Home > Uncategorized > GPU Dead?

GPU Dead?

The Humboldt Sentinel reports on a very contentious special meeting of the Board of Supervisors, and it looks like the new conservative majority is ready to scrap the whole plan and start over. So far no coverage from the TS or any of the other media blogs.

Addendum:  Coverage from the NCJ.

Jen Kalt interviewed on the subject.

And coverage at the Times Standard – finally!

Second addendum:  Hank comments on the majority’s concern that the document is too big and hard to understand.

  1. Anonymous
    September 11, 2012 at 10:04 am

    Basic modern government duties seem to be “to complicated” for the new cadre of supervisors. Maybe there should be a remedial reading and math test before they apply for the job.

  2. Anonymous
    September 11, 2012 at 10:07 am

    “to” should be “too”. Maybe I need a spelling test before posting.

  3. Anonymous
    September 11, 2012 at 10:34 am

    It didn’t occur to Rex to study up on this, the biggest issue that he’d face as a Supervisor, during his campaign for the office?
    Ryan showed his true colors when he appointed Hooven to McK board. This is just one more example of how closely he’s “married” the developers.

  4. Plain Jane
    September 11, 2012 at 10:34 am

    I’m absolutely SHOCKED!

  5. Alittlemouse
    September 11, 2012 at 10:55 am

    General plan is required to be updated by state law every ten years if I recall correctly? And again if I recal correctly it has been since 85? This leaves county wide open to litigation? If it is scrapped it may be time for one of our many NGOs to come it and use the only self governing mechanism we have left when the big money right tries to take over the people. Unfortunately this is the direction we have gone, and seeing the county is the only way this will be stopped and these so called councils members will be put in check.

  6. Alittlemouse
    September 11, 2012 at 10:57 am

    “come in”. And “sueing” the county sorry cant type today….

  7. HUUFC
    September 11, 2012 at 10:59 am

    10 years of taxpayer money spent on a general plan. That’s 10 years of wasted money. How long can our society continue to squander money like this at the local,state and the federal level. Our way of life is threatned.

  8. Anonymous
    September 11, 2012 at 11:27 am

    it is not only ten years money but in productivity that is lost/ this has been a circle j#%k from the get go/ it’s great to see an honest look at this mess/#1. is : protecting water&private property rights,(they are equal),/the planning staff has caused most of the rural water problems not related to pot/ they have forced rural folks into untenable situations/ turned their back on class K/ all in all a great question asked at the GUP meet

  9. Anonymous
    September 11, 2012 at 11:46 am

    No surprise at all.

  10. not a fan
    September 11, 2012 at 11:51 am

    Kirk walked away from this mess, which he caused. Bonnie, Jimmy, John where all part of it. Mark continued it, Cliff is in a fog. Planners are complete fools. Most of you on here don’t have a clue. The threat to a way of life is from the stupid left wingers who invaded Humboldt county with their vision of the workers paradise. The people have voted in new council members because they realized all the crap that has been going on. Hold on to your hats. The county is already in at least 2 lawsuits over this GP.
    Basic government duties, you are indeed dumb as a rock. What we are going to get is an honest, realist look at the mess. Mark is pissed cause he had moved on to being pot king-kong and this came back to bite him. Today tragic day for US, yesterday was a great day in Humboldt.

  11. Anonymous
    September 11, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    not a fan, another stooge. how much tax $$$ are these land speculators wasting? as much as they spent electing these fools?

  12. not hu man
    September 11, 2012 at 12:15 pm

    Bonnie, Jimmy, John, Kurt, Mark, Cliff and all planers be stoopid Libtards. Bone and Bonino be kickin ass and the Commie Dope Lords be hatin this. Bone will make sure the america dream will be available to every American who wants to live hear and the green socialist want to keep the land for dope growing.

  13. Casey Jones (the Grateful Dead version)
    September 11, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    Not A Fan:

    I was born and raised here and from my view point what you are saying is nonsense. As far as I am concerned, Arkley and friends bought themselves a county and this little maneuver is only the beginning.

    This only shows that the minions of the very rich few are willing to look like fools while doing their bidding.

  14. just middle class
    September 11, 2012 at 12:26 pm

    We have elections so that new representatives can formulate new policy and are not obligated to decisions that were made over a decade ago. Rex and Ryan are smart to realize that this huge document is not going to be adopted in the near future and that they have a responsibility to adjust to the reality of our current situation.
    Rex got 63% of the vote to do what is is now doing, listen to the people and not the activists on the blogs.

  15. just middle class
    September 11, 2012 at 12:27 pm

    The argument made by some here would be like staying in Iraq because we had spent trillions of dollars there and why waste the money.

  16. Just Middle Finance
    September 11, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    We dragged our feet long enough to get our guys in, get over it. We got the cash, we got the property, we own the businesses, and we own the politicians. Ka-Ching! Gonna make some money baby!!!

  17. just middle class
    September 11, 2012 at 12:36 pm

    So the object of the Plan was to not allow people to make money? Sounds stupid to me.

  18. Anonymous
    September 11, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    “Rex got 63% of the vote to do what is is now doing, listen to the people and not the activists on the blogs.”

    The majority of potential voters don’t participate and Bohn’s 3,880 votes is not a mandate.

    If local citizens knew that $100+, (including the phoney fliers), was spent on each of Bohn’s votes, they would understand how corrupt their community is.

    Developer’s biggest worry is a serious voter-registration canvas in Eureka. Otherwise, they would have been the first to organize it long ago!

  19. Just Middle Finance
    September 11, 2012 at 12:50 pm

    We are gonna make a ton of cash! Get ready to have as many shopping opportunities as Santa Rosa. More homes, more malls, more big boxes, & more people living the American dream right here on the Northcoast, and, of course, the developers will go from millionaires to billionaires. Ka-Ching! Get over it Libtards! The era of Bohn is here till we’ve carpeted these dope growin hills with American Dream houses.

  20. September 11, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    HUUFC :
    10 years of taxpayer money spent on a general plan. That’s 10 years of wasted money. How long can our society continue to squander money like this at the local,state and the federal level. Our way of life is threatned.

    Someone keeps voting for these people. Maybe you should be talking to the voters.

  21. just middle class
    September 11, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    This whole those who did not vote thing is stupid. If they did not vote, then how do you know what they want? We listen to those who vote and Rex got 63% of them, so he has a mandate.
    This almost done thing is also faulse, they are only reviewing the so called “critical issues”. They have the responsibility to look at the whole plan not just a few parts and pass it without any review by the Board.

  22. Just Middle Finance
    September 11, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    We got a mandate and we got a date with profits galore, Ka-Ching!!!

  23. Anonymous
    September 11, 2012 at 1:03 pm

    So Mark Lovelace got over 70% of the vote. I guess his “mandate” is bigger than Rex’s?

  24. G. Gilbert Yule
    September 11, 2012 at 1:08 pm

    I weep for Humboldt.

  25. September 11, 2012 at 1:15 pm

    People that DO NOT vote don’t want any of the above NOR do they want to be responsible for what these crooks do.

  26. Anonymous
    September 11, 2012 at 1:54 pm

    “The majority of potential voters don’t participate and Bohn’s 3,880 votes is not a mandate”

    Unlike some parts of this country, Humboldt’s voting laws don’t have any significant impediments that actively prevent people from registering to vote or from actually voting.

    So, when a candidate wins the votes of 63% of those who DID bother to register, and DID bother to come out and vote, then yes, they have a mandate from the voters. They don’t have a mandate from the non-voters, but then nobody ever does.

    That being said, I do think that a major voter registration drive should be a high priority – door-to-door canvassing, mailers, tabling at grocery stores, events, a media campaign, and so on. We can’t force people to register or to vote, but we should always be actively offering it to people.

    In addition to those who have never voted, or haven’t voted in many years, and those who are new to Humboldt County, there are even more folks out there who have just missed an election or two, or moved to a new address in a different precinct, and are no longer registered.

  27. anonymous
    September 11, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    Time to move to Del Norte? There is no law north of the Klamath.

  28. September 11, 2012 at 2:56 pm

    Quoting: “They don’t have a mandate from the non-voters, but then nobody ever does.”

    Oh! but they do. Non-voters determine the LEGITIMACY of the elected when they are the majority when the only vote you can cast is for criminal, bought whores. Everyone that begs for money to get elected is bought.

  29. tra
    September 11, 2012 at 3:22 pm
  30. Anonymous
    September 11, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    OMFG! Most of these post are stupid at best. I’m a hill person, not a supporter of Arkley. Not a hater either. No longer a blind follower of EPIC or HWSC. Not a hater either. And not a grower. This process was an assult on me, my neighbors, this county and the system that has failed us the last 10 plus years. Talk about waisted money! Everyone at the planning dept who told us we had to wait for the GPU before we could do anything got paid to screw us all. We need an honest , and fair look at our projects by honest and fair planners. Grey water system, composting toilets and allowing water storage tanks without taxing us into poverty would be a freeking start. I know it’s not sexing or the PC flavor of the month but “good God” some reality here!

  31. Define Stooge
    September 11, 2012 at 3:41 pm

    From the TS:

    Bohn said he’s worried the county might not be able to implement the current general plan update in the long run. ”We need to make sure we don’t out price ourselves on affordable housing by creating such a bureaucracy,” Bohn said. While he said starting over isn’t necessarily the direction he’s moving toward, he said the county needs to ultimately have a good, workable plan that everyone can understand.

    ”We want to make sure we’re putting the proper time into the proper document,” Bohn said.

  32. Legacy of Kirk Girard
    September 11, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  33. tra
    September 11, 2012 at 5:02 pm

    Eric,

    The Humboldt Sentinel may have been the first to report this story, but the Lost Coast Outpost has scooped the competition by getting their hands on a new, simplified draft of the GPU that will be presented soon to the Supervisors and the public soon:

    LAND USE ELEMENT:

    I. Y’all know the Helmersen place down in the Shively flats? You can build something there if you want to.

    A. Now, but since ol’ Widow Helmersen still lives in the cabin one parcel over and she’s been having a flare-up of the gout, you cain’t build nothing between the hours of six p.m. and eight a.m. or else we’re gonna have to put you under arrest as a lawbreaker…

    Full details here:

    http://lostcoastoutpost.com/simplified-gpu-draft/

  34. Anonymous
    September 11, 2012 at 5:35 pm

    Speaking of gout, that’s what we think of Jen Kalt down here in the hills. She was the nail in the coffin for us. What a phony-balogna. She found a home withe the miller hwsc crew and then baykeeper. State parks, fish&game,BLM, national forests,et al the gov agencies will not hire her anymore. Now that is a true inditment of her off the wall positions. Sue,sue,sue groups is where she lives. We hill folks saw the light and her lies. A pox on her and her ilk. Now lets do a good community job of letting our people,plants and animals live. Jen should get some OCD counseling.

  35. Anonymous
    September 11, 2012 at 6:10 pm

    All three were registered Republicans within one year of running for office. Nuff said.

  36. Lodgepole
    September 11, 2012 at 6:32 pm

    And the dominoes from the TPZ building moratorium continue to fall.

  37. Eric Kirk
    September 11, 2012 at 6:35 pm

    Lodgepole :

    And the dominoes from the TPZ building moratorium continue to fall.

    Call it “Hurwitz’ Revenge.”

  38. September 11, 2012 at 7:26 pm
  39. Ponder z
    September 11, 2012 at 7:35 pm

    I’m absolutely SHOCKED!
    You are using your vibrator in the hot tub!

  40. Anonymous
    September 11, 2012 at 8:27 pm

    humboldturtle :
    I blame these people:
    http://www.rexbohnforsupervisor.com/endorsers.php

    Call it credit, then.

  41. Anonymous
    September 11, 2012 at 9:18 pm

    If anyone would read the GPU, or follow the process, they would see that all the TPZ stuff was worked out by the working lands committee. Some people still want to fight even though they got everything they wanted. What a waste.

  42. Coniferous Jones
    September 11, 2012 at 9:41 pm

    Can someone give me a rationale for giving a tax break to property owners for owning land zoned tpz, but who subdivide and develop the properties for residential purposes?

  43. Anonymous
    September 11, 2012 at 9:53 pm

    strawman issue and stupid attempt, this is why the staff/healthy humboldt/faust GPU is so flawed/

  44. Coniferous Jones
    September 11, 2012 at 10:11 pm

    Ok, how about this. Why do we give a tax break for tpz zoned lands that are subdivided and used to grow pot in ways that degrade our environment?

    Please, I just want to understand, what do I get out of it for my loss in taxes? Why am I suffering a shitty government to get………………what?

  45. Anonymous
    September 11, 2012 at 10:24 pm

    The Bohn, Bass, and Fennell campaigns ran against the “dreadful” long time their predecessors were taking on the GP….and now that they have their majority, one of their early actions will be a major rework of the GP??

    Suckers!!

  46. September 11, 2012 at 10:27 pm

    Con, what you’re getting is intact forest. For as long as it isn’t cut. When it’s cut, the dope growers, timber growers or rural residents pay the full back-tax on the deferred value. If they never cut it, you get cheaply subsidized late seral reserve forest, just what Jen would rather have than people. God I’m sick of this.

  47. Anonymous
    September 11, 2012 at 10:41 pm

    And if someone builds a home on a TPZ parcel, the home and homesite and any outbuildings and other improvements are taxed the same as they would be if they were on a residential parcel. It’s amazing how many Plan A True Believers still don’t know that. They actually believe the TPZ owner gets to have a tax-free house. Some of them even seem to believe that TPZ parcels can be subdivided down into residential lots, while still maintaining their TPZ status. If ignorance is bliss, these people are living in Nirvana

  48. Chuck Hurwitz
    September 12, 2012 at 5:36 am

    Dude, it’s not your country/county/city anymore. . .it’s OURS. Get over it.

  49. just middle class
    September 12, 2012 at 7:46 am

    I find it incredible that this blog is debating State law and not language that is in the proposed plan. All of the TPZ stuff is State law and can not be changed by the General Plan.
    Before TPZ was established, timberland owners were taxed on the value of their standing timber each year as a part of their property taxes. Because of this, landowners logged early to save taxes rather than manage the land for what was best for the forest. With TPZ you pay taxes when you log.

  50. Anonymous
    September 12, 2012 at 8:09 am

    If we are very lucky the staff/ lovelace/kalt/faust/healthy humboldt kabal and all the damage they have put into this GPU will be filtered and a real update will emerge like a phoenix from the fire. Property rights, habitat protection,public safety.

  51. Anonymous
    September 12, 2012 at 8:43 am

    Anonymous :
    If we are very lucky the staff/ lovelace/kalt/faust/healthy humboldt kabal and all the damage they have put into this GPU will be filtered and a real update will emerge like a phoenix from the fire. Property rights, habitat protection,public safety.

    Could you be a little more specific? What policy do you have an issue with?

  52. Eric Kirk
    September 12, 2012 at 9:40 am

    I got a call from Mark Lovelace who wants to assure us that the General Plan Update itself cannot as a matter of law be “dead.” A GPU which complies with state law must be accomplished. The only question is whether 12 years of work gets tossed and they have to start over.

    I figured that was implicit if not explicit in all the articles to which I linked, but he wanted to clarify.

  53. Eric Kirk
    September 12, 2012 at 9:41 am

    Anonymous :

    Anonymous :
    If we are very lucky the staff/ lovelace/kalt/faust/healthy humboldt kabal and all the damage they have put into this GPU will be filtered and a real update will emerge like a phoenix from the fire. Property rights, habitat protection,public safety.

    Could you be a little more specific? What policy do you have an issue with?

    Oh, don’t expect that after four years of kvetching. It’s all about the process, right?

  54. September 12, 2012 at 10:26 am

    Eric Kirk :
    I got a call from Mark Lovelace who wants to assure us that the General Plan Update itself cannot as a matter of law be “dead.” A GPU which complies with state law must be accomplished. The only question is whether 12 years of work gets tossed and they have to start over.
    I figured that was implicit if not explicit in all the articles to which I linked, but he wanted to clarify.

    That’s not the question at all. No one but Mark and Clif has said it’s all or nothing–and that’s just their usual gasbagging. The devil’s in the details. I would guess, going by what was said on Monday, that the existing framework plan can receive whatever details are required by law and common sense. This saves the bathwater, and helps the baby. We could call the process an ‘Update.’

  55. Just Middle Finance
    September 12, 2012 at 10:41 am

    None of this matters. When we get done carpeting these hills with houses, you’ll fondly reminisce on the days you fought Rob on Home Depot. Rob lost the battle but he’ll win the war. We will win and we will get richer while winning, sorry about your luck Libtards.

  56. September 12, 2012 at 10:55 am

    Coniferous Jones :
    Can someone give me a rationale for giving a tax break to property owners for owning land zoned tpz, but who subdivide and develop the properties for residential purposes?

    Sure. If you develop a TPZ property, which has a 160 acre minimum, the developed foot print is generally 3 acres or less. The developed portion is re-assessed, and your tax bill will reflect the new portion for what ever use. If its a house, you will be taxed just like all other houses. The remaining 157 acres of land, will continue to be taxed at the TPZ rate – until the resource is utilized, at which point a timber yield tax is paid.

    Prior to 1977, each county in California assessed all nonexempt standing timber for ad valorem taxation. Since the value of timber was added to the value of land and then taxed annually, property owners had an incentive to harvest trees to reduce their property taxes, thereby threatening to erode the timber base of California. Each forested county had to maintain a staff who established the values of standing timber. Owners of large timber properties were displeased with the variation in appraisal values that often occurred between counties and with the need to discuss values with county assessors in multiple counties. These owners strongly supported the centralized appraisal and determination of taxable value for timber.

    The Z’berg-Warren-Keene-Collier Forest Taxation Reform Act of 1976 dramatically changed the method of taxing timber in California. The Act encouraged the protection of immature trees and the continued use of timberlands for the production of trees for timber products, and provided restrictions on the use of timberland to the production of timber products and compatible uses. The Act, codified as the Timber Yield Tax Law, replaced the ad valorem tax on standing timber with a yield tax on felled timber. The resulting timber yield tax is imposed on every timber owner who harvests timber or causes it to be harvested.

    Many people contend that building a house or a greenhouse on a TPZ parcel somehow means that the properties resource values, or intent of resource production is somehow forever removed. My conversations with County Planning, including Kirt G, confirm this view – one that is based on judgement of people not actual degradation of resource potential. They state that harvesting declines in recent decades means people have less intent to log trees. They ignore the fact that many of these properties have young timber that is not going to be harvested for decades to come anyways. Assuming the development does not eliminate the ability (some day) to harvest the trees, there is no way anyone can say that anyone persons current intent for ‘their’ land permanently changes the manageability of it. The land is only someones for a finite amount of time. Trees live much longer than people, and that is why we changed the tax code to favor the long term conservation of intact TPZ lands.

    If it was back to the old tax policy, people would wax their timber as soon as they could. If entire TPZ parcels were taxed at the rate of residential use, we would see many many more subdivision applications, as people could not afford to pay that tax. Imagine paying your tax rate of your house, for 160 acres!

  57. tra
    September 12, 2012 at 11:09 am

    I don’t get what is so surprising about the majority of supervisors not wanting to just rubber-stamp the GPU document that has been provided to them. We’ve just had an election, there is one brand-new supervisor on the board, and will be another one in January.

    Here’s what Sundberg is actually asking for, according to today’s Times-Standard:

    “He’s proposing county staff create a worksheet that lists planning items from the 1984 framework plan in one box, the changes made to date in another box and a final box listing the reasons for the change.”

    And, again according to today’s Times Standard:

    “Bohn said he supports Sundberg’s idea of looking at the initial framework plan from 1984 and the present draft in order to do a comparison of the two. He said he wants to see what is federally and state mandated, and what extra items have been added to the plan.”

    So, why wouldn’t we want the staff to compile a clear side-to-side comparison between the existing General Plan and the current draft of the proposed new General Plan Update, along with the stated purpose for each change or new item, and whether each change or new item is mandated by federal or state law, or is at the discretion of the county? Seems like that would be very useful.

  58. Anonymous
    September 12, 2012 at 11:23 am

    tra = rightwinger. don’t be fooled.

  59. Eric Kirk
    September 12, 2012 at 11:24 am

    TRA is not a right winger.

    And if that’s all Sundberg wants, then I have no real objection. The comments attributed to the Supervisors on Monday suggest there’s a bit more to what they want.

  60. tra
    September 12, 2012 at 11:49 am

    Thanks, Eric.

    It looks to me like the request to compare the provisions of the existing General Plan to those in the proposed General Plan Update is being interpreted by some as the first step toward rejecting most of the latter in favor of the former. And maybe it is, I guess we’ll see. Could also be that they just want to be able to pick and choose, taking some of the provisions of the old plan and some from the proposed update.

    Lovelace seems to be taking the position that the Supervisors should only choose from among the options presented to them by the Planning Commission, and that any deviation from that approach would automatically amount to “throwing out 12 years of hard work and starting over.” But I was under the impression that the board was free to accept or reject or modify any of the recommendations from the Planning Commission. Was I wrong about that?

  61. not a fan
    September 12, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    Anyone who attended many of the meetings, weather planning, local input, or supervisor knows why he is asking for a comparison. Planning staff screwed this up totally. Ignored input from public over and over. Frankly both Mark and Cliff ( the follower ) had an agenda and went along with it. Jimmy did not fight, just went along. Galt is so bias and angry she is impossible to believe on anything. Anything she writes is tainted. The people voted what they wanted, which was a change.
    Funny part is to hear folks run their mouths about development. What 40-50 house in whole county completed every year for years. Arkley bought the county. Give it a break, is not and will not happen. Keep having to say same thing over and over. He has given more to community than he has taken out. Can any of you on this site say the same. Not hardly.

  62. moronics
    September 12, 2012 at 12:47 pm

    duff arf ugh duh Run Mouth, Arkley is Gawd, stoopid Libtardz

  63. Anonymous
    September 12, 2012 at 3:13 pm

    “If it was back to the old tax policy, people would wax their timber as soon as they could.”

    As if they aren’t now? As well as, extracting every drop of available water for every conceivable purpose?

    I’ve visited dozens of local rural residents for decades and I’ve witnessed first-hand the activities of their neighbors, friends, and their “rural lifestyle” my entire life.

    The recent NCJ article on impaired watersheds should have been a shocking wake-up call. They harvest anything they wish, whenever they wish, while county enforcement can’t even keep track of violations a few miles from their offices! It’s a “Wild-West” environment that makes every enforcement appear arbitrary and unfair.

    Every dollar that the usual gang of speculators spends to control local elections is returned 100-fold in continuing lax regulations, enforcement, and keeping county departments underfunded and in complete chaos.

    Yeah…let’s turn the clock back as much as possible and start over on the GP, $$$$!!

    Follow the money!

  64. TimH
    September 12, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    “Ryan showed his true colors when he appointed Hooven to McK board. This is just one more example of how closely he’s “married” the developers.”

    Hey! I’m not a developer.

  65. Anonymous
    September 12, 2012 at 3:44 pm

    Comparison? Anyone that has read the document knows that’s what it is. It is a side by side comparison of the options. Just look at the tables and you will see Option D (the current plan) right there, compared to the other options. The GPU may require you to work to understand if you are not experienced with policy or how it is developed, but is not confusing by any standard. Time for some people to learn how to read.

  66. tra
    September 12, 2012 at 5:41 pm

    3:44,

    Here is the draft GPU forwarded from the Planning Commission to the Supervisors:

    http://co.humboldt.ca.us/gpu/docs/approveddraft/full%20plan.pdf

    I don’t see where there is any side-by-side comparison with the existing General Plan, with notations showing which new provisions are required by federal or state law, and which are optional and at the discretion of the county.

  67. yeah, right
    September 12, 2012 at 5:42 pm

    Anonymous :
    And if someone builds a home on a TPZ parcel, the home and homesite and any outbuildings and other improvements are taxed the same as they would be if they were on a residential parcel. It’s amazing how many Plan A True Believers still don’t know that. They actually believe the TPZ owner gets to have a tax-free house. …

    They do. There are plenty of non-permitted houses on tpz and owners pay zip in taxes for the house. When the county finds the illegal house, you might think it means big trouble, back taxes due, etc. Nope. County makes a sweet deal, easing the lawbreakers into paying the full tax bill taxes over an extended period. A break is what they get. No fine, no back taxes.

    Sorry to pull you out of your fantasy world.

  68. Anonymous
    September 12, 2012 at 5:52 pm

    “County makes a sweet deal, easing the lawbreakers into paying the full tax bill taxes over an extended period. A break is what they get. No fine, no back taxes.”

    No back taxes, and reduced current taxes over an extended period? Who told you that? Either they were lying, or misinformed. .

  69. Coniferous Jones
    September 12, 2012 at 7:52 pm

    Bolithio, good recap. I had been under the impression that residential development on tpz land was supposed to be for management of those lands, ie, related to timber purposes and not for general residential use, is that incorrect? Do you have any experience in Oregon, of residential development on timber zoned lands?

  70. yeah, right
    September 12, 2012 at 8:06 pm

    “No back taxes, and reduced current taxes over an extended period? Who told you that? Either they were lying, or misinformed. .”

    Who told me that? The land/house owner/builder/occupant for the past 30+ years. They went decades paying only for the tpz land while they lived in the house. County visited them recently. No penalty. Taxes will increase slowly over years. That is what he said. Lying? Doubt it.

    Who told you about a different scene? Can you show where penalties and back taxes have been collected by the county in this kind of case? Be explicit.

  71. Anonymous
    September 12, 2012 at 8:28 pm

    8:06,

    I do know one guy who did not bring his house to the attention of the assessor when he first built it, and he was eventually contacted by the assessor several years later (they didn’t have Google Earth 30 years ago, but they do now). He has to pay his current taxes at the full rate, and to pay his back taxes in full, plus interest. Not sure about penalties beyond that. They did allow him to pay it off on a payment plan, over time. But I think you got your signals got crossed somewhere along the line. The county is not inclined to leave money on the table and does not want to incentive people to try to avoid taxes, so I doubt this is their current policy. You could call the tax collector’s office and ask, if you want. At any rate, even if there was a problem with inconsistent or lenient treatment by the county’s tax collection system, then *that* is what should be fixed. The TPZ system itself ain’t broke, so don’t “fix” it.

  72. steak n eggs
    September 12, 2012 at 9:20 pm

    8:06 is correct. The assessor is indeed taxing non-permitted residential structures on TPZ parcels. Coniferous Jones…try thinking less and reading more….Residents are a “compatible use” on TPZ.

  73. Anonymous
    September 12, 2012 at 9:32 pm

    steak & eggs,

    I think you’ve misread the claim made by “yeah, right” at 5:42 and 8:06. He seems to be claiming that if you’re caught not paying taxes on your house on TPZ land, you don’t have to pay any back taxes and you somehow get a special deal with reduced current taxes that are only gradually increased to the normal rate.

  74. September 12, 2012 at 9:34 pm

    Coniferous Jones :
    had been under the impression that residential development on tpz land was supposed to be for management of those lands, ie, related to timber purposes and not for general residential use, is that incorrect? Do you have any experience in Oregon, of residential development on timber zoned lands?

    That is correct, or at least the legislature found that a single residence on TPZ would not detract from the resource and would encourage management. All houses on TPZ are not necessary for management. But that wasn’t the intent, to allow it because it was necessary. If you live in the woods, you are going to clean out culverts in the winter, notice if forest pests become a problem, be aware of fire risk and so on. Many people in this area live on TPZ, or AG/WA timberland and manage their land. Management of TPZ is not limited to getting trees to the mill. If you decide to not log, you have made a management decision. Many people have chosen not to log, knowing that in doing so they increase their yield later or pass on a valuable asset to their children, who will be able to harvest more then. And likewise the state benefits by maintaining the forest qualities gained from idle timberland.

    It is the purpose of the timberland production zone district to encourage prudent and responsible forest resource management and the continued use of timberlands for the production of timber products and compatible uses.

    A rural residence is a compatible use.

    The only time I have seen rural TPZ problems is on sub-standard (less than 160) parcels where semi-urban infrastructure made operations very difficult. In my opinion the issue isn’t houses, its roads. The patent process over time has not transitioned well into modern mapping. If we want to preserve resource management on TPZ, the emphasis should be ensuring all TPZ parcels retain their easements for the purposes of logging as TPZ ownerships become more disaggregated.

    There are many people who do not like the idea of non-industrial tree farmers. From the 1%’s to Option A’s. They would prefer to see all the land owned by either big entities who are in the club, or by the government. The message “a house on a standard TPZ parcel is bad” is whats resonated but its bogus. Smaller ownerships allow others to play – as well as allow for a variety of management goals and techniques.

    Its also likely that the TPZ issue has nothing to do with logging and everything to do with weed. Like I said earlier, I know they [County Planning Management] already have an opinion about who is selling the land, who is buying it and what they are going to do with it.

  75. Coniferous Jones
    September 12, 2012 at 9:47 pm

    Sorry, steak n eggs, don’t think so. Maybe in Kirk Girards bizarro world of Humboldt County zoning, but not in a normal world. In fact, timber harvest on tpz is immune from challenge due to dust, noise, traffic, etc., all of the ‘logging stuff’ which might otherwise detract from residential use. In other words, tpz is the opposite of residential use. I suggest you go back and read the legislation, and the purposes for it.

    And, here’s the problem, that doggone capitalism creeps in, people can make money by stretching rules. So you end up with tpz subdividers, down to 40 acres based on patents, selling to pot growers who devastate the environment, essentially ‘droughting’ our streams, and/or building their mansions, and getting a tax break for it. Tell me, please, what public purpose is served? What is it that we the public get for giving that tax break?

    No, I’m not advocating for a return to ad valorum tax on timber. But that the benefit from the tax deferment for tpz accrue to all of us, not just profit the subdivider and the property owner. Make tpz, tpz.

  76. Coniferous Jones
    September 12, 2012 at 9:59 pm

    Bo, didn’t see your post before making mine, but sentiment is the same. We just don’t agree that residential use is compatible with tpz, either by legislative intent or in actuality. Nor that tax breaks are warranted for residential properties, patent parcels be damned.

  77. Anonymous
    September 12, 2012 at 10:20 pm

    CJ,

    The presence of a single home on a TPZ parcel does not prevent the trees from growing or from eventually being harvested. A single house on a TPZ parcel doesn’t magically make the whole thing a “residential property.” And as has been pointed out above, the house and homesite are taxed at the normal rate, so the owners don’t get any “tax breaks” on any residential property, they pay full taxes on their residence, homesite and any other outbuildings or other improvements. They just get their taxes deferred on the standing timber until after it is harvestesd, just as the TPZ program was designed to do. Unless your plan is to kick people off their land, what do you propose to do? Tax them the full residential tax rate on all 160 acres, even though 157 of those acres are timberland and only 3 acres are actually used as the residence/homesite? That would just be crazy.

  78. Anonymous
    September 12, 2012 at 11:24 pm

    Maintain a moratorium on all future developments until water capacity studies are completed.

    No one would have believed 20 to 30 years ago that the Mattole and many other local streams, tributaries and aquifers could be depleted so quickly…they didn’t believe it in SoCal 75 years ago either.

  79. 713
    September 13, 2012 at 6:18 am

    The developments sucking up all the water and creating significant environmental destruction are the illegal grows. Changing tpz rules will have no effect on pot production. Have you even seen the news? This county is spending millions on a general plan to fight a nonexistent problem – massive residential development – while ignoring the elephant in the room. You guys are worried about somebody putting a house up – where there will be engineering, inspections, mitigation measures, etc. and turn a blind eye to the person across the road who clears 5 acres, dams up a creek, builds a greenhouse and has added 20 trips a day down a dirt road all harvest season with no oversight or environmental review. At least he’s not building a house though, right?

  80. September 13, 2012 at 7:17 am

    Well said 713.

  81. September 13, 2012 at 7:23 am

    Coniferous Jones :
    We just don’t agree that residential use is compatible with tpz, either by legislative intent or in actuality. Nor that tax breaks are warranted for residential properties, patent parcels be damned.

    Nothing wrong with having different opinions. Can you help me understand your opinions more? How is a house incompatible with managing trees on 160 acre and larger parcels (legal TPZ parcels)?

    And if the house is taxed as residential, why do you not like the remaining acres taxed as TPZ? How else should they be assessed? – and what would be the impact of taxing the land that way?

  82. Anonymous
    September 13, 2012 at 8:01 am

    Not hu man, moronic both Richard the dick Salzman. Your so easy to spot. What a wimp.

  83. Anonymous
    September 13, 2012 at 8:22 am

    Folks, the TPZ is is over, period. Common sense and moderation has prevailed. We won. Continuing to argue over a done deal is a waste of time. It might be more worthwhile to consider and have a discussion on some of the issues that are yet to be resolved.

  84. Anonymous
    September 13, 2012 at 9:15 am

    So, looks like that guy holding the sign that said “the supes stole my college tuition” will get his spec house built and sold on tpz land after all, thanks to the supes. Maybe a couple houses!

    Folks, if the TPZ brouhaha a couple years ago was about growing trees, common sense and moderation would not have displayed that sign, which pretty much sums up the motivation. People are building and selling houses on TPZ land and want to keep doing it. Lots of it. Bye bye, timber production. Hello cheaters.

  85. September 13, 2012 at 9:49 am

    hank is not as funny as he thinks he is–it s not his job–the supes have the responsibility to
    the citizens of Humboldt County

  86. Eric Kirk
    September 13, 2012 at 10:06 am

    Folks, the TPZ is is over, period.

    Agreed, if the state doesn’t intervene to ensure that it’s not converted to simply rural residential with a tax deferment on the underlying land value, then they might as well toss the whole program. By doing so, at least they’ll be collecting the full property tax.

  87. Anonymous
    September 13, 2012 at 10:14 am

    Dream on.

  88. Coniferous Jones
    September 13, 2012 at 10:16 am

    Well, TPZ was applied to all parcels that met the definition, and its hard, costly, and takes a long time to get rezoned to something else. Nobody anticipated how profitable it would become to break these lands up into underlying patents. Residential use was allowed, with one per 40 acres, but was supposed to be related to management of the timberlands. So, it was assumed that tpz homesteaders would expect to be living with timber harvests, and to have an interest in logging or lands management for timber.

    The tpz tax break solved the ad valorem tax problem. But tpz lands also were not anticipated to cost much for county services. Denser development is the opposite of minimal county services, so, less tax revenue and more public cost is the result. Which means less county money to maintain my street, have a deputy on duty, etc.

    My other problem is with this absurd situation where there is residential development, no intent to harvest timber, and no way to get out of the tpz when it is no longer relevant. And the argument that the timber will be harvested sometime in the future becomes less persuasive as these lands become more populated and gentrified.

    Otherwise, 713 pretty much got it right.

  89. September 13, 2012 at 10:26 am

    Its 160 acre minimums Mr. Jones. Thats a maximum of 12 houses per square mile.

    If you are subdividing based on patents that are substandard, you first must meet the stringent requirements of the subdivision to allow for residence on TPZ, and have a JTMP to certify the land is capable of supplying resources over time, and that access is not restricted. If its UN-permited, there is 0 obligation on the part of county to provide any service.

    If you live on a 160 acre parcel, 9 out of 10 are managing it in some way. You cant log every year no matter how much you want to. Most people are on 20-40 year cycles. But you maintain roads, culverts, and so on. If you live on a 20 acre AG parcel, its the same thing. DO you think small farmers should be taxed for residential on their entire farms?

  90. tra
    September 13, 2012 at 10:54 am

    Regardless of whether there is a house on one small piece of a 160+ acre TPZ parcel, the trees on the rest of the parcel continue to grow, and can either be harvested at some point in the future, providing taxes and income at that point, or allowed to continue to grow for decades or centuries, providing quality forest habitat. As long as the harvesting is done in an environmentally sound way, I don’t see how either of those outcomes is a bad thing.

  91. Fact Checker
    September 13, 2012 at 10:54 am

    On paper it is 160 acres minimum (TPZ). In reality, there are 1 acre TPZ sites in Humboldt County today. If the Assessor finds houses/barns on TPZ, they go back three years property taxes for the construction of the house and outbuildings, no penalties, no more than three years.

  92. not a fan but kinda moronic
    September 13, 2012 at 10:57 am

    September 13, 2012 at 8:01 am | #82
    “Not hu man, moronic both Richard the dick Salzman. Your so easy to spot. What a wimp.”
    Wrong Jack Wagon! Call me on it if I am lying Mitch/Eric/Herald.

  93. Eric Kirk
  94. Coniferous Jones
    September 13, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    Well, bolithio, you’ve got the theory down, we may just dis-agree on implementation. I suppose there are 160 acre tpz that gets split and has a jtmp, but I’m suggesting that there is no penalty for people who just do whatever they want, jtmp or not, formal subdivision or not, but continue to get the tax break. In fact, can’t NOT get the tax break. I ain’t seeing the ‘stringent requirements’ that you apparently see.

    Myself, I prefer more ‘stringent’ dedication of timberlands to timber purposes, per the original intent of the legislation, and see a gradual shift of such lands to other uses over time as developers figure out clever new ways to subdivide without the hassle of the subdivision map act and homesteaders and potgrowers continue to build/live there. But still get the tax break.

    And the tax break is not insignificant, if I recall its something like pennies on $1 of what the property taxes on the land would otherwise be. I’m not opposed to the tax break, if the land is managed consistent with keeping timberlands for timber.

  95. Anonymous
    September 13, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    713: “The developments sucking up all the water and creating significant environmental destruction are the illegal grows. Changing tpz rules will have no effect on pot production.”

    Don’t know many rural folks, eh?

    Vineyards, orchards, trout farms, man made lakes, farms, livestock, Olympic pools…all using as much water as their source provides without restriction…oozing fertilizers and phosphate into the remnants of depleted streams…..while pot farming is singled-out.

    The biggest single threat to developers, and their shotgun-wedding with “homesteaders”, is the fundamental research to determine water carrying capacity where ANY future developments occur.

    Want another home, another lake, more livestock? PAY FOR THE STUDY before another river, and the species dependent upon it are destroyed.

    Or, repeat history and develop beyond sustainability…the New Amerikan way.

    It’s not their water!

  96. Anonymous
    September 13, 2012 at 3:02 pm

    Trout farms and man made lakes? Really? Where?

  97. Anonymous
    September 13, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    There are literally hundreds, of many sizes, in rural Humboldt Co., hell, there’s one at 1055 Vista Drive in Eureka, 1 mile from the Planning Commission…excavation permits? Ha Ha Ha!

    What’s next, act like you don’t know there are imperiled streams, rivers, aquifers, and wildlife?

  98. Anonymous
    September 13, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    No, I just haven’t seen any “man-made lakes.” Some man-made ponds here and there, sure. But that’s been the case since the area was first homesteaded. Same with livestock, orchards and farms. Is more land being used for pasture, orchards and farm fields in rural Humboldt than was being used for those purposes 100 years ago? I doubt it.

  99. too little too late
    September 13, 2012 at 5:18 pm

    When it is pot growers drawing water illegally, polluting our watersheds and breaking environmental laws – it is BAD.

    When it is illegal ponds, water withdrawal for vineyards and other ag, or timber companies polluting our rivers and breaking environmental laws, it is – “JOBS or Environment”. Gotta choose.

    I wonder if this inconsistent concern for the environment has been noted by the Jobs vs. Environment, big timber defenders. Why did they not object when PALCO was destroying the environment?

  100. 713
    September 13, 2012 at 5:49 pm

    Lived on rural property for 15 years. Oh yes, there has been such a flood of people building orchards, massive livestock and trout farms, and olympic sized pools. I don’t know what they are going to do with all the extra fish, beef, grapes, and apples! It is an epidemic!

    Get real. Peddle your bullshit to somebody who doesn’t have access to google earth. The biggest ponds I have seen are right next to large greenhouses. Must be tomatoes.

  101. 713
    September 13, 2012 at 5:52 pm

    BTW, timber, housing, agriculture, and other legitimate industry is regulated. Dope, not so much.

  102. Anonymous
    September 13, 2012 at 6:19 pm

    “Oh yes, there has been such a flood of people building orchards, massive livestock and trout farms, and olympic sized pools. I don’t know what they are going to do with all the extra fish, beef, grapes, and apples!”

    Put them in the pool, of course!

  103. Anonymous
    September 13, 2012 at 6:33 pm

    No one said massive, 713. More like death by a thousand wounds. And BTW, regulations are worthless without enforcement. The past has shown that enforcement is weak or non-existent, especially on those industries that have big political influence, which, coincidentally, happen to be agriculture, timber and development. Often, “legitimate industry” gets a free pass.

  104. Anonymous
    September 13, 2012 at 7:12 pm

    You are really out of touch with reality, 6:33. In addition to hallucinating hundreds of man made lakes and trout farms, you actually believe that farmers, loggers, and builders are barely, if at all, regulated? You’ve obviously never been a farmer, a logger or a builder, and you must not know any, or have failed to asked them what kind of regulations they are required to follow. When you do, make sure you’ve got the rest of the day free.

  105. 713
    September 13, 2012 at 7:46 pm

    6:33 you are full of shit. Have you ever heard of “Code Enforcement”? There are a ton of regulations they have to follow in the woods and on farms. If believe there are problems, you are about 5 agencies you could call that will happily show and and start writing tickets.

  106. Anonymous
    September 14, 2012 at 11:56 am

    “Is more land being used for pasture, orchards and farm fields in rural Humboldt than was being used for those purposes 100 years ago? I doubt it.”

    “The biggest ponds I have seen are right next to large greenhouses. Must be tomatoes.”

    “Some man-made ponds here and there, sure. But that’s been the case since the area was first homesteaded.”

    “There are a ton of regulations they have to follow in the woods and on farms”

    “I don’t know what they are going to do with all the extra fish, beef, grapes, and apples!”

    Great, everyone’s in agreement….no one is contesting the imperiled and depleted conditions of many of Humboldt County’s streams and aquifers. And since so many folks think that their aren’t many violators, all NEW developments should be required to fund their own water-capacity studies for low-impact use, RIGHT?

    Problem solved.

    There were similar “debates” as Southern California’s riparian areas were developed, depleted and evacuated. The one I remember vividly was an entire mountain community of about 100 homesteaders near Forest Falls. A beautiful area now scattered with hollow foundations, swings still hanging on trees, and barely a trickle of water…60 years later.

  107. Plain Jane
    September 14, 2012 at 12:46 pm

    Now that they are developing a plan to siphon off more northern California river water for the swimming pools and lawns in LA, maybe they’ll share a little with Forest Falls. Our fish, unfortunately, don’t have a voice.

  108. 713
    September 14, 2012 at 1:03 pm

    1156 – so if somebody builds a house and funds a water study for their property, how would that affect the unstudied, unregulated, illegal industry? Maybe I am missing something here but it is puzzling to me that we would ignore the unregulated activities and regulate the people more who are following the rules.

  109. Anonymous
    September 14, 2012 at 6:42 pm

    713, you have proved your ignorance. Again. I know of MANY instances where enforcement is lax or non-existent. Your ignorance of these cases does not mean they do not exist. Don’t believe everything you think, especially since your eyes are closed to anything that might contradict your opinions.

    I am not alone in my knowledge. Many others know that our environmental laws are not well enforced. There are thousands of illegal water withdrawals in California. Your ignorance of them does not change this fact.

    Our rivers are polluted and the salmon are going extinct. Another fact, regardless of your denial.

    TPZ land is littered with illegal residences. The owners, when discovered, get a tiny slap on the wrist. I’d call that little to no enforcement. I couldn’t care less what you’d call it. Never argue with a drunk or an ignorant person. What’s the point?

  110. 713
    September 14, 2012 at 8:29 pm

    Which would have a more positive impact on the environment:

    No houses on TPZ or no pot farms?

    be honest, now.

  111. Coniferous Jones
    September 14, 2012 at 9:44 pm

    Ha!!!!! Trick question. Both would have a more positive impact on the environment.

  112. Anonymous
    September 14, 2012 at 11:58 pm

    There used to be Otters running up the tributaries of the Mad River feeding on abundant salmon, crayfish, amphibians and freshwater clams, all in sharp decline. The Mattole turned into a pathetic trickle in my lifetime.

    The only exemption to a county-wide building moratorium should be developer-sponsored water-capacity studies that provide specific water-use limitations.

    Determining the impacts of existing developments must be a top priority for public funding, requiring emergency measures in the worst situations.

  113. Haiku Humboldtia
    September 15, 2012 at 8:01 am

    Ryan, Rex and VA
    are playing dumb and dumber.
    The public will lose.

  114. 713
    September 15, 2012 at 8:29 am

    How are you going to measure the impacts of the pot grows?

  115. Anonymous
    September 15, 2012 at 8:48 am

    true that we have river issues/ the county planners own part of that for their objection to gray water,winter storage tanks and alternate septic systems/ pot diversion is off the charts/ interesting that this is the best salmon run in 30+ years!/

  116. firesidechet
    September 15, 2012 at 5:48 pm

    Why is it that the environmentalists lionize the working man when he somehow fulfills their fantasies of rustic,down home independence, yet shit all over him when he speaks up for himself? It’s time for the east coast deep ecologists to ask the folks who have actually lived here for more than 35 years on how to best get along with the countryside. The gyppo loggers are long gone. Stop acting as if they are still here. “Make work” grant money is drying up. Your options are running out. Go back to New Jersey, and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

  117. Anonymous
    September 15, 2012 at 9:53 pm

    Not gonna happen, fs-shite.

  118. Anonymous
    September 15, 2012 at 11:04 pm

    “It’s time for the east coast deep ecologists to ask the folks who have actually lived here for more than 35 years on how to best get along with the countryside.”

    I’ve attended every planning commission hearing and workshop for the last 10 years.

    The ONLY “rural homesteader” I’ve ever heard to testify in favor of codification of their low-impact lifestyle was at a planning commission hearing at College of the Redwoods with 1,000 rural participants!

    NOT ONE new development should be allowed until fundamental water capacity studies are completed with low-impact regulations gradually enacted for all existing rural developments in riparian areas.

  119. Anonymous
    September 16, 2012 at 8:55 am

    well Jen, you only see and hear what you want to/ for a start Tom Grover is always there as are others. from the hills, I even came a few times. your point is as foolish as thinking John Laboyta speaks for ranchers,farmers and common sense

  120. firesidechet
    September 16, 2012 at 5:58 pm

    “I’ve attended every planning commission hearing and workshop for the last 10 years.”
    People who work on the land don’t have time or the patience to sit through this nonsense. The only thing transparent in this process is your class envy. You might want to actually spend more time in the hills so you don’t have to depend on your idealized version of how things are.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s