Home > Humboldt County General Plan Update > Big GPU hearing at the BOS Tuesday

Big GPU hearing at the BOS Tuesday

All the clamor about whether the Humboldt County General Plan Update (GPU) should be stopped/halted/paused/forced-to-take-a-powder will come to a head Tuesday afternoon at the Board of Supervisors (BOS) meeting.

Developer groups and Realtors — who dominate every hearing on the GPU — and their allies in some city governments, service districts and the Chambers of Commerce have lobbied the BOS to stop the plan update process and form Citizen Advisory Committees because, they say, public input is lacking.

Not everyone agrees, however.

Humboldt Watershed Council president Bill Thorington notes a similarity in the letters to the BOS by the various groups, and it appears “they used a similar template, as suggested by HumCPR and the Humboldt Builders Exchange.”

More from Thorington:

Most of those calling for a “pause” have been following the GPU for years, have been involved, doing their research and making their comments just like us.  As the process draws to a close they don’t like the way it’s turning out so they want to change the rules and have “do-over.”  That is insane and just childish.  In addition to trying to stop the GPU, they want to eliminate the Water Resource and the Energy elements.  I guess they think the Salmon, our rivers and watersheds are in great shape, or maybe they acknowledge they are so far gone, we can’t help them, so let’s pretend they doesn’t exist and ignore them.  Only a profiteer would consider such an action.

Staff says the County has “maximized public education opportunities,” but will recommend a Public Outreach Program in response to the letters, such as these missives by big box enthusiast Rob Arkley Kay Backer.

Read the staff report.

The hearing is scheduled for 1:30 Tuesday afternoon in the BOS chambers.  Both sides are calling for supporters to turn out.

  1. Plain Jane
    April 10, 2011 at 6:48 am

    Like children, they won’t be “heard” until all their demands are met. “But MOM!, you’re not listening! If you were listening, you’d let me!”

  2. Just askin'
    April 10, 2011 at 7:24 am

    Did anybody else think that Donna Tam’s piece in today’s T-S only presented one side of the GPU debate? Seems to me that someone unfamiliar with Hum Co politics could read the piece and be completely unaware of the developer/realtor agenda behind demands for a “stop and do-over” of the GPU. Is low-density sprawl really what everyone wants?

  3. April 10, 2011 at 7:28 am

    “More than a dozen letters.” Wow…So people need to quit showing up in person, and just write a letter? Who knew they carried so much weight?

  4. Ponder z
    April 10, 2011 at 8:05 am

    These tactics are not any different from what the envirofreaks, and leftists use. The GPU is being devised by leftists who want to “protect” the environment form human population growth. Some of the points they make are valid. But having us live is dense population centers and use public transportation is not practical for life in Humboldt. The building department is ridiculous to work with. From deliberate misinformation to downright incompetence.

  5. Anonymous
    April 10, 2011 at 8:40 am

    “But having us live is dense population centers and use public transportation is not practical for life in Humboldt.”

    Where do you think most people in Humboldt actually live?

  6. Ed
    April 10, 2011 at 8:41 am

    Lets see what’s practical when gas hits 6 bucks a gallon.

  7. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    April 10, 2011 at 8:50 am

    Ponder,

    good words. Ya see, when it comes to dense population centers, the gubbamint sevicers need their consumers in order to justify non-justifiable public employment opportunities. Imagine a neighbor who purposefully and spitefully vexes another neighbor. Would this occur if neighbors were further separated? NO! Hence, cops, court and processes. Sardine living is not good at all, but the powers that be know this and use it to their advantage when planning for the future.

    Bill Thorington is correct in that for years, no one but for a few people said anything about the CAC’s. It is the local groupee types that are jumping on the band-wagon now because THEY did not want CAC’s back when other portions of the GP were being updated. Go back to the records and review the timelines – you’ll see the local schmoozing all through the process by every group or groupee type it seems.

    Now, it is also true that CAC’s should have been formed PRIOR to the GPU being so far along – different discussion though that imputates former elected officials.

    As for Bill Thorington – A good guy, worked on a home of his east of the friendly city (Spanish tile in entry and kitchen, chimney chase, etc..), worked on a remodel for him at the old 6 Rivers National Bank at Eureka Mall Branch, etc… My only concern with Mr. Thorington – former bankster administrator doing what we all know banks do for money.

    JL

  8. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    April 10, 2011 at 8:55 am

    Letters – Is this before OR after the complaints lobbied against the county that letters go unread? Or, is that only the letters not sent to the BOS that go unread?????

    JL

  9. longwind
    April 10, 2011 at 9:52 am

    Jeff, the CAC history is a little different than what you say, and I’m surprised you don’t remember it. The first CAC was created in McKinleyville, in accordance with the since-dropped Public Participation rules. But the people of Mactown didn’t want what the county wanted. So their CAC recommendations were ignored, and no more CACs were created (while greater Eureka’s went more obediently forward). Here’s the Planning Department’s version of these facts, from Page 2 of their Recommendations:

    “The CACs were intended to support the Community Plan Development Program of the 1984 Framework Plan, which envisioned the preparation of 18 individual community plans to complement the countywide Framework Plan. The CACs were created for the McKinleyville Community Plan and the Eureka Community Plan. The Avenue of the Giants Community Plan did not make use of a CAC because the Board of Supervisors at the time wanted to use a different public input approach because of difficulties with the McKinleyville Community Plan Process.”

    Again, the difficulty was that McKinleyville didn’t want what the county wanted, and the people said so loud and clear. The Avenue of the Giants process (which wasn’t repeated either, incidentally) more successfully pre-determined conclusions, as one of its participants confirmed to Clif Clendenan on KMUD in a talk show two months ago.

    The pre-determinations are the problem. No doubt if the developers had cooked pre-determinations to their liking, they wouldn’t be complaining now, and enviros would be.

    But the larger point is that communities across Humboldt ceased to be consulted as soon as their desires went off the rez. That’s what happened in public meetings too, where I saw with my own bulging eyeballs the overwhelming desires of large audiences brushed aside as ‘off the table.’ So people stopped wasting their time being ignored criticizing a fixed process, until the illegitimate, undemocratic fix-fruit came up for approval.

    And here we are.

  10. April 10, 2011 at 10:17 am

    Nationally we see many working class folks hoodwinked by the Kock Brothers funded phony populism of the Tea Party, where what gets carried out in policy is the agenda of big money to lower taxes on the rich and lessen regulation on industry. Here in Humboldt, it’s back-to-the-landers being hoodwinked by Barnum Timber funded HumCPR where the policy they are fighting for will ultimately allow for the conversion of a greater amount of Timber land (Barnum holds some 20K acres) to subdivisions. In the end, most of these developments will have little in common with the “rural lifestyle” they love to sell when they argue against regulation and nothing will infringe on that back-to-the-landers lifestyle more then when they’re neighbors down the road are a bunch of suburban transplants who will nose their way into every aspect of their “odd” neighbors’ lifestyle, demand code enforcement and not hesitate to call the cops at the drop of a hat.
    There’s a reason it’s the developers, realtors and speculators who want a certain version of the GPU and that reason is profits. Anyone who thinks their version will also protect their tepees or their greenhouses is in the end going to be sorely disappointed.

  11. skippy
    April 10, 2011 at 10:23 am

    “”Frustration from community members over the county’s perceived lack of consideration for public input will come to a head Tuesday when the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors addresses letters asking for a hold on the general plan update.

    “‘The GPU has outlived 7 supervisors and 9 planning commissioners,” said the Eureka City Council letter signed by Mayor Frank Jager. “Our county would be better served if this GPU were put on hold…’”

    Community Development Services Director Kirk Girard hopes to address concerns (as) a result of misinformation being dispersed to the public through special interest groups… but does not recommend the formation of a Citizen Advisory Committee, which he said may actually bog down the process…”

    More of the GPU showdown by Donna Tam in today’s Times-Standard: “Humboldt County Responding to Frustrations over General Plan Update”

    The Tuesday, April 12 at 1:30pm, lengthy BOS agenda on this matter– and submitted letters (in pdf format)– can be found here.

    Curiously enough, the Eureka Chamber of Commerce weighed in with their chosen stance and written letter along with other municipalities. However, no submitted letters on the agenda are from HELP, HumCPR, Humboldt Association of Realtors (HAR), Humboldt Builders Exchange, or Ms. Kay Backer are to be found.

  12. longwind
    April 10, 2011 at 10:27 am

    Richard, you’re assuming some grand strategic alliance, as so many people do. What if residents just want the General Plan to be legitimate? Like McKinleyville did, and the cities and districts do that have written to the Board. A genuine public process wouldn’t result in anyone getting everything they want, I don’t think, but it would create more public understanding and support, as it had in McKinleyville. I think we should try it and see. It worked fine last time, and no one can argue that this process is working fine.

  13. Random Guy
    April 10, 2011 at 10:53 am

    Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, I’ve physically talked with in McKinleyville likes what’s on the table for McKinleyville. That includes retired truckers, loggers and chainsmoking hippies alike. NOBODY. Money is having its way, and people on the other side of the desks aren’t batting an eye. Maybe they’re making a penny or two from it somehow? The best distraction is no attraction.

    From my limited undertanding of the GPU re: “public involvement”, the scary thing as it’s being presented is the obvious bias of those who would facilitate and communicate the involvement. Everybody should agree that factors a lot.

  14. to the point
    April 10, 2011 at 11:47 am

    Longwind thinks there has been no genuine public process. What would a genuine public process look like, in his opinion?

  15. Anonymous
    April 10, 2011 at 11:59 am

    …One that results in freely giving permits for all his unpermited structures and developments.

  16. April 10, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    A lot of the issues involved here exemplify the false assignment of positions-to-demographic groups.
    Like the idea that it’s the “Progressives” who want everyone to move into the cities. Or that its the “Conservatives” who want to live a “Rural Lifestyle”.
    Don’t ya get bugged at this? It’s all part of the lies and deceit some people use to divide the communities. Is it “divide and conquer?” Or is it just false analogy that’s basically innocent?
    I doubt that you could safely attach any preference to any particular group. It’s just personal tastes, isn’t it?

  17. Mayor Snorkum
    April 10, 2011 at 12:02 pm

    It’s getting what YOU want, not what others may want. Or so it would appear.

  18. Plain Jane
    April 10, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    As I stated above, anyone who has raised teenagers recognizes this tactic immediately. The kid gives all the reasons why he should be allowed to do ____ and when mom says no, he whines, “But mom, you aren’t listening!”

  19. Mark Sailors
    April 10, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    I am in 100% agreement with Richard Salzam on this one.
    Think that Arkley and his cohorts want to protect your greenhouse or teepee or yurt?
    Think again.

    If McKinlyville want greater input into what happens there I would suggest INCORPORATING as a town. Until then, you are part of the unincorporated county and at the whim of the BOS.

  20. April 10, 2011 at 12:51 pm

    Who knew? The Koch Brothers are involved with the Humboldt County General Plan rewrite. Wow, Richard, better go back to anonymity.

  21. Random Guy
    April 10, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    Mark, you might be right about McK…I can only say what I see elsewhere, that incorporation means city hookups means significantly more rapid development. I’m probably wrong about Humboldt, though, as pre-GPU rules (currently in effect because of no update) and unincorporation seem to mean the same thing here.

    “Public involvement” via Measure N…Marina Center, nice name and logo, new jobs and affordable housing… HELL YES! But…ask people if they’d like to see another strip mall and more apartments, right on our coast even…not a lot of money to get that word out. So are the same sponsers of Measure N calling for “public involvement” regarding the GPU? I honestly don’t know all the details, but it seems like it.

  22. Random Guy
    April 10, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    There are people who want to build what they’d never want to work at or live across the street from…yet are trying to convince us they’re doing everybody a favor. That pretty much says it all…they’re helping out a handful of people (and themselves), temporarily, at the expense of the greater population who simply trusts them to do the job they were elected to do…which is look out for everybody over as long a period of time as possible.

  23. Word up
    April 10, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    Woe unto them that join house to house, [that] lay field to field, till [there be] no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth! (v.8)
    In mine ears [said] the LORD of hosts, Of a truth many houses shall be desolate, [even] great and fair, without inhabitant. (v.9)
    Yea, ten acres of vineyard shall yield one bath, and the seed of an homer shall yield an ephah. (v.10)
    Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, [that] they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, [till] wine inflame them! (v.11)
    And the harp, and the viol, the tabret, and pipe, and wine, are in their feasts: but they regard not the work of the LORD, neither consider the operation of his hands. (v.12)
    Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because [they have] no knowledge: and their honourable men [are] famished, and their multitude dried up with thirst. (v.13)
    Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it. (v.14)

    Isaiah 5

  24. skippy
    April 10, 2011 at 2:16 pm

    Curious to note an unusual similarity of words between the City of Eureka and the Humboldt Coalition for Property Rights (HumCPR).

    Today’s Times-Standard article quoted Eureka Mayor Frank Jager and the City Council’s letter:

    “The GPU (general plan update) has outlived seven supervisors and nine planning commissioners,” said the Eureka City Council letter signed by Mayor Frank Jager. “Our county would be better served if this GPU were put on hold pending a public review of the authorizing policy guidelines.”

    But in today’s Humboldt CPR advertisement, page 7 in the Times-Standard, their wording states:

    “The GPU has outlived seven Supervisors and nine Planning Commissioners. Our county would be better served if this GPU were put on hold pending a public review of the authorizing policy guidelines.”

    Remarkably similar language? It’s identical language between the two entities. Coincidence?

    Perhaps the Eureka City Council simply drafted HumCPR’s words for their own letter to the County Board of Supervisors as it was given to them?

    Or is the similarity of language more closely tied with Mr. Lee Ulansey– both HumCPR’s Chairman and concurrently sitting on the Eureka City Council Planning Commission?

  25. anonymous
    April 10, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    Neither the Eureka city council nor the C of C speaks for me. I live here and I know it’s been a long time (if ever) that the council cared about anybody other than their cronies. There’s so much to be done within the city and now they’re looking to accomodate the developers who want to build outside the city. Surveys show young people want to live in cities with neighborhood gathering places. Boomers don’t want the huge houses in the ‘burbs anymore. They want small living spaces within walking distance of services. They want to be having fun rather than tied down by large houses and big yards to care for. Why can’t the developers and their lackeys get that through their thick skulls?

  26. Plain Jane
    April 10, 2011 at 3:15 pm

    Good catch, Skippy. They don’t even try to hide their crimes any more.

  27. Random Guy
    April 10, 2011 at 3:17 pm

    2:27…as far as what young people want, young people who choose to live in humboldt want pretty much what we all love about humboldt, the lot of which dramatically differs from cities. I don’t consider myself old, nor are most of my friends and associates, we’re children of the boomers. It’s ridiculous to suggest people want small living spaces…they want cheap living spaces, but bigger with more amenities the better…like everybody else.

    Is Lafco for real? Its name is LAFable. har har. So to update the general plane…via “public involvement”…certain people want to form committees…formed by the committee to form committees…composed of some new and very familiar names in the local real estate scene.

    “…pay attention to every race. No race is too small, “from the school board to the President.”

  28. Anonymous
    April 10, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    So now we find out that HumCPR is a defacto subsidiary of Barnum Timber? They are essentially a for profit marketing firm with the goal of getting their large landholding owners a large profit from development.

  29. Plain Jane
    April 10, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    Wait until the “back to the landers” start getting tax bills to fund the improvements McMansion developments demand. Of course, it will be too late then.

  30. Random Guy
    April 10, 2011 at 3:36 pm

    …maybe less Lafco involvement than I thought at first read of what I’m reading for the first time. Really though, the real estate scene is weaseling its way into Humboldt’s political scene. Frightening for our future. Sometimes it seems like politics is all about real estate…local, state, nation, globe…control the land and resources, profit from the people within. The growing human population is profitable. People as commodity…consumers being consumed. Bleh…way too much internet today.

  31. FoxStudio
    April 10, 2011 at 4:26 pm

    Is Donna Tam capable of any critical thinking skills whatsoever? Did she not see the ghost of a hint of a pattern in who the parties are who are calling for a “pause” in the GPU process. I guess SHE never bothered to go to any of the meetings.

    This is obviously about one faction seeing the possibility that they won’t get their way and who now want to throw a spanner in the works. This should NOT be allowed to happen.

  32. Grouchy
    April 10, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    When arguments are phrased in absolute terms like “progressives want everyone to live in compact urban areas,” then rational discourse goes out the window. Housing is more affordable for people who work for wages, young people starting out, seniors downsizing, and many families if it’s in compact areas near jobs, services, schools, etc. Of course this can be less healthy, private, and pleasant than living on acreage — so such developments should be planned with parks, bike/walking trails, etc. etc..
    In the meantime there is PLENTY of land already designated appropriately for those who wish to and are able to live away from the urban hubs.
    The differences between all the alternatives is where the emphasis on new development will be placed. Urbanized and urban-esque areas require more planning, but rural development also contributes a lot of impact down the line.
    Bill Barnum was one of the instigators of HumCPR, as anyone who attended the TPZ moratorium hearings in the fall of 2007 should know, because he was there handing out buttons and coaching supporters in the lobby. But no need to point the finger at any one person. The same timber company owners/managers who were active in HELP were rallying the troops, the smaller landowners terrified that the TPZ moratorium would be extended indefinitely.

    Likewise, following the insanely stupid code enforcement rails in SoHum in 2008, CPR gathered a lot more diasffected small landowners into its nets, although ironically, if CPR gets what it wants, those SoHum landowners aren’t going to like the results — more density, more “yuppies from Los Angeles” moving into their area!
    If any of you disaffected small landowners are reading this, why the heck don’t you — in fact, why haven’t you — created your own advisory committees, based on your watersheds or VFD’s or whatever works, studied up on the plan and made your own comments and suggestions, such as other groups have done? Why are you all spending your three minutes public comment time to complain that you only get 3 minutes?

  33. Anonymous
    April 10, 2011 at 5:14 pm

    Wtf do the Koch brothers have to do with this dick? I haven’t seen you over the years at any of these sessions and hearings. Haven’t seen you either Jane. Both of you sound a bit immersed in yourselves. The GPU is a mess and a loss do to the ultra left whack jobs who think compromise is a dirty word. That thinking is the reason for this mess.

  34. Plain Jane
    April 10, 2011 at 5:14 pm

    Those So Hum landowners are going to be VERY unhappy when they have to help pay for water and sewer systems, roads and schools which the yuppies can’t live without. It’s no secret that there isn’t enough water in the rivers at certain times of the year already. Believing that a water shortage will disappear with more straws in the river is like believing tax cuts increase government revenues. It takes a certain level of dumb to believe, but there are always those who do.

  35. Eric Kirk
    April 10, 2011 at 5:17 pm

    Community Development Services Director Kirk Girard hopes to address concerns (as) a result of misinformation being dispersed to the public through special interest groups… but does not recommend the formation of a Citizen Advisory Committee, which he said may actually bog down the process…”

    I agree that at this point it would bog down the process, which is why it should have been formed 10 years ago.

  36. Plain Jane
    April 10, 2011 at 5:17 pm

    How the fuck would you know who is at the meetings and who isn’t, 5:14? You wouldn’t know me if I walked up and spit in your eye.

    The Koch Bros. have nothing to do with what is going on here. Our mini versions of the Koch Bros, with the same agenda, however, have everything to do with what is going on here.

  37. Eric Kirk
    April 10, 2011 at 5:17 pm

    And I’m saying that as someone who supports a Plan A type framework.

  38. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    April 10, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    Longwind,

    Hmmm, what makes a blog comment “one’s whole cumulative total” of all comments, ever? It does not, imo. So, is the tactic of “don’t get it”, don’t remember”, etc… the next tool to character assassinate? Downer dude. :-(

    As I expressed above, hardly anyone made a stink about CAC’s early on in the “”””””GPU”””””” process – here: Now, it is also true that CAC’s should have been formed PRIOR to the GPU being so far along – different discussion though that is directly connected to former elected officials.

    It has not been until currently (past year or so) when insiders know regimes change, politically (notice, I did say GPU process) that the stinking has increased, especially by the politically positioned and its campaign drives. It is true that some members of the community have been making a stink since late 2002 and before (which is why a committee of good folks participated in preparing the MCP).

    Further, making a stink about other stuff as groups or individuals is different than making a stink about CAC’s being formed so that the CAC’s can make the stink for the individuals along the way in the GPU process, even though individuals would still have the right to comment all the way up each rung of the ladder of any process)…..yes, it (the newly found energy to make a stink) was politically pre-planned too, it appears.

    So, if you can point out exactly where we differ, it would be much appreciated, thanks. I note especially that the supes never wanted to get these CAC’s formed because of losing power in politics due to “The Peoples” gain. Further, the costs to implement by formation and the cease of responsibilities and liabilities and possibly funding opportunities, etc…. Power shifting is a political struggle that can emulate Capitol Hill In DC, just sayin’.

    Yet, the one “for sure” thing is than when the Supes adopted the MCP (along with the enjoined Zoning Map) in December of 2002, Humboldt County Supervisors and staff effectually created “Ad Hoc”, inherent rights for the greater good of the McKinleyville community. Part of that is the formation and implementaion of a CAC. Now, if the county feels it boo-booed because it gave away power and control, well too darned bad, not McKinleyville’s problem.

    longwind says:
    April 10, 2011 at 9:52 am
    Jeff, the CAC history is a little different than what you say, and I’m surprised you don’t remember it. The first CAC was created in McKinleyville, in accordance with the since-dropped Public Participation rules. But the people of Mactown didn’t want what the county wanted. So their CAC recommendations were ignored, and no more CACs were created (while greater Eureka’s went more obediently forward). Here’s the Planning Department’s version of these facts, from Page 2 of their Recommendations:

    “The CACs were intended to support the Community Plan Development Program of the 1984 Framework Plan, which envisioned the preparation of 18 individual community plans to complement the countywide Framework Plan. The CACs were created for the McKinleyville Community Plan and the Eureka Community Plan. The Avenue of the Giants Community Plan did not make use of a CAC because the Board of Supervisors at the time wanted to use a different public input approach because of difficulties with the McKinleyville Community Plan Process.”

    Again, the difficulty was that McKinleyville didn’t want what the county wanted, and the people said so loud and clear. The Avenue of the Giants process (which wasn’t repeated either, incidentally) more successfully pre-determined conclusions, as one of its participants confirmed to Clif Clendenan on KMUD in a talk show two months ago.

    The pre-determinations are the problem. No doubt if the developers had cooked pre-determinations to their liking, they wouldn’t be complaining now, and enviros would be.

    But the larger point is that communities across Humboldt ceased to be consulted as soon as their desires went off the rez. That’s what happened in public meetings too, where I saw with my own bulging eyeballs the overwhelming desires of large audiences brushed aside as ‘off the table.’ So people stopped wasting their time being ignored criticizing a fixed process, until the illegitimate, undemocratic fix-fruit came up for approval.

    And here we are.

    Yes, we are here.

    JL

  39. Anonymous
    April 10, 2011 at 6:02 pm

    I know exactly who you are Jane and I haven’t seen you at any PC meetings nor group meetings. Sounding a bit nasty when challenged Jane. My,my.

  40. Plain Jane
    April 10, 2011 at 6:17 pm

    Then go right ahead and post who I am, 6:02. I’m quite confident that you don’t have a clue who I am.

  41. Plain Jane
    April 10, 2011 at 6:18 pm

    Be aware that there ARE people who know who I am who post here, but I’m quite certain YOU aren’t one of them.

  42. April 10, 2011 at 6:24 pm

    uh….don’t anybody panic, but a couple of my comments have disappeared. This is how you do me H? After I willingly offered to suffer disembowelment, the squishy kind; to protect your anonymity? A little part of me died today….as us “Richards” like to say: “Now you don’t have Dick!”

    Ha, I kill me.

  43. Plain Jane
    April 10, 2011 at 6:30 pm

    Did creepy anonymous stalker post something that was removed?

  44. Anonymous
    April 10, 2011 at 6:41 pm

    I’m not creepy or a stalker but you may have to bob and weave some spittle coming at your eye the next time I see you Jane. Wash your mouth out galpal. Reacting so viciously is really illuminating. It reveals what’s underneath and that’s not attractive.

  45. Mitch
    April 10, 2011 at 6:44 pm

    Does anyone truly know who anyone else is? Who they are themselves? That’s your moment of deep thought for the weekend. And now, back to the nice newcomers hurling insults at the “mean,” “nasty” Heraldo fans.

  46. Plain Jane
    April 10, 2011 at 6:54 pm

    What’s not attractive is a creepy stalker anonymous claiming they know who people are when they don’t and making false claims about people based on their faulty assumptions in an attempt to intimidate people whose views you don’t like. That’s called LYING.

  47. Yet another A
    April 10, 2011 at 7:01 pm

    Anon @ 5:14: “haven’t seen you over the years at any of these sessions and hearings. Haven’t seen you either Jane. Both of you sound a bit immersed in yourselves. The GPU is a mess and a loss do to the ultra left whack jobs who think compromise is a dirty word. That thinking is the reason for this mess.”

    Good example of the “thinking” behind the assault on the GPU:

    1) Haven’t seen —- {because I wouldn’t know what to look for anyway and would not recognize it if it was right under my nose.}

    2) The GPU is a mess {because I say so and I don’t need any reasons why. I say so.}

    3) It is all the fault of {insert favorite stereotype group you love to hate here}

    4) who think {insert projection of your own actions into group from step 3}

    5) That thinking is the reason for this mess { not my thinking, which is the only right way to think. And if you think differently from me,YOU don’t know how to compromise}

  48. Plain Jane
    April 10, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    For the record, I don’t go to those meetings. I write letters and I donate to politicians who share my views. As I have stated repeatedly, I keep a low political profile publicly. But these creepy anonymous posters who play intimidation games really pizz me off.

  49. Anonymous
    April 10, 2011 at 7:25 pm

    Jane I know you don’t go. That’s why I pointed it out. Good god, you keep a low political profile? Now I have to take a break from this because that is too funny – can’t control the laughter. Even funnier is “Calling you out is creepy or stalking?” Get a grip Queen Stalker. Shall I list the number and times of you weary posts here and other places?? That will be a crack up Stalker Jane. Now remember you do have to face people without the mask.

  50. Anonymous
    April 10, 2011 at 7:28 pm

    Ps. Don’t you mean “piss” and not “pizz”? Still wondering about that one.

  51. Plain Jane
    April 10, 2011 at 7:34 pm

    Post my name or GFY, Creepy Stalker. You are a lying POS who is trying to intimidate and it isn’t ever going to work. I won’t respond to you again.

  52. Anonymous
    April 10, 2011 at 7:41 pm

    Pray tell Snow White’s step-mom – What does GFY mean dear sweet Jane? So nice. So revealing. So you!

  53. Mitch
    April 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm

    It means GO FUCK YOURSELF, Anonymous. Please do.

  54. Anonymous
    April 10, 2011 at 7:50 pm

    Sorry Mitch. That pleasure is reserved for my partner. You guys are losing it. Have fun. Hugs. Three point shot.

  55. Anonymous
    April 10, 2011 at 7:54 pm

    Ps clean off the spittle from both of your mouths (Jane and Mitch). It is very unattractive kids.

    Time for dessert. I will check in before bed. Have fun re-adjusting your thongs.

  56. Plain Jane
    April 10, 2011 at 8:05 pm

    It’s just that leg humper again, Mitch. Sorry you had to curse. :D

  57. Random Guy
    April 10, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    “Nationally we see many working class folks hoodwinked by the Kock Brothers funded phony populism of the Tea Party, where what gets carried out in policy is the agenda of big money to lower taxes on the rich and lessen regulation on industry. Here in Humboldt, it’s back-to-the-landers being hoodwinked by Barnum Timber funded HumCPR where the policy they are fighting for will ultimately allow for the conversion of a greater amount of Timber land (Barnum holds some 20K acres) to subdivisions. In the end, most of these developments will have little in common with the “rural lifestyle” they love to sell when they argue against regulation and nothing will infringe on that back-to-the-landers lifestyle more then when they’re neighbors down the road are a bunch of suburban transplants who will nose their way into every aspect of their “odd” neighbors’ lifestyle, demand code enforcement and not hesitate to call the cops at the drop of a hat.
    There’s a reason it’s the developers, realtors and speculators who want a certain version of the GPU and that reason is profits. Anyone who thinks their version will also protect their tepees or their greenhouses is in the end going to be sorely disappointed.”

    Very worth repeating, by an unpolular, non-anonymous identity? Spare me the drama that I have no clue about, doesn’t matter if Batman said it…that makes complete sense and coincides with the facts of what’s physically happening. You can see it with your own eyes…what was said before, and what became after.

    Power chain: nation > state > county > town > rural living. Google maps updated this year for Humboldt, now includes subdivisions previously unseen. Last year, cemented street signs appearing on unpopulated, unpaved, truely rural roads all over the county. Foreshadowing what’s on the table that we’re not privy to.

  58. Plain Jane
    April 10, 2011 at 8:33 pm

    And the leg humper is also an idiot if his name isn’t Mitch.

  59. Ed
    April 10, 2011 at 8:46 pm

    Good comment Random. Don’t worry Jane, you must have hit a nerve. It’s just some thoughtless person cornered into their fight or flight mode. Keep up the good work.

  60. Anonymousoverandover
    April 10, 2011 at 8:46 pm

    I have argued many times with Jane but as much as I have disagreed, I can’t stand the sick talk of the anonymous she told to “GFY”. Spittle and spitting talk? Creepy “I know who you are” sort of talk? The purpose of blogs is to express oneself and if people want to remain anonymous (like Heraldo) it is important they do so. Some topics and information would never come to the light of day if people couldn’t be anonymous. For instance, many of my clients are right wing Christians. I don’t like to advertise that I support Planned Parenthood. It’s not that I want to be dishonest, but I do want to avoid throwing it in their face. I think those kinds of opinions need to be separated from the workplace. Please don’t “out” others.

    SO Mr. Spittle and Spit, please go away or just leave your opinion. Don’t threaten, and don’t “out”. What’s the point?

  61. Anonymous
    April 10, 2011 at 9:17 pm

    Can longwind name a few ‘fixed’ policies he is referring to? How is it fixed?

  62. Yet another A
    April 10, 2011 at 9:20 pm

    Spittle and Spit is such a good spokesman for his cause.

    Great job Spittle. So articulate. You’ve really convinced me. You had your flasher moment and we all saw that— What’s underneath and that’s not attractive.

    Now go back to your porn sites and get don’t forget to take your meds.

  63. tra
    April 10, 2011 at 9:26 pm

    “Higher densities mean more people and more strain on existing roads and services. We have not been able to provide services, especially roads, traffic controls, emergency responses, sufficient for the existing population. High-density growth will only add to existing problems, and my constituents have made that perfectly clear.”

    Supervisor Jimmy Smith, quoted in today’s Times-Standard.

    http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_17813899

  64. Plain Jane
    April 10, 2011 at 9:30 pm

    Creepy stalkers are another reason to be anonymous.

  65. Plain Jane
    April 10, 2011 at 9:36 pm

    “Fifth District Supervisor Ryan Sundberg said the perception of a top-down approach by the county is prevalent among his constituents, and the letters illustrate how widespread the concerns are. He said he does recognize that there was a lot of public input early in the process.
    ”There’s a huge communication breakdown,” Sundberg said. “The project has taken so long that things that happened early on are completely forgotten. The county hasn’t done a good job of reinforcing what has happened in the past.”

    Ryan Sundberg

    Perception is pretty much everything and years of developer propaganda skewed perception.

  66. Reflexivity
    April 10, 2011 at 9:37 pm

    8:46, reflect for a moment on what you said:

    “For instance, many of my clients are right wing Christians. I don’t like to advertise that I support Planned Parenthood. It’s not that I want to be dishonest, but I do want to avoid throwing it in their face.”

    What is shameful about planning your family and having regular check ups? Why would/should Christians of any political bent object to this? Why would /should you pander to their irrational and hypocritical prejudice against planned procreation and women’s health.

    Why hide your support of these worthy efforts? Bigotry and ignorance need to be addressed head on. Otherwise, we get religious zealots running the country. Stay tuned on that one. What are YOU doing about it, over and over?

  67. Oldphart
    April 10, 2011 at 9:42 pm

    The Planning Department has taken public comment, then ignored it. And you wonder why people are upset. It indeed goes back to the Mckinleyville Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). Years of work, compromises met from both sides and yet the Planning Department brushes the work off. People are not just upset, they are pissed. Power to the people. Or power to the planners. Who, by the way, have arbitrarily stated to folks through the years that some policy or other was bound to become the rule, even tho’ it wasn’t yet, so you have to conform to it now. Answering to the commoners is due.

  68. the fence post
    April 10, 2011 at 9:49 pm

    Wow. This guy is even dumber than me!…

    “Higher densities mean more people and more strain on existing roads and services. We have not been able to provide services, especially roads, traffic controls, emergency responses, sufficient for the existing population. High-density growth will only add to existing problems, and my constituents have made that perfectly clear.”

    Supervisor Jimmy Smith, quoted in today’s Times-Standard.

    Right Jimmy. Oh, and tell us again why all those watersheds belched tons of sediment into our rivers, killing our salmon (YOUR salmon, the fishermen’s salmon).
    Never could figure out that puzzle either, could you Jimmy? Musta been the sealions. Couldn’t be the timber companies. Nah.

    Now tell us about how smearing development all over those clearcuts will be better for everybody. Even the fish.

    Time to retire, Jimmy. Some of us are sick of your simple minded, rape-cheering, stupidity.

  69. tra
    April 10, 2011 at 9:59 pm

    Yet it is the Option A crowd who is supposedly anxious to get the GPU completed within the next year, before Smith, Lovelace, and Clendenen face re-election. The question is, have they given up on a GPU that leans toward Option A?

    Maybe they just haven’t quite reconciled themselves to the fact that they would need three votes on the Board of Supervisors to pass it? At least from today’s quote, it sure doesn’t sound like they have Smith on board for higher-density housing, which is at the very heart of the Option A approach. Hmmmmmmmmm.

  70. Yet another A
    April 10, 2011 at 10:02 pm

    “The Planning Department has taken public comment, then ignored it.” Oldphart.

    Samples of public comment, simplified:

    Do X, Do Y

    Yes to A, No to A

    Turn right, Turn left

  71. April 10, 2011 at 10:03 pm

    So did Anthony Hopkins stroll over from Craigslist Rants & Raves?

  72. tra
    April 10, 2011 at 10:04 pm

    Meanwhile, in the same Times-Standard article, planning czar Kirk Girard is quoted as saying that the GPU process “works beautifully.”

    Eye of the beholder, I suppose.

  73. Plain Jane
    April 10, 2011 at 10:05 pm

    If we can’t afford roads and services for higher densities, how can we possibly afford them for the same number of people in a rural setting. That does not compute. Where is the additional water going to come from?

    I doubt anyone is going to have their minds changed. I just hope I’m wrong about what I think is going to happen, but I probably won’t be around to see it.

  74. Yet another A
    April 10, 2011 at 10:07 pm

    planning czar?

    is that a “reasonable” bias I detect, tra?

  75. the fence post
    April 10, 2011 at 10:12 pm

    That does not compute…

    Don’t ask Jimmy to compute. Too tough. Ask him how he FEELS. Thinking is just so…difficult.

  76. tra
    April 10, 2011 at 10:12 pm

    Yes.

  77. Plain Jane
    April 10, 2011 at 10:16 pm

    How does spreading people over a wider area reduce the cost of providing them public amenities? And I’m not even going to get into peak oil.

  78. tra
    April 10, 2011 at 10:17 pm

    planning czar?

    is that a “reasonable” bias I detect, tra

    Yes. Thanks for noticing.

  79. Anonymous
    April 10, 2011 at 10:44 pm

    “Higher densities mean more people and more strain on existing roads and services. We have not been able to provide services, especially roads, traffic controls, emergency responses, sufficient for the existing population. High-density growth will only add to existing problems, and my constituents have made that perfectly clear.”

    Supervisor Jimmy Smith, quoted in today’s Times-Standard.

    If Jimmy’s correct, we can’t afford high-density growth because 35 years of low-density growth already bankrupted us. Finally, the Times Standard has exposed who’s behind that No-Growth organization we’re always hearing about.

    The development community has treated public infrastructure like their personal entitlement program…Just like the new Safeway at Harris and Harrison, (Jimmy’s District), where taxpayers are subsidizing the new $250,000 intersection and Safeway will pay $6,000! “Fair Share” my ass.

    Oh, but this gets a pass from Jimmy…it’s only when working-class taxpayers demand affordable, downtown housing that poor Jimmy gets hung-up: “I don’t like the way inclusionary zoning sounds”.

  80. Mr. Nice
    April 10, 2011 at 10:48 pm

    Plain jane the reason why it costs more per capita to serve dense areas is population reaches a critical point at whih all kinna ghetto shit starts happening. sheriff deputoes in Myers Flat can cover more folks than the POP in Tweak Town because the density hasnt reached that breaking point.
    At some point in density, projects become normal housing and the government costs skyrocket.
    on the flip side, before you get to he breaking point, i like to call the ghetto apex, costs go down. Clearly it is cheaper to handle people at densities less than one per 160 acres and shit, but not at 160/acre by any means.

  81. Plain Jane
    April 10, 2011 at 10:53 pm

    Police and fire weren’t foremost in my mind as far as amenities, Mr. Nice. I was thinking about roads, water and sewage disposal, increased driving. How many more straws can our creeks and rivers support without killing them?

  82. McKinleyvillan
    April 10, 2011 at 11:09 pm

    Longwind, your statements about McK and the CACs are so wrong I stopped reading the rest of your post since I assume that’s all BS too. McK was not the first CAC, and the County has not ignored the McK Community Plan. I’ve actually read it, and watchdogged projects in McK, which I gather you have not.

  83. Ponder z
    April 11, 2011 at 5:56 am

    The major problem is southern Hum growers. Every subdivided parcel has a shack on it and a garden for Medical weed. Most are not organic. The impact on streams and watershed is worse than any logging zone. The chemical and waste into the water will take years to dilute if it is stopped today. Have you noticed the algae growth in the last ten years on the Eel?

  84. April 11, 2011 at 7:28 am

    Sorry about the GPU, though I have to say “Humboldt 21st Century” is not a very clever name for our local Agenda 21 plan.

    Five Year Plans and New Deals, wrapped in golden chains…

  85. Anonymous
    April 11, 2011 at 7:56 am

    mckinleyvillan,
    where in the mckinleyville plan does it call for allowing a homeless shelter by right on commercial property? where does the mckinleyville plan state residential properties shall be rezoned to high density multi-family?

    oh ya, it doesn’t. this is what people are mad about.

  86. Crowd 'em in
    April 11, 2011 at 7:59 am

    The Los Angeles metropolitan area belches far more methane into its air than scientists had previously realised. If other megacities are equally profligate, urban methane emissions may represent a surprisingly important source of this potent greenhouse gas.

    Cities Could Account For 15% of Human’s Methane Emissions

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17479-mystery-methane-belched-out-by-megacities.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=environment

  87. Yet another A
    April 11, 2011 at 8:54 am

    More from the methane article:

    “This extra methane may result from higher than expected leakage from landfills, sewage treatment plants or natural gas pipelines, or it could be natural seepage from oil wells or other geologic sources, the researchers say.”

    Hey,7:59, break away from the crowd and use your brain a little. The only way to make a valid comparison between methane produced in urban vs rural areas would be to measure the amount produced by the same number of people scattered over a greater land area.

    If 100,000 people living in a city create x amount of methane, how much is created by 100,000 people who live in the suburbs or scattered throughout the land? The dispersion of people makes it much more difficult to measure the methane they produce. This does not mean they are producing less – it just means methane can not be measured and associated with a specific source location, as with a city.

    See, that little thinking exercise wasn’t so painful, was it? Try it. Every day.

  88. April 11, 2011 at 8:58 am

    Anonymous, if GFY rights are reserved for your “partner”, that’s a poor way to treat your dog, or your chicken, for that matter.

    I think Jimmy was refering to the fact that infrastructure is more expensive when spread out over great distances. We can barely afford what we have now.

    If you don’t think this STALL is developer driven, look at McKinleyville. Remember it from even 20 years ago? Now it’s Tract after Tract, cookie cutter houses, all the same color and design. Rural lifestyle my blue ass! The very people who have dominated the ‘public input’ for 10 years are now crying that there hasn’t been enough public input. Talk about self-serving!!!

    The only ones crying about their ‘input’ being ignored are those that have tried to control the entire process and have occasionally been balked. So now we get giant newspaper adds full of inuendo and even lies.
    What a county!! Good thing we’re small.

  89. Percy
    April 11, 2011 at 9:00 am

    Wazzup 7:24?????? You the official PJ stalker /blog comment counter? You sayin she blogs too much or blogs too little? WTF does it matter to your sorry ass how often someone blogs? You in charge of something or wannabe? If you don’t like her comments should we limit her or ban her or how about lets out her so maybe we can get her fired or harm her some other way. Let’s print her address and phone number and get drunk and go over her house and scare the shit out of her. But we’ll all wear masks so nobody knows who we are. Next time she gets out of line we can bury her up to her head and stone her. Damn uppity bitches need to know their place.

  90. Percy
    April 11, 2011 at 9:02 am

    That was in reply to a comment that was removed.

  91. Fool On Hill
    April 11, 2011 at 9:20 am

    Ulansey’s MyWord in today’s T-S is the usual diatribe, but got a laugh from this online reply. OMG – Gitmo in Humboldt!

    Patrick Shannon · Humboldt/UCSC/New College of Law

    Thank you for a cogent analysis, Mr. Ulansey. Katherine and I share your experience and your views. While the General Plan Update moves “forward”, the Planning Dept has written scores of violations for minor infractions of concern to no one. In tandem with County Counsel, they are punishing and torturing longtime rural residents. What we need first is a new Planning Director and a new County Counsel.

  92. skippy
    April 11, 2011 at 9:41 am

    “Damn the Torpedoes?”

    “After more than 12 years, the final result is still unknown. Staff shuffles and reshuffles the various options, alternatives, language and definitions more quickly than a carnival worker can shuffle the pea under the walnut shell..”.

    HumCPR Chairman and Eureka City Planning Commissioner Lee Ulansey’s My Word opinion piece is in today’s Times-Standard news (and FOH @ 9:20 above, refers to)
    and can be found here for the reader.

  93. April 11, 2011 at 9:48 am

    Naturally, Ulansey and Rob Arkley want the same thing, because Ulansey is Arkley’s hero.

  94. tra
    April 11, 2011 at 10:01 am

    A-Nony-Mouse,

    I think it’s quite accurate to say that infrastructure generally costs more when it’s spread out over larger areas.

    But that’s not at all what Smith was saying in that quote. My point was not about whether he was wrong or right, but simply that he doesn’t seem very enthusiastic about increasing density in existing communities, which is exactly what an Option A-style GPU would do.

    Lovelace and (probably) Clendenan appear to be on board for a GPU that focuses on increasing density in existing communities as the main way to accomodate future population growth. But, at least judging by that quote, it sure doesn’t look like Smith is interested in taking that approach. So where do the Option A fans intend to get their third vote?

    I’m not sure that hurrying to get the GPU completed before the next election will work out very well for them. And clearly their leaders are smart enough to count to three (at least one would hope so).

    So I continue to wonder whether the leaders of the Option A faction are playing a bit of a game here, publicly pushing to “get ‘er done,” but nonetheless privately will be relieved if the other side’s stalling tactics succeed and the final vote on the GPU gets delayed until after the next election, or the one after that, when they might be able to get 3 votes for a GPU that they’ll be happier with.

    Or maybe they believe that support for an Option A-style GPU will only continue to erode as time goes on, and are worried that they’ll have even less support on the Board of Supervisors after the next election or two, so they figure the’ll be better off getting the best deal they can now, rather than taking the issue to the voters in the next couple rounds of elections for Supervisors.

  95. Anonymous
    April 11, 2011 at 10:09 am

    tra – your continued “Option A” frame of reference is both tired and out of date. Everyone knows that the process is and will be a compromise. Some, it seems, are just seeking domination and halting the process seems to be the best way to do that. Others see the the not perfect process and result (compromises included) as far better than nothing at all.

    I do agree with you tra that maybe the “stop the process” clan may not like the results of the new process they want to initiate. If they don’t, what lengths will they go to start over again? This could go on forever.

  96. tra
    April 11, 2011 at 10:21 am

    As I’ve said before, I’m fully aware that the “Option A, B, C, D” framework is a simplification, and that any eventual result will have to be a compromise. Nonetheless, there’s no denying that there is a faction that favors a GPU that leans more toward A/B+ (Lovelace and Clendenen) and a faction that favors a GPU that leans more toward C/D (Sundberg and Bass). SO the issue here is that if the plan passes during the current Board’s term, Smith is clearly the “swing vote.” I was just commenting that, at least judging by Smith’s quote in yesterday’s Times-Standard article, it’s not looking good for those who want something that leans more toward A, and that ultimaely those folks may have to choose between (1) a compromise that isn’t all that favorable to their preferences for more density in existing areas, and (2) waiting until after the one or two more supervisor elections when they might be able to get 3 votes for a compromise that will be more to their liking.

    Do you disagree with that analysis? If so, what part?

  97. tra
    April 11, 2011 at 10:40 am

    Anon 10:09 says: I do agree with you tra that maybe the “stop the process” clan may not like the results of the new process they want to initiate. If they don’t, what lengths will they go to start over again? This could go on forever.

    Well, I think both sides may have miscalculated and in fact may be pushing for timelines that may end up actually undercutt their own interests. I think the phrase “careful what you wish for” could come into play for either side.

  98. April 11, 2011 at 10:48 am

    There was a great discussion on KMUD this morning on Dennis Huber’s show at 8am with Healthy Humboldt’s Jen Kalt and Dan Ehresman. You can listen via the KMUD archive. Scroll down to the Monday Morning Magazine (8-9am).

  99. tra
    April 11, 2011 at 10:56 am

    Thanks, H.

    I’ll listen tonight when I get a chance.

    In the meantime, if you have a few highlights, perhaps you could make it the subject of a new post?

  100. Plain Jane
    April 11, 2011 at 10:58 am

    On the other hand, Tra, if Smith is saying we can’t afford the infrastructure required for increased populations in urban areas, what makes you think he would vote to increase the infrastructure in rural areas where it will cost even more?

  101. Anonymous
    April 11, 2011 at 11:03 am

    Lee Ulansey: “….there is an active revolt brewing…”

    Tea Party supporter and HumCPR founder Ulansey has wanted to subdivide his property in Kneeland since he first bought it, never mind that he was informed before the purchase that zoning would not allow for that.

  102. April 11, 2011 at 11:07 am

    Working on it, tra.

  103. tra
    April 11, 2011 at 11:32 am

    Yes, P.J., I agree that Smith’s quote is not necessarily an endorsement of accomodating future population growth through development out in the rural areas. In that quote, he’s signaling that he opposes increasing density within existing urban areas, but he’s not saying anything about rural areas (and he has some of both within his district).

    But his opposition to increasing density in existing urban areas (or at least those in his own district?) seems pretty clear. So either he’s quietly assenting to the idea that a good deal of that growth will happen in non-urban areas, or is he simply failing to acknowledge the problem that population is likely to increase, at least somewhat, over the next few decades and that those people will need to live somewhere.

    Personally I’m all in favor of improving housing options in our towns and cities, and I have no problem with the idea that a good deal of any future population growth ends up getting accomodated that way — as long as that outcome is not forced on people. If those urban options are improved, perhaps more people will choose that path voluntarily. Meanwhile, I’m not crazy about the idea of making it a lot harder for those who own a rural parcel and want to live on it.

    Ultimately, the root problem is overall population growth, which is really not something the County has any control over. So the argument ends up being over exactly where to “squeeze the balloon,” even as that baloon continues to fill. It may be true that accomodating more of the population growth within existing urban areas may allow us to continue to kick the population-growth problem down the road for another decade or two with (potentially) less impact on the environment…but it’s also a strategy that allows some folks to ignore the overall problem, and to continue to pretend that we can continue to endlessly increase our population and use of resources. No matter how skillfully the balloon is squeezed, if it continues to be inflated there’s going to be a problem. In the meantime, the squeezing can lead to problems of its own.

    The bottom line is that this is a very challenging problem, and the fundamental solution (decreasing population growth and creating a steady-state economy that does not require pyramid-scheme type dynamics) is not something the County has a lot of control over. So we muddle on.

  104. Plain Jane
    April 11, 2011 at 11:38 am

    I can’t recall Smith’s stance on Ridgewood Village. Anyone?

  105. the fence post
    April 11, 2011 at 11:40 am

    “if Smith is saying we can’t afford the infrastructure required for increased populations in urban areas, what makes you think he would vote to increase the infrastructure in rural areas where it will cost even more?”

    That indeed puts Jimmy in a bind. He’d have to think it though to the only logical conclusion — the only way to avoid having to increase infrastructure is to stop development. Development = need for more infrastructure.

    Is Jimmy going to claim that increasing infrastructure to outlying areas is less expensive than upgrading or expanding infrastructure in already developed areas?

  106. tra
    April 11, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    Increasing the number of rural residents will clearly increase road maintenance costs in those areas, the need for emergency services, etc. On the other hand, rural residents pay for their own water and waste-water systems, whereas in urban areas, expansion of these types of infrastructure have to be provided in a centralized way, at taxpayer expense. In just dollar terms, I’m not sure which type of population growth will actually cost taxpayers more.

    But of course it’s not just a question of dollars, it’s also a question of environmental impacts, such as the “too may straws in the creeks” issue that P.J. has raised. In my opinion, this is a serious issue, and a couple of years of good rainfall doesn’t mean that we should ignore it. Also, there’s the issue of sediment from rural roads, etc.

    However, there are potential solutions to those problems, such as better water conservation and winter water storage, and better graveling and culverts on rural roads. The question is whether (and how) those solutions can be made a reality, without creating regulatory burdens that will prevent anyone who isn’t very wealthy from being able to live in our rural areas.

  107. longwind
    April 11, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    There’s a simple solution to the conflicts tra outlines above: just don’t extend urban services to rural areas. Period. Empower CACs to draw hard boundaries. Let each property owner who wants a house beyond them create their own infrastructure, with clear policies permitting and explaining off-grid everything, and setting performance standards in consultation with the tens of thousands of Humboldt residents who already live this way.

    We don’t see many McMansions running their own electric and sanitation systems, but we will continue to see congenial people with active interests in nature and ecosystems enabled to take advantage of our country’s most sophisticated off-grid installers and servicers, who are still pioneering right here after 40 years. I cannot fathom why the county ignores this vital industry, except that it isn’t urban.

    I’ve suggested without success that Heraldo open a discussion about this. What does anyone else think?

  108. Plain Jane
    April 11, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    “The question is whether (and how) those solutions can be made a reality, without creating regulatory burdens that will prevent anyone who isn’t very wealthy from being able to live in our rural areas.”

    Increased population in rural areas brings negative environmental impacts, water shortages, sewer problems, etc, and WILL require more infrastructure. The “hippies” will have to help the “yuppies” pay for them, regardless if they personally need them, or lose their land to people who can pay.

  109. Anonymous
    April 11, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    “However, there are potential solutions to those problems, such as better water conservation and winter water storage, and better graveling and culverts on rural roads. The question is whether (and how) those solutions can be made a reality, without creating regulatory burdens that will prevent anyone who isn’t very wealthy from being able to live in our rural areas.”

    That, my friend is called subsidies. Who will pay for that? The evil city dwellers.

  110. Anonymous
    April 11, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    “Well, I think both sides may have miscalculated and in fact may be pushing for timelines that may end up actually undercutt their own interests. I think the phrase “careful what you wish for” could come into play for either side.”

    It looks to me like environmental side knows what the risk is and is willing to live with the compromise that going forward with a plan might bring. And so are some moderate but silent developers.

    This is opposed to a group of radical extremist developers and old money interests that fear losing control more than a viable economy or anything else.

  111. Plain Jane
    April 11, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    Does anyone have any links to good sources about rural gentrification?

  112. Not A Native
  113. Mr. Nice
    April 11, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    Well here’s a thought provoking article about one possible future for vegetable agriculture.

    LEDs are dope problem is them companies overcharge. My friend radio in the trees man showed me how to whip up LEDs and it is fucking easy as shit. The only bullshit is getting them to stick so you gotta use hella epoxy and get it all soldered up and dialed in. I do the straight red and straight blue panels because it is way fucking simpler than trying to mix them all with higher watts.

    Can straight run them off a battery which is dope. Maybe that’s not eco-groovy and shit but if you got a stump that you are like this would be perfect to veg clones of squash or whatever but it doesn’t get enough light, you can toss a battery and some panels in there.

    Dank growers hate on LEDs because you can’t flower shit right unless you got thousands of watts worth of red ones and that would take days to put together or cost thousands of dollars pre-fab with a heat sink and a reflector all that other unnecessary bullshit they dress the boards up with.

    For serious, LED is a great way to grow all the crops you need in your apartment or your burned out chicken coop stump or herbs for the kitchen shack whatever you got going.

    Plan Z and shit.

  114. April 12, 2011 at 12:54 pm

    Mr Nice, what weird shit did you have for dinner?

  115. skippy
    April 13, 2011 at 7:21 am

    “After more than five hours of public comment and lengthy discussions concerning the general plan update process, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors decided to move forward with public outreach without putting a pause on the process.”

    Donna Tam’s report,“General Plan Process to Continue Uninterrupted” in today’s Times-Standard,
    can be found here.

    Heraldo’s more detailed play-by-play as it happened in his live blog– and for the later record–
    can be found here.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s