Home > Humboldt County General Plan Update > More General Plan Update talk on KMUD

More General Plan Update talk on KMUD

Tune into KMUD from 7-9am Monday morning to hear more discussion about Humboldt County’s General Plan Update.  Lost Coast Outpost hybrid reporter Hank Sims is guest-hosting with regular host Dennis Huber.

The broadcast is already underway.  Sims told a story of going salmon fishing with his father who would take a pitchfork rather than a fishing pole and throw it in the river because the salmon were so plentiful.  Those days are gone, of course, but the recovery of the salmon needs to be part of the discussion about future development in Humboldt County’s resource lands.

Estelle Fennell from HumCPR will be on the show from 8-9.

This show follows up last week’s interview with Healthy Humboldt.

  1. April 18, 2011 at 8:08 am

    Estelle is on now. She said she is one of two paid employees at HumCPR.

  2. April 18, 2011 at 8:18 am

    Hank: About Section 1500, this came out of nowhere.

    Estelle: No it didn’t. You will see from the very get go people were asking for section 1500 to be complimented. There was a lot of talk about it. But this is the first time there was a cumulative impact, starting with the letter by the City of Eureka.

    Dennis: It shows poor leadership on the part of these entities that they haven’t been involved in the last 10 years. It boggles the mind that Eureka says they didn’t have any input. They are not prevented from going to meetings and giving public comment.

  3. April 18, 2011 at 8:19 am

    Is Cutten rural? Dennis says no. Estelle says yes.

  4. April 18, 2011 at 8:20 am

    Dennis: Why didn’t the cities and Chambers of Commerce get together to get their input into the GPU?

    Estelle: Why didn’t the Planning Department reach out?

  5. April 18, 2011 at 8:26 am

    Estelle: HumCPR is not a Citizen’s Advisory Committee. There’s no committee. It’s an advocacy group.

  6. April 18, 2011 at 8:29 am

    Dennis: Inflammatory headlines on opinion pieces in the T-S by HumCPR. They only complain, they don’t offer solutions.

  7. Anon
    April 18, 2011 at 8:35 am

    The CSDs have had input all along, as has the City of Eureka. Unfortunately, it’s easy for politicians to posture to get votes, because most people don’t pay attention. In the long run, it’s not going to help the CSDs and County work together.

    As to certain people feel they are not “being heard”–it’s because their input is based on misinformation, so how do you incorporate input that makes no sense?

  8. April 18, 2011 at 8:40 am

    Hank: CPR talks about process. But what exactly do you want to see in the new GPU that’s not there now?

    Estelle: We’re advocating for the right to live rurally. Concerned that other groups don’t think that’s a good idea. “Breaking up rural area, destroying environment, you should live in town.”

    Hank: It’s not like Obama’s death squads, they aren’t going to march into the hills and haul people off their lands.

    Estelle: People’s legal rights for their private property. Don’t say you can’t live rurally, say if you do, you can’t XYZ. Define how far out from stream houses can be built.

  9. April 18, 2011 at 8:46 am

    Estelle: What’s not good, a key issue for us, is a move to not allow homes on land zoned for timber and create mandatory lot sizes, 600 acre minimums. Amnesty issue (for unpermitted houses).

    Hank: You say 600 acre lot sizes are bad?

    Estelle: If you have separate lot sizes you shouldn’t have to combine them. You should be able to build a home on both. Rural living is good for people and the environment.

    Hank: You could say protecting Humboldt’s rural way of life is limiting the amount of growth in the rural areas.

    Dennis: When do the commons become important enough that we have to put limits on individual freedoms? There are no more frontiers. Don’t we have to organize for the commons at this point?

    Estelle: At the beginning of the GPU it called for balance of rights of private property and the general good.

  10. April 18, 2011 at 8:53 am

    Hank: How is the rural lifestyle imperiled by limiting the number of homes that can be built out there. It’s confusing why a rural advocacy group would argue against development in Cutten or McKinleyville.

    Estelle: About Forrester-Gill, some of the pro-Plan A people are for that development. Could turn into a ghost town that’s never lived in.

  11. April 18, 2011 at 8:56 am

    Caller: I work with rural landowners, been doing restoration work for 35 years. I agree there are some great people living in the hills, it’s not true on the whole. Many irresponsible landowners, diesel grows, poor road upkeep. I support rural living. Bob Morris is the head guy at HumCPR, pursuing intense piecemeal development in Trinidad, trying to sell 20-acre cookie cutter estates. Their MO is to stall, stall, stall so they can patent parcel the land. HumCPR should separate themselves from Bob Morris.

    Estelle: It’s a coalition. Don’t know everything about Bob’s background.

  12. Not an Expert
    April 18, 2011 at 8:56 am

    Complain, complain, complain. Read the Update and submit comments already!

    April 18, 2011 at 9:04 am

    I like how Estelle points out that there exists the “small individual” that has been a longtime RURAL steward, self-regulating and serving the land and community better by working together across the demographics and generational gaps – generational gaps is something many folks are “waking-up” toward.

    Pro GPU Plan A and PRO Foerster Gill connections? Quiet?

    Caller (problem): tremendous amount of irresponsible land owners, poor road maintenances, poor road maintenance agreements, diesel spills, how people are living, etc…. referenced a Trinidad development and its impacts to the watershed (HUMCPR and a BOB Morris, Barnum), peacemealing, stalling, etc…

    Estelle – HUMCPR is a coalition of a bunch of different people and different interests.

    Next caller: Dan Tarranto – how to organize CAC’s, no citizen handbook has not been promulgated, presentation to supes 1 1/2 years ago and supes did not understand mandates of General Plan, Dog and Pony shows, references to section 1500 on how to create a community plan went unheard….

    Estelle – Wheres the handbook?

    Caller (Peter or Tom?) – section 1500 was command language….media connection lost

    Estelle – Framers of section 1500 are conscious that its the whole section of 1500 with regard to should and shall. Wants to see rural areas included in motion for CAC’s.

    Hank(?) – not sure as many people will want to move to the hills as people think.

    Response : Interview makes it very clear that “THE BLOGGING COMMUNITY” is affecting local policy.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

    April 18, 2011 at 9:06 am

    I will say that the interview ties quite nicely with the whole reasons why urban infill versus rural is a happenin’.


  15. Estelle's homework assignment
    April 18, 2011 at 9:24 am

    Estelle used this term: cumulative impact

    Does she have any idea what this term means and how it is relevant to CPR’s agenda? Was a time when she seemed to grasp its significance.

    I’d like to hear her discus the cumulative impacts of increased development on timber and agricultural lands. There was a time when she appeared to understand the meaning of cumulative impacts.

    Estelle’s association with CPR has diminished her intellect.

  16. Fence
    April 18, 2011 at 9:30 am

    If Forster-Gill moves on under existing 940 McMansions then there will be over 2,000 houses out in ridgewood area without any grocery store. The story that keeps getting repeated is that it is 10 miles from Eureka. It’s right next to Eureka and there is infrastructure(sewer and water) in place surrounded by large homes that take a toll on our public resources. I think everyone is so afraid that Forster-Gill will be successful and it will prove that intelligent use of infrastructure can be done. Developers make the most profit off large single family residences thats why the PRO-GROWTH crowd doesn’t like Forster-Gill.

  17. April 18, 2011 at 9:31 am

    I think these two quotes of Estelle’s tell you pretty much the whole story when it comes to HumCPR:

    [Estelle: People’s legal rights for their private property. Don’t say you can’t live rurally, say if you do, you can’t XYZ. Define how far out from stream houses can be built.]

    Every environmental restriction we’ve ever fought for has to do with putting restrictions on people and industry about WHAT they can do to our environment including stuff like “how close to a stream” you can build, (or cut timber) etc..

    [Estelle: What’s not good, a key issue for us, is a move to not allow homes on land zoned for timber and create mandatory lot sizes, 600 acre minimums. Amnesty issue (for unpermitted houses).]

    As I understand it the rub here is that folks want to get the TAX BREAKS of TPZ zoned land, but not suffer the restrictions. IN TOWN, we folks pay property tax on our entire lot, not just the foot print of our dwellings (and we still have to follow building codes). Folks on TPZ zones land does not have pay the same.

    In the end, it’s as if she’s arguing that if someone lives outside of town they should not be subject to any of societies other rules, as if they are no longer a party of our community. I can see why HumCPR has been able to seduce some back to the landers, along with the knee jerk Teabaggers on the right, but in the end it’s Bob Morris (see earlier post on Trinidad), Lee Ulansey, Bill Barnum and the rest of the developers and speculators who stand to profit the most from their agenda.

  18. Anonymous
    April 18, 2011 at 9:57 am

    The are also the financial backers of HumCPR.

  19. tra
    April 18, 2011 at 10:02 am

    …it’s as if she’s arguing that…

    How about we stick to her actual argument, rather than inventing Straw Man arguments and then attacking those? Just a thought.

  20. April 18, 2011 at 10:09 am

    Poor choice of words. What I should have said is that “she IS ARGUING that…”

    Estelle: People’s legal rights for their private property. Don’t say you can’t live rurally, say if you do, you can’t XYZ. Define how far out from stream houses can be built.]

  21. Bolithio
    April 18, 2011 at 10:15 am

    TAX BREAKS – good god! So if you live on 160 acres you should pay the same rate for the entire lot as someone in town? Becuase you get sewer, paved roads, police, etc?

    We have to be careful not to create the incentive to not have timberlands, mass TPZ roll outs, or conversions. What exactly are we fighting for? Remember when changing the tax law spurred arguably one of the worst logging entries in our counties history?

  22. Random Guy
    April 18, 2011 at 11:01 am

    “We have to be careful not to create the incentive to not have timberlands, mass TPZ roll outs, or conversions. What exactly are we fighting for? Remember when changing the tax law spurred arguably one of the worst logging entries in our counties history?”

    Good one, Bolithio! Straight from the fingers of the expert…the logging companies say: money always comes first! Give them what they want or else they’ll tear up our forests even more!

  23. tra
    April 18, 2011 at 11:04 am


    How is…

    “…define how far out from stream houses can be built”

    …an example of…

    “….she’s arguing that if someone lives outside of town they should not be subject to any of societies other rules, as if they are no longer a party of our community?”

    Answer: It’s not an example of that at all.

    The quote you cite as evidence of your interpretation of Estelle’s aregument directly refutes that interpretation.

    Keep arguing against Straw Men if you want, but don’t fool yourself into thinking nobody will notice.

  24. tra
    April 18, 2011 at 11:47 am

    Basically, I think the misunderstanding (or deliberate misinforming, depending on the speaker) is this false belief that a ministerial permit means “no rules, anything goes.” It doesn’t. It means “here are the rules…if you follow those rules, you’re guaranteed a permit.”

    Instead of insisting on a discretionary permit (“here are the rules…if you follow the rules, then it’s within the county’s discretion to grant your permit…or not”) maybe the Healthy Humboldt / Option A faction should be focusing on what those underlying rules are — for example “define how far from streams houses can be built” and “you can’t XYZ.”

    Looks to me like Estelle, on behalf of HumCPR, is pointing the way toward a reasonable compromise: retain the ministerial process, but at the same time make sure that the underlying rules protect water quality, etc.

    Too bad some folks are so deep into their demonization of their opponents as “greedy developers” and an “unholy alliance,” that they seem blind to the possibility of achieving goals that they actually share with many small landowners, and are seemingly unable to even consider or discuss any approach that differs at all from their dogmatic demand for a discretionary permit process for all TPZ parcels.

  25. tra
    April 18, 2011 at 11:52 am

    Eric Kirk (a self-decribed supporter of an Option-A-like framework) commented on this “discretionary” vs “ministerial” issue on his blog last night:

    I think Jimmy did send a signal that at least some of the A language would have to be moderated a bit before he could sign off on the GPU. Probably we’ll have 160 acre minimums instead of 600 (last I looked the 160 was in Plan B anyway), and hopefully we’ll have a ministerial process for construction on TPZ where you know ahead of time what criteria you have to meet and if you can meet it your permit is guaranteed, though the criteria will undoubtedly be a little more rigorous than it has been in the past.

    He also commented on the idea of stricter rules for large TPZ land ownerships, as opposed to someone with just one (or a couple of) homestead-size TPZ parcel(s):

    According to someone in the know, if you limited the bulk of your regulations to holdings over 600 acres you’re talking about the vast majority of the land anyway, and I think, contrary to the advice at the time of the PALCO bankruptcy moratorium, that such a policy could survive an equal protections clause claim by the larger landholders (since there is clearly a “rational basis” for the discrimination).


    Interestingly, Kirk also makes the argument that a discretionary process might backfire on those who are looking to limit residential development on TPZ lands:

    Quite frankly I think the environmentalists and resource preservation crowd are acting imprudently in pushing for discretion. If a property rights majority regains a majority and replaces Kirk with someone in their camp, who then starts replacing planners with like-minded folk, then those planners will have the discretion to give out permits like candy. They shouldn’t assume that environmentalist-friendly planners will always be there.


    Yet Healthy Humboldt, as of their Sept. 2010 recommendations to the Planning Commission, was still insisting on a discretionary permit process for all TPZ parcels. If Kirk’s analysis is valid, then HH may want to be “careful what they wish for”…because if they get it they may not like the results.

    Anyway, it seems to me that Kirk’s warning is something that Healthy Humboldt and other Option A folks ought to at least consider, as they decide whether or not to continue their obstinate insistence that a discretionary permit process for all TPZ parcels should be included as part the final GPU.

  26. April 18, 2011 at 1:20 pm

    And Dennis Huber is a Director on the Southern Humboldt Community Park Board with the Park Boards own end-around General Plan Amendment to rezone and change the land use designation of the current AE/AR-AL into the largest Outdoor Commercial Concert -Festival venue site in Humboldt County, including Housing Development, Camping, Sporting Complex and Parking on the River Bar for events. The Park Board is doing this to keep from having to comply with a County CUP for each and every commercial event. Yeah, you are one to talk Dennis. Do as I say, not as I do, right? If you want to save what’s left of wildlife habitat and eco-systems for steelhead, coho and chinook in the South Fork Eel River, you need to read your own GPA rezone application and lease agreement with Randall Sand & Gravel again……

    Maybe seven generations from now, they can tell the story about when the South Fork Eel River did have water flowing during the summer months and you could walk on the backs of salmon to cross the river!

  27. Near Cutten
    April 18, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    More misinformation from “Fence” 9:30.

    Even “The glass is half-full” crowd at Planning had to concede that the Elk River waste water treatment plant is dangerously near capacity, exceeding it during wet weather. FG will contribute NOTHING to expand the plant.

    The Forster-Gil developers emphasize “car pooling and Dial-A-Ride” in the transportation section of the EIR because it has been demonstrated that public transportation is inadequate, same for the roads and waste water system. Current residents already use half the available fresh water capacity.

    Just because FG is permitted to build a portion of the current plan, doesn’t guarantee that they will, or that they won’t be stopped for the lack of an adequate infrastructure. Currently, speculators are jumping-ship on large local parcels, and every year that passes delivers more obstacles, (like stricter home-financing regulations against the tricks and traps required to keep sprawl profitable).

    By the time they build 100 permitted spec. homes, higher gas prices will inevitably become permanent. Yes, it’s 10 miles from FG to Old Town/downtown Eureka.

    It’s sprawl…get over it!

    At our historic growth rate, it would take over a century for Eureka to in-fill to that part of Cutten, if ever. Nevertheless, we’ve already managed to ignore infrastructure capacity in the process.

  28. Anonymous
    April 18, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    It’s only 5 miles from Ridgewood school to the 5th street Co-op store, so how it could possibly be 10 miles from FG is pretty much beyond me… it’s 10 miles from Ridgewood to the Arcata Plaza!

  29. Anonymous
    April 18, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    err… 4th street Co-op, not 5th. darn stubby fingers

  30. Plain Jane
    April 18, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    There is currently mass transit within 2 miles of FG which would undoubtedly expand when economically feasible to do so (increased population and usage).

    It doesn’t matter if the houses are built in Forster-Gill or on Green Diamond land on the east side of Walnut, they will require the same services from the same providers. They aren’t going to build houses anywhere without a market for them so now they are fighting over whatever market exists for the foreseeable future.

  31. Fence
    April 18, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    McKinleyville has 1200 hookups left, HCSD has 3000 hookups left. In the next 30 years those hookups will be used as you can see the development has to move from McKinleyville to HCSD (Cutten, Ridgewood). In the next 30 years population is going up at least 15,000 which means we need approx 6,000 units (not all single family. There will be a bus stop at Forster-Gill. DUH!!!

    Anyhow using simple subtraction the infrastructure leaves 6000- 4200 = 1800 units for wealthy owners of McMansions with septic.

  32. Reinventing The Wheel
    April 18, 2011 at 2:59 pm

    Thank you Heraldo, Hank and Dennis!

    Richard @ 9:31, you nailed it again!

    I remember that it’s 3 miles from Grant School to Old Town, and 6 miles from Grant school to Ridgewood school, but I’ll recheck on my next trip. Nevertheless, the infrastructure is entirely inadequate, little can logically be built there, nor sold in this economy.

    I first moved to Humboldt to enjoy a remote rural lifestyle only to observe (to this day) that painfully-few are interested in low-impact “hippi” technology. The vast majority own the same barn-full of Chinese crap indistinguishable from that “undesirable city life”.

    The rural/urban conflict is inevitable as scarcity draws new attention to perceived entitlements to dwindling public subsidies and natural resources.

    Indeed, the “rural life” is largely synonymous with circumventing the Commons, ie, the illusion of “getting away” from the very civilization that has been subsidizing remote living forever. (Although, few rural residents that can afford it miss the annual visit to their favorite compact, in-fill European city!).

    The dichotomy of Estelle’s clarion call for the “legal right to build on TPZ” while extolling the glories of few neighbors is fascinating.

    Essentially, none of these folks will be alive long past the need to say “OK, no more”! They will have passed the baton to the next generation of inheritors and speculators renewing the demand for just one more little timber harvest, another tiny road, another insignificant property split, another house, just one more well, septic system, Olympic pool, trout farm, vineyard, and herd of livestock, until nature itself forces them into an exodus being repeated ad-nauseum around the globe.

    Anyone following the rapid demise of this planet’s clean water and bio-diversity, know where this is headed.

    Listening to our remote residents parrot the identical excuses and demands for self-regulation that the extraction industries used to chant is heart-wrenching. Their failure to make water-capacity research and low-impact ordinances their top demand undermined their credibility while endearing them to the deep-pocket interests of HumCPR developers.

  33. tra
    April 18, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    “…deep pocket interests of HumCPR developers.”

    I believe the preferred smear these days is “unholy alliance of developers and pot growers. I guess you missed the memo.

    But seriously, keep on thrashing away at that Straw Man you’ve created, it must be quite an invigorating experience for you.

    But if you ever do tire of that, I’d be interested in your response to my 11:47 and 11:52 comments, and to Eric Kirk’s comments, excerpts of which can be found in my 11:52 comments.

  34. Not A Native
    April 19, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    Here’s what Eric wrote(in bold) in reply to tra’s disinformation:

    The concern is that the TPZ will become de facto rural residential (with the tax break) as has happned with TPZ has in other places like Carmel, Siskyou, etc. and with ag all throughout the valley where developers have big law firms calling planners daily to pressure them for variances, and where “property rights” boards of supervisors have taken huge tracts of land out of ag to conform to what someone referred to as “the realities on the ground.” At some point in the future, someone will lobby county government saying, “there hasn’t been a harvest in this area in decades. Why maintain the fiction? Convert it to rural residential so that these poor landowners don’t have to suffer under the Planning Department dictatorship.”

    My take is:

    Taxpayers shouldn’t be subsidizing people who are taking TPZ out of production, compromising the environment with eroding roads, leaching fertilizer into creeks, destroying fish habitat, demanding public roads that are really private driveways, and creating disproportionate public costs for essential services.

    And those people who’re being subsidized claim its justice because they’re ‘little people’. But when they sell out, they’ll be expecting(and demanding) to get top dollar which comes only from ‘big people’. These self styled ‘little people’ ALWAYS buy undeveloped land because they’re really land speculators, wanting to become ‘big people’. They have no intention of ever selling to other ‘little people'(except they can subdivide into smaller plots).

    And as to developing cookie cutter standards to support ministerial permits, thats just a ruse. All proposals for standards that are based on site specific environmental impacts evaluated by professionals, public costs, and scientific watershed wide analysis will be met with “That’s Too Expensive”.

    What they want is only standards that will ‘pencil out’ their business plan. And their business plan is to maximize the acreage they acquire, not to spend any money solely to protect the environment. Whenever a proposed standard would do that, they’ll call it a “taking” as in “The gubmint is taking away my property rights.” Thats HumCPR’s whole message.

  35. tra
    April 19, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    That’s HumCPR’s whole message

    No, that’s the message you’re getting after their actual message been run through your Rube Goldberg-ish contraption of far-fetched speculation, assumed motives, worst-case scenarios, and general contempt for those who disagree with you.

    With a set of ideological lenses so thick, distorted and blurry as yours, it’s no wonder you seem to have such a relentlessly negative approach to so many local issues. It’s annoying, but mostly it’s just kind of sad.

  36. Reinventing The Wheel
    April 19, 2011 at 1:17 pm

    Thanks NAN.

    Intelligent people are easily lost in the legal minutia of land use and development, which largely explains remarkably identical environmental consequences in this state, nation and world…as pointed out by Kirk….and why some of our worst local offenders are also attorneys.

    Strange how TRA’s childish retort uses the same language and style typical of a “HiFi episode”. This is why “HiFi” refrains from providing ANY credible sources and simply launches into insult.

    Sad indeed.

  37. tra
    April 19, 2011 at 1:36 pm


    Notwithstanding our differences of opinion about the merits of NAN’s 12:17 rant and my (admittedly dismissive and not-very-nice) response to it, I think you might be interested in the discussion on this thread at SoHum Parlance:


  38. Not A Native
    April 19, 2011 at 7:26 pm

    tra Since you don’t have facts to refute my contentions, you choose to belittle them hoping to create a distraction. Just reaffirms your provincialism.

    Plain Jane spanked you on the other blog, writing that your ideas are conservative libertarian ideology and your claim of moral superiority for people who live in rural HumCo is both a lie and self serving.

    TPZ zoned and taxed property is primarily for timber production, all owners were informed of that. The tax deferrals aren’t intended to subsidize owners to just sit on their future subdivisions or create a kingdom to attract a future wealthy buyer. Owners always have the choice to roll property out of TPZ.

  39. Eric Kirk
    April 19, 2011 at 8:31 pm

    I also once wrote that a cat’s ear has 34 muscles. Turns out there are only 32.

  40. Not A Native
    April 19, 2011 at 8:39 pm

    Well Eric, you were close enough to get a building permit for a HumCo cathouse.

  41. tra
    April 19, 2011 at 8:59 pm

    NAN said: “Plain Jane spanked you on the other blog, writing that your ideas are conservative libertarian ideology and your claim of moral superiority for people who live in rural HumCo is both a lie and self serving.

    See, NAN, that’s why it’s hard to take you seriously sometimes.

    (1) My idea for requiring adequate winter water storage for any new rural homes in the most-impacted watersheds is “conservative libertarian ideology?” That’s precious.

    (2) The mythical “claim of moral superiority for people who live in rural Humbolt” appears nowhere in anything that I wrote on that thread, or for that matter anywhere else. Apparently you spied one of Jane’s Straw Men vanquished on the battlefield, and mistook the poor scarecrow for me.

    But readers of this thread don’t have to take my word on it, they can judge for themselves:


    NAN, if you want to have a clue what people are actually discussing, rather than just what you want to believe that they are discussing, you need to remove those thick ideological lenses…and maybe work on your reading comprehension skills a bit as well.

  42. Not A Native
    April 20, 2011 at 1:24 am

    tra, you’re mentally ill, just all lies and denial Here’s PJ’s(bold) responses to your voluminious, unreasonable and repetitive rants:

    You sound just like a Libertarian explaining why voluntary compliance to suggestions is superior to regulations which force industries to comply. You seem to be laboring under some irrational belief that rural dwellers have superior ethics and will do what is best rather than what is expedient or most profitable against all evidence to the contrary. I don’t trust industries or pot growers to protect the environment or to conserve resources voluntarily. I’m just not that naive.

    and then after a more of tra’s ranting:

    I’m done discussing this with you. I’ve tried to be civil and honest while you keep adding to what it would take to mitigate negative impact while denigrating the historical experience of people who have actually lived here during droughts, lying about rural water use and then getting pissy when called on it.

    And then at last when tra realizes he’s been told off and ignored, he begins the whining and plaintive begging, afraid his revealed unreasonablness has left one more person disgusted

    “Well, I was hoping we could end this on a more positive, note, and perhaps we still could. I really think that if you read back over all of our comments in this thread, my comments are not especially “pissy” or less civil than yours….I actually think that this has been, for the most part, a useful and interesting discussion…..I’ll check in here later to see if you have anything else you’d like to add.”

  43. Not A Native
    April 20, 2011 at 1:33 am

    It occurred to me that tra’s last comment is very much like the movie 2001, the paranoid HAL computer’s soliloquy after it’s murder attempt failed and the astronaut ‘Dave’ is back in the spaceship, angry and no longer responding.

  44. tra
    April 20, 2011 at 11:11 am


    All you did was quote Jane’s claim that my proposal “sounds like” Libertarianism. As I pointed out to her, my suggestion for a requirement for winter water storage for new homes in the most-impacted watersheds is quite the opposite of Libertarianism.

    Similarly, you quoted Jane’s claim that I had “lied” and said that rural residents were morally superior, but again, neither you nor her can point to any “lie” or show where I made any claim that rural residents were morally superior. Which is because I made no such claim.

    Pointing to Jane’s Straw Men, and quoting her attacks on them, does nothing to address the actual proposals that I made in that thread. But I guess you’d rather participate in the Straw Wars than contribute anything useful to the discussion. No surprise there, given your track record.

    Really, this is the best you can do?

  45. tra
    April 20, 2011 at 11:26 am

    Here’s the remark, posted immediately before her departing tantrum, that apparently caused Jane to leave the discussion in a huff:

    “…hand out building permits willy nilly without understanding the impact that will have on the health of the watershed.”

    …is not what I’ve been advocating at any point in this discussion, it’s just one more in your battalion of Straw Men, all marching to the same tone-deaf tune.

    Pointing out her continual deployment of Straw Men was apparently beyond the pale, and that terribly harsh language was just too much for her delicate sensibilities.

    Seems like one thing P.J. and N.A.N. have in common is the old “can dish it out, but can’t take it” problem.

    April 21, 2011 at 8:23 am

    Estelle’s homework assignment says:
    April 18, 2011 at 9:24 am
    Estelle used this term: cumulative impact

    Does she have any idea what this term means and how it is relevant to CPR’s agenda? Was a time when she seemed to grasp its significance.

    I’d like to hear her discus the cumulative impacts of increased development on timber and agricultural lands. There was a time when she appeared to understand the meaning of cumulative impacts.

    Estelle’s association with CPR has diminished her intellect.

    Response: Do infillest theorists have their cumulative impact list as established by an outside, 3rd party source having no ties in interest to government when considering “processes AND ITS fixed-reports, rigged reports, choreographed reports, etc. which is geared for power and tax collections AND NOT BECAUSE government cares about its citizens in that lovey, dovey way”?

    Unfortunately, Government love IS “what do you have for us, what can we take from you, force you to do, etc…” Now, talk about Ebineezer Scrooge!


  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