Friday, November 16, 2007

TPZwatch

I'm going to try posting all TPZ related articles here.

It looks like this topic is going to be with us for some time, and needs its own space. Like watchpaul this will be a repository for articles, relevant documents, points of law and discussion.

I want to make it clear that this blog is not sanctioned by or affiliated with any of the groups involved in the TPZ discussion. I am, however, very much in support of the TPZ property owners, the Humboldt CPR (Coalition for Property Rights) and Humboldt Property Alliance.

There have been some very eloquent speakers, and some very valuable points raised, and they need to be recorded and aired.

We'll see if this works.

In the meantime - check out the Humboldt Coalition for Property Rights webpage and
the HPA: Humboldt Property Alliance

Upi'll remember that Humboldt Property Alliance was formed by Eureka High students (Garett and Elizabeth Pierson) to unite TPZ landowners and other concerned citizens in opposition to the TPZ ordinance changes put in place by the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors in early October. Good work, kids. Amazing and inspiring.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank you Rose for keeping this issue front and center. I know it must be painfull to see someone you have supported leading the charge to trample over the civil rights of local property owners. Can you post the legal information A. Jackson placed on the record at last nights planning meeting?

Rose said...

I'm going to try to post all the comments placed on the record (both sides), and I'll be asking anyone who spoke to give me a copy of their comments - or, as time permits, I'll try transcribing them off the tape.

I'm particulary interested in the points of law.

Rose said...

And, I guess, for the record, I do believe that the Board of Supervisors will do the right thing, and pull back from this power grab by Planning.

For too long the only people they have heard from are the Mark Lovelace's, whose agendas are contrary to the rights of property owners. YOu need only visit heraldo's blog and read the derisive class warfare based comments to understand what I mean.

I am encouraged by several things - that the people are standing up and speaking out in no uncertain terms, and that this process is revealing just how small a group Ken Miller and Mark Lovelace really are.

Dan Taranto represents a real grassroots movement, in the days when that was not just a phrase used by con men. And I am glad to see him speaking here, and bringing with him the wealth of knowledge that will serve all the people of this county well.

Rose said...

Mark Lovelace is saying: The key here is the word incompatible. Though the Coalition for Property Rights and the Humboldt Property Alliance make it sound as if the County is seeking to disallow all development on TPZ, that is just not the case. No one I know is saying that residential development on TPZ is never compatible (though CDF’s position comes close,) but neither is anyone saying that it is never a conflict. Right now the County has absolutely no ability to consider when it may be compatible, and when it may not. All that the County is trying to do is to come up with some reasonable discretionary ability to ensure that development on TPZ does not inhibit the productive use of those timberlands.

Of course no one is saying it's never compatible, Mark. They know better than to tip their hand. The problem is, they are saying "I have no problem with people building on TPZ land PROVIDED THEY MEET THE CRITERIA."

And the problem with that is, once they get that passed, once YOU get that passed, then it will be, "OOOOOPS, too bad. You don't meet the criteris. Because the criteris says there is NEVER a reason to build on TPZ, too bad, sucks to be you."

The property owners are not fools and they will not fall for that sleight of hand.

The Board must take a stand that AFFIRMS the rights of its property owners, because they are the backbone of the community, and the only reason the Board exists in the first place.

No one who owns property has any reason to trust you, Mark. You are a paid mouthpiece for Ken Miller. You want infill, and you want control over other people and what they do with their lands and businesses. You make this clear every time you speak.

You are trying to condense this discussion into a convenient little box that you can control - "What this is and what it is not..."

Anyone who is lulled by your calm demeanor will find they are bitten from behind the minute they concede.

It is absolutely astounding that this discussion is even being had. Making people justify their right to build a home on their own land. Disgusting.

Anonymous said...

Everyone needs to watch 6 & 11 ch.3 news to she what a manipulating job Martha Spencer from planning does in again framing the descussion against property rights. She is the tip of this very scary ice berg. She is a rabid enviro who will smile while she carefully places the dagger between rib #3 and #4. Just watch her and see for yourself.

Rose said...

It was watching what happened with the staff report at last night's (televised) Planning Commission meeting that made me decide to focus more on this issue.

mresquan said...

"I am encouraged by several things - that the people are standing up and speaking out in no uncertain terms, and that this process is revealing just how small a group Ken Miller and Mark Lovelace really are."

This issue has nothing to do with one's view of Mark or Ken Miller.He has an opinion just like Barnum does,so he's putting his view out there.Actually you'd have a heart attack if Mark spent time talking to boards and groups the same way Barnum is.And your side would have some great conspiracies if high school kids formed an alliance based on Lovelace and Miller's and whoever's viewpoint.Palco brought this mess forward,plain and simple,you're representative from district 5 will attest to that.
I've actually liked seeing and reading the differing views.Minus attacks directed at Barnum from one side and at Lovelace/Miller from the other,the discussions have been fine and will probably help the board come to a sensible conclusion(if they just listen to me).

Anonymous said...

The planning staff is bad,for sure,but it was the 3 girls on the board that made this an issue. There is no seperation in their ideology on social engineering.

Anonymous said...

Watch the replay of TPZ hearing. Watch for the two ridiculous comments by Scott Kelly. This guy is not only biased to the max but is stone cold unprepaired for the job. He is a two time appointee by the 5th dst super. There are 3 votes on planning board for sure against property rights with Mary G. the kicker. Although usually a free thinker the pull from her base just might be to strong for her. Pity that a small handful of well placed radicals can weild so much power and so much damage in a community. Remember,you voted these abominations into public office.

mresquan said...

Come to think of it,this has to be the most blown out of proportion debate in many years.
Even though I agree with ending the moratorium,I am concerned as to why the Barnum crowd is blowing it up like they are,even Lovelace has stated to me that nobody is looking to make it permanent without the necessary exemptions.It does make me wonder a bit what lies behind that fervency.
Barnum has essentially given us the word that we can after him with pitchforks(he likes going after people with bats) if he rescinds on his promises.So if the time comes when it's necessary,we shall.I'll join Lovelace,Miller,and whoever else when that happens.

Anonymous said...

You really dont have a clue, Konkler.

Rose said...

Yes, he does - or he should - because "blowing it all out of proportion" is exactly what people were saying about him and his neighbors when they were concerned about the adult Teen Challenge facility coming into their neighborhood.

This is that TIMES 10, Mark.

It's not just 1-10 - it is the Richter scale.

But people want to get Palco so bad they will crush every person in the way.

This discussion is unreal. I am serious, we need to have the water tested for hallucinogenics.

mresquan said...

Now that's true.Although I think you have me crossed with my brother.
Sorry,but I just don't think that the board's going to make anything permanent.

"You really dont have a clue, Konkler."

Perhaps over coffee what can discuss what I don't have a clue about.Try me.

Anonymous said...

mresquan you are not an idiot. You are a complete fucking idiot. Read your own post."loveless said to me no body is looking to make this permanet without exemptions" That isn't even coded wording,it's clear as hell. 1st it's just a temp.45 day thing to give palco a message 2nd. we better review this whole deal now that we have the chance. 3rd unfair taxation 4th uncontroled building 5th it ain't broke so let's fix it #6 let's make this permanet with a few do nothing exemptions. The people like mresquan will todder along like sheep and,well,fuck the rest of 'em and lets hope we drive them out'a the area anyway. Tree sitten party in the woods tonight. Smoke'em if ya got'em.

Anonymous said...

Mr Barnum is a very good man. I think what freaks these anti folks out is that everyone from CDF to coastal commission knows what grat stewards the Barnums have been with their land and forest practices. They don't need any help from the nut jobs and we all know this. If the HWC or anyone else wants to control some TPZ land they are free to buy as much as they can. No one will give a shit.

mresquan said...

Gee,I wonder what shit I'd here if I disagreed with your side.You're an idiot,go back and reread some posts before making stupid statements.
I gather that you've chosen to pick and choose posts to comment on.

Anonymous said...

You are a wonder

Anonymous said...

mresquan,I would not be so harsh on you as some others but you really do make some bad comments and seem, to me,to be not well informed. That or you are trying to run some kind of game about who you are and what you represent. Again I'd confront you in a different manner but I agree with the intent of resent criticism of your posts.

mresquan said...

"I agree with the intent of resent criticism of your posts."

I'm getting ripped on here because I think that Mark Lovelace has a valid point of view on this issue despite my disagreements with him.I take the insults with a grain of salt especially when coming from an anonymous source.I've said before that you don't come to blogs to discuss issues and points in a constructive way,as too many anons pop off crap and won't discuss issues(with me on this particular thread).
I sent out an invitation to discuss the issue at hand here over some coffee,instead of one accepting the offer,the usual tangent ensued.So since you too view me as uninformed on the subject at hand I extend that offer to you,and perhaps you can teach me what you think I don't know.
But I digress,the root of the criticism here comes with a fervency which persists against Mark Lovelace,whom I like and respect.

Anonymous said...

Mark - you are getting ripped only because you are inconsistent and don't make sense much of the time.

Anonymous said...

lets make a deal/you get hearldo to meet with barnum and i'll meet with you/ then we can all meet. as to your gripe that you're getting ripped because you trust in anything lovelace says'---well old boy even when you lay down with puppies you get up with flees