Home > Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, Rob Arkley > County to settle Arkley lawsuit

County to settle Arkley lawsuit

Humboldt County Supervisors voted in closed session Tuesday to settle a lawsuit over the County’s Housing Element brought by one of kazillionaire Rob Arkley’s pro-development groups.

The case is Humboldt Sunshine, Inc. v. County of Humboldt.

To comply with terms of the settlement the County must complete its rezoning for multi-family housing by August 15th, otherwise a moratorium on development permits will be imposed by the court.

  1. Decline To State
    June 22, 2011 at 7:27 am

    Why was this voted on in closed session? Isn’t this the public’s business?

  2. tra
    June 22, 2011 at 7:50 am

    DTS,

    I believe any votes concerning active litigation are generally voted on in closed session. I’m not sure why that is, but it does seem to be the way it’s usually done.

  3. tra
    June 22, 2011 at 7:56 am

    So the “pro-development group” actually agreed to a settlement with the county in which if the county fails to meet the terms of the settlement, the penalty is that the court would impose a moratorium on development permits? For real?

  4. Anonymous
    June 22, 2011 at 8:06 am

    unless the “fix is in” with the “pro-development group” and we will see a impossible amount of work being completed in a very short time.

  5. Ben
    June 22, 2011 at 8:07 am

    Although Sunshine for Humboldt initiated the lawsuit, Housing for All, is the group who joined and with whom the settlement agreement is with. It is best to get the story right rather than the ususal Arkley bashing.

  6. tra
    June 22, 2011 at 8:14 am

    Thanks for the clarification, Ben. But perhaps you could clarify a bit further: Did Sunshine for Humboldt withdraw from the lawsuit?

    If not, how is it possible for the county to settle with one participant and not another? If the party that brought the suit originally is still a participant in the case, and has not agreed to the settlement, then the case would still be ongoing, wouldn’t it? Is it?

  7. Dancing
    June 22, 2011 at 10:40 am

    Thanks Rob.

  8. Deb
    June 22, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    With all the vacant houses and buildings, why do we need more built? How about fixing what we have? How about turning some of those vacant stores in Eureka into apartments? Then maybe every day people could actually afford to live in them.

  9. June 22, 2011 at 7:07 pm

    So let me get this straight: If you’re rich and annoying, you can do anything you damn well please in Humboldt?

    Good to know.

  10. June 22, 2011 at 10:21 pm

    Was there ever a doubt?

  11. Anonymous
    June 23, 2011 at 5:14 am

    Many states, including California, are the brink of financial collapse, and Arkley continues to fiddle his middle finger to government servants. SPIRITUAL TERRORIST, I say!! This settlement does not save puppies or children. This is merely for amusement, at the expense of taxpayers. Next time you bump your way through a pothole, or shake your head at crime and wonder why the streets aren’t safer, remember where the money is going — frivolous lawsuits. Look for me, I’ll be at gazebo on 4th of July, circulating a petitions to get rid of “gotcha” lawsuits.

  12. Anonymous
    June 23, 2011 at 6:28 am

    see times standard:

    Humboldt County settles lawsuit with Housing for All
    http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_18336623

    they did not settle with arkley, it was housing for all.

  13. tra
    June 23, 2011 at 9:59 am

    In that Times-Standard article, Kay Backer from “Humboldt Sunshine” indicates that they are still planning to pursue the case, and that her group’s bottom-line demand is that the county must develop an accurate land inventory, about which she says “they aren’t close yet”.

    On the other hand, the article quotes Housing for All spokespeople as saying that representatives from Humboldt Sunshine haven’t been present for any of the hearings in the case for about 9 months. But it doesn’t say how many hearings have been held in that time, and whether those hearings dealt with the issues Humboldt Sunshine is most concerned about, or whether they were focused on matters mainly of concern to Housing for All.

    The article notes that there is another hearing this coming Tuesday, so perhaps there will soon be further clarification of the overall status of the lawsuit, including whether Humboldt Sunshine is serious about continuing to pursue it now that Housing Now has settled with the county.

  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