcels to be sold to unknowing buyers and that the County should take action to protect the land buyer and not allow this.

    HumCPR advocates (and stated at the june 11th meeting) being able to get a building permit to build your cabin NOT on EVERY parcel but on LEGAL parcels. And if a “patent Parcel” is legal then you should be able to build your cabin on it as well.

    HUMCPR NEVER advocates to build on any illegal parcels nor do they advocate for subdivisions, contrary to what healthy humboldt/heraldo puts out about HumCpr.
    HumCpr’s focus is to advocate for the thousands of rural land owners right to live rurally and to build their home on their legal parcels.

    HumCpr also advocates for the county to help make it easier for land owners who want to do the right thing of practicing sustainable living by ensuring proper water storage during low flows. The County requires the land owner to get a very expensive “special”permit for the water tank and as it stands now, the County will block any land owner from having water tanks if they see that there is an unpermitted structure on the land. Even if they do get the water tank, the County will slap an exhorbitant tax fee just for the Tank plus an increase in their regular land tax bill.
    HumCpr advocates that the county waive all of that and help the land owner with incentives to do the right thing for the environment and the rural neighborhood. That is why I am a member of HumCpr (Humboldt Coalition for Property Rights)

  33. July 2, 2009 at 11:22 am

    Why trust in government? Why allow those who demand payment of illegal taxation with weapons to run your lives?
    In the 20th century, government killed more people than anything else- why give the dirty bastards a leg up to line their own pockets?
    Abolish any and all taxation- disregard the “laws” of those thieves who can’t even balance a checkbook, resist the enemy and send him back to england!

  34. Anonymous
    July 2, 2009 at 11:30 am

    Black Flag, do you have any evidence the Eureka City Council or Board of Supervisors “demand[ed] payment of illegal taxation with weapons” or killed more people than any other government or that any of the people in our local government emigrated from England? I am slightly skeptical of your claims.

  35. July 2, 2009 at 12:01 pm

    Sherriff will swat team you off your land if you don’t pay coins to Ceaser.
    Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt all were from the government and helped hundreds of millions into their graves.
    I only stated that as American Sovereigns we ought to continue the revolt our Founders started and return the leeches to england where they belong.

    Seeing how NO money from property “tax” stays local, and isn’t being managed properly- why should you be forced at gunpoint to pay?

  36. Anonymous
    July 2, 2009 at 12:11 pm

    Black Flag, please provide more information about this Ceaser person whom our sheriff is demanding payment on behalf of.

    Also, please provide evidence that Mao, Hitler, Stalin and/or Roosevelt ever held a position on the Eureka City Council or Board of Supervisors.

    Thank you. Peace be with you.

  37. Skippy
    July 2, 2009 at 2:02 pm

    July 2, 2009 at 9:28 am said:

    “Please point out were Kalt’s view is changing. Maybe you are finally listening instead of screaming.”

    Well, I invite you to read her previous piece in Econews (where she stated that rural residents were a worse threat to the environment than industrial logging).

    Then read this more recent article, where she goes out of her way to advocate *solutions* to rural living impacts, rather than just slamming rural living as undesirable in general.

    Sure seems like a “change” to me, and a welcome one at that. And there’s nothing wrong with moderating one’s opinions or making a point to state support for things that had previously gone unmentioned. It’s a sign of maturity, not a sign of weakness, to listen to others’ voices and incorporate their concerns and ideas into your own vision.

    [If she was previously advocating for these things, and I missed it (because I was too busy “yelling” or just because I missed it) please feel free to point to a previous link or article where she had made her support for those items clear.]

    Of course I don’t know if she’s modified her views or whether she already favored these kinds of practical solutions to rural issues but just didn’t publicly advocate for them before. I also don’t know whether she is really O.K. with continued residential building on rural lands or if she’s just paying lip service to the popular practical solutions while still hoping to greatly restrict people from building a houses on rural parcels. Only time will tell.

    Anyway, from my point of view it is good to see a Healthy Humboldt member advocating for A.O.B., rainwater harvesting, composting toilets, greywater systems, etc.

  38. plannax
    July 2, 2009 at 2:19 pm

    Does anyone have any hard and fast numbers on:

    1. How many A/OB permit applications have been made since the program was adopted?

    2.

  39. plannax
    July 2, 2009 at 2:22 pm

    2. How many alternatibe onsite sewage disposal system permit applications have been submited to Environmental Health?

    3. How many were approved?

    4. How many were denied, and for what reasons?

  40. Skippy
    July 2, 2009 at 2:35 pm

    People don’t apply for the alternative onsite sewage disposal system permits, because the county requires you to already have a standard septic system on the property before they will consider letting you have a composting toilet, etc.

  41. anonymous says
    July 2, 2009 at 2:36 pm

    You cannot have a composting toilet nor get a permit of ANY kind on your rural land if you cannot prove that you can also have a septic system, even if you have no plans to ever install a septic system.
    Kirk G. said that the reason for this (stupid) rule is so the county can protect the next buyer of the property.

  42. HUMCPR member
    July 2, 2009 at 3:26 pm

    HumCpr DO NOT represent Developers interests what so ever.HumCpr does not advocate for subdivisions..especially the ones that’s in store for Humboldt hill or In Cutten where a “smart growth” in fill project will bring in up to 1500 homes and 3600 people.
    As one resident, Anna Hetko, pointed out that the Forster-Gill development is but one of a series of developments the county will be looking at in the future in the Cutten area’s remaining forested stretches. “All of the forest is basically going,” she said. After the meeting, Hetko, who’s lived in the area 20 years and has a one-acre parcel, said the Forster-Gill project “sucks.” “They want to build a shopping mall in there, where now there’s bear, bobcat, spotted owl, salmon spawning creeks and five osprey nests,” she said. “It’s living, breathing habitat that they want to develop in a grotesque manner……”

    HumCPR’s focus is to represent rural land owners concerns at the county level. They have thousands of members.
    Simply put, HumCpr wants to protect our rural rights to live on our rural land.They have stated that people should be allowed to get a regular permit (not a discretionary permit) and be able to build their home on their LEGAL parcel. This includes but not limited to TPZ land. This is why I am a member of HumCpr. Plus which they are a great group of people who revere the land……that’s why we love living in the country

  43. plannax
    July 2, 2009 at 3:28 pm

    Well, for me, that has always been the acid test of whether or not the County has been acting in good faith with respect to allowances for rural buildings separate and apart from development in serviced areas: If you can substantiate that you’re not going to cause a health or safety problem for themselves or their neighbors, create a public nuisance, or destroy public resources, and are willing to take on the supplemetal insurance coverage and/or liability the arguable increased exposure of risks that going with “Brand X” may bring, than let the off-the-gridders deviate. Same for non-code buildings: get an engineer to reasonably verify that they won’t collapse, get blown over, or burst into flames, and off you go.

    Sounds like, regardless of the provisions within the North Coast Basin Plan for allowing alternative systems, DEH and CDSD haven’t exactly accommodating to those who want to deviate from code-based buildings and treatment/disposal systems, notwithsatnding the mandates that established the process as an option. I would respectfully submit that this would be the most viable front for the CPRsters to fight, more so than trying to completely turn all forms of resource lands protections on their head.

  44. Anonymous
    July 2, 2009 at 3:50 pm

    All of the forest is basically going

    That’s funny considering the development in question includes a community forest.

  45. Anonymous
    July 2, 2009 at 9:40 pm

    Hum CPR members also support the ability to subdivide their rural properties, but they won’t go public with it.

  46. Anonymous
    July 2, 2009 at 10:45 pm

    Hey 9:40, how did you come by this information? Extrasensory perception?

    To paraphrase you… “Someone has never said they believe X, but I secretly know they believe X.” Uh huh.

  47. Anonymous
    July 3, 2009 at 12:35 am

    yes CPR adocates for subdividing (as does the Northern Cal. Assoc. of Homebuilders and the Humboldt Assoc. of Realtors and the timber industry):

    in the Town Holler article in last week’s NCJ,
    Estelle Fennel “worries that over-regulation from the government could prevent rural landowners from, say, splitting off a few acres for their children or their ailing parents. ‘Subdividing a parcel doesn’t mean it’s a subdivision,’ she said.”

  48. Anonymous
    July 3, 2009 at 9:11 am

    Thank you 12:35

    Hum CPR doesn’t want to come clean here cause the connections to the real estate/developer crowd will become all too obvious

  49. longwind
    July 3, 2009 at 9:32 am

    Ho hum. This non-subject was discussed, I thought to death, last week when the article came out. As a point of law, breaking out an underlying patent parcel isn’t a subdivision. When HumCPR wrote the Homestead Act in 1863, they sure knew how to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes but yours, didn’t they?

    What unites the speculators, werewolves and realtors with rural residents is this: the county, and more recently the county’s green grant-grubbers, stigmatizes rural living. It’s bad for the trees, say the planners. It’s bad for the megafauna raiding their orchards, say the magazine-greens. It’s bad for their diabetes, says the Health Department in its official contribution to the General Plan Update.

    Jen’s recent article in the EcoNews suggests a softening to reality on her wing of the propaganda war. Onward into the breach, my friends! I’d suggest next a campaign to remove from the General Plan Elements Dr. Ann Lindsay’s failed experiment in statistical engineering. Tomorrow the world . . .

  50. Anonymous
    July 3, 2009 at 12:46 pm

    Check out the Myths and Facts about the GPU on the Healthy Humboldt website:

    Click to access MythvsFact.pdf

    It has citations to the GPU, unlike the HumCPR newsletter. Next time a HumCPR rep tells you something that’s in the GPU, ask if they can point to where it is, or see if you can find it. Sure it’s complicated but it’s all online for everyone to see, and you all are smart enough to get the facts with a little effort. Trust but verify!

    Then, if you don’t like what you see in the GPU, make a specific comment about it. That’s what this process is all about. The more informed you are, the more weight your comments will have.

  51. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    July 3, 2009 at 1:22 pm

    As well, compare the GPU language to the current GP language to “gauge” the changes in order to understand the “whys”. References are helpful, but viewing the differentiations between two differnt plans tells the truth best!

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  52. 421
    July 3, 2009 at 1:37 pm

    anon @ 12:46 the first couple have citations, that’s it. no citation under merger, is there? of course they asked a loaded question: will you have to merge your parcel with your neighbor’s if it is less than 600 acres?
    I never heard anybody say that. the question should be “if you have two adjacent 100 acre timber or ag parcels, will they be merged?” please answer that one with a citation.

  53. Anonymous
    July 3, 2009 at 5:22 pm

    421: here is the merger ordinance info:

    Click to access Part2Chap4.6ForestResourcesComboAltComparePosted4-01-09.pdf

    in this doc, the voting chart for the Forest Resources section of the Land Use Element, you will see the policies under each of the alternatives (where they are different).

    Under Alternatives B and C, the policy is
    FR-IM4. Merger Ordinance Revisions. Revise Merger Ordinance to delete the requirement
    of merger of substandard TPZ lands, not currently under a Williamson Act Contract, from Article II.

    The Alternative A policy is
    FR-IM4. Merger Ordinance Implementation. Develop a program to implement Article II of the existing Merger Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1762, County Code Section 327.5-1 et al) with a comprehensive noticing effort. [this is the merger ordinance that was adopted in the 1980s but never enforced]

    Alternative D is not listed but would retain the existing merger ordinance I suppose.

    The important thing to note is that each policy is discussed as a stand-alone–there will not be a complete Plan B that will be adopted all or nothing. So in other words, you don’t have to support enforcing the existing merger ordinance to say, support a community forest program. I’ve watched most of the hearings and have not heard or read any public comments supporting the Alternative A version of this policy. The Forest Review Committee may have supported it, I’m not sure–that is a technical advisory committee on forestry issues to the Planing Commission and Board of Supervisors.

  54. Anonymous
    July 5, 2009 at 9:43 am

    thanks for the info, that is a lot more helpful than mudslinging and fearmongering.

  55. 421
    July 5, 2009 at 3:24 pm

    thanks for the info. from what i read, the short answer is: yes, your parcels will be merged. i understand they are going through each policy, but that does not make me feel any better. although plan “a” may not support merging parcels, it’s policies do. i feel that healthy humboldt is using a little sleight of hand in that flyer regarding the merging of parcels.

  56. Anonymouse
    July 6, 2009 at 6:53 pm

    I see the need for code enforcement to protect tenants and neighbors in urban and sub-urban settings. I also see the necessity to protect the environment from rural pollution. But there should be a distinct seperation from codes that are needed in all of these areas. There should be more lenient definitions for rural property owners. There should be higher scrutiny for slum- lord services such as Humboldt Property Mis-Management. And no one of so called “authority” should be allowed to point a gun at your children’s face for a composting toilet. The people in the hills won’t stand for trigger happy cops who think they can bully you!

  57. unanonymous
    July 7, 2009 at 12:06 pm

    also, there should be a different set of rules for those we don’t agree with. Whoever we are….

  58. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    July 7, 2009 at 12:37 pm

    Unfortunately, not enforcing current laws on the books helps to PROPAGATE and INDUCE societal violence, which tends to be that “other set of rules”.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  59. Anonymous
    July 9, 2009 at 11:02 am

    you may think otherwise, but my sense is that the Planning Commission is not going to adopt that Alternative A version of the merger ordinance policy. In either case, no one’s land would be merged with their neighbor’s land. 421, how is this statement from Healthy Humboldt’s Myths and Facts “sleight of hand”?

    MYTH: If your parcel is less than 600 acres, you will be forced to merge with your neighbors.

    FACT: You cannot be forced to merge your property with your neighbor’s! The Merger Ordinance, enacted in 1986, applies to owners with multiple adjacent parcels under 160 acres that are zoned TPZ or under Williamson Act contract. Option B recommends
    rescinding the Merger Ordinance for TPZ parcels. No one will be required to merge substandard parcels with other owners, under ANY option.

  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