For a classic civics lesson, head on over to "heraldo's" blog where you'll see him slime the kids, evoke the Palco bugaboo (because oh my god, no one could get together en masse without funding from palco, it msut be about palco, palco, palco - oh, and arkley, arkley, arkley......)
It's all about this ad. (Text here) It's all about the property owners, who "heraldo" views as collateral damage - it's about making sure that no one gets a chance to buy property outside of a city subdivision, that no one gets to live off the grid, in the country on more than 1/10th of an acre, because that would be "s-p-r-a-w-l-l-l-l-l-l" Never mind that you chose to live here because you don't want to live in a city, "heraldo" has plans for you. How dare the people who actually own property stand up for themselves?
Oh, yes, this is going to be interesting, alright.
pdf file from County site/ Board Agenda item
IT'S TO BAD Bush is such a failure,Palco,Epic,the board of Sups too. Truth is everyone is getting so damn dumbed down no one realizes that socialism is ruling all thought in "progressiv3e" America and greed the rest. It has in Europe for a long time and Republicans and others who should know better have over spent us into ruin trying to keep up with unattainable promises of the left. The County BOS don't have a clue how bad their TPZ action is. How could they. They are just as bad for the people as Palco. F#%& them both and throw those ass%#*%# at EPIC in too. I'll be at the court house Sat. because I am an Independent American who is tried of the BS of the left the right and the jerks in office. Heraldo go F%#& yourself.
ReplyDeleteDamn, how'd you get Bush in to this?
ReplyDeleteIt's his singular failure that will allow Hillary a real shot as Prez. She will take us the next giant step to one world government.Freedom can not survive under socialism. The boards TPZ emergency is another assult on freedom. Palco is a wet dream in comparison.
ReplyDeleteHearaldo has no problem with dope growers living "off the grid" and doing all the damage they do to the environment. That's just A OK with the big "H". Heraldo is an ________
ReplyDelete"Freedom can not survive under socialism."
ReplyDeleteJust as Scotia didn't survive Palco dictated Socialism.I really can't think of any company owned towns which weren't Socialist in nature.
And Rose, realize that where Heraldo is Palco,Arkley,etc..,you are Gallegos,Salzman,etc...
Not knocking it,but it is what it is.
mresquan,you are way off base. Even in a company town a man can come and go,quit or stay. What you mistake is that a job belongs to the employer not the other way around. Freedom can not survive socialism. Your points does not alter that.
ReplyDeleteYou won't find me defending Socialism very often.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct, mresquan, about the similarity between Heraldo and me. What is the major difference?
ReplyDeletethat Rose actually documents things that she is saying.
ReplyDeleteHeraldanonymous is big on innuendo and slander.
:) Well, Thanks!
ReplyDeleteI was going to say it was that you know my real name.
It's called "transparency" and really stands for "honesty". Heraldo and crew, leftovers from the heyday of Richard Salzman, do not understand the concept because for Prog pols, political winning trumps intellectual honesty every time. I mean a Prog will bend over for any Republican who joins their anti-Palco, anti-Arkley, anti-industry song and dance numbers, e.g. Bonnie, now Carlos, who else is sizing up Progs for political expediency and vice versa?
ReplyDeleteBonnie is Repubpican in name only. If There was a dem governor Bonnie would be a Dem. Just like her former husband Terry. He switched parties in hopes of getting appointed a jugdes position.
ReplyDeleteAlso people should remember this kind of "crap" at election time. Time for them to go.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSo no one here seems interested in asking whether the 6 claims made in the ad are true? In fact, every single one of those claims is demonstrably false.
ReplyDeleteIt is shameful to see how much fear-mongering and misinformation is being spread by people who should know better.
Really, truly, nothing in that ad is even close to accurate. I don't mean that the points are arguable or challengeable, but that they are simply false.
Rose, I usually have great respect for your willingness to do your homework and check your facts. You have give the authors of this ad a complete pass, and have accepted everything they put forward as fact. In doing so, you do your readers a tremendous disservice.
Unlike your friend heraldo, who starts denigrating the kids?
ReplyDeleteOk - Mark Lovelace, let's start a real dialogue. Based on facts, and on law.
Let's start with the first move - you tell me what the "Emergency" was.
Hiding behind your kids is pretty sad.
ReplyDeleteHillary Clinton is the farthest-right president you will get next year, so why not just register Dem and vote for her in the primary?
ReplyDelete(If you think she looks like trouble, check out my favorite, John Edwards, $400 haircut and all. The American people NEED a good lawyer).
Bringing Bush up in a discussion like this is very appropriate. His take-no-prisoners approach to business and politics has provided an unfortunate role model which seems to be emulated, at least in part, on the local level. One can see this in the indiscriminate use of the term "socialism", which is being used from DC to TPZ. Even paying taxes to support a war machine is a form of socialism, so I suggest you find a better word to damn us with.
Hopefully Rose and others will learn to get along better with Democrats for the next few years. Most of them really aren't so scary.
The sun is out in Humboldt County. Good morning!
Bringing Bush into it has NOTHING to do with it Greg, you farking moron.
ReplyDeleteI guess we should bring Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson into it as well, as they are about as connected to this as Bush is.
I actually pity idiots like Greg, who want to frame every arguement into, "blame Bush, its the republican's fault".
Well, Greg, I am a democrat, voting for Edwards. I am also against this blatant attack on PALCO.
BTW, the California Assembly and State Senate are democratically controlled, and until recently, we had a democratic gov. I dont see you casting blame at their feet.
Farkin hypocrite.
Hi Rose.
ReplyDeleteI am happy to have this discussion with you. Please keep in mind, though, that the authors of the ad have made very particular accusations about the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors. The burden of proof is upon them to demonstrate that there was something wrong with the Board's facts, findings, or interpretation of law. The authors have utterly failed to do this, and you have failed to hold them to any standard for making their case.
As to your first question here, clearly neither you nor the authors of the ad are familiar with the ordinance or the law, because you use the word "emergency" which does not appear anywhere in Govt Code Section 65858. The County declared an "urgency," as specified by 65858, and made 5 pages of detailed findings to support that declaration. I trust that you have actually read those findings.
Rather than obligating me to paraphrase, I believe that the obligation is upon you and the authors of the ad to state in clear terms how the Supervisors' action was improper or not supported by their findings.
Please read the ad and try to offer any supportable arguments of fact or law that supports any of the allegations that the authors have made. You should hold them to the same standard to which you are holdng the County. Instead, you have failed to hold them to any standard at all.
Mark, the burden is on YOU, my friend, who stated:
ReplyDelete"In fact, every single one of those claims is demonstrably false."
Please demonstrate.
I'll get this out of the way first, Greg. Most - pretty much ALL - of my friends are dems or decline to states, but YOU are a nutcase IMO. Any more discussion on this thread about Bush will be deleted - but if you want me to I'll open a Bush hate thread just for you.
ReplyDeleteNow -
I agree with you in one sense, Mark, and that is that statements need to be analyzed - I just happen to think that statements from your side never get analyzed, and it is high time they were. And the spin that is starting to be spread is really laughable - trying to paint all concerned landowners as 'evil rich hateful greedy despicable republican profit mongers lawless' etc... terms like 'starter castles' and 'princesses' is not going to sell very well and does nothing but harm to this community. Using spin words like SPRAWL to define one house on 160 acres is absurd and disingenous at best. But I'm willing to say let's look at both sides.
I sincerely invite people from both sides to submit facts and argument. This will be one thread where I will censor off topic idiotic comments, in the interest of a respectful and intelligent discussion. I don't have the ability to EDIT comments - which I would have on Wordpress - I only have the option to delete with a notice saying it has been deleted or delete permanently with no mark left. I prefer the latter as it avoids interrupting the conversation with a bunch of blanks.
Those are the rules.
Rose, I absolutely agree that there is a lot of divisive and unhelpful language on both sides, and that there is not enough analysis of the real facts. Again, that is why I take issue with the allegations in the ad, and with the failure of those on (for lack of a better distinction) your side to question those claims in any way. That ad is nothing more than a string of baseless and inflamatory accusations, without substance or basis.
ReplyDelete9:30, that was a nice attempt to punt, but the ball's still in your court (I know, I'm mixing my sports metaphors.) The Board of Supervisors had to follow law and make specific findings, which they did in great detail. That record is there for all to see and respond to.
By contrast, the authors of the ad have made broad and thoroughly unsupported accusations. In the complete absence of any evidence whatsoever to support those accusations, they cannot be presumed to have any merit. If you wish to assert that the accusations are valid, then it is up to you to bring forward the evidence.
Until then, I will refer you to the findings in the ordinance, the staff report, and the video of the hearing itself, which is available on the County's website. That is the record that supports the County's action.
Rose, you need to post Mark L's recent email and see if he can back up what he says.
ReplyDeleteA friend turned in a building permit application (on TPZ) the day of the ordinance. He was called the next day and they wanted him to pick up his check, plans, and return his receipt (odd?). He would not return the receipt or pick up his plans. To say nobody has been hurt is dishonest. Mark L knows that many people have TPZ lands that planned on building sometime in the future. When the planners go through the CUP process, they will have to make a finding that a residence is necessary for growing timber, which is a joke. Nobody will get a permit.
The language in the law describing principally permitted uses are uses that do not significantly detract from growing or harvesting timber, such as - and then there is a list. One example is: a residence or other structure necessary for growing and harvesting timber. That is the big argument. It has been understood for the past 30 years to mean a residence is principally permitted (taken into context with the whole paragraph the residence must not significantly impact the ability to grow timber) or "other structure..." meaning that an "other structure" must be necessary for for growing the trees. More later, have to get to the protest.
And I will put up those links. I do agree everyone should read them.
ReplyDeleteThe very first sentence in the ad says “The Humboldt County Supervisors have taken away our most cherished right of home ownership on rural property!” Maybe some of the people signing that ad can afford TPZ property, but most of the readers of the ad can’t even afford to buy a small house. “Our rights” is utter nonsense.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteLet's stay on topic on this one thread. Let it be a place whewre people can come for information.
ReplyDeleteI will post those deleted comments in one of the previous threads on this topic and you guys can go at it if you want to. I won't be having people dump on Stephen here, either - he has been talking for years about the environmental degradation caused by homesteaders in SoHum, and none of you gave a damn. Now it's all about the degradation that will result if anyone is allowed to build on 100 acres - because you want to get Palco by any means necessary.
In this case though, it isn't about Palco. It is about people who buy and own property - and it isn't limited to just TPZ land when one day, with no notice, and no due process, a governing body can revoke all property rights.
Sorry, Mark, but I do not see where they are lying in their ad. I know you want to keep the discussio nwithin your narrow parameters - this is what it is and this is what it is not, you said. I think you are wrong. So do alot of other people, and several hundred showed up today to say so.
Rose - Why don't you post what "staff" wrote re the building of houses, etc. on TPZ for the Tuesday BOS meeting - it is on the BOS site as backup for the agenda item in the afternoon. It seems clear that it says that a house or a mobile home is allowed and that is exactly what is being changed.
ReplyDeleteJust more data to support the truism that one does not own property in Humboldt County. You simply lease it from the government who has the option to change the terms of the lease unilaterally with little or no notice.
ReplyDeleteYes. I am in the process of getting all those links and docs together. There is apparently some additional action scheduled which the media has not been informed about, again with no real notice - one is scheduled for this Wednesday.
ReplyDeleteMark L said:"
ReplyDelete9:30, that was a nice attempt to punt, but the ball's still in your court"
No, the ball is in YOUR court. It's not MY ad. I didnt SAY anything. YOU did; YOU said, and, again, I quote:
"In fact, every single one of those claims is demonstrably false."
Once again, the ad isnt something I even necessarily agree with. That being said, please demostrate where EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE CLAIMS IS DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.
Still waiting, Mark.
Here's what the ad says -
ReplyDeleteBy enacting an "Emergency Ordinance" that bans new home construction on TPZ lands in Humboldt County, you have abused your power and attacked our rural culture.
You claimed an "emergency" as a ruse to cheat us out of our constitutional right to due process, and you took over $1 Billion of property without justification or compensation.
You held two public hearings with little or no advance notice where you rushed to eliminate a long-standing right to build a home on private property.
You interfered with the dream of home ownership for many individuals who were in the process of achieving a piece of Humboldt County's rural culture. You are ignoring the county and state laws that for 30 years have allowed a residence on TPZ lands.
You have pre-determined the outcome of the ongoing General Plan Update process by dictating a policy that eliminates home building on TPZ lands.
You claimed the ordinance is in response to an "emergency." There is no emergency. Nobody can build a home on TPZ lands without your building permit oversight and regulation - and you know that to be true. You were already in control of the process.
Indulging in semantics over whether it is "Emergency" or "Urgency" isn't going to cut it. That's like it depends on what the meaning of the word "Is" is. There was no question at that first hearing that it was being declared as an "Emergency" measure, and much of the testimony clarified that there was NO EMERGENCY beyond the Board wanting to 'send a message.'
Jane Doe = Heraldo
ReplyDeleteIt's not MY ad.
ReplyDeleteFair enough. Then the ball's in their court. As you can see from Rose's post above, they have not provided any evidence or argument to support their allegations, just empty rhetoric.
one day, with no notice, and no due process, a governing body can revoke all property rights.
Rose, this is simply a ridiculous statement. The BOS noticed the hearing according to law, the same as they do every week. Lots of folks were there, so obviously people got the notice. More to the point, though, the Board's action was a temporary suspension of what is at best a potentially-allowable accessory use of the property. The primary use for which the property is zoned, TIMBER, was not touched in any way. No one; NO ONE is talking about making that suspension permanent. It is irresponsible of you to make a statement like the one above.
mark you are a joke and so is your position. if the BOS had done this in palcos favor you would be out of your mind in anger. little man you have helped piss on the people once to often.shame on you.
ReplyDeleteJane Doe=Heraldo=Mark L= epic=destruction fight for freedom,fight these fools,fight the ignorance of the board,stand up for freedom. weren't those kids great today? makes me proud to be an American. That's damn hard in here in dopeland.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, Mark, when TPZ (Timber Production Zoning) was adopted, each city/County had the right to decide what compatible uses would be allowed on TPZ land.
ReplyDeleteThe Humboldt County Board of Supervisors decided (with full public input in 1976), that houses ARE a compatible use. This was strengthened in 1989 and again in 1998 with approval for provisions for second houses on TPZ parcels 40 acres or larger.
Therefore your statement is false.
Saying that is "only for 45 days" is cold comfort to those affected, whose property values are diminished, whose faith in the system is shaken to the core. Laugh it off if you will since it does not affect you, or take the other tach, seen on "heraldo's" blog - anyone who owns property is rich and therefore deserves it... the fact is that moratorium can be extended up to almost 2 years.
By passing this moratorium the Board affected all TPZ landowners, they did not just send a message to Palco and the bankruptcy court.
But what happened the next week is even more serious.
What was done demonstrates that tomorrow they could just as arbitrarily decide to take an action which affects all home/property owners - that there is no certainty and no guarantee that you will have any warning, or any recourse, before your rights are stripped away.
The General Plan has been 'in progress' for how many years? A General Plan is supposed to anticipate and plan for growth. The eventuality that TPZ landowners might decide to or be forced to sell should have been in the contingency plans 20 years ago. The fact that it is not - and that the plan is not done, is not Palco's fault, and it is not the fault of the individual landowners.
This end run - a false emergency - now gives the planning department time to bypass the General Plan process with planning by ordinance - and without due process.
Cal Gov Code § 51104(h)
ReplyDelete"Compatible use" is any use which does not significantly detract from the use of the property for, or inhibit, growing and harvesting timber, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the following, unless in a specific instance such a use would be contrary to the preceding definition of compatible use:
(1) Management for watershed.
(2) Management for fish and wildlife habitat or hunting and fishing.
(3) A use integrally related to the growing, harvesting and processing of forest products, including but not limited to roads, log landings, and log storage areas.
(4) The erection, construction, alteration, or maintenance of gas, electric, water, or communication transmission facilities.
(5) Grazing.
(6) A residence or other structure necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production.
As I understadn it, Mark - and I am trying to come up to speed on it - The county addressed this in 1976 when they made express findings with the last general plan that housing on 40 acre parcels is a “Compatible Use.”
I can think of at least 2 lawsuits right now and I haven’t put a lot of time into it.
ReplyDeleteWhat Bill Barnham said to the BOS is supported by the legislative history and consistent with how EVERY OTHER COUNTY READS IT.
Faust’s interpretation on behalf of ramming this down our throats is not supported by anything at all.
The BOS is flirting with disaster. You think Tooby Ranch was costly?
There are 2 groups, one is formed by Elizabeth Pierson and her brother who are both high school students. Remember Bonnie laughing at her?
ReplyDeleteI am concerned by repeated reports that A friend turned in a building permit application (on TPZ) the day of the ordinance. He was called the next day and they wanted him to pick up his check, plans, and return his receipt (odd?). He would not return the receipt or pick up his plans.
ReplyDeleteWho did this happen to - please give details. This is important. The Board specifically worded their action to protect people like this - and this seems to fly in the face of that direction.
This is one reason why people are inflamed, Mark.
But let's move on to the claims in the ad... which of them do you really disagree with - you say they are all fatally flawed. I have reread them and I do not see it.
Faust's position on this is well supported. One only needs to look at his history as an anti- property rights mouth piece for the coastal commission. For years he helped trample on individual rights in his zeal to expand the power and athority of the C.C. He reads everything from this perspective. When you read a clause with 15 equal comoponets it's very important to the goal to be able to discount or elliminate any parts that take away from the power of the state. Individual rights are shuffeled to the side or not consideredat all. Very much in the model of all our enviro ladened agencies. Where in the world did we find this horor? What political payola did some board members cash in to stick the Humboldt Co public with this blight. How much longer must we suffer his indigency?
ReplyDeleteMark says: Until then, I will refer you to the findings in the ordinance, the staff report, and the video of the hearing itself, which is available on the County's website. That is the record that supports the County's action.
ReplyDeleteYou would ignore the people who speak. Wow. You're a bureaucrat, Mark. You have no bureaucratic job, but you're a bean counter, a bean counter who has lost sight of the human side of things, lost his ability to recognize purity and honesty, lost respect for the fact that this is a government by the people, not by the government. Maybe that's the real issue here.
From today's Times Standard... In the meantime, said the Humboldt Watershed Council's Mark Lovelace, there is a concern that people may take advantage of the gap to file permit applications that wouldn't meet the standards set by future ordinances.
ReplyDelete”There's a concern that people will file anything to have their foot in the door,” Lovelace said.
That woudn't meet the standards set by future ordinances.
Is that how we do business here, now, Mark?
Don't forget that this self rightous bunch Mark shills for are out to kill grazing too. They've done a good job of it so far. Lots of small ranchers out of buisness. If you don't wake up pretty darn soon you'll all be goose stepping to your communial room in a 5 story Arcata hovel. If you're good commrad Mark will let you walk on a trail. Wake f%#&*%g up!
ReplyDeleteYep. Mark, you get alotta press. Always given a title as leader of a group. So:
ReplyDeleteWhy is this your issue? Why are you so concerned with what other people get to do with land that they own?
Who is Humboldt Watershed Council? Is there a Board of Directors? Who's on it? Where does the money come from to pay your salary? How much is he paid? ($34,000? More? Less?) How many members on the "Council"? When do they meet? Who gets to vote?
Why are you so determined to ignore the voices of the people who are actually affected?
Absolutely agree with Anonymous 8:51 p.m.
ReplyDeleteFaust only puts in some words that support what he has decided. If you only put in one part that supports and not the other part that does not it is misleading at best.
In McKinleyville he has done the same thing with the Mad River bluffs and demands indemnification by the landowners so they will defend the county if the county gets sued for riprap to try to stop erosion. That just made the homes worth nothing as it follows each owner forever.
Hopefully the county will get a permanent county counsel soon. Of course they could hire someone worse, but we will hope not. But then with the BOS actions and reactions on the TPZ anything could happen.
As with the singular,in the case of the board of sups,when all reason is lost,all hope is gone,all decency spent,all trust evaporated,all morals in ruin there is one and only one course left to complete. Drink the Kool Aid.
ReplyDelete