Home > Dave Edmonds, Humboldt County Planning Commission > Supes appoint Dave Edmonds to Planning Commission

Supes appoint Dave Edmonds to Planning Commission

Humboldt County Supervisors voted 5-0 to appoint Eureka telecommunications engineer Dave Edmonds to the Humboldt County Planning Commission.

Edmonds is a former Planning Commissioner for the City of Eureka, and a past president of the Eureka Chamber of Commerce.

  1. Anonymous
    May 24, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    Lovelace didn’t vote yes or no. I was there and he just said it looked like Edmonds had three votes and then corrected himself and said four votes. That’s NOT voting yes.

  2. tra
    May 24, 2011 at 5:10 pm

    Edmonds seems to be well-qualified and knowledgeable. I think they made a good pick.

    According to a previous post, in the first round of voting (last week), Edmonds got the support of Sundberg, Bass, and Smith.

    https://humboldtherald.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/supes-announce-planning-commish-picks/#comments

  3. Anonymous
    May 24, 2011 at 5:24 pm

    Regardless of 4/5 or 5/5 vote…well played!

  4. kale
    May 24, 2011 at 5:35 pm

    As a supporter of many Alternative A policies (which may peg me as a “zealot”), i’m gonna agree with tra here. The planning commission needed someone reasonable with a more balanced perspective rather than a cheerleader for property rights or regulatory overreach.

  5. editor-tipe
    May 24, 2011 at 6:03 pm

    wow–you really had your finger on the pulse HH…sorry it wasn’t as divisive as you had hoped/predicted. BTW–Lovelace didn’t vote because he failed to make contact with Edmonds before the vote and wisely didn’t push the issue…like HH, he was unprepared for what happened today.

  6. Tim
    May 24, 2011 at 6:26 pm

    Mormon bishop

  7. Anonymous
    May 24, 2011 at 6:59 pm

    At least use the guy’s whole title:

    Spot-zoning Eureka Chamber Mormon Bishop.

    Gotta love the new selection process.

  8. Anonymous
    May 24, 2011 at 7:11 pm

    And so it is the Eureka Chamber of Commerce calling the shots again, but now, for the county.

  9. the other virginia
    May 24, 2011 at 7:59 pm

    So who cares if Edmonds is a Mormon bishop or a Muslim imam? (Hope I didn’t start a rumor there.) What’s that got to do with land use planning?
    Well, as an unsuccessful candidate, I just wanna say that it looked like the best outcome given the circumstances. People like myself, Connors, and Madrone just weren’t going to get even 3 votes, let alone 4. Edmonds has qualifications up the wazoo and avoided grandstanding. Onward!!

  10. Harold Camping
    May 24, 2011 at 8:19 pm

    I was right after all!

  11. Tmayor
    May 24, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    You’re a class act Virginia.

  12. Oldphart
    May 24, 2011 at 8:35 pm

    Great choice. Even well balanced person. If you know him you know that he is even handed. Mellow and just a nice guy.

  13. Anonymous
    May 24, 2011 at 8:41 pm

    Let’s hope the Eureka chamber doesn’t do the county’s economy what they did to Eureka.

  14. Plain Jane
    May 24, 2011 at 8:43 pm

    I wonder if he’s anti-growth on Forster-Gill.

  15. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    May 24, 2011 at 10:16 pm

    Congratulations Mr. Edmonds. Good Luck in your responsibility as a new commissioner. Hopefully, you’ll bring a different perspective when viewed alongside your fellow commissioners and colleagues.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  16. iPhone Prog. Liberal
    May 25, 2011 at 6:02 am

    I know bishop Edmonds he is a great guy. He will do well.

  17. Humboldt Pride
    May 25, 2011 at 9:19 am

    Remember Mormons backed and Funded Prop 8

  18. 69er
    May 25, 2011 at 10:12 am

    Not a Morman and I also backed Prop. 8 and still do. What does that have to do with good planning, get real.

  19. tra
    May 25, 2011 at 10:17 am

    Remember Morons backed and Funded Prop 8

    There…fixed it for you.

  20. 69er
    May 25, 2011 at 10:27 am

    Are you a turd tamper too Tra????

  21. Plain Jane
    May 25, 2011 at 10:30 am

    69er would be ashamed of himself if he had any sense. I’ve read that homophobes are often latent homosexuals. Is 69er?

  22. tra
    May 25, 2011 at 10:32 am

    I’m not familiar with that term. Perhaps you could clarify your question?

  23. Teacher
    May 25, 2011 at 10:36 am

    PJ, 69er is a jerk for making homophobic remarks. Don’t lower yourself to his level by trying to put him down with insinuations that he is gay.

  24. Plain Jane
    May 25, 2011 at 10:46 am

    A theory that homophobia is a result of latent homosexuality was put forth in the late 20th century. A 1996 study conducted at the University of Georgia by Henry Adams, Lester Wright Jr., and Bethany Lohr[1] indicates that a number of homophobic males exhibit latent homosexuality. The research was done on 64 heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. They were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The groups did not differ in aggression.[1]
    Participants, 35 of whom exhibited homophobic traits and 29 who did not. Three tests were conducted using penile plethysmography. While there was no difference in response when the men were exposed to heterosexual and lesbian pornography, there was a major difference in response when the men were exposed to male homosexual pornography.
    The researchers reported that 24% of the non-homophobic men showed some degree of tumescence in response to the male homosexual video, compared to 54% of the subjects who scored high on the homophobia scale. In addition, 66% of the non-homophobic group showed no significant increases in tumescence after this video, but only 20% of the homophobic men failed to display any arousal. Additionally, when the participants rated their degree of sexual arousal later, the homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by the male homosexual video.
    The results of this study indicate that individuals who score in the homophobic range and admit negative affect toward homosexuality demonstrate significant sexual arousal to male homosexual erotic stimuli.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_homosexuality

  25. Teacher
    May 25, 2011 at 11:01 am

    Thank you for cutting and pasting that information PJ. You said, “I have read that homophobes are latent homosexuals? Is 69?” I tried to point out to you, the person who can’t say “sorry,” “I went too far,” or any other sort of admission of fault, that you were calling into question someone’s sexuality on a blog as if that person’s sexuality matters. I never doubted that people who exhibit homophobic before might be more likely to be homosexual. I was trying to point out to you that what you said was lowering your own level of discourse and was itself, homophobic. A simple “sorry” and “I went too far” would have been fine PJ. Thanks though for more information from Wikipedia.

  26. Plain Jane
    May 25, 2011 at 11:14 am

    69er posted a disgustingly homophobic question so pointing out that a large segment of homophobes are latent homosexuals and asking if he was one isn’t homophobic or going too far. It’s a logical question of a homophobe.

  27. Smart 5th Grader
    May 25, 2011 at 11:14 am

    Teach 11:01 “I was trying to point out to you…” Puh-leez! Stop trying to teach everyone. You’re not smarter than anyone.

  28. Teacher
    May 25, 2011 at 11:21 am

    Why do you care about his sexuality is the question PJ? Your question came off as if 69er being a homosexual would be a bad thing. That’s what I’m trying to get across to you.
    5th grader, great post!

  29. Ed
    May 25, 2011 at 11:28 am

    J. Edgar Hoover represented the classic closeted individual who appreciated the power of social stigma on his victims and used it to stifle and undermine them through threats of exposure. Jane’s point is well founded.

  30. Cristina Bauss
    May 25, 2011 at 11:29 am

    One of my closest friends was a Mormon bishop. He was also the county D.A. for more than 20 years, a magistrate judge, a WWII vet who saw combat in the Philippines (and was horrified by the Iraq war), and a devoted husband to two wives (no, not at once), both of whom he outlived. Even though I’m a pro-choice agnostic with a gay daughter, this man remained one of my closest friends until the day he died.

    Yes, the LDS church funded Prop 8. But “Mormon” doesn’t equal “hate” any more than “Catholic” equals “pedophilia” or “Islam” equals “terrorism.” We should judge each individual by his or her own character, not his or her group or religious affiliation.

    Meanwhile, since I live in Northern Mendocino and I’m not up to speed on everything that goes on in Northern Humboldt, I’d actually like to know more about Mr. Edmonds’s prior record on the Planning Commission, and what makes him a good candidate for re-appointment.

  31. Plain Jane
    May 25, 2011 at 11:32 am

    That’s your own projection then, Teacher. There was nothing stated or implied in my question that was in any way judgmental about any sexuality. While I understand a homophobe might be upset on being informed that homophobics are often latent homosexuals and might not appreciate being asked if they are one (which might at least encourage them to stop with the hate speech), claiming the question is homophobic is either ignorant or a lie. Now go harass someone who gives a rats ass about your unsupported opinions.

  32. Teacher
    May 25, 2011 at 11:36 am

    PJ, cutting and pasting random items from wikipedia doesn’t make your arguments well-founded. I assumed you, being extremely liberal-minded, were progressive enough to not use someone’s sexuality as a putdown. I see I was wrong.

  33. Plain Jane
    May 25, 2011 at 11:41 am

    GFY, Teacher.

  34. 69er
    May 25, 2011 at 11:44 am

    Was just wonderung how you could be that shielded that you have never heard that term?
    And PJ I don’t imagine that there is any comment I could make that you would not pick apart by trying to show your superior knowledge, especially of sexuality. I have never gone into studying it, only enjoying it as it comes naturally to me, hetero only with no latent desires, whether you believe it or not makes no difference to me.

  35. 69er
    May 25, 2011 at 11:54 am

    Restate; Tra 10:32, Was just wondering how you could be that shielded that you have never heard that term?

  36. tra
    May 25, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    Don’t worry, 69er, from the context of the ensuing discussion I have been able to discern the meaning of your homophobic remark. Accordingly, I will not dignify it with any further response.

  37. Not A Native
    May 25, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    I’ve never heard that term before and look forward to not hearing it again.

    After some thought, I undertood its allusion and think its the kind of thing a 7 year older would make up. It not so much an insult, its just stupid. And I consider anyone who uses it to be stupid too.

  38. Anonymous
    May 25, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    I have an idea: let’s all get back to exclaiming why the BOS was smart to pick Dave Edmonds to serve on the Planning Commission. Dave is a fine choice. The BOS got it right.

  39. 69er
    May 25, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    I agree Anon, just one last comment;

    I have never before seen so many stupid people call other people stupid!

  40. May 25, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    WHY???? Why heterphonia VS homophopia???What is the relevance?

    WHY?

  41. Plain Jane
    May 25, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    I don’t understand the question, Jean.

  42. May 25, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    PJ–The question is the appointment and future serving of Dave Edmonds to’the planning commission. How did homosexuality get into the act?WHY?
    The result–Diversionary–

  43. Plain Jane
    May 25, 2011 at 2:05 pm

    Someone brought up the Edmons being a Mormon and then their funding of Prop 8 and then someone asked a blatantly homophobic question… you know how it goes Jean. I would still like to know what his view of Forster-Gill is.

  44. 69er
    May 25, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    And of course you had nothing to do with expanding the detour????

  45. Plain Jane
    May 25, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    Calling you on your homophobic question and defending my call obviously expanded the detour, 69er. But you will notice the only post I made prior to your offensive question was to ask about Edmond’s view of Forster-Gill. That being said, there is nothing in any of the posts that prevents anyone from talking about Edmond’s qualifications to be a planning commissioner.

  46. tra
    May 25, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    After the commenter brought up Edmond’s Mormon faith, and then someone else noted that Mormons backed and funded Prop 8, I made the rather immature and snarky comment that “Morons” backed and funded Prop 8.

    I shouldn’t have said that. The intellectual capacity of Prop 8 backers isn’t the problem…the problem is their bigotry. While stupidity and bigotry often go hand in hand, that is not always the case.

    At any rate, I don’t think Edmond’s religious affiliation is really relevant to his appointment as Planning Commissioner.

  47. 69er
    May 25, 2011 at 3:15 pm

    One thing leads to another, I make an improper comment and someone else responds and on we go. I do have a view on the Forster-Gill project. I have watched the Cutten-Ridgewood area expand in a patchwork manner that has left it in a shambles and caused many problems due to the lack of advance planning. The Forster-Gill project is well planned and will not be completed in my lifetime or in the lifetime of most on this blog. The city of Eureka is only interested because they are afraid they will not get the tax base to be created by the project. For years they have wanted to skim the cream and leave the others to wither and die. This goes all the way back to the new PG&E plant in the early 60’s, they wanted to annex just enough to get the tax revenue and no more.

  48. Plain Jane
    May 25, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    We agree on Forster-Gill, 69er. But I was wondering if anyone knew what Edmonds’ view is. If one were guessing, based on who supported his appointment, it seems likely that he is opposed to Forster-Gill. Would that change your opinion?

  49. 69er
    May 25, 2011 at 5:16 pm

    It wouldn’t change my opinion on the project, if that is what you are referring to, if not that I am lost.

  50. Plain Jane
    May 25, 2011 at 8:07 pm

    Sorry, I meant change your mind about Edmonds if he is against Forster-Gill.

  51. 69er
    May 25, 2011 at 8:42 pm

    I haven’t stated an opinion on Edmonds other than to ask what does being a Mormon have to do with good planning?. Will have to wait and see how it goes down.
    By the way, my latent homosexuality has yet to express itself after a 2 year heterosexual relationsship followed by 56 year heterosexual relationship including 55+ years married to the same woman and not straying. This would seem to make me an exception to your theory.

  52. Plain Jane
    May 25, 2011 at 8:55 pm

    Your post at 1:23 in which you said you agreed with the poster just above ( have an idea: let’s all get back to exclaiming why the BOS was smart to pick Dave Edmonds to serve on the Planning Commission. Dave is a fine choice. The BOS got it right.) is confusing then, 69er.

    I really don’t give a hoot about your sexuality but being in a long term heterosexual relationship isn’t proof of anything. How many years was Larry Craig married? The study didn’t show that all homophobes were latent homosexuals, just the majority. So what’s your excuse?

  53. 69er
    May 25, 2011 at 9:14 pm

    Possibly a mistatement on my part, I meant to get back to the subject, not to endorse anyone.
    And since we are now into accusations, you are the most arguementive bitch I have ever run up against, and who in hell is Larry Craig? I just don’t believe in legitimising queers and dykes,saying gay is queering the meaning of the word and I refuse to use it in that manner. If you don’t like it, lump it.

  54. Plain Jane
    May 25, 2011 at 9:23 pm

    I never accused you of being a homosexual, latent or otherwise. Overly defensive much? LOL!

  55. pitchfork
    May 25, 2011 at 10:36 pm

    Dave Edmonds is not “a well balanced choice” he’s a yes man for Dave Tyson and the Eureka Chamber, and by poxy, Robin Arkley. His legacy on the Eureka Planning commission was spot zoning and never voting against the good ole boy developers.

  56. tra
    May 26, 2011 at 12:20 am

    Yet, according to the Times-Standard, Edmonds received unanimous support from the Board of Supervisors, which voted 5-0 to appoint him.

    http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_18135432

    So I guess according to you, even Lovelace and Clendenen support a “yes man for Dave Tyson and the Eureka Chamber, and by proxy, Robin Arkley?”

  57. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    May 26, 2011 at 8:24 am

    Hopefully,

    that 5-0 suggests that Commissioner Edmonds will be “open-minded and fair” without having pre-determined points of interest. Hopefully, he is different in offering perspectives and opinions. Considering different pov’s of any “well rounded” commission deliberations is a plus-plus for any community. Each commissioner should have identifiable differences in character and rationals, imo.

    Any commission in any jurisdiction THAT IS full of “in-like-kind” appointees is a “rigged” set-up. It is wise for supes to be forthright and direct when appointing.

    Respondet Superior………….

    JL

  58. High Finance
    May 26, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    Dave Edmonds is a cool, calm, collected guy.

    He is no “Yes Man” for anybody. Any one who claims he is simply is not telling you the truth. But he is conservative.

  59. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    May 26, 2011 at 11:00 pm

    Not to pinch another nub,

    but PJ, really, seriously, you jump on 69er without linking your past “leg-hump” references. Now, homo this or homo that, but you sell readers your stiff-legged hipocracy all-the-time……do unto others as long as they don’t do unto PJ, apparantly.

    ….and no, neither of the comments are “Freedom of Speech” violations either. People will be the judge of decency, right? Explain away sophismistically.

    JL

  60. Plain Jane
    May 26, 2011 at 11:43 pm

    Leg humping is related to homosexuality?

  61. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    May 27, 2011 at 8:24 am

    PJ,

    hides her male doggy style leg-humping of a human male’s leg (based on past post comments by PJ) by suggesting through avoidance of a more proper answer that “penetration” must be needed to be a “homo slur”. “Penetration” as compared to “physical contacts” must make-up PJ’s unsound reasonings of her ideas of homonesses.

    JL

  62. Plain Jane
    May 27, 2011 at 8:32 am

    Male and female dogs hump, as do both sexes in other species in an attempt to dominate. The phrase leg humping has nothing to do with the sexuality of either the humper or the humpee. Furthermore, since I’m a woman, a man humping my leg (rhetorically at least) isn’t a homosexual act. But this is very revealing about Henchie’s view of gays that he relates leg humping to homosexual men.

  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