Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Letter from the Board

Filed with the Bankruptcy Court Oct. 16, 2007
Re: Chapter 11 Case Nos. 07-20027 through 07-20032
a 9-pg pdf document

On October 9, 2007, in the City of Eureka, California, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors held a public meeting and passed an interim urgency ordinance prohibiting residential uses on lands zoned Timberland Production (TPZ) in the County.

The ordinance was in direct response to the Plan for Reorganization submitted by the debtors to the Bankruptcy Court that outlines a proposal for residential development in Humboldt County known as the "Redwoods Ranch Development." In that plan the debtors propose to develop and sell approximately 22,000 acres of commercial redwood forest as 160 acre "kingdom" or "trophy" properties. The parcels would be marketed for high-end low-density residential and recreational development.

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors does not believe that this development is feasible. The plan is inconsistent with existing land use plans and policies and is inconsistent with all of the plans and policies that are currently being reviewed in the County's General Plan Update.

Enclosed for your review is a copy of the ordinance that suspends the entitlement to a building permit on lands zoned TPZ in Humboldt County. Please consider this ordinance when you review Scotia Development LLC's reorganization plan for feasibility on October 23, 2007.


Coverage: PALCO plan opposers speak up

6 comments:

  1. Uh - does anybody see the problem here?

    The letter is inconsistent with itself.

    “The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors does not believe that this development is feasible. The plan is inconsistent with existing land use plans and policies and is inconsistent with all of the plans and policies that are currently being reviewed in the County's General Plan Update”

    If the plan is inconsistent with the existing land use plan, then why was an emergency interim ordinance even necessary?

    Also, seems to me that it is consistent with Alternative A, B, C and D.

    BTW - the board seemed to say at the meeting when it passed this miserable interim ordinance that it couldn’t single out PALCO, but this letter and the interim ordinance does single it out by allowing people to apply to the board for them to determine on a case by case basis what land people can build their homes on. This is the whole point about zoning laws...its to make things mandatory and not discretionary.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think it is pretty clear. Even Board members are on record saying this was the only way they could send a message to Palco. And this letter says: The ordinance was in direct response to the Plan for Reorganization submitted by the debtors to the Bankruptcy Court that outlines a proposal for residential development in Humboldt County known as the "Redwoods Ranch Development."

    But it is not Palco that concerns me here, it is the larger issue of private property rights - and the even larger issue, which is that those rights, and thus any rights, can be wiped out in one day, one single meeting, with no adequate notice and no due process, no hearings, nothing.

    On a whim, justified by the fact that it only affects a few. Thus they are expendable collateral damage.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I smell the Mark Lovelace, Ken Miller crowd behind this. They have infected the planning department which no longer listens to the public. For instance, go in there and try to get a building permit on land that may change with the current update. They will lie to you and tell you that you can no longer get a permit. And their elitist attitude is shameful. Who is working for whom here?

    Frankly what is really more troubling is the fact that the board has apparently taken the position that listening to the public is an inconvenience to them. Do what is minimally legally necessary. It’s the attitude of “We’ll show up and tell you what we are doing and we don’t give a damn what you think of it.”

    ReplyDelete
  4. 9:12 - do you have any links to the sketch plans - Alternative A, B, C and D... for those who are from out of the area, or who haven't been following the General Plan Update process?

    ReplyDelete
  5. start here: http://co.humboldt.ca.us/planning/gp/gpdemo/GPU-TOC-Demo3.htm

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rose,
    Sad to see that your beautiful County is "also" dictated to by a covey of mindless feebs.

    Glad to see that they have Your voice. Not straining or strident, just insistent at letting the People know.

    Proud to count you one of the "Pack", (Once I figure how to do the Links, of course).

    Wollf

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.