Saturday, November 24, 2007

Ken Miller is a TPZ landowner

Surprise, surprise!

From McKinleyville Press
The eventual consequences of our current Timberland (TPZ) zoning rules became clear to me when a local developer said I could subdivide my TPZ land into 4 "forties" with a joint management plan, and presumably sell at a price that reflects four buildable properties.

While contemplating the enormous profits, I also imagined the horrific impacts if I, and my neighbors, exploit these opportunities, even at the 160-acre level: increased traffic through Kneeland onto Mountain View Road; water quality and habitat degradation from sediment, septics, household chemicals, domestic animals, multi-vehicle use and trash; wildfire risks; fragmented timberlands and nuisance complaints from the newly-urbanized interfaces with them; and spiraling economic pressure for wholesale conversions.

Eel River Sawmills recently financed the sale to a young, local developer-entrepreneur
(You mean this entrerpeneur?) of roughly 15,000 acres of timberland for $5.6 million, or under $400/acre, a price that, with favorable terms, could facilitate sustainable timber management over time, consistent with state law that "Encourage[s] investment in timberlands based on reasonable expectation of harvest." (51102a(4)).

However, he has been subdividing, selling, financing and "servicing" small parcels for as much as $4-6,000/acre, making more immediately profitable agriculture necessary - and possible. Purchasers of one of these parcels were busted growing industrial quantities of marijuana. The supervisors held code enforcement proceedings for environmental damages from these activities.

Large-scale development is another much more profitable potential use of TPZ lands. A co-founder of "Humboldt-CPR" uses his TPZ lands as real estate. If these scenarios continue, our timberlands will be too expensive for anyone but land speculators and large-scale marijuana growers.
(like that entrepreneur?)

The proposed County TPZ revisions to restrict TPZ development will align our codes with state regs, such as those of most neighboring counties, which restrict homebuilding on TPZ lands to "[A] residence or other structure necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production." (government code 51104(h))

Bill Barnum, real estate attorney and 4th largest timberland owner in the County, misinterprets that timber law, insisting that the residence is statutorily permitted, while the other structures need to be "necessary." If correct, he would be making the strongest possible argument for revision of our TPZ regs, which would, left unchanged with his interpretation, promote land speculation and TPZ conversion to urbanized landscapes, directly violating the government code which "[D]iscourage[s] expansion of urban services into timberland." (51102)

We must work together to come up with solutions that protect the working timberlands, mindful that we, the people, have determined to "[M]aintain the optimum amount of the limited supply of timberland to ensure its current and continued availability for the growing and harvesting of timber and compatible uses." (51102)

The Forest Practice Act aims to: "...manage and maintain its limited forest resources for the purposes of furnishing high-quality timber, recreational opportunities, aesthetic enjoyment, watershed protection, fisheries and wildlife." Calfire (CDF) has made it clear that "...changes in zoning that lead to reduced parcel sizes and encourage development detracts from the benefits that can be derived from actively managed forests." Residences and habitation inhibit timber production pursuant to the watershed and habitat elements of the Timberland Productivity Act.

In a recent Timber Harvest Plan in Yager Creek drainage, Sierra Pacific Industries candidly warns that in the event the land were not to be used for timber production, "It is likely that some of the parcels, currently zoned, may be sub-divided to take advantage of the expanding rural residential housing market driven by the growth of the Humboldt Bay area. This expansion in rural residential housing will result in the reduction of lands zoned TPZ, land use conversion (permanent removal of forest cover), increased road construction, potential soil and water contamination by increasing the number of septic fields in the given watersheds, and increased traffic within the assessment area."

Maxxam's proposal to sell off 160-acre "kingdoms" to the super-rich will establish precedents and comparable prices that will benefit speculators and Realtors, creating a "land rush." We cannot ignore the nexus between this TPZ controversy and the General Plan Update.

Population growth's demands for big box commodities would necessitate wider roads in all directions to accommodate their trucks, which could also service an expanded, industrialized port. Bingo, Humboldt transforms into Santa Rosa cum SF Bay Area, with urbanized watersheds, pollution, congestion and ever-increasing cost of living.

We had better support our sustainable, working timberlands, and jobs associated with healthy watersheds, like logging and fishing, or the developers' dream will become our nightmare.

(Ken Miller is a McKinleyville resident, a member of the Humboldt Watershed Council and a TPZ landowner.)


Something wrong with this picture! - Ken Miller advocating jobs like {gasP!!!} Logging! and working timberlands! Or is he just trying to pull the wool over your eyes while he has his eyes on an end game.

20 comments:

  1. why shouldnt someone by able to own TPZ land? should we limit ownership of property by political leanings?

    why shouldnt someone who owns TPZ land not be able to speak out about it?

    HAHA rose, people are talking, and you cant shut them up;)

    must suck to be rose in this country where freedom exists.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Actually, theotherme, Rose is spot on. This section sounds exactly like the development spiral San Diego went through years ago.

    water quality and habitat degradation from sediment, septics, household chemicals, domestic animals, multi-vehicle use and trash; wildfire risks; fragmented timberlands and nuisance complaints from the newly-urbanized interfaces with them; and spiraling economic pressure for wholesale conversions

    Once you start down the path, it's hard to stop. The end result here has been the urbanization of almost every square inch of San Diego. Each time it occurred, the developers promised that it would be "managed" growth and the politicians sternly warned the developers, all the while they were taking campaign contributions.

    The end result is habitat destruction, overcrowding above and beyond the infrastructure's capacity and a much less livable San Diego.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Only here, the degradation has come at the hands of the back to the landers - the homesteaders and pot growers, while they seek to shut everyone else down and freeze this county in time in fear of the spectre of southern california.

    Now they are trying to force infill development, which is exactly what you are describing houses right next to each other on postage stamp lots, claiming that is a better quality of life.

    It is not.

    It's funny to find that Ken Miller and Greg King own TPZ land - those activist jobs must pay well. If they truly want to protect the trees, which they claim, then buying land and saving the trees for posterity is the right way - BUT - Greg King told the Board of Supervisors that he INTENDS to log.

    The irony of that, the hypocrisy of that is incredible.

    I am against infill development. We chose to live here because we did not want to live in a sea of concrete, in high rises, in side by side housing.

    I am against the kind of development KT talks about - I think most all of us are - but 40 acre - 600 acre parcels do not equate to that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "in this county where freedom exists"?

    theotherretard, are you suggesting freedom does not exist in other counties?

    How about giving us an example or two of counties in California (or in any state) where freedom doesn't exist. And then maybe back up your statement with a fact or two! But since you were talking out your ass you won't be able to.

    Good post Rose.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's also funny to see Ken Miller saying exactly what Stephen Lewis has been saying all these years. Stephen must be laughing at the irony of that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is the Ken Miller that sells 215 recomendations for $250 each ? The same Ken Miller that hates the police, especially EPD ? The same Ken Miller that hates Palco, who is planning on selling the 160 parcels ? Does this same Ken Miller now think it's OK to sell these parcels to marijuana growers ?

    Selling the 215 recommendations must be profitable for a Dr. like Miller ! He can afford 160 acres (or more?) of TPZ land.

    ReplyDelete
  7. He owns multiple properties, and lives above the Mad River Bluffs. He just doesn't want YOU to be able to buy 160 acres and build a house on it. He wants you to hold it because now he supports logging, this man who has been about nothing but shutting logging down.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Does this make him a hypocrite?

    Wasn't it Miller and Schectman (together with Gallegos) pushing the Palco lawsuit, you know the one that got tossed out of court? And now Schectman is in cahoots with that young entrerpeneur, you know the one under indictment by the feds for conspiracy to grow dope? Kind of amusing how this all seems to revolve around marijuana !!! It's OK to cut roads, divert streams, and whatever if you are a dope grower or more importantly and incorporated dope grower(s)!!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Rose,there are many other than Lovelace and myself who like infill development.It'd be nice to see more building and zoning converted to industrial/residential.Some just prefer to have the ability to walk and bike to destinations in close proximity,and helps to make nicer neighborhoods,and it leaves the countryside and hills for nature.I have nothing against those who prefer to reside there,that's their choice.But It'd be nice changes in zoning regulations to allow for someone to convert a unused building into a living space.Former Eureka city councilmember Mary Beth Wolford lives in a wonderful spot smack dab in the middle of Old Town,in a building she was able to convert into a home.
    You can have successful infill development without turning into a San Diego with the right planning and vision.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree with that, mresquan - and all I am saying is that there are people who DO want to live in the real country, without the amenities and services, able to make it on their own, with enough land to have some horses, plant a real garden, and enjoy some solitude. We don't have to live on top of each other. So have both - the Cutten development will be what you are looking for.

    But don't pull the scare cards to eliminate rural landowners from being able to live their dream because some city people can't imagine life without cable TV.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I dislike the Cutten project because it neglects pedestrian usage and will only make for worse traffic,that with the Lundbar Hills subdivision coming in as well.
    "some city people can't imagine life without cable TV."
    I'd bet that way more people in the country have cable TV than in the city,or more citified.I don't have it,and know folks living closer to downtown who don't.I'd suspect that income has something to do with that as well though.
    I actually can't stand it.I catch the news and that's about it.I donate platelets every other week at the blood bank and then I do channel surf for almost 2 hours.So that's really what it takes to get me to watch it,to stick a needle in my arm for two hours.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I'd bet that way more people in the country have cable TV."

    A higher percentage is what I meant.

    ReplyDelete
  13. No, Mark, the outlying areas get 3, 6 and 13 with bunny ears - or they have satellite dishes.

    Most, but not all, have PG&E. Most do not have gas, but may have propane tanks. They do not have city water and sewer. They have wells and septic tanks.

    It's a different life. Some would say a better life.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "It's a different life. Some would say a better life."

    I would say it's a better life than a strictly urban one but to each their own. Also, logging and preserving forest health can go hand in hand. But there are relativly few examples of that here in Humboldt. I occasionally walk through a very nicely and cotinuously logged area of forest in Freshwater and wonder why it can't be more like that everywhere. There are still numerous trees of all sizes, the forest floor is healthy and it's apparent that lumber is being produced and sold.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I agree with you, John Doe, From my perspective it is absolutely a better life, the kind I grew up in. And, like you I know a good many people who live that kind of authentic life, stewards of the land and forest. It's why I cannot fathom this recent move towards infill.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mark Lovelace11/26/2007 11:33 PM

    It's all about balance, Rose. The density of the urban areas is what allows the rural areas to stay rural.

    No one is telling people they can't live in the country, or that they have to live in higher density communities. People should be able to choose, and should have good examples to choose from. By encouraging infill, we are trying to preserve that choice, so that the rural areas don't develop into suburbs.

    For example, if the core of McKinleyville were to grow up into a more urban environment, that could accomodate future growth without expanding into Dow's Prarie and over into Fieldbrook. Those places could remain rural.

    On the other hand, if McKinleyville continues to expand outward, densities in those areas could double, then double again, until the large agricultural lots are all developed and the rural areas are no longer rural.

    Density in the urban areas is what makes low density in the rural areas possible.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Not with 5, 10 and 20 acre minimums, Mark.

    And if we had taken your stance years ago - people like Chuck Harvey wouldn't have a nice place in Fieldbrook. He lives on land that we used to play on. Many who live in the hills live on land we used to ride horses through.

    I'd say Chuck lives a pretty good quality authentic life there, Mark, whereas shoving people into dense infill - while it may work for some - is not conducive to a good quality life, with some privacy, room for a garden (a real one, not a pot garden), maybe some goats or horses, chickens....

    Development between Fieldbrook and McKinleyville is a foregone conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mark Lovelace11/27/2007 7:57 AM

    Not with 5, 10 and 20 acre minimums, Mark.

    I don't know how to read that comment. What is it referring to? What is not with 5, 10 and 20 acre minimums?

    Development between Fieldbrook and McKinleyville is a foregone conclusion.

    I disagree, but the bigger question is whether it is a desireable conclusion. Is that what you would like to see? If so, how much?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oh come on Mark that truly is horseshit. You are trying to remove the ability for anyone to build in rural areas period. I have listened to you and so called “healthy humboldt” (or unhealthy humboldt as I refer to you) and that is precisely your past position which you are moderating now because of the hoopla you idiots caused with the TPZ (and also soon to be Ag) ordinance to effectively stop all building in tpz. I know that you say that that is not the case, but why would you be so adamant in not allowing any changes to the “guiding principles” of the general plan update? Those do say to “discourage” growth in rural areas and on land not “serviced” by water and sewer services. What that means is to exercise any discretion in the negative. You are not preserving any choices whatsoever. You are taking them away.
    What it is is this: you are about taking away choice, forcing people to live like city folk instead of country folk, and forcing 1million acres of TPZ into a park without paying for it.
    What this is not: it is not about preserving rural areas and not turning them into suburbs. Hell, you minimum zone to 20 acres - that ain’t no suburb Mark!.

    And comparing this area to San Diego is absolutely ridiculous.

    Make minimum and reasonable size parcels thru zoning and vary them according to location (600 is ridiculous as is 160 as a flat rule, try staggering them from 20 - 160 depending upon location.) Also enforce minimum road widths to and from home sites and enforce all building codes. Hike up fees to make building without permits too costly and do something positive instead of this crap.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ken Miller advocating jobs like {gasP!!!} Logging! and working timberlands! Or is he just trying to pull the wool over your eyes while he has his eyes on an end game.

    You want to see what KM is advocating here's his dream right here:
    From:
    http://co.humboldt.ca.us/board/agenda/questys/MG115937/Agenda.htm
    Go to item:
    G. MATTERS SET FOR TIME CERTAIN
    11:00 a.m. - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

    1. Southern Humboldt "Concerned Citizens" Group Presentation on the Adverse Environmental Impacts Associated with Illegal Marijuana Grows in Humboldt County. (Supervisor Rodoni)
    Click on it and go here:
    http://co.humboldt.ca.us/board/agenda/questys/MG115937/AS115984/AS115987/AI153880/Documents.htm

    and read Miller's letter:
    its item 2 as a tiff -
    http://co.humboldt.ca.us/board/agenda/questys/MG115937/AS115984/AS115987/AI153880/DO158449/2.TIF

    Or page two of the PDF file found there:

    http://co.humboldt.ca.us/board/agenda/questys/MG115937/AS115984/AS115987/AI153880/DO158449/BOSAgendaItem.pdf


    any questions what Miller's Vision for Humboldt is?

    you know who ...

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.