Home > Humboldt County General Plan Update > General Plan Update timeline

General Plan Update timeline

Following the election of Humboldt County General Plan Update haters in Tuesday’s election, speculation about the future of the Update is underway.

The image shows upcoming dates in the GPU process as presented by Interim Planning and Building director Martha Spencer to the Eureka City Council on election night. Click image for easier viewing.

The County Planning Commission approved the draft plan on March 19th. The draft will be officially presented to Supervisors on June 12th, though they’ve had it in hand for a month.

Two of three winners of supervisor races on Tuesday are supported by a faction who want the nearly complete decade-long process stopped or trashed altogether. But those two, Estelle Fennell and Rex Bohn, will not be seated on the Board until January 2013.

  1. jafitz52
    June 7, 2012 at 7:19 am

    This has been going on too long. The Board should keep to their schedule and get the new general plan in place before January.

  2. Anonymous
    June 7, 2012 at 7:42 am

    are supported by a faction

    faction. noun. A small, organized, dissenting group within a larger one, esp. in politics.

    It’s funny how a majority of voters now constitute a faction.

    If you truly meant a small subset of a politician’s supporters (and not the entire electorate), then no worries. A politician is still, at least on our local level, beholdin’ to the wishes of the the majority will of the people who elected the politician — and not factions. It would be political suicide to do anything else. At some point, you’ve go to face that a majority of voters in Humboldt don’t share your vision for Humboldt.

  3. June 7, 2012 at 7:47 am

    Do you think every person who voted for Bohn wants to scrap the GPU? What about the ones who voted for him based on his misleading mailers?

  4. Anonymous
    June 7, 2012 at 7:50 am

    Let’s wait until all the ballots are counted.

  5. just middle class
    June 7, 2012 at 8:21 am

    Settle down H, if you want to believe that the slate mailer is the reason for the victory, please go ahead and think that. This election was a referrendum on the GP and the public has spoken, this lame duck Board will not push through this plan.

  6. RefFan
    June 7, 2012 at 8:26 am

    Heraldo, You so funny!!
    If ppl voted for a candidate just cuz of a mailer, then they are too stupid to vote in the first place and wld more than likely have no idea about the GPU.

  7. just middle class
    June 7, 2012 at 8:27 am

    /By the way, Rex had won in absentees way before the slate mailer which Neely, Gallegos, and Cleary also used, so H your bias is showing and with this line you are going to make yourself (s) silly.

  8. jafitz52
    June 7, 2012 at 8:30 am

    This was not necessarily a referendum on the GP. I know many people who voted for Estelle because she’s a friend or because she lives in SoHum. Don’t forget it was a close race.

  9. just middle class
    June 7, 2012 at 8:35 am

    Before the election it was a 3 to 2 vote on the GP and now it will be a 1 to 4, clearly a change of direction. If you know Estelle, she campaigned against many of the changes in the proposed plan rewrite.

  10. Typical Voter
    June 7, 2012 at 8:37 am

    Referendum on the what? GPU? Huh?

  11. Anonymous
    June 7, 2012 at 8:43 am

    Yes, anyone who says the election was a referendum on the General Plan Update is either a fool or a liar (perhaps both). I would wager that a majority of county residents would support finishing up what is nearly complete, preferably before January. Thirteen years and counting, and now a few whiny voices are saying, “go back to the drawing board.” Please.

  12. Anonymous
    June 7, 2012 at 8:54 am

    The majority of voters aren’t smart enough to vote and are swayed by deceitful propaganda. It’s getting worse and will eventually lead to blowback. It’s always so.

  13. Anonymous
    June 7, 2012 at 8:57 am

    Great, after Estelle is seated she can propose amendments to the GPU.

  14. Far right
    June 7, 2012 at 9:13 am

    Maybe if they hurry they can get a high density cloister of heraldos into the GPU. Somewhere near the entrance of sheol.

  15. Anonymous
    June 7, 2012 at 9:14 am

    The majority of voters aren’t smart enough to vote and are swayed by deceitful propaganda.

    So you’re admitting that the people who voted for Estelle and Rex did so knowing, and supporting, those candidates’ positions. I agree. Low voter turnout trends toward informed voters who take the time and initiative to vote.

  16. June 7, 2012 at 9:18 am

    Well, If this election doesn’t light a fire under the BOS respective asses to get it done, I don’t know what will.

  17. Voter
    June 7, 2012 at 9:44 am

    Hopefully Jimmy Smith will do the right thing to protect rivers and salmon, and help finish the GPU. If not, he doesn’t deserve a seat on the Fish & Game Commission.

  18. Percy
    June 7, 2012 at 9:49 am

    The Eureka city council changed direction with their new majority, from one that wanted to pursue the Jefferson School project to one that shit canned that idea and now wants to pursue a railroad to the east, funded with tax dollars not available for police or fire fighting. The new “democratic” majority on the board of supes will rewrite the the GPU so that the development crowd that funded their campaigns can strip mall and sprawl this county to their hearts content. I have a feeling the planning department will have some new directives shortly. Hey but it’s not a partisan job, just getting elected to it is. Can’t wait till we start appointing some of the new “dems” to the CCC. Wanna build a five mile long strip of condos on the beach? Keep voting in the “new” dems.

  19. Anonymous
    June 7, 2012 at 9:56 am

    It was a disappointingly low voter turnout.

  20. Anonymous
    June 7, 2012 at 10:08 am

    Most people do not track the GPU and are basically not interested in it. The election results has very little to do with the GPU. Rex is well known and he is into sports.The people who voted for him understand sports but not the issues. Rex doesn’t understand the important issues either, and that makes him even more appealing to voters. He mirrors their ignorance.

  21. Eric Kirk
    June 7, 2012 at 10:14 am

    I agree in the First District. In the Second District race it was a big issue for Sohum. Probably not so much for Fortuna.

  22. Anonymous
    June 7, 2012 at 10:16 am

    Why anyone would want to stifle our county’s economy by slowing down the GPU process is beyond me.

  23. June 7, 2012 at 10:25 am

    Rex doesn’t understand the important issues either,….

    I don’t know about that, but from what I saw on the KEET TV LOWV forum, Rex seemed most up to speed on the issues of the three.

    As far as the GPU, all three dodged questions about that and simply said they weren’t happy with how long the process was taking. Hard for me to say any candidate stood one way or the other from what I heard on that forum.

  24. Anonymous
    June 7, 2012 at 10:51 am

    How about someone speak up and address the chemicals they are spraying in our skies above our gorgeous county?

    The spraying in the last two days has been horrendous

    Most of you choose to ignore it, well, unfortunately your health and future is being affected and you don’t even know it

    Pick the right battles now, or there will be no America to save, very soon

    This is the most pressing issue affecting every single human being alive on planet Earth today:


    and Fukushima:

    Oh, those things don’t worry you? Need something that hits closer to home than the collapse of the us dollar? try this:



    It is time to step into reality folks

  25. George Carlin
    June 7, 2012 at 10:54 am

    “The next time they give you all that civic bullshit about voting, keep in mind that Hitler was elected in a full, free democratic election”

  26. Anonymous
    June 7, 2012 at 10:54 am

    Is the 1st district the only one (as of now) that has never elected a woman supervisor?

  27. Anonymous
    June 7, 2012 at 11:01 am

    Is Estelle the first openly gay supervisor in Humboldt County history?

  28. HUUFC
    June 7, 2012 at 11:20 am

    10 years to complete a general plan, millions of dollars wasted, what a terrible state we are in, we do not have this money to squander.

  29. Elizabeth
    June 7, 2012 at 11:25 am

    And the first dope grower?

  30. Stretch
    June 7, 2012 at 11:43 am

    “It’s funny how a majority of voters now constitute a faction.”

    Since only a minority votes, calling a slight majority of a minority a “faction” is no stretch.

  31. Anonymous
    June 7, 2012 at 11:46 am

    I’d like to think ganja would influence somebody to be a bit more honest in politics, 11:25. If she partakes, I hate to think what goes on in her head during the peaks of her highs. Self righteousness, for sure…”everybody bullshits, I deserve to be an exception because I stand for ____”.

  32. Anonymous
    June 7, 2012 at 11:54 am

    The naysayers are chumps…for as long as I’ve read this blog, “heraldo” has never pretended to be anything BUT heavily bias.

    Would the naysayers in this thread please be so bold as to point out on this blog which other blogs about humboldt politics are alternately bias?

    Am I to believe there’s no reason in any argument presented on this or, say “the mirror”? The likes of “high finance” and a handful of human names sure want everybody to think so…though never point out the fact that there is a strong and obvious divide, it shows, and it doesn’t change the facts of any matter. Intelligent people don’t play that game. Elected officials in humboldt’s government from “both sides” have played games with the public, it’s nothing short of FUCKED UP.

  33. Donny
    June 7, 2012 at 12:11 pm

    “Dude, What’s Walter (11:54) talking about?”

  34. tra
    June 7, 2012 at 1:41 pm

    Personally I think Clif Clendenen has more integrity than to try to push through a controversial measure during the lame-duck period, when he knows full well that for many of the voters in his district, they voted for the other candidate precisely because her approach on this issue was different than his. I hope I’m not mistaken about that.

    If the lame-duck board does push through policies that are deemed totally unacceptable by the newly-elected supervisors, those supervisors will of course have the opportunity to reverse those decisions once they come into office.

    Meanwhile, though, if they ignore the results of the recent election and try to push ahead with an approach rejected by so many voters, I think there will be a substantial negative reaction from the public, bolstering the argument that the Lovelace faction is pushing policies that they were unable to win support for through democratic means, negatively affecting the chances of future candidates aligned with the Lovelace faction, and probably resulting in the eventual adoption of land-use policies that are even less desirable to supporters of that faction.

    So, if Lovelace and Clendenen want to try to jam controversial policies through during the lame-duck session — well they can do that if they want to (and if they can get Jimmy Smith to go along with it, which I think is very doubtful), but I think it would be a major mistake, politically as well as policy-wise.

    At any rate, it will certainly be interesting to see what happens during the lame-duck period.

    And if action on the GPU is delayed until after the new Board comes into office in January, that, too may yield some very interesting dynamics. That board will only have a year and a half before the next election takes place (Bass and Sundberg will be up for re-election), and only two years until two different supervisors might potentially take their seats.

    Meanwhile, if the new Board really does try to go “all the way back to the drawing board,” they may find themselves in the awkward position of trying to fulfill their promises of increasing public participation (creating Community Advisory Committees, etc.), while running the risk that if this all takes too long, then by the time it comes to back to the Board, they might no longer have the votes to shape the outcome. And meanwhile, they’ll be seen as “owning” the process, and if it is seen to drag on too long without really yielding any new ideas, then some voters may react negatively to that.

    While it’s obviously better to win an election than to lose it, when it comes to the GPU situation, the winning candidates may end up feeling a little bit like the dog that chases cars for years, but then actually “catches” one…and then what?

  35. Guest
    June 7, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    If the current board attempts to push thru the currently proposed GPU, they will be met with lawsuits by Arkley

  36. Eric Kirk
    June 7, 2012 at 3:46 pm

    On the other hand, should they deliberately drag it out an extra six months just to make sure the new board gets to pass it? If it’s ready to go, it’s ready to go. As you point out TRA, the new Board can do whatever it wants with it later on. What’s the problem?

  37. Construction McRealestate
    June 7, 2012 at 4:36 pm

    “hurry up with the GPU! hurry up or we’re going to sue! wait…no, wait wait wait!”

  38. tra
    June 7, 2012 at 5:06 pm

    In terms of legal procedure, there is no problem. Politically, the problem is pretty obvious: It will be seen — and rightly so — as a slap in the face to the voters. Policy-wise, making major changes to these regulations in the full knowledge that they are likely to be changed again in a major way, possibly within months, just seems kind of irresponsible.

    I can understand why those, who for the sake of simplicity I’ll call “the Lovelace faction,” might want to go on the record in favor of the policies they prefer, but I don’t think it would be a smart move — either politically, or in terms of policy — to do that by pushing through a final vote on the GPU during their lame-duck session. Perhaps there will be an opportunity for the current Board to vote on specific elements without finalizing it before the new Board gets to have their say.

    The argument that it can always be changed later cuts both ways: If the Lovelace faction objects to the actions taken by the most recently elected Board, they have the opportunity to take that case to the voters in two years, and if they can get a majority of voters to support candidates that agree with their concerns, they can make changes based on that mandate.

  39. Thirdeye
    June 7, 2012 at 5:13 pm

    I think the BOS learned about doing in-your-face controversial things as lame ducks when the old majority of Lovelace, Neely, and Clendenen tried to appoint Lovelace to the Coastal Commission under the wire. Controversy just isn’t Smith’s style. The shunting of Girard was also an acknowledgement by the BOS majority that things were awry in the GPU process. Now that Girard is gone, guess what? There’s a move to consolidate the positions that were divided when Girard was in office. The wet dream of a 3-2 majority ramming through the GPU between now and January just ain’t gonna happen.

  40. Eric Kirk
    June 7, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    Well, a lot more can happen in two years than 6 months.

  41. tra
    June 7, 2012 at 5:45 pm

    I doubt it’s going to happen, but who knows. Given the right combination of hubris, sore-loserism, and disrespect for the voters, I guess they could go for it. I think the long-term effects of the inevitable backlash would far outweigh whatever short-term satisfaction they might achieve. But they may not see it that way, or maybe, due to a sense of bitterness, disappointment, and discouragement, they just won’t care about how it will play out in the future. Maybe they’ll just tell themselves “we’re doing the right thing, even if the voters are too stupid to thank us for it now, and whatever happens later isn’t our fault.”

  42. steak n eggs
    June 7, 2012 at 6:00 pm

    Prediction: The GPU will stay on course. Despite the hyperbole on a few contentious issues, there are lots of needed changes that will get unanimously passed…even with the new board members. The current Planning Commission is an example of how divergent views can come together to get it done. I would’nt underestimate the soon-to-be Sups. They will not be the Dr. Evils that Heraldo and his sheep want them to be.

    Trashing it altogether is a double-edged sword.

  43. Anonymous
    June 7, 2012 at 6:08 pm

    tra, that’s nonsense. Not a reasonable declaration whatsoever. Disrespect for which voters? Which of the 130,000 people in this county are you refering to? Sore loserism? who’s a sore loser, me? You? My neighbor? Who among the 130,000 people living here is sore about this? The currently elected supervisors have the same obligation as always, right? They want what’s best for everybody too, right? You’re contradicting yourself. hubris? spare us, please. Can you OD on whatever you’re on sooner than later?? Quite unreasonable of me to assume you’re on drugs, right?

  44. just middle class
    June 7, 2012 at 6:12 pm

    With this election, Jimmy will never vote for the rewrite, it will be in the hands of the new .

  45. Anonymous
    June 7, 2012 at 6:50 pm

    Give it up 6:12. The GPU is as good as done. Arkely will sue. So what. How’s that gone for him lately? Some lawyers will be happy.

  46. Thirdeye
    June 7, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    No matter how disappointed Lovelace and Clendenen may be, they still know that they need a third vote. Sundberg and Bass sure wouldn’t be with them, Smith bends over backwards looking for consensus. He’s not going to be on board with anything that riles people up. The entire board must also know that any high profile controversial moves to the green side would be a big target for the new board.

  47. Jimmy Voter
    June 7, 2012 at 7:06 pm

    I believe Jimmy Smith will do whatever he believes is right, especially since he does not have to run for office again.

  48. Anonymous
    June 7, 2012 at 7:47 pm

    The GPU maybe what drove money into campaign coffers and got the blogs all excited, but it is not what drove most of the few voters that bothered to vote to the polls. It certainly was not an issue the candidates talked much about, except when asked, sort of, and you didn’t see it in any campaign ads or literature. Monied interest mandate? Sure. Voter mandate? Hardly.

  49. tra
    June 7, 2012 at 9:48 pm

    7:47, you apparently weren’t following the 2nd district race. The GPU was a major issue. Clif cited the current GPU process as one of his proudest “accomplishments,” Estelle insisted that the process has been deeply flawed and badly mismanaged. Whatever your position on the GPU, there’s no denying that it played a major role in that race, and was quite likely one of the most important factors in Clif’s Election Day defeat. To push ahead to a final vote during the lame-duck period, relying on Clif’s vote for passage, would be an arrogant, anti-democratic move.

  50. Anonymous
    June 7, 2012 at 10:22 pm

    tra – potholes was a bigger issue than the GPU. Just look at Estelle’s TV ads to see what messaging was most important in her campaign. People in Fortuna, which is most of the voting population, do not care that much about the GPU. We who follow these wonky things like to think that because something is important to us, a majority of the voters think so too. Still, an almost 50/50 split is not a mandate for anything.

  51. Anonymous
    June 7, 2012 at 10:26 pm

    One incumbent on a five person board loses by 200 votes and the government is supposed to shut down for six months? Get a hold of yourself tra.

  52. tra
    June 7, 2012 at 10:39 pm

    “the government is supposed to shut down for six months”

    One slight problem: I never said that. Not passing the GPU before the new Board takes their seats will not cause the government to “shut down.” Your apparent need to resort to such a ridiculous exaggeration suggests you have no real argument based on the actual facts.

    The fact is, whether you like it or not, the most recent expression of the will of the voters has been for Lovelace in the 3rd district, Fennell in the 2nd and Bohn in the 1st — and in the last election, Sundberg in the 5th and Bass in the 4th.

    There is no particular reason why the GPU has to be voted on before January — except if you’re determined to circumvent the will of the voters and push through policies that you couldn’t get a majority of the voters to support.

  53. Anonymous
    June 7, 2012 at 10:44 pm

    Really, which policies will get pushed through that could not get a majority of the voters support?

  54. Anonymous
    June 7, 2012 at 10:46 pm

    Ok, let’s try “the supervisors can’t make any decisions about anything for six months, so they should just go home.”

  55. mresquan
    June 7, 2012 at 10:56 pm

    TRA wrote,”and in the last election, Sundberg in the 5th and Bass in the 4th. ”

    Both of whom campaigned on getting the GPU passed through asap,especially Bass,who relentlessly criticized Neely for dragging her tail,which is exactly what Virginia would be doing if putting it off until the new supes take office,since a plan lies right before her now.

  56. tra
    June 7, 2012 at 11:14 pm

    Ok, let’s try “the supervisors can’t make any decisions about anything for six months, so they should just go home.”

    Still not even close. My comments above speak for themselves. Your need to “paraphrase” them in an extremely inaccurate way doesn’t exactly help your case.

  57. Neal Latt
    June 8, 2012 at 8:49 am

    tra, I’d have to respectfully disagree with your thesis that the remaining supes should sit on their hands regarding the GPU til the new board is seated. Regardless of the election, the current board was elected on their own merits, and their judgments are theirs alone to make. The GPU is all but done, and there is no rational argument for them to stall it further in the name of adopting the politics of their successors. Should the new board want to turn over this rock when their time comes, that will be their judgment to make. Period.

  58. Anonymous
    June 8, 2012 at 9:13 am

    As far as the GPU is concerned, it is thankfully no longer about alternative A or Alternative D. The Planning Commission has put forward their own alternative, based on several years of public input and deliberations. It is not all that the liberal elite want, nor is it all that the property rights crowd wants. Even so, when it comes down to it, there is not much in the hefty document that is very controversial (a few issues notwithstanding). Hopefully, the Board will recognize this, let go of the polarizing issues, and move the process forward so we can be done with this lengthy Update process.

  59. Smiley
    June 8, 2012 at 9:39 am

    Let the fear-mongering cease. I want to see how much Rex will voluntarily cut his pay.

  60. June 8, 2012 at 10:05 am

    8.49 and 9.13 am make sense Many years work went into the GPU with revisio ns incorporatedAcceptance is not in stone, All of Humboldt is involved–The supervisors represent all of us…

    Raging granny

  61. tra
    June 8, 2012 at 10:34 am

    Well I suppose ignoring the results of the election and pushing the GPU through at the eleventh hour with the votes of a lame-duck incumbent, and an incumbent who lost his re-election bid in part because of his position on the GPU, would certainly be a fitting capstone to the whole GPU fiasco.

  62. Anonymous
    June 8, 2012 at 11:05 am

    I agree with tra on a lot of things, but I fail to understand why moving the GPU forward would be ignoring the election results. To draw it out any longer would be a waste of money and resources; it would be a slap in the face of all the hard work and many years that the planning commission and public put into it; and it would prevent the County moving forward with pro-active programs for trails, community forests, and measures to restore our creeks and rivers.

    tra – What policies are in the planning commission’s version of the GPU that are so bad that this should wait another six months before taking action?

  63. Mayor Snorkum
    June 8, 2012 at 11:27 am

    When folks pontificate about “the will of the people” and “democratic” or “anti-democratic” here, note that only about 33% of the eligible voters actually bothered to vote in this election. We have no idea what the actual “will of the people” is. It’s the will of a minority. If more people voted in previous supervisorial races, does that give us a better idea of the what people want?

  64. tra
    June 8, 2012 at 11:56 am

    Mayor Snorkum,

    Well I agree that a victory in an election with a higher turnout is a better mandate, and I do wish more people would vote (whether they voted the same way as I did or not). But as far as I know, there was nothing really preventing people in Humboldt from voting this past Tuesday if they wanted to. So those who don’t bother to turn out and vote don’t get counted — but that was their choice.

    If you want to say that Fennell and Bohn were elected by a minority, fine, but then you also have to recognize that it was an even smaller minority that voted for Clendenen and Seidner. Those who bother to show up and vote are the ones who get to make the decision.

    And by the way, in the last election, when Clendenen was elected in the first place, there was a higher turnout — it was a Novermber run-off, and November elections always have a higher turnout — but he still didn’t get anywhere near a majority because it was a three-way race (Johanna Rodoni ran as a write-in candidate in the November race, turning the idea of a “run-off” on its head and denying us a straight one-on-one matchup that would have yielded a majority winner. A majority of the voters in that election did not support Clendenen, they supported either Johanna Rodoni or Estelle Fennell. So while Clendenen won in a perfectly legitimate way, since he got more votes than either of his two opponents did, he still had less of a mandate from the voters than Fennell has now. Clendenen never won a majority of the voters who showed up to vote, Fennell now has.

  65. Pollyanna
    June 8, 2012 at 12:03 pm

    I love the GPU, I want it to go on forever!!!

  66. tra
    June 8, 2012 at 12:08 pm


    If you really can’t see how pushing ahead with the GPU during the lame duck session, and passing it with the votes of a lame-duck incumbent and an incumbent who was turned out of office in part due to his position on the GPU, I think you’re just in deep, deep denial.

    I don’t know that the Planning Commission’s version of the GPU is necessarily all that bad, but that’s not really the point. The point is that both Fennell and Bohn made a critique of the GPU process, and a demand that the Board take a step back and take more time for public participation a central part of their campaigns, whereas Clendenen and Seidner very clearly stated that the process should move forward to completion ASAP. Fennell and Bohn won (and in Bohn’s case won by a nearly 2:1 margin), while Clendenen and Seidner lost. Like it or not, the candidates made the choices very clear for the voters, and the voters made their choices.

    You may not like the choices the majority of the voters made, and you may think that there is no really good reason to delay the GPU process further (and I think there are actually some very reasonable arguments on your side) but that doesn’t change the fact that pushing ahead on this controversial item before the voter’s most recently-chosen candidates have a chance to take their seats and have their say would certainly be disrespectful to those who took the time to go and vote.

  67. Father Time
    June 8, 2012 at 1:23 pm

    Yeah, but I’m pretty sure that in another two years, there are going to be changes to the BOS again. We really should wait for THAT election. Its only two years away, not so long in order to maintain the integrity of the plan that will govern us for a future decade (or 20+ years if history is any guide). Or maybe we should wait until the one after that, etc.

    The time periods differ, but conceptually, its the same thing.

  68. Anonymous
    June 8, 2012 at 3:06 pm

    So tra thinks that if it turns out that Clif wins by two votes then its a “mandate” to pass the CPU as is? Right.

    tra has not named a single GPU policy that he thinks will be passed by the current sitting board that a majority of the citizens will disagree with. Please name one tra. What are you afraid of?

  69. 713
    June 8, 2012 at 7:12 pm

    Here are some reasons not to pass it:

    The McKinleyville CSD is suing them over the housing element, and has expressed concerns about the plan.

    The City of Eureka has expressed numerous concerns over the plan.

    The Humboldt CSD has expressed numerous concerns over the plan.

    Much of the growth is planned in and around Eureka and McKinleyville. When you have the agencies responsible to serve those areas saying, “hey, this isn’t going to work for us”, it is time to pause and take a look at what you are doing.

    Any responsible leader would address the issues of serving their constituents with water, sewer, and public safety before rubber stamping a controversial plan just to get it passed before the next people take office.

  70. Anonymous
    June 8, 2012 at 7:50 pm

    The bulk of the concerns from Mckinleyville, Eureka, and Humboldt CSD were over the housing element, which is approved on a different track than the other elements of the GPU. Moreover, those concerns were relating to Alternatives A, B, C, and D – they did not relate to the Planning Commission’s recommendations that are now going before the Board.

  71. tra
    June 8, 2012 at 8:04 pm

    “So tra thinks that if it turns out that Clif wins by two votes then its a “mandate” to pass the CPU as is?”

    I’m pretty sure that many of his supporters would have reacted exactly that way.

    “tra has not named a single GPU policy that he thinks will be passed by the current sitting board that a majority of the citizens will disagree with.”

    We don’t know what they are going to try to pass. That’s the point. But I do know, for example, that the Planning Commission’s version rejected the Plan A fans / Healthy Humboldt position that we should only allow the owner of a TPZ parcel to live on their land if they can prove that the house they want to build is “necessary” for timber production…in other words, basically never. Having lost at the Planning Commission level, the Healthy Humboldt crowd vowed to try again at the Board of Supervisor level, which, of course, is the only level that actually counts, since they can change anything they want before passing the plan.

    Now, I’m going to turn the question around: If there’s nothing controversial or that a majority of voters would object to, why the hurry to jam it through before the Supervisors just elected by the voters take their seats?

    Clearly some folks are awfully desperate to try to get some stuff passed that they don’t think they can get passed if the Supervisors who have just received a mandate from the voters get to have their say. What exactly are they going to try to get though? No way to know for sure, but their desperation to get it done during the lame duck session suggests that they know they’ll have little chance of getting some of the items they want if the voters’ preferred candidates get to weigh in.

  72. tra
    June 8, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    Father Time,

    Congratulations, that’s the dumbest argument yet!

  73. Anonymous
    June 8, 2012 at 9:06 pm

    If tra (or any voters) want to know what exactly the Planning Commission and the Supervisors are trying to approve, it’s as simple as reading the draft Plan. Read through the voting charts. Or come to a hearing and listening rather that prattle off about what a mystery it all is.

    As far as why folks want to see the Plan move forward: It’s partly because the County is operating with a General Plan that is vastly outdated. It’s partly because this Update process has been going on for over a decade. But it’s largely because many of the watersheds throughout the county are currently feeling the impacts of poor land use decisions (historic and ongoing, industrial-scale logging, irresponsible development, poor urban and rural planning…). Many of the unanimous recommendations from the Planning Commission are being put forward to promote restoration of our rivers and encourage better planning and building practices. The longer the update goes on, the longer we put off addressing many critical issues that affect the health and safety of all residents in the county.

    And it’s not that far off to say it’s a desperate time. It’s desperate in the sense that both Estelle and Rex have stated they want to see this process stopped. HumCPR has repeatedly insisted on stopping the Update because even new measures to keep streams from being polluted or drying up will infringe on private property rights. Of course time will tell if Estelle will be a voice for the people or a puppet of those who spent so much money to get her into office to do away with pesky regulations that are there to safeguard natural resources and public health.

  74. Olivia
    June 8, 2012 at 9:13 pm

    Thank you, 9:06. Very well said.

  75. tra
    June 8, 2012 at 9:14 pm

    “f tra (or any voters) want to know what exactly the Planning Commission and the Supervisors are trying to approve, it’s as simple as reading the draft Plan.”

    Except that the Supervisors can change the Planning Commission’s “draft plan,” in any way they want before passing it. The Planning Commission’s recommendations are not binding on the Board of Supervisors. That’s what “draft” and “recommendations” mean. And that’s also why lame ducks and losing candidates shouldn’t be making the decisions.

  76. Anonymous
    June 8, 2012 at 9:32 pm

    you’re right, tra. they should just quit now. oh, wait. there’s only one losing candidate on the Board now. By your logic, the other four should be allowed to carry on.

  77. tra
    June 8, 2012 at 9:32 pm

    By the way, it seems that even the Planning Department’s staff may not have a very good handle on everything that’s been dumped into this massive document. There was a recent incident in which language having to do with family planning was found in there. Apparently no one — not Planning Department staff, not the Supervisors, not the Planning Commissioners — had any idea that this language had been put into the document, and no immediate explanation for who put it in there, or why. Eventually, the explanation given was that this language was part of a whole bunch of boilerplate language that was simply lifted from another county’s plan by some staff member, and just dropped straight into ours apparently without the cutter/paster bothering to even read it. Kinda makes one wonder what else might be found in there, doesn’t it?

    But of course knowing what’s actually in there is “as simple as reading the draft plan,” as Anon 9:06 so helpfully points out — and I’d be happy to do exactly that — if I had a couple of months with nothing else to do.

    Want to take a guess at how many pages are in the whole document? Or, maybe an easier way to picture it, how many inches tall the whole stack of paper is?

  78. Anonymous
    June 8, 2012 at 9:42 pm

    From the Staff Report for the upcoming BOS meeting for anyone interested in more detail:

    “The key differences between the Planning Commission Approved Draft Plan and the 1984 Framework Plan include the following highlights:
    • A Set of Guiding Principles (to help guide future planning decisions)
    • Urban Development Areas that are better defined, including new Mixed Use and Village Commercial Land Use Designations
    • Periodic review of the entire Plan within the Housing Element Update cycle (every 5 years)
    • Cluster residential development is supported in rural and resource lands
    • Strong agricultural resource land protection policies are established, including a no net loss of prime agricultural land and a Planned Rural Development program
    • A new Rural Residential Land Use Designation is added providing a brighter line for commercial agricultural and timber production land
    • Removal of the merger requirements for TPZ lands
    • An implementation program to remove substandard parcels from TPZ
    • A new Infrastructure Element that provides clear policy direction for adequate service levels (including new assessment districts and coordinated service capacity planning)
    • A new Telecommunications Element which advocates for broadband telecommunications
    • Circulation Element policies that advocate for a multimodal transportation system
    • Development of permit streamlining standards for small businesses
    • Development standards for lands designated as “Open Space” which provides consistency with state law
    • New Transfer of Development Rights and Community Separator policies
    • Expansion of the Streamside Management Areas
    • New policies to protect Oak Woodlands
    • New Mineral Resources Overlay Zone with expanded public hearing noticing requirements for land use compatibility and protection of resource sites
    • Stronger cultural resources protection policies that call for the creation of ordinances and the creation of an advisory committee
    • Policies to prohibit billboards in scenic areas and sensitive habitat areas
    • A new Water Resources Element which requires water storage for new development in flow impaired waterways, supports new greywater systems, and supports new Low Impact Development standards in impaired waterways
    • A new Energy Element that calls for the adoption of an energy conservation ordinance, transportation management plans, and supports an energy buyback program
    • New tsunami hazard policies
    • New noise standards to protect citizens from existing or future excessive noise levels
    • New policies on Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and programs to increase carbon storage

  79. Anonymous
    June 8, 2012 at 10:00 pm

    Ok tra, which one of these things do you think a majority of Humboldt County citizens object to?

  80. tra
    June 8, 2012 at 10:04 pm

    The following is from the section on “unplanned pregnancies” that somehow snuck into the plan when county staff cut and pasted in a “template from another jurisdiction” and (if you believe their explanation) just didn’t bother to read over what they’d just added:

    “By ensuring that every child in the county is planned, the county will make significant progress toward solving unnecessary increases in local contributions to global warming impacts.”

  81. 713
    June 8, 2012 at 10:26 pm

    I find that objectionable.

  82. tra
    June 8, 2012 at 10:26 pm

    Anon 10:00,

    Maybe nothing. Maybe a lot. Depends on the details. There are a lot of buzzwords in those bullet points, but not much real information. Just a few examples: What is included in the “Strong agricultural resource land protection policies?” What counts as a “substandard” TPZ parcel? What is included in the “New policies on Greenhouse Gas Emissions?” How much water storage is required, and does it have to be only rainwater, or are you allowed to draw water from wells, springs, and creeks except during the dry season?

    And I guess I need to clarify something here: I’m not against continuing the discussion of those details during the lame duck period. I just think the final decisions on all these details should be made by those the elected officials who are accountable to the voters, not those who were just rejected by the voters and/or are on their way out the door, no longer accountable to the voters.

  83. Father Time
    June 8, 2012 at 10:33 pm

    “tra says:
    June 8, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    Father Time,

    Congratulations, that’s the dumbest argument yet!”

    I agree!!!! Congrats right back at you.

  84. Anonymous
    June 8, 2012 at 11:07 pm

    Accountability for decisions doesn’t end with your term and government should stop processes to wait for continual transitions.

  85. Anonymous
    June 8, 2012 at 11:12 pm

    The following is NOT from the section on “unplanned pregnancies”… because there is and was no section called “unplanned pregnancies” and that language was removed. See, corrections can be made even without Fennell’s 200 vote “mandate”.

  86. tra
    June 8, 2012 at 11:14 pm

    I guess that means you actually can’t see (or are pretending you can’t see) the problem with your argument.

    Well I’ll try to break it down real simple-like for you:

    My objection is to losing candidates and lame ducks making the final decision on the GPU. That objection wouldn’t apply to Bass and Sundberg unless they “kick the can down the road” for the next two years, until after the next election, and at that point they lose the election or retire, and then try to get their last licks in before those most recently approved by the voters get a chance to take office. The same would apply to Bohn or Fennell, two years after that.

    If any of those individuals take that approach to governing, I’ll be the first to criticize them for it, because in my opinion, as a matter of principle, it’s the wrong way to go.

  87. tra
    June 8, 2012 at 11:20 pm

    Of course for those who just want what they want, and aren’t really concerned about the principles (which I think, unfortunately, probably describes a lot of people — maybe even most people — on both sides) well, they’ll just adopt whatever argument suits what they think is in their interest, short-term.

    So, for example, if by chance the new Board stalls and delays adoption of the General Plan for the next two years, and then Bass and Sundberg are booted out of office in the June election by two Lovelace clones, and then despite that, the lame-duck Board moves to adopt a GPU that the Lovelace faction hates, I expect a lot of commenters on this blog will suddenly agree with exactly the line of reasoning I’ve outlined here.

    They’ll be outraged that the recently-rejected-by-the-voters Supervisors would even think of pushing their version of the plan through during their lame-duck period. Meanwhile, a lot of folks who want that version of the GPU passed will also switch sides in this debate, and will be arguing that there is no reason to delay it any further, just let the new Board change it later if they want. But I assure you that I, for one, will take the same position that I am taking today. Hopefully it won’t come to that, but if it does, you will not find me changing the argument to suit what’s convenient at the time.

    From a policy standpoint, I sure hope it doesn’t get delayed that long…but if it does, mark my words: Many people, on both sides, will completely reverse their position on the appropriateness of lame ducks making the final decisions on the GPU. My guess is that most of them won’t even realize that they’re doing it, they’ll just think about what outcome they want, and then come up with their rationalizations for whatever process would be required to get them there.

    Sorry if that sounds cynical. I guess it IS kind of cynical, in the sense that I’m cynical about cynics (!). But I’ve seen it so many times before. It would almost be comical, if it weren’t so sad.

  88. tra
    June 8, 2012 at 11:40 pm

    “The following is NOT from the section on “unplanned pregnancies”… because there is and was no section called “unplanned pregnancies” and that language was removed.”

    If it was never there, how did they remove it?

    Oh, wait, I get it, you’re playing silly word games. Fine, there was no section called “unplanned pregnancies,” that just happened to be the subject matter that this paragraph actually dealt with.

    And yes, it was “only” in one of the Appendices, not in the Plan itself. The point is, we had staff cutting and pasting “templates from other jurisdictions” and not even reading what they had just pasted in. Of course that’s assuming we accept their explanation of incompetence, as opposed to the alternative explanation of malfeasance. Either way, that kind of thing doesn’t do much to change the public perception — one that is well-justified in my opinion — that this GPU process as a whole has been, and continues to be, a classic example of a slow-motion bureaucratic train wreck.

  89. tra
    June 8, 2012 at 11:53 pm

    “Accountability for decisions doesn’t end with your term…

    Really? So how exactly should the voters hold Clendenen accountable for how he votes on the GPU? Boycott his cider stand if they don’t like how he votes on it?

    …government should stop processes to wait for continual transitions.”

    (I’m going to assume you meant to say “shouldn’t.” If not, then I don’t quite understand your comment).

    Transitions on the Board of Supervisors aren’t “continual,” they come, AT MOST once every two years, AT MOST for six months. Often there is no turnover at all, often the turnover does not affect the majority position on a given issue, and sometimes when there is a turnover, it is only after a November runoff, which makes the lame-duck period a whole lot shorter.

    And I’m not suggesting that the Board do nothing during the lame-duck period, I’m just saying that, out of respect for the voters, the lame ducks should defer the final decision on the GPU — a huge, very contentious, highly consequential decision — to those individuals who have just received the voters’ approval.

  90. tra
    June 8, 2012 at 11:56 pm

    Just to clarify, my 11:14 comment was meant as a response to the most recent comment from “Father Time.”

  91. SOmewhat HUMan
    June 9, 2012 at 1:32 am

    Anonymous, and Tra, must both be politicians, because only politicians can use so many words and say so little.

    “Politics is entertainment…a topic of conversation for the kind of people who attend dinner parties.” Bob Dylan.

  92. Bolithio
    June 9, 2012 at 7:47 am

    Tra, substandard TPZ is a parcel less than 160 acres.

  93. Anonymous
    June 9, 2012 at 7:51 am

    You can’t have a general plan without a housing element. It is one of the seven required elements. My guess is all four parties that sued the housing element will sue any attempt at a general plan update without first addressing the non-compliant housing element. Maybe even hum CPR and the board of realtors will finally get off what they sit on and join the party and add to the legal excitement that is the board of supervisors

  94. 713
    June 9, 2012 at 9:32 am

    The bulk of the concerns from Mckinleyville, Eureka, and Humboldt CSD were over the housing element, which is approved on a different track than the other elements of the GPU. Moreover, those concerns were relating to Alternatives A, B, C, and D – they did not relate to the Planning Commission’s recommendations that are now going before the Board.

    All of the elements must tie together in a consistent manner. If you have a housing element that states the growth will occur at X and Y, the other policies relating to X and Y must allow for that to happen.

    For example, if you state in the infrastructure section that all new housing in the urban areas shall connect to a sewer system and in the housing element you rezone a bunch of high density housing in an urban area that does not have the capacity to serve said rezoning with sewer, you have a problem. Actually, that is precisely one of the problems.

    So yea, they are on different tracks but must dovetail together.

  95. June 9, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    The GPU was a bigger part of all the campaigns than the media reported. It is key for economic devolpment as it plans for energy use, transportation, land use and all the regulations and ordinances that will soon follow.

    Did you know that it limits the population of people living outside the city boundaries to 54%? Do you know that we are currently at 54%? How will that impact our cities, annexed areas, and then the rest of the unicorporated areas?

    The housing element that was rejected 6 times in 2.5 years is a major problem and embarrassment. To proceed without this being done correctly and certified is bad governance…no one can or should support an incomplete document.

    At the 5/17 planning commission meeting county counsel advised the commissioners that they don’t need to read or know what is in the DEIR before they recommend it to the Sups. They voted to send it to them like a hot potato.

    Not like anyone is interested in reading, but if you can’t sleep you can read my some of my ideas to fix and finish the GPU on my website at http://www.brooksforsupervisor.com. I am very concerned that our document isn’t a locally inspired and drafted plan and we deserve one.

  96. Anonymous
    June 9, 2012 at 6:11 pm

    tra’s unreasonableness is beginning to show.

  97. Anonymous
    June 9, 2012 at 7:11 pm

    “locally inspired” or good ol boy controlled?

  98. Anonymous
    June 9, 2012 at 8:16 pm

    Karen, went to your web site. Found this. “Too many property owners are in project limbo. They were told to wait for the General Plan to be updated and they would be included then told to wait until after the Update is adopted. This could mean going back to square one and starting all over if their project isn’t conforming with the new regulations.”

    Can you give us an example of a project that fits this description? And if so, how would that project not be improved by the provisions of an updated GPU? I will take my answer off the air.

  99. Anonymous
    June 9, 2012 at 9:36 pm

    Once again if a jurisdiction has no housing element it has no general plan, review the housing for all lawsuit. The county signed a stipulated judgement the county has no general plan this proposal does not meet the requirements of that judgement. This update to the general plan will not meet the requirements of the judgement. Therefore, more lawsuits and continued moratorium.
    Right now there is a moratorium the county board of supervisors and planning commission are choosing to to ignore. Once again more potential lawsuits. All this is due to kirk Girard and him trying to keep Jimmy Smith happy so he could keep his job. Welcome to politics.

  100. tra
    June 9, 2012 at 9:59 pm

    So, what would it take for the GPU to meet the requirements of that Housing for All judgement.

  101. 713
    June 9, 2012 at 10:05 pm
  102. Anonymous
    June 9, 2012 at 10:46 pm

    too much crazy talk here to continue trying to have an honest conversation.

  103. Jack Sherman
    June 9, 2012 at 11:36 pm

    I agree that the current supervisors have the obligation to continue the people’s business as they were elected to do, and that the GPU can hardly be viewed as rushed after a decade of pubic testimony.

    Ryan Burns of the NCJ suspected that Bohn, and Fennell would move quickly to remove Denver Nelson from the Planning Commission. Nelson has called for water carrying-capacity studies in rural Humboldt for many years.

    More than anything else, science is the “rural lifestyle’s” worst enemy and no one knows that better than the biggest financial backers of Bohn, Bass, Fennell, and Sundberg!

    Unprecedented numbers of Humboldt County residents are lining up for affordable housing near schools, services, jobs and transportation; they represent the exploding numbers of working poor families, retiring seniors and graduating students earning poverty wages, in effect, not the one’s who could spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on Bohn’s phony front-group fliers.

    Last year, Dan Johnson said his in-fill affordable housing projects always have far more applicants than units available. Last year, he had over 100 applications for the 30-units available across the street from the Arcata Coop.

    I wonder how many applicants he has now?

  104. Anonymous
    June 10, 2012 at 12:27 am

    Does tra think that knowing the carrying capacity of our watersheds would be one of those policies that a majority of Humboldt County citizens would be against?

  105. Anonymous
    June 10, 2012 at 6:36 am

    Who cares what a majority of HC citizens would be for or against? The majority won’t be concerned about the carrying capacity of our watersheds until they turn on a tap and no water flows. They like lots of brightly colored campaigns signs for good ole boys who will do whatever the people who pay for their campaigns ask of them.

  106. 713
    June 10, 2012 at 6:49 am

    I don’t understand why unregulated industrial pot farms get a free pass and a rural home is the devil.

  107. Anonymous
    June 10, 2012 at 7:09 am

    They don’t 713. Many of those pot farms are legal and illegally subdivided ranches and forest lands whose owners are sucking too much water from the watershed and polluting them with their wastes. They don’t want regulation or restrictions on what they do with “their” land any more than developers do. Probably why so many joined CPR. Don’t make the mistake of believing that all pot growers are liberal or have any concerns for the environment that belongs to us all.

  108. Anonymous
    June 10, 2012 at 8:04 am

    The county must have site suitable and available for there RHNA distribution for low, very low and moderate housing. Sites means actual (level not on top of creeks and hillsides) buildable parcels with water and sewer. That is why the Housing Element is out of compliance HCD has said the parcels the county rezoned are not buildable for the above reasons on March 15, 2012. The county did have an HCD accepted list but chose to change them. If the county would have just rezoned the list they promised to rezone none of this would be happening.
    PARTING GIFT FROM KIRK AND JIMMY SMITH, screw the county and get your retirement benefits.
    Reality they have to be in Mckinleyville and ECP areas as that is where the sewer service exists.
    But Eureka is controlling Jimmy to keep multifamily out of the ECP area and MCSD is controlling Ryan to keep multifamily out of McKinleyville.

  109. Anonymous
    June 10, 2012 at 8:07 am

    You should read the judgement and the Sept 1, 2010, February 7, 2011 and march 15th letter from HCD available on their web site.

  110. Anonymous
    June 10, 2012 at 9:18 am

    “Reality they have to be in Mckinleyville and ECP areas as that is where the sewer service exists.”

    Wrong. Actually the county could easily count rural parcels without services too if they were zoned correctly though they would have to have more than they actually need becuse an effective “discount” would have to be applied to allow for those that ultimately might not be ably to supply water and septic. This just wouldn’t accomplish Lovelace’s goal of forcing all new housing into the existing urban areas, also it would seem that poor folks just shouldn’t be allowed a rural lifestyle. Most of us know that there is lots of modest affordable housing in the hills and could easily be more.

  111. Anonymous
    June 10, 2012 at 9:25 am

    9:18 is one of those people who has no understanding of the carrying capacity of watersheds. There’s cheap land out there in the hills that could be built on and he doesn’t care about where the water will come from or the consequences of sucking the rivers dry.

  112. Anonymous
    June 10, 2012 at 9:41 am

    9:25, That is a very important but separate discussion. My point was only that rural parcels “could” be counted. Development issues of which water is likely formost should be evaluated before these parcels “should” be built on. Related but very different. These are the kind of conversations that were supposed to be part of a GPU and weren’t. the decisions had already been made.

  113. Dan
    June 10, 2012 at 10:04 am

    Humboldt County. Our wetland delineations aren’t
    complete or accurate while the Supervisors act
    as if they are getting away with something.
    When really, we are setting ourselves up for failure.

  114. June 10, 2012 at 10:36 am

    Significant impacts from the original general plan is what triggers the update. Climate change is what has triggered a complete rewrite of every general plan in the state and if we are to be good citizens we are to be enslaved by the Kiyoto Treaty without our knowledge and consent. READ THE DOCUMENTS!

    In Humboldt the most significant impacts have come from MJ grows. When it is estimated to be 25% of our economy and there is not word one in the GPU that is irresponsible. This industry has done more to impact out watersheds, tax base, resourse lands, availability of affordable housing, rental rates, energy use and public safety than any other industry.

    And we are focused on finishing the GPU for the sake of finishing it when what we have is a document the rewards illegal development and punishes law abiding taxpayers. Where is our Constitution – our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (the right to our property)?

  115. Anonymous
    June 10, 2012 at 11:19 am

    Those who have been attacking the General Plan Update for years have finally gone beyond the deep end. In the Arkley-funded, developer front group HELP’s recent Op-Ed in the Times Standard, they claim that the Humboldt’s GPU is a vast conspiracy theory with roots in the UN: http://www.times-standard.com/guest_opinion/ci_20825699/look-out-hand-u-n-county-planning-process

    While most residents may just breeze over this as crazy talk, it seems important to call out those who are responsible for such destructive fearmongering. These are the types of people who want the GPU stopped – who are staunchly opposed to any regulations even if the regulations are there to protect our streams and rivers, our air quality. They are against programs to create safer routes to school for our children. They are against programs for creating community forests or protecting open space between communities. They are against building communities that give people the choice of what kind of home they live in, or the choice to drive or bike or walk to work.

    These types of folks give “developers” a bad name and they should be taken to task for their divisive, radical game.

  116. Dan
    June 10, 2012 at 11:23 am

    “Where is our Constitution – our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (the right to our property)?” Karen

    Who pays the cost of urban sprawl? That is socialized.
    Who benefits? That is privatized.

    Could you be specific Karen, did you buy property without a
    parcel #,
    zoned TPZ or roadless, without water/sewer?
    What rights are you talking of?

  117. Jack Sherman
    June 10, 2012 at 11:31 am

    The “right to your property” ends where others right to theirs begins.

    Everyone needs clean water.

    No one has any idea how big a role the pot farmers play in water depletion compared to the cumulative impacts of perfectly legal vineyards, man-made lakes, orchards, trout farms, Olympic pools and the ever-popular summer cabin with unattended spring water leaking 9-months a year. People have always used “their” water to the full extent that they can afford to utilize it.

    No one knows the answer because there are no studies!

    How many million board feet of decking are getting splashed with toxic preservatives this summer and how many tons of phosphate and fertilizers will be leaching into our headwaters this year?

    No one knows, there are no studies!

    Please cite your studies showing that it’s cheaper for a poor family to live in Hyampom than McKinleyville.

  118. Dan
    June 10, 2012 at 11:32 am

    “In Humboldt the most significant impacts have come from
    MJ grows. ” Karen

    Wrong. Unfettered, unchecked and horribly mismanaged
    FAUX-restoration (read landscaping) along our coast will long-term dwarf issues from pot growers.

  119. Anonymous
    June 10, 2012 at 11:37 am

    Karen, you offered a conversation here and now where are you?

  120. June 10, 2012 at 12:00 pm

    I’m reading Rosa Koire’s book. So far as I can tell she is warning us about what Sonoma county has been doing to control everyone by land use abuse. Interesting that a progressive, liberal Dem is a consporacy theorist – what is this world coming to?

  121. Dan
    June 10, 2012 at 12:11 pm

    “Rosa Koire, a Santa Rosa resident, is a Democrat whose partner Kay was president of the largest neighborhood association in Santa Rosa. Koire discovered firsthand how government-sponsored “neighborhood associations” are being used to “create the illusion of community buy-in.” According to Koire, “The government wants citizen buy-in, but they actually manage it by creating their own government-sponsored neighborhood associations and then manufacture consent.”

    Read more: http://napavalleyregister.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_60b4b004-8ca0-11df-a43c-001cc4c002e0.html#ixzz1xQ2cCuty

  122. Anonymous
    June 10, 2012 at 12:19 pm

    Anon at 9:18, sorry state law requires municipal Sewer service by a sewer service provider to be included without specific evidence of availability also require a minimum of 1 acre in size developable. You can find this in government code section 65583.2

  123. longwinds
    June 10, 2012 at 12:26 pm

    At ease, troopers. Agenda 21 was approved by the daddy Bush administration in 1995, after several years of lobbying. Here’s what the conspiratorial madmen at Wikipedia say about it:


    The thrust of Agenda 21 is the recognition that the world is doomed unless global lifestyles converge. That’s to say, the poor get more,
    the rich waste less. Generic prescriptions are made to achieve this end, including Smartgrowth and discouraging rural development, which is said to drive poor folks off land that becomes reserves of the privileged.

    Republicans have added this program to their list of liberal infamies for one especially compelling reason: it gives overarching direction to comprehensive land-use reforms that really do limit development rights, both urban and rural. There’s a reasonable case to be made for its implementation–but implementation leads to results like WTO and global free trade that converge global worker wages, for example. Good for China, bad for union wage guarantees. Is it good or bad on balance? Hard to say without thinking about it.

    Here in Humboldt, where we have unique, widespread rural development that became the county’s economic engine, and which achieves prosperity without the usual baggage of centralized services, special study must be made as Jack says before anyone can say anything meaningful about how good or bad this or that is for whatever.

    For example, my homestead creates all our own electricity from natural, renewable sources. We use less than 10 percent of California’s average household use. We use far less water than city homes with their lawns and toilets. So we are not impressed with analyses that simply assume we’re worse for the world than the people of Bayside, who until recently seemed to write our rules. Without study, and leadership making the studies meaningful (not just propaganda exercises like the now mysteriously hidden rural health chapter of the GPU) all we can say with certainty is that both sides don’t know what they’re talking about. I’m looking forward to the new Board taking a fresh look at these global issues from a larger perspective.

  124. Anonymous
    June 10, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    Don’t hold your breath Longwind.

  125. Amy Breighton
    June 10, 2012 at 1:23 pm

    “We use less than 10 percent of California’s average household use. We use far less water than city homes with their lawns and toilets.”

    For the last 5 years I’ve attended Planning Commission hearings. Most notable was the 1,000 attendees at CR where only one brave homesteader dared to call for codification of low-impact lifestyles in rural areas!

    Fennell’s victory spoke loud and clear for the status-quot.

    Humboldt County’s development trajectory is identical to So.Cal. and everywhere else on the planet where streams and rivers are being depleted and polluted.

    We need an effective moratorium on development and restrictions on water-use imposed immediately until water carrying capacity studies can be completed.

    We can only pray it’s not too late to begin a humane process of attrition in the most heavily impacted riparian areas.

    12:31 is correct….”Don’t hold your breath”!

  126. longwinds
    June 10, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    Amy, you should attend those meetings awake, you’ll notice more. I know a half-dozen ‘brave’ homesteaders who’ve searched for advocates within the county for creating watershed-based standards.They might as well hunt for fairies. Three-minute orations at gabfests don’t result in ordinances, in case you haven’t noticed. Please wake up. That you pay as little attention to what’s said at these meetings as the county itself does, does you no credit.

    Blanket bans aren’t standards at all, and again in case you haven’t noticed, they have no effect anyway. So why act as if they matter, except to ignorant, generic funders? I truly don’t understand why your crew has been so eager to enact meaningless ordinances that do nothing to change people’s behavior, or to actually protect our environment. I realize it’s easy to just ignore what we say and damn what we try to do. But sooner or later you’ll realize that as long as you do that, you’ll keep losing elections. And we’ll keep trying to make actual changes for the good

    Why do you ignore proposed programs for water storage? Why don’t you advocate for cooperating with, rather than sabotaging, community-based storage and forebearance programs? Why not work with rather than insult watershed-planning groups working on these issues far longer and more meaningfully than any of the urban fundraising clubs? And why not recognize how infinitely pointless it is to invent enemies, make up legislation to defeat them, make up rules to define your victories and future funding–while flushing the planet down the toilet all the while?

    Now you say you want to “begin a humane process of attrition in the most heavily impacted riparian areas”? What in God’s name are you making up now?

    I apologise up front for my asperity. I’m writing from past experience more than to you. It’s because this dialog of the deaf is so endlessly pointless that people who actually do things win, and people who judge and babble and fundraise lose–yet like immortal vampires they live to fundraise again. Doesn’t it get old for you too?

  127. Anonymous
    June 10, 2012 at 2:32 pm

    Just remember, when you elect Estelle, you get this in tow:

    Estelle should divert some of her leftover campaign cash and buy a muzzle.

  128. Amy Breighton
    June 10, 2012 at 3:06 pm

    “I apologise up front for my asperity. I’m writing from past experience more than to you.”

    You have confirmed my experience that finding low-impact advocates in this county is like hunting for fairies, as it has been in a world now facing the 6th largest extinction event in 300 million years. Wildlife disappears along with their water source.

    Just before the Vietnam war ended it had become the main topic of every newspaper, TV news program, radio show and, thus, every grocery line in the nation.

    Despite the obvious and rapid environmental disasters taking place, it still takes the widespread language of change to precede change itself.

    Each year we’re blessed with increasing numbers of environmental scientists, groups, graduates and attorney’s who know the emergency, and the language, but the media lags far behind the knowledge.

    When the “gab-fests” become a cacophony, change is not far behind…if history is any indication…and if we don’t wait too long to change.

  129. longwinds
    June 10, 2012 at 4:53 pm

    Amy, check out

    http://www.mattole.org/ (Mattole Restoration Council)
    http://www.treesfoundation.org/affiliates/specific-20 (Eel River Salmon Restoration Project)

    Look around the websites, look into the associated initiatives. There are plenty of others. All this has been happening for more than 30 years, while the county grumps about dope growers and fantasizes about driving hippies out of the hills.

    Restoration is meaningful. Community engagement is effective. County policy until now hasn’t been either. Choose reality over fantasy, and join us. Our new Board of Supervisors can use your help in starting what the county should have been doing all along. It may or may not be too late, but let’s find out what happens when we all pull in the same direction.

  130. Anonymous
    June 10, 2012 at 7:35 pm

    God save the fish, because longwinds friends are about to throw them under the bus.

  131. longwinds
    June 10, 2012 at 7:52 pm

    Love that intellectual curiosity. It’s what got you where you are today.

  132. Anonymous
    June 10, 2012 at 8:32 pm

    Surely Longwind isn’t implying that there haven been GPU meetings between county officials and citizens all over the county for years already.

  133. Anonymous
    June 10, 2012 at 8:41 pm

    Anon at 12,19, “sorry state law requires municipal Sewer service by a sewer service provider to be included without specific evidence of availability also require a minimum of 1 acre in size developable. You can find this in government code section 65583.2”

    You might want to reread the section because it says nothing of the kind. Further, a call to HCD will verify the ability to use and count non-municipal service.

  134. Anonymous
    June 10, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    Why are members of HELP hiding their identities by paying a Sacramento lobbyist to carry water for them?

  135. Anonymous
    June 10, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    Karen, are you a member of HELP?

  136. Landlubber Jock Costeau
    June 10, 2012 at 9:16 pm

    Two things. First, everything is now in italics!!! For some reason, it started halfway through this thread. Makes it all seem like people are quoting something. Very suspicious.

    Second, try another watershed before you use the Mattole as an example. How many millions of dollars and how much effort, and despite all the trying to do good, like the Sanctuary Forest people, we find that fish are now MORE endangered. Hows the coho in the Mattole doing?

    Don’t even try to say it’s the logging. The only logging going on in recent years has been by the hippie homesteaders. Blame them, and at least you’ll be more honest.

    Fish don’t smoke pot. If you are really worried about the fish and other species, get the heck out of the watershed. And you are loving it to death.

  137. Anonymous
    June 10, 2012 at 9:26 pm

    So an anonymous group of “volunteers” can have letters published so long as they pay a “representative” to front the letter? I thought I remember the local media outlets being outraged about this kind of unethical activity in the past.

  138. longwinds
    June 11, 2012 at 8:05 am

    Landlubber, I believe you’re mistaken. That’s saltwater between your ears. If you don’t think stripping more than half the forest cover from the Mattole watershed caused the collapse of their salmon stocks, there’s obviously no reasoning with you.

    And if you don’t know the reason wild stocks still hang on in the Mattole at all is because the people of the watershed refused to let them die, regardless of state policy, county indifference/idiocy, and common sense, you don’t know enough to insult anyone but yourself.

    Read Freeman House’s “Totem Salmon” first. Have a look at the websites. Learn a little about what actually makes a difference. And think about how you can help. There’s a lot to learn, and most of it we don’t know.

  139. June 11, 2012 at 10:32 am

    “Anonymous says:
    June 10, 2012 at 9:10 pm – Karen, are you a member of HELP?”

    No, and not a member of Healthy Humboldt either. Just a property owner, not a developer or a renter. My only “skin in the game” is to have a GPU that is fair, transparent, honest, locally inspired and protects the property rights of people while balancing public health and safety.

    We don’t have that with the GPU going before our Sups. This is not a right or left issue, this is a personal liberty issue. You need to understand what is behind all of this to know the difference.

    Click to these to start your education:
    Agenda 21 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM&feature=related
    Rosa Koire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEHWsdimVO4&feature=related
    Agenda 21 update http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/about.html
    I.C.L.E.I. http://www.iclei.org/

  140. Amy Breighton
    June 11, 2012 at 11:28 am

    What I know are about 200 “homesteaders” I’ve visited over the last 40 years and they know hundreds more. They consider themselves environmentalists and “Back to the Earthers”…their homes filled with the same Chinese crap…their gardens, orchards and vineyards filled with phosphates and manure oozing into streams in the Winter. A few make some efforts to keep livestock out of tributaries and they drive Hybrid SUV’s. Only 2, or 3, can actually afford to be effective stewards, ie, afford NOT to have extensive gardens, orchards, vineyards and herds.

    I’m not sure what you think the county should have been doing “all along” to keep adequate flows in the Mattole (horrendous example) but the only way rural water users are going to return a drop is out of their “cold dead hands”.

    The first thing to do is begin a widespread lobbying drive to finally fund costly water capacity studies.

    The first thing the new board will probably do is fire the only water research advocate on the Planning Commission.

  141. Anonymous
    June 11, 2012 at 11:42 am

    Well said, should be a letter to the editor.

  142. June 11, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    1) You start the day with a happy new mantra, say “The people who disagree with me aren’t categorically demons slithering from the dismalest pits of hell. Really.”

    2) You try to actually read what you respond to.

    3) You support water catchment programs so that rural people may have orchards *and* salmon, as they do in the horrendous example of the Mattole. (How many of your friends also need Mattole therapy?)

    4) You go to one of those despicable organizations actually doing things and find out how they have the nerve to increase flows in the river without exterminating homesteaders along the banks.

    5) Be happy! All these pullulating people can become your allies like they used to be, and you can start winning elections again.

    6) You advocate public education to reduce over-fertilization, and leave purging the world of Chinese crap for another day.

    You don’t seem to understand that water catchment and storage can and does sidestep the need for ‘costly water capacity studies,’ because they effectively make homesteads water-neutral. While I’m all in favor of learning things and strongly agree that watershed analysis is essential, I don’t sneer at doing things as well. Just because the funder factories don’t pay for effective mitigation doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea, it just means the funders need more good ideas. Please, share them.

  143. Landlubber Jock Cousteau
    June 11, 2012 at 3:26 pm

    Funders? Are you saying that you can’t do something on your own property that would save endangered fish, because you can’t get a grant to do it? And also all of the other people who are also not responsible for sucking the lifeblood out of the Mattole can’t do it unless they also all get grants? Are you saying that you won’t do the right thing unless someone else will pay for it?

    I don’t know what a funder factory is. So maybe I mis-interpreted your last couple of lines. If so, sorry, there’s obviously no reasoning with me.

  144. June 12, 2012 at 6:12 am

    I’m sorry, Landlubber, the fault is mine. I assumed you’d followed the thread. Out-of-area funders support some of the groups that advocate for generic solutions to our particular problems. Many of us just work on problems, and have nothing to do with those funders, who for example believe in rural poverty, while we here have unusual rural abundance. This changes how we can address problems–but the funders don’t know it.

    That said, the local group Sanctuary Forest in the Mattole headwaters did get funders to subsidize water storage costs for cooperative homesteads. (Many other homesteads put in the tanks without any grants.) These were large grants to store as much as 50 thousand gallons of water per homestead for late-summer use–but the county largely blocked implementation of the grants by tying them to building-code compliance. So some of the coho worried about above were dying for Building Department paperwork.

    I do apologise for being unclear. Some of these facts have been recited so many times in so many forums I can only mumble allusively about them by now, cross my eyes and drool. I am trying to spare you.

  145. Anonymous
    June 12, 2012 at 6:23 am

    Build illegally, ask for public money to mitigate damage, complain when that money is tied to being up to date with the laws, hold fish hostage.

  146. June 12, 2012 at 6:38 am

    Help the fish, change the laws, make a difference, vote out fools.

    Getting county cooperation was never an option in the olden days. That’s why the mess belongs to both sides now.

  147. Anonymous
    June 12, 2012 at 7:45 am

    Karen Brooks,
    I would agree with you on the importance of adopting a fair General Plan that protects health and safety (and even property rights). I would urge folks who are truly interested in furthering their education on the GPU to actually read what the Planning Commission has put forward: http://co.humboldt.ca.us/gpu/documentsplan.aspx

    What in this document that is the result of substantial input from many groups and individuals is not fair and balanced? In a nutshell, it states that people have a right to build on their parcel, even if it is TPZ. Even so, it promotes water-wise and fish-friendly building practices. How is this compromise Draft the result of “brain washing” as some have implied? Seems that some will not be happy with any new protections for fish, or new programs to help restore many of our degraded watersheds.

  148. June 12, 2012 at 8:14 am

    The GPU now says that people can build on TPZ because so many screamed bloody murder until it was changed. remember? What lazy BS you’re plopping. And who are you saying opposes “water-wise and fish-friendly building practices?”

    Alas, your make-believe demons may never stop teeming.

  149. Anonymous
    June 12, 2012 at 9:09 am

    Hopefully nobody opposes them, and maybe what the Planning Commission has put forward really does represent the will of many. As far as the “make believe demons” and brainwashing bit, did you not read HELP’s recent Op-Ed in the Times Standard? HELP has been represented at most of the GPU meetings and have had their input incorporated in many places. How is it productive in the least to accuse the Planning Commission of engaging in brainwashing techniques? Wouldn’t it be better just to look at what is actually proposed rather than engage in a full-on assault on the entire GPU by shouting conspiracy theories?

  150. Eric Kirk
    June 12, 2012 at 9:35 am

    The GPU now says that people can build on TPZ because so many screamed bloody murder until it was changed.

    But one of the planks of the property rights slate this last election was that there hasn’t been public input. Strange.

  151. Eric Kirk
    June 12, 2012 at 9:37 am

    And by the way, the Plan A proposal would not have removed any right to build a home on TPZ. It simply would have regulated construction which would have been contrary TPZ policy. Can’t have that.

  152. Anonymous
    June 12, 2012 at 11:00 am

    Does anyone have a link to Kay Backer’s paranoid rant in the TS 6/10? It seems to have gone missing.

  153. Thirdeye
    June 12, 2012 at 12:08 pm

    There’s a big difference between having x number of public meetings and having public input in compliance with the Framework Plan. Had there been input from the public and local governing bodies in compliance in the first place, the mess surrounding the Housing Element could have been avoided. The challenge facing the BOS now is deciding how much of the existing process can be Mickey Moused into compliance. That’s the mess that arises from a planning process driven by a wish list, with other considerations as an afterthought.

  154. June 12, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    The meeting is happening now. Karen Brooks is echoing Kay Backer’s conspiracy theory.

  155. Eric Kirk
    June 12, 2012 at 12:21 pm

    Had there been input from the public and local governing bodies in compliance in the first place, the mess surrounding the Housing Element could have been avoided.

    How so?

  156. just middle class
    June 12, 2012 at 12:30 pm

    The basic and fundamental problem with the HE is that the land inventory, the foundation of the plan, was seriously flawed, that is the inventory was grossly overstated. Simply using the GIS to come up with initial numbers without respect to service requirements enabled the County to claim significantly more parcels than could be justified by HCD. So at the last minute they attempted to rezone many parcels to meet the required number and esentially failed at that. Public input for YEARS told of this problem and was ignored.

  157. Joseph Goebbels
    June 12, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    JMC: “If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.”

  158. Anonymous
    June 12, 2012 at 12:41 pm

    The problem with public input is everyone has an opinion and they can’t possibly do what everyone wants. Those whose ideas aren’t incorporated say they had no input or the UN made them ignore the input. While it’s entirely possible to fool all of the people some of the time, it’s impossible to please all of the people ever.

  159. Thirdeye
    June 12, 2012 at 12:42 pm

    For starters, more realistic numbers could have arisen from valid consideration of local infrastructure impacts, which was the concern of local municipalities with the existing process. There was simply no fact-based estimate of numbers of buildable lots. The wish list came first, and the estimates were forced to fit the wish list.

  160. June 12, 2012 at 12:47 pm

    Strong support for moving the GPU process forward during public comment at today’s Board of Supervisors meeting.

  161. just middle class
    June 12, 2012 at 12:48 pm

    Well JB, you do not have to believe me, just check the letter from HCD, but please do not let information get in the way of your opinion.

  162. just middle class
    June 12, 2012 at 12:50 pm

    Well, H, I am sure the troops were out.

  163. June 12, 2012 at 12:57 pm

    Oh yes, it’s an ARMY.

    Meanwhile, the HumCPR/HELP/Realtors who storm nearly every meeting on the GPU are more akin to terrorized girl scouts.

  164. June 12, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    Virginia Bass has used the term “aggressive schedule” about 20 times so far.

  165. Anonymous
    June 12, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    Look out for hand of U.N. in county planning process
    Kay Backer/For the Times-Standard
    Posted: 06/10/2012 02:19:07 AM PDT

    Would you believe it if someone told you the United Nations had a hand — a heavy hand — in drafting the County General Plan update and draft EIR? No? Don’t be too sure.

    Members of HELP (Humboldt Economic and Land Plan) have been saying for over eight years the General Plan rewrite reflects the wishes of only a few, not the majority of the citizens of our county.

    County planners would have us believe the General Plan vision for the next 20 years is based on input received from the public commencing year 2000. Not so.

    Ever heard of U.N. Agenda 21? It’s all about so-called smart growth, sustainable communities, and various other themes we find throughout the county’s draft General Plan. Don’t take our word for it. Read the book “Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21” by Rosa Koire. The author is a real estate appraiser for the California Department of Transportation. She says on page 34 of this 175-page easy read:
    ”Developed by the Rand Corporation as a Cold War mind control technique, (the Delphi technique) is used to channel a group of people to accept a point of view that is imposed on them while convincing them that it was their idea. In the 1970s and ’80s, it was used to convince land owners of the merits of accepting General Plan maps. … Trained facilitators present a range of choices to a group but have tailored them to direct the outcome. This is most often done in public meetings, called ‘visioning meetings,’ put on by your city or county to get your opinion on Your Town 2020 or 2035. Money for these programs often comes from federal agencies (members of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development) in the form of grants to your local government. The meetings are advertised as an opportunity for you to give your input to an exciting new plan for the redesign of your city center for the future. You’ll usually see it as a specific plan for a redevelopment project or a regional transportation plan that involves housing and land use restrictions. Delphi is used in … places where the organizers want to give the appearance that they have listened to community opinion and incorporated it into their plan. By the way, you’ll never hear the word ‘Delphi’ — they will never acknowledge that they’re doing it.

    “The key thing to know about this is that of course you have no input. Only comments and observations that support the pre-approved plan will be supported. All others will be written on a big pad of paper and discarded later. The illusion of public buy-in is all that is needed. The organizers can later point to the fact that they held a public meeting, a certain number of residents attended, public comment was taken, and the community approved the plan. The facilitator is often a private consultant who has been professionally trained in running and managing a meeting. This consultant has been hired by your city to fulfill the requirement that the project has been seen and supported by its citizens — it’s YOUR plan. If the project is a controversial one, the city may have put out the call for nonprofit groups, neighborhood associations, city boards and commissions, and city employees to send members to seed the audience and outnumber potential opponents. This is war. On those few occasions when the majority of the attendees object to the planned outcome, the facilitator will close the meeting and reschedule it for another time and place. You are experiencing the new consensus.”

    Sound familiar to anyone besides HELP? The fact is, the citizens of Humboldt have been “Delphied.” It’s immoral, fraudulent, and corrupt.

    There’s a lot at stake on Tuesday when the General Plan/Draft EIR come to the Board of Supervisors for review and comment. The General Plan has been written from a template provided by the World Order/Global Governance types at the United Nations in an attempt to dictate to us where and how we live.

    ”Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21” is the best single source of discovering and uncovering what has been going on for several years. The book can be downloaded on your computer or other electronic devices.

    Don’t hesitate to contact us at 707-834-8006 if we can provide you further information.

    Kay Backer represents HELP, a group of volunteers promoting “jobs, housing and property rights.”

  166. Anonymous
    June 12, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    Karen Brooks is happy to jump on the above crazy train.

  167. Anonymous
    June 12, 2012 at 2:51 pm


  168. Anonymous
    June 12, 2012 at 2:52 pm

    It smells a little like scorched John Birch to me. Must be the taint of ALEC.

  169. June 12, 2012 at 5:17 pm

    An 2:49
    Ignore the facts if you want. Attack me if you must. Put on your seatbelt, here goes……
    Around 2000 the County contracted with Dyett & Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners that specialize in Smart Growth, not rural-focused planners. As I read through the 2001 Critical Choices that Dyett & Bhatia “helped define” it is riddled with references to Smart Growth / Sustainable Development. I was at many of those early meetings, no one discussed smart growth they were just talking about what was important to their community.

    In 2000 The Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook was distributed to every planner, city and county in the country by the American Planning Association. APA was given a $1 million federal grant in 1993 to develop this guide book when President Clinton, by Executive Order, created the President’s Council for Sustainable Development.

    Keep following….the year prior, 1992, President Bush signed onto Sustainable Development, a political agenda originating from the United Nations. He was at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro when he pledged the United States’ support for Agenda 21. Next week the 20th anniversary is planned for Rio, its called Rio+20.

    Agenda 21 is being implemented as soft-law policy, it is “a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts (sic) on the environment.”

    There’s a non government organization working with the United Nations called the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, or ICLEI, which began in Canada in 1990. ICLEI promotes Local Action 21 and other United Nations programmes implemented through local towns councils, planners, mayors and local governments.

    ICLEI was instrumental in the development of Agenda 21, having drafted Chapter 28 in 1991 in preparation of
    the upcoming Earth Summit. Chapter 28 is called, “Local Authorities’ Initiatives in Support of Agenda 21,” to establish local economic, social and environmental policies and regulations and assist in the implementation of those policies.”

    In 2003 it changed its name to be more socially acceptable; it is now called ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability with an office in Oakland. The county signed on in 2007 but I don’t still think they are members but I believe the Energy Authority is.

    The Climate Action Plan, one of the appendices of the GPU, is an ICLEI document. Remember that Family Planning section that folks were upset about? It is on page 54 of that document. The version I got on Friday, from the planning dept., did not have this section striked-through.

    Our GPU is not as community-based, locally inspired as it could or should be. Why can’t we do our own planning? We have awesome planners locally. Why hire San Fransisco Urban Planners who have no idea makes Bayside, Freshwater, or Manila so special but want everything to be a cookie-cutter, looks like everywhere-elseville?

    It wasn’t until I started reading all the documents of the GPU that I realized something was up. I have been learning about Agenda 21 for years and Sonoma County has been swallowed up by it. I don’t want to see Humboldt Urbanized by Smart Growth, maybe others don’t either.

    Chapter 28 http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_28.shtml
    ICLEI handbook http://www.iclei.org/documents/USA/documents/CCP/Climate_Action_Handbook-0906.pdf
    DEIR docs http://co.humboldt.ca.us/gpu/eirappendices.aspx

  170. Donny
    June 13, 2012 at 7:46 am

    Hey Dude, what’s Karen talking about?

  171. Anonymous
    June 13, 2012 at 8:31 am


  172. Dan
    June 13, 2012 at 8:45 am

    Anonymous says:
    June 12, 2012 at 7:45 am
    Karen Brooks,
    I would agree with you on the importance of adopting a fair General Plan that protects health and safety (and even property rights). I would urge folks who are truly interested in furthering their education on the GPU to actually read what the Planning Commission has put forward: http://co.humboldt.ca.us/gpu/documentsplan.aspx

    Check-out Appendix E
    Coastal Plans. There is no there there.

    Humboldt County General Plan Planning Commission Approved Draft
    Appendix E Coastal Plans E-1
    March 19, 2012
    Appendix E Coastal Plans
    (Place holder for future completion)

  173. single pane windows
    June 13, 2012 at 9:20 am

    sustainable development sucks, theres no profit in it.

  174. Amy Breighton
    June 13, 2012 at 1:03 pm

    Half this nation is at risk of entering poverty, (2010 Census; “The Rich and The Rest of Us” by C. West and T. Smiley).

    In the coming years, (call it what you will…The New Depression or The New Gilded Age), how do you plan to convince over 150 million Americans to ignore a $2 trillion infrastructure backlog, and continue the failed mall/sprawl agenda in rural areas without starting the massive affordable housing projects desperately needed near services and transportation?

    Be my guest, tell them their tax dollars cannot be allowed to provide 2-bedroom SRO’s for $600/Mo. to get family’s back on their economic feet!

    Without the U.N. to point out the inherent injustice in “planning by the highest bidders” who will tell the people? Local media reports NOTHING! Until these folks decide to register to vote, at least the U.N. is there to point out the injustice.

  175. June 14, 2012 at 9:37 am

    Study the contrast between John Locke and Jean Jacque Rousseau models of governance. When individual rights are sovereign, when power is primarily in the hands of people to encourage risk-taking, when private property rights are protected and allowed to be leveraged, and when markets are as free as possible people can work their way out of poverty.

    This alone is what separates the US from the rest of the world because those points above don’t exist, or to a much lesser extent, in other countries. Having the ability to easily own property and use it is what generates wealth for all. This is why so many people want to come here. You can work hard and buy property that you can take a chance and create wealth.

    The reason so many people are in poverty is because our government has trapped them there, being on the dole. We need more local control to solve our problems. If you make bad choices (dropping out, drugs, crime, out-of-wedlock kids) you will more than likely be poor.

    Regarding the UN it is a global poverty pimp. Go to Haiti and see all the help they’ve done to the victims of the earthquake and the tent cities after billions of dollars that have poured into that country. It is individual people, like my brother, who are helping people use their land to farm, make things, etc. He is planting a plant to use as an alternative fuel so they can be self sufficient and stop de-forestation. All on his own dime.

    The UN exists to benefit the UN.

  176. Anonymous
    June 14, 2012 at 9:49 am

    Karen Brooks is just another right wing extremist spewing idiotic rhetoric. If the “dole” is the cause for poverty, why are there more people in poverty today than there were before “welfare reform” which essentially ended welfare? Where are the living wage jobs for the millions of poor? Ending the dole would end poverty, of course, with the poor dying in the streets. Is there a third world country the right wing wouldn’t love to emulate?

  177. Smart 5th Grader
    June 14, 2012 at 10:55 am

    Karen Brooks = Rush Limbaugh

  178. June 14, 2012 at 12:07 pm

    Ignore the facts if you want. Call me names if you must. I’m looking out for the rights of all people, including yours. I live my life to make the world a better place every day – reduce, reuse, recycle, refuse and renew without the need for government intervention. Karen Brooks = Our Rights.

  179. Anonymous
    June 14, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    Your “facts” aren’t. That’s the problem with you right wing extremists.

  180. Anonymous
    June 14, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    Your “facts” aren’t anything but extremist rhetoric. Letting people starve has nothing to do with rights.

  181. Just Middle Finance
    June 14, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    Get the government out of our way, we don’t need no stinkin minimum wage! Boot straps! We don’t need no environmental regulations stopping us from development. We need freedom to export jobs. We don’t need no stinkin Socialist Security, boots Straps! 401K! IRA, get with the 21st Century you whining Libtards!

  182. Amy Breighton
    June 14, 2012 at 12:38 pm

    Thank you for your candidness Karen. I’m so glad that your radical views did not resonate with voters.

    To be fair in desiring that average people own property, there must be a level playing field. Trillions in bailouts, zero-interest loans, trillions in decayed infrastructure, outsourcing to foreign slave-like labor where there’s no worker-safety or environmental regulations, and the ability to legally hide the profits overseas…. is institutionalized corruption harkening back to a barbarous past.

    Karen, blaming the victims of this corruption for their foreclosures, their homelessness, or their bankruptcy due to uninsured illnesses, et al, was more convincing before half the nation became at risk of poverty as a result of circumstances beyond their control.

    I was a teenager when I lost my parents, however, in the 1970’s my nation and community had job training and placement programs, lots of SRO housing, my public university and health care were 100% free. Youth’s hunger for emancipation is universal and cannot always be provided by loving parents, family, or friends.

    Indeed, there will always be those who do not take advantage of opportunities to prosper, they are always the minority wherever you look around the globe. Therefore, by pigeonholing the disadvantaged as lazy, drug-addicted, pregnant, criminal SOB’s to “justify” removal of programs that provide a fundamental hand up, you are, in fact, condemning an entire generation to ignorance, teen-pregnancy, poverty, drugs and crime….”throwing the baby out with the bathwater…”.


  183. Vegemite
    June 14, 2012 at 2:36 pm

    We love you Karen Brooks. Your model for individual home ownership without government oppression is right on. We need independence and liberty. Get used to the communists calling names and painting you red, if they had the power you would be in the gulag while they lived on your property.

  184. Dan
    June 14, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    “Karen Brooks is just another right wing extremist spewing idiotic
    rhetoric” Anon 9.49

    That is not my take. Karen has a libertarian streak that I find hard to understand but she also is good for her word, for instance
    in Manila a ‘restoration’ program got out of control, people worked
    where they should not have been, resulting in the loss of wetland function.
    Mark Lovelace (Mr. Environment) could not work-up the energy to even give a look whereas Karen actually checked the area and found that
    an investigation was needed.
    Mark was able to go door to door in Manila, for his own advancement, but could not find the time to see the product of his
    restoration policies. Due to Mark’s inattentiveness and lack of oversight we have lost a wetland.
    And we did that with wetland enhancement money.

  185. Anonymous
    June 14, 2012 at 5:32 pm

    Libertarians are more extremist than most Republicans, Dan.

  186. Dan
    June 14, 2012 at 5:52 pm

    5.32 I agree.
    I resonate not with their concepts.
    Still, Mark Lovelace (Mr. Environment) could not work-up the energy to even give a look whereas Karen actually did.

    You explain it.
    Who behaved as Limbaugh and
    who behaved as a scientist?

  187. Anonymous
    June 14, 2012 at 9:48 pm

    It’s always confounding how people will condemn government subsidies that keep the destitute healthy, sheltered, fed, educated, and employed, (as opposed to more costly prisons, rehab centers, and emergency rooms), while they themselves were beneficiaries of public educations and infrastructures grossly under-funded today.

    “I got mine, now everyone else must become Horacio Alger.”?

    No wonder there’s no buy-in….it’s irrational, hypocritical and patently unfair.

  188. High Finance
    June 15, 2012 at 7:16 am

    It’s always confounding how some people thinking they are helping the destitute by fostering more dependence on government instead of trying to force them to learn independence and self reliance.

  189. Just Middle Finance
    June 15, 2012 at 8:00 am

    Boot Straps!!! We don’t need no stinkin Socialist Security. Survival of the fittest.

  190. Olivia
    June 15, 2012 at 8:12 am

    One of the saddest things happening in this country these days is the lack of compassion towards people less well off. I don’t remember people openly being so contemptuous of the poor when I was growing up. It certainly wasn’t accepted to blatantly denigrate disadvantaged people politically. I was taught to contribute to those less fortunate.

    A woman interviewed on NPR during the previous election said “I make a lot of money and I don’t want to pay for someone else’s child’s lunch.” A very sad representation of what this country is becoming.

  191. Anonymous
    June 15, 2012 at 10:42 am

    “force them”?

  192. Anonymous
    June 15, 2012 at 11:23 am

    Karen Brooks writes (and I hope responds): “Having the ability to easily own property and use it is what generates wealth for all. This is why so many people want to come here. You can work hard and buy property that you can take a chance and create wealth.”

    …I’m having a hard time applying that to everything else you’ve written above. I agree with most of what you’ve written above, but talk is easy to apply to practice. It’s very easy to buy land in many other countries and far easier to exploit it as well. And it’s being exploited more and more every year.

    What I’m saying is, look at how the following statement you made most closely applies to what is literally being done most in this county (and country): “work hard and buy property that you can take a chance and create wealth” Two words: real estate. The close circle of friends that are real estate/corporate/construction are profiting on their ability to cram as many people into as little space as possible, as well as aquire land to further construct new “living units” into which more capital (people) will be introduced.

    Do you disagree, karen?

  193. Amy Breighton
    June 15, 2012 at 11:29 am

    “It’s always confounding…(that we don’t) force (the destitute) to learn independence and self reliance.” (High-Liar).

    Corporate subsidies, bailouts, no-interest fed. loans, access to child-labor, access to nations without environmental or labor regulations, access to offshore tax havens to hide their loot despite international protection from the U.S. military and U.S. courts enforcing their contracts?

    Please High Liar, tell me again who the fattest welfare-dependent cheats in the U.S. are…I need a laugh.

  194. Agogymous
    June 15, 2012 at 11:44 am

    Let’s simply enforce the laws on the books right NOW. If you built illegally or without permits – too bad. The unholy alliance between illegal marijuana farmers and real estate speculators (won’t you come home, Bill Barnum?) has trashed Humboldt County. Let’s stop it from continuing, undo all the illegal deals and clean up the countryside. We can get the money from those who have profited so handily over the years…Barnum, McKee, Bareilles, et al.

  195. Anonymous
    June 15, 2012 at 12:36 pm

    Dan, Mark did spend many hours talking to more than a dozen dune and wetland experts and scientists and did tour the dunes (maybe not with you) all to address what you are obsessing about. They all agreed that you are way off base with your accusations and imaginary impacts. Karen, while going on and on about how there are too many environmental regulations out of one side of her mouth and asking for more environmental review for dune restoration out of the other is the height of hypocrisy.

  196. Thirdeye
    June 15, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    12:36 Maybe the subject of environmental regulations would be seen very differently if they were enforced more consistently and even-handedly. The problem is not that they exist. The problem is that they are often inconsistent and highly politicized. If someone unpopular wants to redevelop a long-neglected brownfield it can become a “coastal wetland” according to the politicians who sit on the Coastal Commission, despite the fact that there is no professionally qualified opinion that such is the case. But if some poorly considered restoration project causes damage, it gets a free pass because its good intentions give certain people a warm fuzzy feeling.

  197. Anonymous
    June 15, 2012 at 1:52 pm

    Thirdeye, you are a troll not worth correspondence.

  198. Anonymous
    June 15, 2012 at 1:58 pm

    my 152 should be in another thread. Don’t know how that happened. I type faster than the speed of time, that’s how.

  199. Anonymous
    June 15, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    …although upon further reading, I see thirdeye is trying to waste somebody else’s time in this thread as well.

  200. Dan
    June 15, 2012 at 2:53 pm

    Anon 12.36 says “Dan, Mark did spend many hours talking to more than a dozen dune and wetland experts, Dan”

    The only dune specialists up here are glorified weeders.
    I recently spoke with same, these guys not only do not know wetlands, they have not heard of Cowardin, they do not know
    that FEMA/NOAA rejects flat-out removing ANY vegetation off of any coastal dune.
    You and yours are 30 years behind in coastal science,
    and it shows. You have a lot to answer for:
    Gone are the fox, rabbit. vole, mole, snake, plover, snail, frog,
    raptors, night herons, the contorta, huckleberry, bear berry,
    ferns, willows, alder………..

    How sad, so busy trying to micro-manage Layia and Plovers
    That the system was overlooked and crashed and
    either you don’t know it or you won’t admit it.
    You are a fraud.
    Study NOAA, study what was learned from Katrina and Fukushima-
    Our plants and animals will flourish and our geology will stabilize,
    otherwise it is simply forest to desert.

  201. Dan
    June 15, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    Thirdeye at 1.19 hit it on the head.
    Humboldt will find their lack of consistency
    is legally indefensible.
    American Society of Flood Plain Managers (ASFPM)
    spells out clearly just what to expect when science becomes politics.
    Lovelace should sure as hell know better.

  202. Anonymous
    June 15, 2012 at 3:38 pm

    you statement isn’t entirely true, dan;

    Gone are the fox, rabbit. vole, mole, snake, plover, snail, frog,
    raptors, night herons, the contorta, huckleberry, bear berry,
    ferns, willows, alder………..

    That has a lot to do with human population increase. Human presence has increased dramatically over the past ten years, as has continued development within a mile of the coast. If their remaining habitat is being guttet, it doesn’t help that the entire surrounding area, including an ever expanding border of newly opened subdivisions, continues to further constrict their comfort zones. They rely on eachother, humans keep pushing them all out of the way. Humans in our area are becoming even more dependent on imported resources, thanks to the increased construction of such resource centers.

  203. Asshole
    June 15, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    Then quit fucking

  204. Anonymous
    June 15, 2012 at 4:15 pm

    Yes Dan, you are the big wetland expert. No one compares. All the other wetlands professionals are just idiots compared to you. If only they could just see what Dan sees, understand regulations the way Dan understand regulations.

  205. Dan
    June 15, 2012 at 5:06 pm

    Anon 4.15 give me the name of ONE
    “wetland professional” that will defend the condition
    of the wetlands west of the Manila Community Center.
    Specifically “The Bowl.”

    How about the destabilization of the primary dunes,
    do you understand how fricken backwards that is?
    Hint; relative sea-level rise.

    Just one. You can’t. Why? Because those wetlands
    no longer function and any “wetland professional”
    will tell you that those wetlands are nothing more than a crime scene at this point.
    Now. tell us why your nose is so far up these phony restorationists
    rear end.

  206. Thirdeye
    June 15, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    3:04 Lovelace doesn’t know better because he built his political career on masquerading politics as science.

    3:38 You’d be hard pressed to make the case that encroaching development is the key issue affecting the loss of coastal wetland function due to dune destabilization in the Manila Dunes situation.

    3:49 Then use contraception.

    5:15 There are a lot of self-credentialed “restorationists” that in reality know very little of the science underlying the environments they are tinkering around in. A smattering of knowledge in botany and environmental biology does not an expert make. But if they can get some feel-good NGO behind them and get grants, they can sure create the illusion of being experts. That is, until their projects go awry. And that happens quite often.

  207. Anonymous
    June 15, 2012 at 10:55 pm

    Now Thirdeye is an expert in dune and wetland ecology like Dan. Funny how the people that bulldozed and dammed the environment seem to know so much more than those working to restore it. They know so much more than all those so-called “experts” with all those “degrees” and stuff. Dan, do you really think some grass on sand is going to slow down the effect of sea level rise? You are an expert in geology and hydrology now too?

  208. Thirdeye
    June 15, 2012 at 11:46 pm

    Those clowns mucking around in the Manila dunes are amateurs and their results show it.

  209. Anonymous
    June 15, 2012 at 11:56 pm

    Thirdeye the expert, out to save the planet.

  210. Thirdeye
    June 16, 2012 at 12:20 am

    Is that hissy fit all you’ve got?

  211. Dan
    June 16, 2012 at 7:12 am

    Anon 4.15 give us the name of ONE
    “wetland professional” that will defend the condition
    of the wetlands west of the Manila Community Center.
    Specifically “The Bowl.”
    Just one. You can’t. Why? Because those wetlands
    no longer function and any “wetland professional”
    will tell you that those wetlands are nothing more than a crime scene at this point.

  212. Dan
    June 16, 2012 at 8:11 am

    Cowardin Wetland says:
    September 30, 2011 at 8:10 am
    This is a County symptom. Millions in WETLAND money has been spent in this area to acquire, care and enhance WETLANDS. These monies came with an ‘wetland education’ component. Humboldt County used these monies to remove vegetation, calling it wetland restoration. Not teaching children what a wetland is or how to care for wetlands, instead took every 3rd grader in Humboldt , taught them to pull ammophila, and voila- our coastline is destabilized! Who’d have guessed that removing vegetation from sand dunes would drain our coastal wetlands? FEMA/NOAA requires qualified coastal engineering BEFORE removing vegetation from V or AO-Zones. Humboldt has not even mapped their coastal zone for Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The results are disastrous. It looks as though we left our coastal wetland work to grade schools and convicts, as we did.
    Journalists bear a good portion of blame hear, or should I say , lack of journalism, don’t worry though, there is enough damage and blame to go around.
    Nice Clubhouse!

  213. Anonymous
    June 16, 2012 at 8:45 am

    I think it is pretty obvious who is having a hissy fit here.

  214. Amy Breighton
    June 17, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    “Let’s simply enforce the laws on the books right NOW. If you built illegally or without permits – too bad.”

    I have to agree with this post.

    If we had legitimate supervisors, (elected by more than 12% of eligible voters), maybe they’d be more interested in future generations than their propertied campaign donors.

    Indeed, everyone should be outraged at the infrastructure/environmental costs of lawless developments routinely ignored in rural Humboldt.

    Our supervisors could easily learn from the experience of the 5-county HQ of the 2010 U.S. Census in Eureka by immediately empowering a volunteer commission utilizing Google-Earth to scour the hills for unrecorded structures to be investigated by authorities.

    The Census found it was a daunting task, impossible to complete within their brief tenure.

    It’s well-within the county’s authority, ability, budget, and responsibility.

  215. June 17, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    Rural clearance, go go go! Good luck, Amy.

    I’m a little puzzled how the last equally illegitimate majority of 12 percenters got to lay down the law, your law, but this one can’t. But I won’t sprain my brain trying to make sense here.

  216. Dan
    June 17, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    Longwind, try to understand the reasoning of former
    5th District Supervisor Hedlund, about as clear as it gets.
    From NCJ.

    Titlow: Geology and Rules

    (March 4, 2010) Editor:

    The geology of Titlow Hill — lots of unstable sections — makes much of it unsuitable for roads and buildings (see “Titlow Hill Blues,” Feb. 18). As Fifth District Supervisor at the time, I voted for a pattern of development which I was advised would not burden the rest of the taxpayers with the costs of eventual building or road failures. There were findings made that explained the decisions.

    Resource contracts under the TPZ and Williamson Acts were intended to provide economic incentives for wise management and continued range and timber production. Generous provision was made for focused development on more appropriate and stable sites, actually bending the resource protection guidelines in favor of what is now called planned unit development, with a density bonus.

    The Bareilles and the Barnes hoped to make a profit by changing how the land was historically used. They were asking government to change zoning for their special interest, but it was my job to consider longterm effects on the entire community, costs and benefits to everyone.

    I respect Ken Bareilles. He is a good person, and so is his wife Linda, so I personally wonder at what is accomplished by the prosecution of felony conviction against him. Punitive measures don’t make things better. The county and Bareilles even now can cure this with good faith negotiation and commitment.

    An underlying problem for all of us is that if people pay for land based on what they hope it is worth, rather than what its present zoned use and economic value are, then they will seek a way to pay for it by changing use.

    Buy at actual value. And present use.

    Eric Hedlund, Eureka

  217. Anonymous
    June 17, 2012 at 5:22 pm

    There should be major incentives for vacant land owners who do not develop. It does everybody a favor when open space remains open. There should be further incentive for rejuvinating open space. For example sensible reforestation of damaged or baren areas, contributions to watersheds, etc. If the area is more urban, for example acrage of vacant infrastructure, incentive could exist to both restore the land to natural earth or downgrade the infrastructure (two story building becomes one story, added field of native shrubs, etc.). The incentives for maintaining or rejuvinating vacant land should outweigh profits from permanently introducing more infrastructure over the natural space instead. There’s plenty of infrastructure to work with.

  218. Just Middle Class
    June 17, 2012 at 9:08 pm

    Anonymous, what planet do you come from?

  219. Anonymous
    June 17, 2012 at 11:52 pm

    Just Middle Class, what are you doing to the planet you come from?

  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