Friday, November 16, 2007

From Save Ancient Forest blog comments: w/update

Regarding the TPZ discussion, in response to Mark Lovelace's near mirror of heraldo's post (they share the same misunderstanding of TPZ taxation), comes this interesting comment:

From Save Ancient Forest blog comments:John D.: Mark just doesn't get it. In a rural setting a home is always necessary to manage the land.

If you are not on your property, you lose rights concerning your property to others who do. I am sure you have heard about prescriptive easements. You can get them for any use, including but not limited to rights to use roads, trails, cut trees, take water, hunt, fish, grow marijuana, camp, ride bikes, quads, horses, picnic etc. etc.

Unfortunately for the county and for Mark's group, the public now no longer trusts the board, planning staff or Healthy Humboldt or the HWC. They blew an awful lot of capital with this.

And if that is really his position, then can he explain why he has an open line with Tom Hofweber. And can he explain the June 3, 2005 memo from Girard to the Planning Commission outlining 600 acre minimums in TPZ and Ag with CUP’s (Conditional Use Permits) for all development of homes? This memo certainly shows that this was clearly planned over 2 years ago.

I for one do not believe in the county any longer to exercise good discretion as the sketch plan principles call for denying any growth whatsoever that is not attached to an existing water supply or sewer and to discourage any rural growth, concentrating growth only in urban areas. Frankly, with this as a principle, planning will be using its discretion to deny all construction.

I will cross post this on TPZwatch - just wondering, does anyone have a copy of that June 3, 2005 memo? It certainly does lend credence to the hypothesis that this move was never really about Palco at all, but that Palco's proposal threatened some already determined portion of the General Plan and brought about an attempted end-run of the Planning process.

In that sense, this whole debacle is probably a good thing, because it now allows people to have a real say in the process, as opposed to the "listening tours."

Update: Thank you to Mark Lovelace for providing the following documents:

November 15, 2000 Forest Review Committee Issues a 2 pg pdf document
June 3, 2005 Draft AG and Timber Policies a 4 pg pdf document
June 3, 2005, Industrial Timber Managers General Plan Update Meeting Notes a 2 pg pdf document
Farm Bureau Cattlemen's General Plan Update Meeting Notes a 2 pg pdf document
Chapter 4 Forest Resources Land Use Element an 8 pg pdf document


  1. Always thought the whole HWC thing was a bit weird. Have had an uneasy feeling about just what the real motives were. Don't know about the rest of you but I don't like it one damn bit when others start telling me what I should do,think,support.

  2. With mighty mouse as spokes-rat their message was always cheese-eeee but it's so old now it really smells.

  3. A funny look at a serious problem.


Comments are open, but moderated, for the time-being. Good luck.