As the General Plan was being wrapped up, the following passage was discovered, tucked into the County of Humboldt Climate Action Plan (CAPE) which is an Appendix U to the Draft EIR for our local General Plan Update, and may be included as a background document for the Energy Element of the General Plan:
"B. Family Planning
(Big Brother*) The County should support the notion that every woman and every couple should have the resources and the power to control their own reproductive lives. By ensuring that every child in the County is planned, the County will make significant progress toward solving unnecessary increases in local contributions to global warming impacts. The County Public Health Department should implement a program to address the potential of unplanned pregnancies which unnecessarily add to future population increases, which in turn add to further greenhouse gas emissions due to addition(al?) consumption.."
◼ General Plan appendix draws fire; planning department error causes some to question process - Thadeus Greenson/The Times-Standard 5/22/2012
”This language is inappropriate in a planning document,” (Martha) Spencer wrote. “Planning staff used a template borrowed from another jurisdiction that contained this section. This section should have been deleted during the editing of the document prior to release.”
...In an e-mail sent to Eureka City Manager David Tyson and Community Development Director Rob Wall as an “FYI,” North Coast Home Builders Advocate Julie Williams hinted the paragraph's discovery implies other problems.
”What else is in the plan or the (draft environmental impact report) hidden somewhere in a section that was not discussed during a public hearing because no one found it prior to the commission's vote?”
* Yeah, I added the "Big Brother" title. Because that is what we're dealing with here.
** Definition of Easter Eggs, for Jon:
◼ Wikipedia, ◼ Online Slang Dictionary, ◼ Urban Dictionary
*** I told Jon to do his homework
NOW - You can ask ◼ Ms. LaTour what she thinks about this. (Ask Chris Kerrigan, too)
I submit that the people who are pissed off about the re-examination of the General Plan are either ignorant of this fact, or are worried that their other Easter Eggs will be discovered.
I, for one, applaud the current Board of Supervisors (four of them anyway) and the Planning Commissioners who have recognized the problem and are conducting the tedious search to ensure that this BS does not fly.
And, then we have the Eco-News, they're obviously one of the supporters of the fascistic Orwellian Easter Eggs, and they don't like those pesky Supervisors who won't go along with the Eco-Eugenics Program:
Excellent reporting to the community, Rose. You and John Chiv so out-do the Queen of Humboldt County Yellow Journalism in getting important information accurately to the community. Judy twists and spins every little bit she can in her NCJ political rag riding on arts and entertainment interest.
ReplyDeletePre read thoughts. Ok, looks like I have some reading to do. I'm busy, and you know already about how I feel about this in general. I think this is a potentially a diversion from the actual content of the GPU, you know the stuff the Commissioners and Supervisors and private interests OOPS I mean the public talks about to many days and nights a week.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm a sucker for Easter egg hunts. I'll take it seriously and try to maintain an open mind out of respect for you Rose.
What jurisdiction was it borrowed from?
ReplyDeleteAnyone ask THAT question?
It's just a 'distraction,' move along, quick!! Don't interfere with God's work... is that the deal?
Meanwhile I believe Jon is the only one of the three of you who is employed?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, wrong again. Where is Jon working? As HCDCC treasurer? He spends all day on the blogs.
ReplyDeleteTake all the pot shots you want. Dirty tactics being exposed bring out the attacks. State facts personal BS means nothing. Wait, you have no facts to counter with, do you?
Fact: Rose is not employed
ReplyDeleteCall it what you want anon
After a while ad hominem, personal attacks, rather than the reasoned, even if perhaps impassioned, assembly and presentation of facts, become obvious. Take certain stances here, or in a few other places, and expect vicious, stupid, personal invective, rather than some version of "ok, but what about this"?
ReplyDeleteWhether a person is retired or employed or disabled or whatever really has nothing to do with the strength of their reasoning powers or factual presentation. So why bring it up? Because, apparently, there's nothing else. Which, eventually begins to sink in. Or should.
Fact: Rose does a public service on her own time.
ReplyDeleteFact: Why should anyone believe an anonymous commenter standing in the way of any one providing public information unless they have an agenda?
See anonymous allegations can be made by anyone. Jon also has a job with the County. So should we assume that because he is being a "good Democrat" blogging away on behalf of certain people and their agenda that he is being paid to blog or being rewarded.
Stick to the topic of the post and if you have new factual information do share.
Answer the question JeffBirder/JJJJackson. WHO put the Easter Egg in there? Which 'jurisdiction' was it lifted from?
ReplyDeleteHow many more are there.
It doesn't matter what YOU think of it - but if Ms. LaTour is a pastor, it's going to be interesting to hear whether or not she supports the eco-eugenics inherent in that little gem - does she support killing babies because. global.warming. seas. rising.
Or, will she admit that is a REAL problem, and agree that, irritating as it is, the current Supervisors made the correct decision to go BACK through the entire goddam plan to make sure there aren't more - and maybe worse - Easter Eggs hidden throughout.
Answer the question(s).
"but if Ms. LaTour is a pastor, it's going to be interesting to hear whether or not she supports the eco-eugenics inherent in that little gem - does she support killing babies because. global.warming. seas. rising."
DeleteOh, you gotta love this! Repug logic at its best. Thanks for the morning laugh Rose!
Fact: Rose is unemployed
ReplyDeleteJeezus, what a loser attempt to smear Rose, the housewife raising three children keeping a home together without pay as most all housewives work and work many more hours than most regularly employed people. That Rose can still be one of Humboldt County's best investigative reporters is only to her credit.
ReplyDeleteI'm "retired" supposedly but put in at least 40 hours per week organizing my project for Native Americans and on internet religious forums where I do my spiritual activist work as source of Celestial Torah information. My Bear River partner also has no financial compensation and devotes hours of volunteer work helping members of his tribe. There must hundreds of people in Humboldt County who aren't holding income producing jobs but are very valuable members of our community non-the-less.
Silly bottom-barrel scraping for anon 2:18 trying to discredit Rose's good community work.
So Rose and Stephen are unemployed, and Jon works for the county? Touchy subject?
ReplyDeleteThanks, guys. i'm not a reporter, though. certainly not an investigative reporter. I'm just a blogger.
ReplyDeleteWhy would it be, "anon"?
ReplyDeleteCommunity news comes out of your blog, Rose, while political spins consistently come out of Judy's and Ryan's and the Proggie blogs. To me, that is a valuable community service.
ReplyDeleteAnon 4:00, are you working or just posting ad hominen attacks on blogs? Or is that your low-life political "work"?
Very important post to discuss. I don't have the time to do it justice right now. Yes employment as EW with DHHS is a thing for me. Weekends are precious. Allow me some time Rose to get to this. Your frame is exactly where I'd expect it to be from.... A partisan. Which we both are, I just think I am the one dealing with reality on this. You, Rose, a manufacured fantasy. Provably btw, you have to add your editorial big brother comments to establish your frame.
ReplyDeleteIt's fascinating and I love this discussion. I'll be back, I hope you will too Rose.
Happy HumCo Sunday!
It shouldn't take ANY time, Jon. You should be able to state very clearly, as Martha Spencer did, when it was caught, this is wrong. It should not have been in there.
ReplyDeleteEasy for you to say rose, everyday is Saturday for you!!
ReplyDeleteSaid Lovelace, at the time: ”It's not like that little piece ever ran the risk of becoming policy because it was included in the appendix,” he (Lovelace) sad. “The general plan doesn't work in reverse. You have the policies and the implementing ordinances, and then you have the EIR and the supportive documents to support the policies you are putting forward. ... This never was, in any shape, way or form, the policy of the county. It was found in the supporting materials.
ReplyDelete”But still, is it appropriate for something like that to be in there? No,” Lovelace continued. “And should it have been caught? Of course.”
Lovelace also noted that the environmental report and supporting documents form a stack of paper more than 10 inches tall and said it's not surprising there would be some errant sections or typos.
So, it wasn't to be the policy of the county, oh no, it was merely an "errant section". Mere editorializing by County staff, slipped in surreptitiously, based on an ideological bent.
Now, bear in mind, Lovelace and his crony Ken Miller made a lifestyle out of using arcane little snippets of legislation to attack their opponent. But this? Oh, it's nothing. Nothing to see here, let's move this plan FORWARD!
We know where the current Supervisors stand - they recognize that this is wrong, and realize that they MUST do their due diligence to make sure that there isn't more of this editorializing slipped in there.
The challengers want to make an issue of that and claim that they're working for the developers. Seems to me they're working for ALL of the people in doing the right thing.
What do the two challengers say?
Need to amend that trails section to allow motorized vehicles
ReplyDelete"You should be able to state very clearly, as Martha Spencer did, when it was caught, this is wrong. It should not have been in there."
ReplyDeleteYes ma'am! I bow before the necessities of civics and politics as defined by Rose. Here is my previous quote...
"Here is my opinion. I believe at seven billion our planet is over populated. With fewer people we would have higher standards of living. The United States does not suffer from overpopulation, for the record.
What to do? What not to do? Don't force people to do anything. Educate and empower women. It may be just as simple as that. What should the county do? Absolutely nothing. We should encourage growth in our county. (Thus "smart growth") We shouldn't make it a county policy to encourage large families, but we shouldn't discourage it either. Leave that to the public, they can figure it out." (Me on the Who? thread a week ago or so)
So yes, I agree wholeheartedly with Martha Spencer when she said...
”This language is inappropriate in a planning document,” (Martha) Spencer wrote. “Planning staff used a template borrowed from another jurisdiction that contained this section. This section should have been deleted during the editing of the document prior to release.”
Absolutely, 100%. This language does not belong in the General Plan Update. My father worked for years for Planned Parenthood International specifically and international women's health generally (add my mother to have worked to the latter). Planned families is a women's and public health issue despite the right's attempts to frame it as a freedom or religious issue.
Having said all that, this language has absolutely no place in a local land use policy document. If that swayed even one vote to vote for people like supervisor Bass or Sundberg who prefer a 1984 land use plan to a 2014 (or even 2004) plan, then I am double upset about it.
Did it have any real significance when it was in the plan TWO YEARS AGO, IN APPENDIX "U"!?
no.
Is it a brilliant frame for the partisan right to get a couple of low-local information (not intended to be derogatory, I was one up to 6 months ago) to be irrationally emotional about a General Plan that is critical to Humboldt's future and encourage them to ignore the backwards policies the current crop of Supervisors is supporting?
yes.
Is it also a liability for Supervisors Bass and Sundberg and a positive for candidates Latour and Kerrigan. Yes. Ask them all about it, please.
More on your awesome, partisan framing of the GPU through woman's health issues later.
Very Truely Partisanly Yours,
Jon Yalcinkaya (aka liberal jon)
yes, anon 5:40 pm.
ReplyDeletewhy again? is it so abled bodied people can use it or differently abled people to use it? Mainly?
Commissioner Ulansey is righteously angry on this issue b/c us darn liberals discriminate against the differently abled.
To Commissioner Ulansey and others make this ... absurd... argument...instead of allowing motorized vehicles generally, make an exception for the use of motorized vehicles for the differently abled. Done.
Or, we can can continue to be disingenuous on policy issues and hope to continue to be able to pull the wool over HumCo's good-hearted electorate.
yes, anon 5:40 pm.
ReplyDeletewhy again? is it so abled bodied people can use it or differently abled people to use it? Mainly?
Commissioner Ulansey is righteously angry on this issue b/c us darn liberals discriminate against the differently abled.
To Commissioner Ulansey and others make this ... absurd... argument...instead of allowing motorized vehicles generally, make an exception for the use of motorized vehicles for the differently abled. Done.
Or, we can can continue to be disingenuous on policy issues and hope to continue to be able to pull the wool over HumCo's good-hearted electorate.
Focus, Jon, FOCUS.
ReplyDeleteKnowing this was tucked in without anyone catching it until it was almost too late - isn't it the right thing to do to make SURE there aren't more Easter Eggs tucked in there?
Maybe this wasn't even the most egregious one. Maybe it's peppered with them. Maybe one says we should discourage anyone named 'liberaljon' from building a chicken coop on his property, for no reason whatsoever - oh, or because. ideologydujour.
"Unplanned pregnancies" Jon. Last I checked those happen to people of all parties. Now Kerrigan might have reason to favor cutting those off, but that wouldn't have anything to do with what party he is, would it?
So these two challengers, who are going to make the GP their signature beef, better be ready to say whether they favor your Big Brother Knows Best 'nothing to see here' approach, or whether they would do the right thing for the right reason. To make SURE the GP isn't loaded up with BS.
Or maybe we can just ask Michael to tell us where all the Easter Eggs he wrote are. Maybe Lovelace knows where they are. Does Martha?
Enquiring minds want to know, Jon.
Rose, you do realize the GPU is a finite document that would take you less than a week to read if you are industrious? I wouldn't want to do it because I pay attention to what others pay attention to. I let the staff do their job.
ReplyDeleteWe agree that this was a mistake, corrected... 2 years ago and disowned by everyone involved.
I think the reason sounds legitimate. Are you implying that Michael Richardson wrote this. What would his motivation have been? I don't see that for a second, but it makes for ...drama ...black hats and white hats.
So yes, thank you for adding the inappropriate Big Brother again, and thank you for attempting to carry this...I'm sorry Rose...fear mongering...over to the Kerrigan Campaign. What in goodness name does Kerrigan have to do with this? Again, ask him about it, please, while you are at it please ask Supervisor Bass and Sundberg too. Please, please, please.
While your are at it please mention Agenda 21 too. The U.N. is probably where this language ultimately came from, right?
Land use policy -> (Rose's mind)-> "Kerrigan might have reason for cutting (unplanned pregnanies) off. Is this a play for the large Catholic vote Rose because it might make some strategic sense to talk about politically, but it makes zero or negative numbers sense to talk about civically or for policy reasons.
If I followed your legal analysis as closely would I be subject to this same type of logic? Ugh.
Anyway Rose, keep doing what you do, I enjoy the back and forth. Have a good week.
For the record, I could care less if you work or not. I think that is a cheap shot and meaningless.
*******
Ugh, re-reading, your last comment, I have to respond to a couple of more things.
"Knowing this was tucked in without anyone catching it until it was almost too late - isn't it the right thing to do to make SURE there aren't more Easter Eggs tucked in there?"
a) it wouldn't had done ANYTHING as far as an actual implementation. How in your wildest dreams do you think that language, in APPENDIX U would have had any real life effect?
****
ONE more thing, I didn't post this and surfed over to the NYT ...
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/03/24/science/ap-us-sci-un-climate-panel.html?hp&_r=0
That might be more important reading that searching for more non-implementable "Easter Eggs". But of course, ultimately that's the point. People look at this shiny object over here. Forget about the scientists. They are biased anyway - nerds!
Now I'm really out - bye!
Then WHY put it in there, Jon.
ReplyDeleteit wouldn't had done ANYTHING as far as an actual implementation....
WHY?
And, do you really not get why Kerrigan and Latour should be asked? Isn't blaming the GPU process on developers their raison d'etre? And, really, it might be more accurate to blame it on Lovelace, and whoever else shares that mindset that would put that in there.
We need to know if a potential new Supervisor supports govt. ordered eugenics.
I really want to respond but don't have a minute. I had an epiphany this am that may help bridge our understanding divide Rose. It involves us both knowing Supervisor Bass and us both thinking the world of her as a person. And how she would deal with this thread (and she did in the article).
ReplyDeleteAlso, plesse read my posts. I said this at least twice - please PLEASE ask that question to whomever you like - I'd love you to ask it to Supervisor Bass and Sundberg.
ReplyDeleteWhat would it be like? It would be like that moment when the lady with the bad hair day asked Candidate McCain about Obama and his innate arabness.
Not as bad, but on that spectrum.
NO. Jon. We KNOW how the current Supervisors feel. It's the CHALLENGERS, who imply they would do something different, who have to answer the question.
ReplyDeleteAll your mumbo-jumbo means nothing in the real world.
I'm not so sure that we know Virginia Bass's position. Did you read the article in the North Coast Journal? I can't quite get an honest read on her these days.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.northcoastjournal.com/humboldt/the-gpu/Content?oid=2510873
Rose: That's Mr. Knows Enough to Know How Little He Knows to you please. Some respect! KIDDING!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, let's go back and address the pressing issue of planned parenthood easter eggs for Rose.
Here are snippets, again, from the link from Rose's 3.22 post.
A support document to the draft environmental impact report for the county's general plan update drew a link between unplanned pregnancies and global warming -- and has drawn the ire of some locals.
Point one: This crime against common sense and clear evidence of Agenda 21 was in a supporting document. OK? Clear? Not, say in the Guiding Principles. How much sway do you think it would have had if conservatives like Supervisor Sundberg had blinked his ever-watchful eyes against the prog thugs in this county?
Here is more from the TS article (credit - Thadeous)
"But a one-paragraph clause in a Draft Climate Action Plan found in Appendix U of the draft report has attracted attention."
Here is the most implementable part "The county public health department SHOULD implement a program to address the potential of unplanned pregnancies which unnecessarily add to future population increases, which in turn add to further greenhouse gas emissions due to addition consumption"
Notice "should", not "shall". If passed (notice past tense, 2 years ago past tense) the BOS and public health director had great leeway to implement this program.
So to Rose who asked this " {A}YOU explain how it got there, and {B} what it means to you."