Home > Uncategorized > BOS GPU Meeting Liveblog

BOS GPU Meeting Liveblog

It’s all happening at Lost Coast Outpost.  To avoid confusion, go to the bottom and read up.  I didn’t realize I was reading it backwards for a few minutes and it was reading like the movie Memento.

Is Sundberg breaking from the conservative majority?  He says that he is not interested in scuttling the plan in its entirety.  He did just barely win the last election against an environmental activist, and since then his district has lost Blue Lake.  He can’t afford to be cavalier about it.

  1. Anonymous
    September 17, 2012 at 6:07 pm

    Or maybe Lovelace just overreacted last week, and got his followers all in a tizzy for no good reason. That’s what it looks like to me.

  2. Eric Kirk
    September 17, 2012 at 7:41 pm

    Well, perhaps. But both Rex and Estelle ran on the promise of starting the process over. Obviously Ryan isn’t buying in. He responded quickly to Rex’s thanking him for “slowing the process down” by denying that’s what he did.

    And Mark wasn’t the only one who interpreted last week’s meeting that way. The Humboldt Sentinel reporting was similar. I wasn’t there. I’ll leave it to those present to interpret.

    So what happens now? I’m not really clear on that.

  3. Anonymous
    September 17, 2012 at 9:02 pm

    Yes, the Humboldt Sentinel took Lovelace’s freak-out at face value, and the rest of the Arcata echo chamber (the Journal, the Lost Coast Outpost, the Herald) all followed suit. As Sundberg noted during today’s meeting, none of those outlets bothered to contact him for any comment. Meanwhile, the Times-Standard took a little time to get the story out, but at least they actually talked to the supervisors, which resulted in a much less sensationalistic story…and a more accurate one. Someone who read the Times-Standard article and ignored the blogs, or at least took them with a grain of salt, wouldn’t have been at all surprised by today’s events.

  4. What Now
    September 17, 2012 at 9:16 pm

    Interesting.
    Sundberg admits he can’t understand the document and Bass admits she hasn’t the guts to speak her mind.
    Bohn continues to exhibit his inability to meander even to the edge of his short leash.

  5. Anonymous
    September 17, 2012 at 9:20 pm

    9:02, not surprised by today’s events? Roughly 80-85% of the speakers at public comment getting up to say “please kill the GPU”? Now you’re trying to downplay what’s completely out in the open, an overt attempt to kill twelve years of work into the GPU involving over 200 public meetings, by a coterie of developers, real estate agents and the people who rely on their unrestricted activities? Either you gotta be kidding me, or you’re in on it.

  6. September 17, 2012 at 10:05 pm

    Shameless self promotion in:
    3,
    2,
    1…
    I am trying to raise funds to start and maintain a full time martial arts dojo in Arcata CA. This has been a lifelong dream of mine and I am finally ready to take the plunge.
    I am seeking donations in the sum of $25,000 to cover the costs of first and last month rent, plus security deposit, insurance, and enough money to cover living expense for 3 months while building a student base.

    http://www.gofundme.com/17ldnk?pc=fb_cr

  7. Smart 5th Grader
    September 18, 2012 at 7:50 am

    Mark, puh-leez! This is not how business is conducted.

  8. September 18, 2012 at 8:44 am

    What I heard most speakers say was that the ‘flawed’ process that excluded their views (at 978 jillion meetings, granted) can now be corrected to include the views and desires of the people actually affected by rural land-use policy. Why is that bad?

  9. Eric Kirk
    September 18, 2012 at 9:09 am

    Because it was the same 20 people who have been saying the same thing for 978 million meetings. It’s not like they haven’t been heard.

    Anyway, I’m going to have Clif on my radio show Thursday night to discuss the matter. More later.

  10. Anonymous
    September 18, 2012 at 10:16 am

    Mrs. Joe Bonino even made an appearance (Julie Williams, the developer lobbyist).

  11. Anonymous
    September 18, 2012 at 10:27 am

    “He did just barely win the last election against an environmental activist”

    Eric, Patrick Cleary is neither an environmentalist nor an activist. Have you noticed that he has never attended any planning meetings or commented on the GPU? An activist would do that. Cleary is a rich banker who ran a very dishonest campaign. Where is he now?

    “and since then his district has lost Blue Lake. He can’t afford to be cavalier about it.”

    Blue Lake voters are probably more concerned about environmental issues than the rest of the district. Losing Blue Lake probably increases Sundberg’s chance for re-election, if you are assuming that Sundberg is not concerned with the environment. I’m not sure that is altogether true.

  12. Just Middle Finance
    September 18, 2012 at 10:30 am

    “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what,” Romney says in one clip. “There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing….Adding to his argument about entitlement, Romney said his “job is not to worry about those people.”

    Bootstraps! Mitt is right! Hi Fi and I have been saying this all along. We don’t need no stinkin Socialist Security or Socialist Health Care. You Libtards need to get with the Romney program. Inherit wealth like Mitt and I did. Bootstraps!

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/17/controversial-private-fund-raiser-video-shows-candid-romney/?hpt=hp_t1

  13. tra
    September 18, 2012 at 10:45 am

    The Times-Standard reported:

    ” A total of about 80 people were in the audience, filling up all the seats in the chamber. A majority of those that spoke were opposed to the general plan as currently drafted, and instead favor improving the review process and/or completely starting over.”

    That doesn’t sound like it was “all the same 20 people.” In fact a several people mentioned that they had been involved early on in the process, years ago, but stopped participating because they felt that their concerns were simply being ignored. Now they have come back to have their say at the Board of Supervisors level.

    And yes, there were also the “ususal supects” on both sides. So what? Are you proposing that those “same 20 people” should all just stay home or refrain from commenting, just because they’ve commented before? Isn’t this their first opportunity to comment on the proposed GPU and the review process before the Board of Supervisors, at a point where these items are actually on the Board’s agenda?

  14. tra
    September 18, 2012 at 10:54 am

    Seems to me that what Sundberg asked for — a detailed, side-by-side comparison between each provision of the old plan, and each corresponding provision of the proposed new plan — should be a very useful document, both for the Board, and for the public.

    And I applaud the staff’s recommendation that they do two such reports — one report before the straw votes, so that the Supervisors (and the public) can clearly see what changes they’d be making to the existing plan by voting for a particular item in the proposed update, and then a follow-up report to clarify what the outcome was after they made any revisions to those items and held their straw votes. Despite all the talk about “dumbing down” the process, to me, this looks more like a very intelligent way of actually “tightening up” the process.

    So this seems like a much-needed improvement in the review process, and a reasonable compromise between those who were insisting that the current process should continue as fast as possible, and those who would rather see the whole process brought to a halt, or even sent back to the drawing board.

    Yes, the new review process may slow things down a bit, but I think it’s doubtful that they were going to get to any final, binding votes until next year anyway. Which I think is only appropriate, given that there is one newly-elected Board member (Rex Bohn) who just took his seat recently (months ahead of schedule, due to Jimmy Smith’s early departure), and another newly-elected Supervisor, (Estelle Fennell), who will be joining the Board in January. So why not take the time to go ahead and do a more thorough review?

    I guess I’ll have to wait and see what the new review documents actually include, how they are formatted, what level of detail is included, and so on — but my initial reaction is that this is a pretty good outcome.

  15. reading teacher
    September 18, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    Suggestion: Bohn, Bass and Sundberg should prepare the side-by-side comparison they have requested. Comparing and contrasting is an educational strategy used by many reading teachers. It requires the reader to engage with the material and leads to better comprehension of the concepts.

    All three disclosed their low level reading skills when they said they cannot understand the plan. The public deserves more for the $80K each of these supervisors make. They require remedial help and they are the only ones who can improve their own reading comprehension.

    When they complete this task the public can evaluate their capabilities and give them a grade. This grade will allow voters to decide if they should be voted back into office.

  16. just middle class
    September 18, 2012 at 12:30 pm

    Dear Reading Teacher (probably not one or you would not make stupid statements like you did),
    Anyone who, as I have, has worked on the plan can clearly see that with all 365 pages of policy lange not correlated with the Framework Plan, is a recipe for bad policy. What Sundberg and all of the other Sups did is good, and will result in a better plan.

  17. tra
    September 18, 2012 at 12:41 pm

    Apparently “Reading Teacher” believes the supervisors should do the staffs’ jobs for them.

  18. TimH
    September 18, 2012 at 12:45 pm

    Have you read the plan? The confusing part is not reading and comprehending, it is understanding how all of the elements tie together and what that final product looks like. I seriously doubt anybody outside of the people who wrote the plan could read a policy in June, one in May, and a third on August in three separate chapters and remember how they all relate to each other without some type of chart or report. To have the plan formatted in a way that delineates existing, proposed, and the consequences/costs of the policy after the vote will be a great way of working through the process more efficiently with better information.

    For example, it was pointed out yesterday that one cannot meet the required infill densities, setbacks, and solar shading requirements. Each of those policies are have their own merits, but taken in totality it appears there is not a way to meet those requirements with a traditional single family residence. Is that the intention of the plan? I doubt it, but it is likely what you will get. Hopefully staff will do a thorough enough analysis in report #2 to catch items like this.

  19. Just Mental Class
    September 18, 2012 at 1:16 pm

    Rex Bohn: “I wished I had the knowledge that, I mean, that Mark [Lovelace] had. He’s got to work on this for 12 years. I’d like to have some of that knowledge so maybe I’d have a little bit of understanding.”

    Ryan Sundberg: “I guess the more I look at this the more confused I get… It’s super-overwhelming to me, I know, to try to go through this thing and understand it. The more I read it, it seems like, the more backwards I get.”

    Virginia Bass: “What my uncomfortableness at this point, especially when you, you know, we’re looking at the document, we have asked for so much information … but what I don’t have in there, and I have never really asked or we haven’t really been able to get to the bottom of, which really rises to my radar today is, again, the unintended consequences and my needing to have a level of confidence in moving forward.”

    http://www.arcataeye.com/2012/09/kevin-hoover-public-involvement-so-crucial-and-so-stupidly-disregarded-september-17-2012/

  20. Smart 5th Grader
    September 18, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    “policy lange” Is that a Bassism?

  21. Jack Sherman
    September 18, 2012 at 1:45 pm

    After the supervisors successfully delay this process another 10 years with another 200 public hearings, can we have it further held-up by 50 people that are still complaining?

    Many of the proposed changes to the GP are already published with side-by-side comparisons. If any of the “confused” supervisors had attended any of the public hearings before their elections, they would know this!

    NO, they are just the next batch of average citizens anointed by the development community…the same community that will not tolerate one progressive democrat on Eureka’s city council, nor one GP policy they don’t like.

    To concede anything would empower their opponents with hope.

    Educate and register the other half of Eureka that is discouraged by this corruption…and the Chamber of Commerce will have to start holding bake-sales.

  22. 713
    September 18, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    Mental:

    “if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that”

  23. 7/13 July 13
    September 18, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    Obama, July 13: “There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

    If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

    The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

    So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.”

  24. reading teacher
    September 18, 2012 at 2:07 pm

    tra :
    Apparently “Reading Teacher” believes the supervisors should do the staffs’ jobs for them.

    It is not the staffs’ job to teach supervisors how to read. Supervisors are paid very well – far more than the average citizen in Humboldt County. Taxpayers who pay their salary have every right to expect a level of intelligence, competence and motivation that matches their high level of pay.

    Those who think government should be run like a business would have to agree. How long would these incompetent people last in a competitive business environment ?

    tra, staff have already done their job. I want to see more effort applied by these lazy/stupid supervisors.

    just middle class, you could use some remedial help with writing.

  25. tra
    September 18, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    JMC (1:16),

    Yeah, I heard them say those things, too. That was at last week’s meeting. I also heard what they said before and after those things. Given the actual context in which those words were uttered, here’s what I think each of them was getting at:

    Bohn was complimenting Lovelace on the amount of knowledge Lovelace has about the General Plan Update process and the proposed plan, while noting that he, Rex, hasn’t been on the job that long. The larger context, of course, is that Jimmy Smith retired early and Rex was appointed to take his seat months earlier than expected.

    Sundberg was just stating his frustration that, in his opinion, the information, as presented, wasn’t as clear as it could be. He went on to offer some very constructive advice on how to present the options and proposed changes more clearly. Those ideas were further developed by the staff, and have now been unanimously approved by the board. No one seems to be disputing the fact that this new review process should be helpful to both the board and the public.

    Bass raised the issue of “unintended consequences,” which is something every decision-maker should bear in mind when making any major decision. It’s particularly relevant when dealing with something as broad and as far-reaching as a General Plan Update.

    Their wording may have been awkward, but all three were making legitimate, relevant points.

    That being said, I don’t think any of them were expressing themselves very clearly during the discussion at last week’s meetings, and I don’t think any of the supervisors or the staff were really prepared for that discussion at that time. By Monday, they had more or less pulled their act together and were prepared to approach the issues in a more collegial way.

  26. lol "relevant"
    September 18, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    Thank you Tra for translating that unintelligible gobbledygook.

  27. Anonymous
    September 18, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    They should honor the work of the past decade and countless hearings…pass the GP, and vote to address any unintended consequences as they arise, it’s part of the process.

  28. Smart 5th Grader
    September 18, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    Bush “Mission Accomplished”, Romney “not elegantly stated”, Bohn, Bass, and Sundberg; how did we end up with all these morons?

  29. tra
    September 18, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    “tra, staff have already done their job.”

    That’s up the supervisors to decide. That’s why they are called “supervisors.” They just decided, by a 5-0 vote, to ask the staff to do a particular job, and I assume the staff will do so.

    Rage on, if you want, but it’s already in motion, so I doubt they’re going to go back and say “hey look, this jackass on the internet who calls us stupid and lazy says we should have done this for ourselves, so, nevermind staff, we no longer want that document we already asked you to start preparing.”

    Your argument is asinine, and your approach is beyond counterproductive…but don’t worry, it’s also too late for your argument to have any impact on this decision.

  30. Smart 5th Grader
    September 18, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    tra, you’re right. Let’s ride the Short Bus.
    Rex Bohn: “I wished I had the knowledge that, I mean, that Mark [Lovelace] had. He’s got to work on this for 12 years. I’d like to have some of that knowledge so maybe I’d have a little bit of understanding.”

    Ryan Sundberg: “I guess the more I look at this the more confused I get… It’s super-overwhelming to me, I know, to try to go through this thing and understand it. The more I read it, it seems like, the more backwards I get.”

    Virginia Bass: “What my uncomfortableness at this point, especially when you, you know, we’re looking at the document, we have asked for so much information … but what I don’t have in there, and I have never really asked or we haven’t really been able to get to the bottom of, which really rises to my radar today is, again, the unintended consequences and my needing to have a level of confidence in moving forward.”

    http://www.arcataeye.com/2012/09/kevin-hoover-public-involvement-so-crucial-and-so-stupidly-disregarded-september-17-2012/

  31. Anonymous
    September 18, 2012 at 4:00 pm

    Smart 5th Grader :
    Bush “Mission Accomplished”, Romney “not elegantly stated”, Bohn, Bass, and Sundberg; how did we end up with all these morons?

    Support Obama for the sake of the Supreme Court. It’s all Citizens United.

  32. Eric Kirk
    September 18, 2012 at 4:45 pm

    Blue Lake voters are probably more concerned about environmental issues than the rest of the district. Losing Blue Lake probably increases Sundberg’s chance for re-election, if you are assuming that Sundberg is not concerned with the environment. I’m not sure that is altogether true.

    I’ll have to go back and look at the most recent results, but I thought that Karen Brooks did well in Blue Lake.

  33. tra
    September 18, 2012 at 5:14 pm

    “Smart” 5th Grader,

    Repeating the cherry-picked quotes doesn’t change anything. The bottom line is that Sundberg asked for a better review process, Bohn and Bass backed him up, and even Clendenen and Lovelace joined the unanimous vote. Cry about it all you want, but those are the facts.

  34. Anonymous
    September 18, 2012 at 6:46 pm

    TRA is accusing someone else of raging? HA! TRA is one of the most closed minded, obsessive posters on this blog. Recall how he/she became a completely unglued, raging maniac when Sundberg got caught in a dui incident? TRA said he was unfit to walk down the street, let alone be a supervisor. Now that he’s willing to throw out the GPU that TRA does not like, he is the MAN! What a hypocrite you are, tra. An obsessive bore.

  35. Anonymous
    September 18, 2012 at 6:58 pm

    Claiming reason is a bit much to begin with, Mr/Ms tra…

  36. Anonymous
    September 18, 2012 at 7:01 pm

    unless it’s a about pricing. The “reasonable” anonymous?

  37. Anonymous
    September 18, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    t”r”a?

  38. tra
    September 18, 2012 at 7:32 pm

    I criticized Sundberg over the DUI because he did something wrong, illegal, and dangerous. If you can show that he has done something wrong, illegal, and dangerous, in relation to the GPU, I’ll be happy to criticize him for that, too.

    In the meantime, I calls ’em as I sees ’em. Nothing even remotely hypocritical about that.

    Beyond that, your comment doesn’t even make any sense, given that Sundberg made it clear that he is not in favor of “throwing out” the GPU. Not that I expect you to trouble yourself with, you know, the facts.

  39. 713
    September 18, 2012 at 8:09 pm

    “Those who think government should be run like a business would have to agree. How long would these incompetent people last in a competitive business environment ?”

    If their staff is not producing documents that make sense or not formatted in a way to clearly convey what they are voting on and why, it is the staff that would not last. If my employees handed me a pile of crap Friday afternoon for a Monday meeting where i had to spend hours referring around to different documents finding dead ends, inconsistencies, and blank definitions, I would give it back and tell them to try again.

    You can’t make chicken salad out of chicken shit.

  40. reading teacher
    September 18, 2012 at 8:30 pm

    ” If my employees handed me a pile of crap Friday afternoon for a Monday meeting where i had to spend hours referring around to different documents finding dead ends, inconsistencies, and blank definitions, I would give it back and tell them to try again.”

    713 / 4:20 /4:21? Where you been man? This GPU did not pop up Friday. It’s been openly in the making for years.

    If my recently hired employee could not come up to speed with what my company has been working toward for a decade, and balked because outside strings move him to sabotage our work, I would remind him who he works for and ask him to give specific examples of the dead ends, inconsistencies, and blank definitions that trouble him.

    Can you do that, 713?

  41. 713
    September 18, 2012 at 9:23 pm

    please define “our work” and explain how listing existing policies, proposed policies, the reason for the change, and the cost to implement said policy is “sabatoge”.

  42. Political Watcher
    September 18, 2012 at 11:31 pm

    What I worry about is how Rex is counting on this “pause” in the name of clarity to delay things long enough for Estelle (who is just as nuts on “property rights”) to come onto the Board and insist on well, going back to square one, or at least as close as she and Rex can get to it.

    Tra, the reason folks are upset is that you’re not considering this poorly-concealed aspect to these so-called “clarification efforts.” that is, they play right into Rex and Estelle’s hands. Virginia is not smart enough to be much of her own girl, and is afraid enough of Arkley not to stray far. Watch what happens after January. We’ll see whether this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. What will you say then, tra? It’s all in the name of “helpful clarification”?

  43. just middle class
    September 19, 2012 at 7:10 am

    It is clear that those who “lost” the elections still can not come to terms with the new majority and their only way to deal with their “loss” is to resort to name calling, which is very clear in this blog. But for the 25 people who follow this here, the rest of the folks are glad that their vote has meaning and consequences.

  44. Anonymous
    September 19, 2012 at 8:09 am

    Eric Kirk :
    Blue Lake voters are probably more concerned about environmental issues than the rest of the district. Losing Blue Lake probably increases Sundberg’s chance for re-election, if you are assuming that Sundberg is not concerned with the environment. I’m not sure that is altogether true.
    I’ll have to go back and look at the most recent results, but I thought that Karen Brooks did well in Blue Lake.

    That might also mean that Blue Lake voters are afraid of UN conspiracies and UFO’s. I don’t think I’d read too much into that particular election.

  45. Anonymous
    September 19, 2012 at 8:20 am

    Clearly, every week the plan is delayed is another week closer to moderation and reasonableness. What’s really unfortunate is the total unwillingness of the anti crowd to even sit down and try to compromise dispite having lost every single meaningful election for almost a decade. It’s too bad but I guess we’ll have to see how that works out in a couple months. It would seem that the best that they can hope for with that strategy is some cool talking points in the next election cycle about how so and so voted against the environment in some fashion. Of course that will be after a scaled down plan is voted in, the deed as were, already done. The kind of argument also only resonates if coupled with an “I told you so” that presupposes massive development and sprawl prior to the election two years away. I’ll take that bet.

  46. Anonymous
    September 19, 2012 at 8:40 am

    Estelle, a damn property rights nut. If only someone would have shot John Locke none of us would have to worry about all this individual freedom crap. Estelle would know her place as chattel of the King.

  47. Plain Jane
    September 19, 2012 at 8:47 am

    Do you believe property rights are absolute, 8:40? Or do you think negative impacts on the commons and the property of others should be taken into consideration?

  48. Anonymous
    September 19, 2012 at 9:36 am

    Property does not have rights, people have rights. The landowner has rights. The tenant has rights. The neighbors have rights and the public has rights. But the property rights movement is a scam. Too bad it works so often.

  49. grouchy
    September 19, 2012 at 9:46 am

    I am one of the people who “lost” the last election — or rather, my candidate did, and while I don’t believe it’s productive or conducive to good karma to name-call and get ugly about our adversaries, I see no reason to shut up and crawl into a corner.
    I believe that rural small landowners (I am referring to the relative size of their holdings, not their personal size — and I mean people who own one to a few parcels anywhere from zero to160 acres), who comprise the vast majority of all rural voters, have been utterly hornswoggled by Hum CPR and its ilk, flattered and lied to into climbing in bed with the likes of Green Diamond, the Barnums, the Russes, the Carringtons, HAR, etc — in other words those large landowners who see that now that timber is in the toilet their only chance of maintaining their income status is to parcelize and sell off their holdings, a little at a time, to either wealthy retirees or industrial-scale pot growers. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with protecting their interests — they have every right to do so — it’s the dishonesty involved that disgusts and provokes me.
    For example, the merger ordinance is OUT of the PC-approved GPU. It’s still in Alt A, — the state requires alternatives, so it has to stay — but there’s not the chance of a snowball in hell that it will be reinstated the final product, no matter who’s on the board of supervisors. AND it never applied to small landowners, anyway. AND, most important of all, it’s iin the Framework Plan, so if you don’t like the merger ordinance, you would want to pass the GPU ASAP. Yet the specter of the merger ordinance is brought out at almost every hearing, striking unnecessary terror into the hearts of small rural landowners and lovers of freedom everywhere.
    The county has screwed up plenty of times and alienated rural people. That makes people vulnerable to a big powerful group with big loud voices and lots of money that puts its arms around them and whispers, “Come to bed with me, I’ll make your dreams come true.” But once again, I boldly predict that when the dust settles, if Hum CPR and its cohorts get what they want, it’s the small rural landowners who will be screaming the loudest.
    The solution is to stop choosing up sides and to do the hard work of reading and studying the parts of the plan that interest you. Of course, this isn’t easy. But if all the people whining about how hard it is had buckled down and gone to work a few years ago, they’d not only be up to speed but would probably have been able to influence today’s GPU draft in many important ways. Groups like Healthy Humboldt, the Rural Lands Working Group, etc. did that. They got together as ad hoc groups and worked on it, wrestled the complexity to the ground, and made their recommendations, many of which were incorporated into the document on the supes’ desk.

  50. Just Middle Finance
    September 19, 2012 at 10:19 am

    We got the cash, we own the property, we own the politicians, and we’ll let you know what “rights” you still have. Shut up and get back to work, we got money to make.

  51. Anonymous
    September 19, 2012 at 10:34 am

    Interestingly, I am one of those who’s candidates “won” election after election. Sticking with your example, I didn’t have a big problem with the Merger Ordinance, Industrial Timber zoning or a host of other issues championed by the “losing” side. I would have gone along with much of that in a second. The problem is, it is far more than those issues that were being shoved on us. Moreover, there has been a total unwillingness to fully admit the true implications of Plan A style planning and their effect on individuals and families. There has never been a REAL and open discussion. No one really believed that PL was going to be able to sell 160’s for $5,000,000 and they are often insulted when you argue otherwise. People are not quite a stupid as the Arcata elite convince themselves. I would suggest that hasn’t happened because there is simply not broad support for a massive growth in restriction and regulation. Either way I suggest that the reason we are where we are is because there has been, and still is, an unwillingness to compromise. The result is the backlash that we have now. Had the Lovelace crowd not grossly overreached and misread the real desires of the public they could have achieved 90% of their goals by simply not attempting to enact a plan that directly affected so many. Now they’ll be lucky to get 10% and even that possibility dwindles as long as they remain stubborn and blind. I think there is a distinct possibility of a regulatory easing far beyond even the current plan. I fundimentally disagree with your position and argue that alliances have been realligned not because of misrepresentations by HumCPR or others but because, when given the choice their position is more consistant with the center. Most people in the county would simply rather err towards freedom than restriction even if that means becoming convienient allies with large landowners.

  52. Anonymous
    September 19, 2012 at 10:42 am

    When you were aiming for the moon and find yourself in a hole ten feet deep. You have a fundamental choice. You can try to get back to ground level or claw your way to China.

  53. Sgt. Stedenko
    September 19, 2012 at 10:50 am

    Shoot the moon!

  54. Jack Sherman
    September 19, 2012 at 12:53 pm

    “Most people in the county would simply rather err towards freedom than restriction even if that means becoming convienient allies with large landowners.”

    Most people in the county are either unregistered or abstain in every election.

    Rural residents made an unholy alliance with HumCPR who’s organizers must now work very hard to educate their wining candidates on property issues and manipulations that are critical to a tiny class of greedy elites.

  55. just middle class
    September 19, 2012 at 2:29 pm

    Jack, you simply have it wrong. Most Humboldt people want a rural lifestyle rather than the “plan’s” push for Smart Growht. Most people do not want dense development as the only option. If the proposed plan had been adopted without change, there would have been large development fees to pay for the plan. As #51 said, the libs got greedy and lost it.

  56. Just Middle Finance
    September 19, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    Most people in Humboldt want a Rural lifestyle, but we can’t make a killing putting up houses onesies-twosies. We need more houses for more American Dreamers, like the Forster-Gill development the Libtards have been railing against. Bohn is here to protect Property Rights, our most cherished amendment to the Constitution. That and Freedom of Commerce.

  57. Anonymous
    September 19, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    “As #51 said, the libs got greedy and lost it.”

    I think we should be more careful with labels. “libs” is wholely inaccurate because there are many liberals, probably most of them, who support rural living and the property rights and responsibilities that go with them, myself among them. Lots also support HumCPR. Heck, they even have liberal realtors. Having a conventional liberal perspective does not make us one of the elitist’s who have so polarized our county. Look at Estelle. If you thought you elected a conservative, think again. She is very liberal in a typical sense which posed no problem for her to support property freedoms and allign with landowners. Liberal and landowner are totally compatible. Arcata “progressive”, not so much. There’s a big difference betwiin Liberal and Progressive.

  58. TimH
    September 19, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    “For example, the merger ordinance is OUT of the PC-approved GPU. It’s still in Alt A, — the state requires alternatives, so it has to stay — but there’s not the chance of a snowball in hell that it will be reinstated the final product, no matter who’s on the board of supervisors. AND it never applied to small landowners, anyway.”

    Mitigation Measure 3.2.3.1b.
    To avoid the loss of timberlands from increased parcelization and direct conversion to other uses, a proposed program shall be modified within the Forest Resources section of the Land Use Element that states the following:
    FR-IM4. Merger Ordinance Implementation. Develop a program to
    implement Article II of the existing Merger Ordinance (Ordinance No.
    1762, County Code Section 327.5-1 et al) with a comprehensive noticing
    effort.

    That is from the current EIR

    http://co.humboldt.ca.us/gpu/docs/drafteir/eir_full%20plan.pdf

  59. Jack Sherman
    September 19, 2012 at 4:15 pm

    JMC: “Jack, you simply have it wrong. Most Humboldt people want a rural lifestyle rather than the “plan’s” push for Smart Growht.”

    Most “Humboldt people” live in its cities and would be able to save some capital if they had affordable housing, instead of HumCPR’s good old boys stealing the public’s infrastructure to build McMansion subdivisions that 75% of county incomes do not qualify to own.

    According to the U.S. Census, as reported in “The Rich and The Rest of Us”, by Princeton professor Cornell West and journalist Tavis Smiley, a little over half this nation’s eligible voters are not registered.

    No one can technically speak for “most” of any category of citizen.

  60. September 19, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    Uh oh. A ‘Progressive’ is confused. Dear God, what if they’re as stupid as we are?

    I applaud the intelligent conversation above. Since Mark and his rubber stamp came into office with Bonnie 4 years ago, a divisive campaign set out to demonize rural people who didn’t want to be bullied. It not only didn’t work, it disgraced a whole movement. A movement unfortunately worthy of disgrace because it masqueraded as a grassrootsy thang, when in fact it was just the sort of fatcat-funded professional lobbying front that it accused its genuine rural grassroots opposition of being. The whole shebang was dishonest, disrespectful and stupid. The way its partisans still call my representatives names, after showing in election after election how counterproductive this is, is a sad reflection on their intelligence, no one else’s. How odd that some people seem to value their smugness above their goals.

  61. just middle class
    September 19, 2012 at 4:54 pm

    Jack, rural living, that is not in town, does not equate to McMansions, by dropping this phrase, you clearly have no room for rational debate. HumCPR was formed when the then Board of Supervisors proposed a building moritorium on all TPZ land. They did not quite follow the law (what’s new) and could not adopt an ordinance because of that pesky thing called CEQA. Because of their actions, many rural folks began to take interest in the General Plan rewrite and found that there was much to be concerned about. Hence electons and changes in office, remember Estelle was the Executive Director of HumCPR. So you can say all you want about rural life, but there have been very few rural land divisions and very few building permitts issued, so there is no great land rush to stop. The elephant in the room is all of the rural illegal activity, which is now gaining more attention, none of which is discussed in the draft plan placed before the Board of Supervisors.
    Now your whole infrastructure argument has no merit, or if you believe it does, please provide details for your assertion.

  62. steak n eggs
    September 19, 2012 at 7:09 pm

    Longwind hits it on the head again. I guess us “rural folks” are no longer a bunch of dumb-ass okies that need the progressives and planning staff to save us from ourselves. I hope that the new supes move the GPU forward and find the middle ground that the majority of us want.

  63. Jack Sherman
    September 20, 2012 at 11:30 pm

    “Jack, rural living, that is not in town, does not equate to McMansions, by dropping this phrase, you clearly have no room for rational debate.”

    So…..it’s just a “coincidence” that HumCPR is lionized by the same greedheads plopping McMansion subdivisions miles from downtown? HA!

    It’s tough to admit you’ve made a deal with the devil.

    “I guess us ‘rural folks’ are no longer a bunch of dumb-ass okies that need the progressives and planning staff to save us from ourselves.”

    In fact, too many are no different from countless other rural SoCal folk who could only be stopped by nature after they sucked every drop of water from every available source.

  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