What Lovelace Hath Wrought: Continued

◼ Lovelace Says General Plan Update Process Now ‘Completely Corrupt’ - Ryan Burns/Lost Coast Outpost

Humboldt County Supervisor Mark Lovelace is outraged over the latest turns in the tortuous saga of the county’s general plan update. Specifically, as he wrote in a Facebook post yesterday, he feels the process has devolved into

“… a stacked Planning Commission with its own agenda holding endless meetings with no clear process or direction and little public notice. Their meetings have been marked by numerous Brown Act violations and significant cost over-runs, and the process keeps changing from one meeting to the next. We finally have the completely corrupt General Plan Update process we’ve been accused of having all along.”

__________________
There's more, lot more, at the link, but the shorter version is, "I didn't get my way, my guys aren't winning, and this isn't any fun anymore."

Remember, It was Mark Lovelace, and his cavalcade of trained seals, who pushed for the Board of Supervisors to act - to, in one day, with virtually NO NOTICE, strip every property owner in the county of their property rights.

In his zeal to destroy Palco, Lovelace did the impossible. It wasn't what he intended. He awakened the mythical, proverbial sleeping giant.

Property owners of all sizes, stripes and ideologies woke up and came together. The Southern Humboldt homesteader to the builders and 'developers,' little old couples and up and coming 20-somethings - in a wave that hadn't been seen since Tom Conlon's attempt to criminalize homebuilders.

They realized they had been asleep, and they vowed, no more. They were going to stand up for their rights, and they were going to use the very same tactics Lovelace & Co. employed so successfully.

And given that Mark Lovelace's latest appointment to the Planning Commission is an EPIC guy, you better be darn glad they did.
__________________
◼ Planning Commission's trail vote raises hackles; commissioners, supervisors speak out on General Plan changes - Will Houston/The Times-Standard
__________________
◼ Mark's hissy fit over the General Plan short on facts, big on spin - John Chiv/Words Worth

(Mark claims) that the Planning Commission deleted trails from the plan when they combined it into another section. He further claims being outraged by how the Commission reduced setbacks from creeks and wetlands when they actually recommended that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife determine the appropriate determination of setbacks, which is their role and responsibility.
__________________
◼ Trail Champs Rally: Video Highlights from a Wild Planning Commission Meeting - Ryan Burns/Lost Coast Outpost
__________________
◼ GPU actual changes ton draft, not my personal interpretation

Interesting piece on HumCPR

◼ HumCPR Rising: How Lee Ulansey and his corporation moved from advocacy into county government - Ryan Burns/the Journal

Funny how there was never any teeth-gnashing about Lovelace's crew marching in lockstep - and, the push to make the BOS, in one day, with virtually no notice, and little public input, strip every property owner of their rights, collateral damage in the zeal to kill Palco.

And, btw - there's a comment at the Journal site by 'Rose' - a nasty comment directed at Steven Lewis. It's not me, but I bet I could tag who it is. And it's pretty childish to keep using my name.

What Mark hath wrought

What Mark Lovelace set in motion all those years ago has now come full circle - and irony of him now sitting on the Board of Supervisors to witness the fruit of his machinations - and for him to bemoan someone as being 'divisive' and 'having an agenda' is truly amazing to behold.

On that fateful day, with virtually no notice, the Board of Supervisors voted to strip every citizen's property rights. Egged on by Lovelace (the anti-Palco activist, not yet a Supervisor), and his astroturfing cadre of speakers, lined up with their 3-minute share of the talking points, lauding the Board for their 'courage' in trying to slam the door on Pacific Lumber Company yet again, the Board's decision had far reaching effects, and woke the mythical sleeping giant.

The end result - a coming together of a very diverse group of people, landowners, people who cared about their property rights. Southern Humboldters, old folks, hipsters, back-to-the-landers, builders, and more. Their vow? Never again. Recognition that vigilance is the price of freedom, and Lovelace's reign came to an end.

His vision was well on its way to taking over. Now, the nail is in its coffin.

I'd say "May It Rest In Peace" but that would be too kind.

Lee Ulansey emerged as an articulate, forceful, and determined spokesman, championing the rights of all the property owners in the county. He's now been through the fire, vilified at every turn by the "progressive" machine. Like anyone who stands against them, he's been accused of being paid for, being in collusion, and more. They've never known what to make of someone like him.

Congratulations, Lee. And, to the new Board who made the decision.

Give Faust a run for his money.

And, let's hope that what the Board did, way back in 2007, never happens again.

◼ Ulansey Appointed to Planning Commission - Northcoast Journal
◼ Ulansey Gets Supes’ Planning Commission Appointment, Immediately Delivers Lovelace Dis - Lost Coast Outpost
◼ Ulansey named planning commissioner - Times-Standard

Hedlund/Schectman/Vilica

Looks like some new info on the Hedlund/Schectman/Vilica mess
◼ CalLaw Law.com Pot Lawyers Walk Fine Line (image source)
How even THIS story gets twisted into an anti-Bush, pro-Obama thing I don't quite get, but the article is interesting: The Recorder's Dan Levine writes that ...(Josh) Hedlund's indictment didn't put the brakes on his real estate deals, though. And when he embarked on a second, monster land acquisition in Humboldt County, he hooked up with attorney Steven Schectman....

According to prosecutors, Hedlund's agricultural land buys are part of his overall strategy to make money from marijuana: The developer secured thousands of acres from defunct timber companies, sold them to buyers with criminal histories, and cloaked the transactions with LLCs...

,,,Schectman, who keeps offices in Arcata and Los Angeles, is well known for representing pot dispensaries — he's led the fight against DEA pressure on landlords who rent to co-ops. But Schectman first made a name for himself in Humboldt County prosecuting environmental claims against the timber industry, and it was his credibility in this arena that Hedlund says he found valuable.

"We thought that Steve was especially qualified to deal with any timber-related litigation," Hedlund told The Recorder . "Steve's knowledge of the timber industry and local activists helped greatly."

In 2006, three months after Hedlund's indictment, he had Schectman establish Vilica LLC, according to corporate filings. That company then bought 7,600 acres in Humboldt County. Schectman became Vilica's president and chief legal officer, according to documents filed in court. Schectman, who once ran for district attorney in Humboldt County, wouldn't answer questions about his responsibilities as Vilica's president.

Vilica ran into problems with the authorities. In June 2007, the federal Bureau of Land Management received a complaint about a new gate wrongly installed on public land adjacent to a Vilica parcel. Rangers checked out the scene, where they met two of Vilica's property buyers operating heavy equipment, according to a BLM incident report....

...Beyond Vilica, Hedlund and Schectman's relationship is murky. In a letter to the federal probation office, Schectman said he took Hedlund under his wing as a paralegal and a clerk, and even tried to help him gain a State Bar apprenticeship.

However, after pleading guilty, Hedlund told the government that he had moved his office into Schectman's "to protect [my] documents from seizure by federal authorities," according to a DEA affidavit.

Hedlund entered his plea on Feb. 4, 2008, after preparing his holdings for forfeiture. On Feb. 3, Schectman resigned as Vilica's president. Hedlund's sentencing is scheduled for the end of this month; the government is seeking 63 months in prison.

Grade? Slightly informative, but more of a puff piece on the pot traders than anything else. There sure is a sh-i-ite load more info on these two boys. And walking a fine line? More like cheating the system. I'd expect California's Legal News Source to be a bit more about the law, since the structure of those LLCs and what people get away with is actually pretty interesting.

h/t: "heraldo"

Related:
◼ Assessor Parcel Information a 38 page pdf document
A million bucks in assets forfeited! AND his right to the 36 parcels, $5,803,000.00 + Eel River Saw Mill Vilica properties? Now that's a story! SO-O-O, if the property he is forfeiting was owned by Vilica LLC (president Steve Schectman), but sold (at least some of the parcels) to Paradise Palms LLC, who is out the money? Do the partners get to keep the property? How many partners are there? Are they all from this area? Who, then is going to pay for the abatements ordered by the Board of Supervisors? Sure it's the least of Hedlund's problems - does he go to jail?

◼ Mercury News - Man pleads guilty to massive pot growing, money laundering The Associated Press 02/04/2008
◼ sf gate - BERKELEY - 12 charged in raid of pot, guns, cash Saturday, May 13, 2006 - Twelve men face federal drug charges stemming from a Berkeley raid that netted 5,800 marijuana plants, a dozen weapons and $220,000 in cash.
◼ Guilty plea in Berkeley pot operation Man, 31, agrees to forfeit 7,000 acres
◼ Virtually identical article in SF Examiner Feb 5, 2008 8:22 AM (11 hrs ago) News Reports, AP
◼ Related post: Rules are for little people
◼ Related post: 36 parcels, $5,803,000.00 + ?

"If you get it by hook or by crook, you get a pass," My favorite Schectman quote

Tuesday's BOS meeting

ER Residents speak out on code enforcement 4/9/08

The controversy stemmed from a number of residents who say that county code enforcers are collaborating with law enforcement and using building code inspections to obtain access to private property and go after marijuana growers.

Among the other issues raised by residents was a lack of oversight for the inspection procedures, concerns about safety and private property rights, as well as difficulties and costs associated with acquiring permits and complexities in the county’s planning process.

The matter was presented to the board by the Civil Liberties Monitoring Project, and followed a Garberville meeting Friday with county officials and law enforcement that drew in hundreds of residents.

NCJ Revolutions Won and Lost This Week's Dandy
TS Code Enforcement Unit inspections temporarily suspended 4/9/08

Ed Smith, who described himself as a retired Foreign Service officer and lawyer by training, said at least five properties in the area were “invaded” by a Code Enforcement Unit officer, which included visits from armed deputies. The only warrant they had, Smith said, was for the property above him.

TS SoHum Code Enforcement issues come to supes 4/7/08
TS County officials to face heat on code actions 4/3/08
TS Garberville meeting Friday on rural code enforcement 4/1/08

Eric's posts with pics,
Pics from Friday's meeting,
Some shots of Friday's public meeting

You'll need to read this to understand alot of the testimony
Codes, Damned Codes - A clash of values could spell the end for a 'hippy-rigged' community in Trinidad
Civil Liberties Monitoring Project (Thanks to Eric for the CLMP link)

ANOTHER new group

with the same face. How many does that make now?

Hank reports - "a new organization called the “Community Forestry Team.” The group includes longtime forestry activists Mark Lovelace and David Simpson as contacts — could it be that the Community Forestry Team is an outgrowth of the so-called Timber Acquisition Group, which had hoped to make a “community forestry”-based bid for Pacific Lumber lands? It was."

Ken Miller's end game. The reason why Mark Lovelace was willing to risk it all over the TPZ thing. The reason he speaks of Pacific Lumber as if it is his own. In his mind it is.

So how do you send a message to that bankruptcy judge anyway?

Because there is no way in hell that Ken Miller's Lovelace/"Humboldt Watershed Council/any other name they make up should get their grubby paws on any timber land. Not after everything they have done. There should be no reward for their astounding dishonesty.

Let the company go to any other bidder. Not this one.

PALCO expanding its options

Interesting development ...PALCO and its consultants have had an opportunity to talk with the county planning staff, supervisors and residents following the release of its original organization plan... ready to work with the county and floated an idea for a higher-density development project on its lands to take advantage of proposed land-use policy changes under review in the county’s general plan update process....

Looks like things are going to get even more interesting.

And, in the TS Mendocino Redwood in bid for Palco

Followup article on TPZ in ER

.
Timberland use ordinance forced back to square one
A county land-use ordinance that could have been in place 30 days after its passage is now, in effect, in pieces and back to the drawing — and planning — board.

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors last Tuesday voted 4-1 to discontinue timberland production zone ordinance discussions and to put the proposed TPZ revisions back into various county committee and commission deliberations about the Humboldt County General Plan Update. Read the full article
cross posted on TPZwatch

TPZ battle comes to an end w/updates

The Board of Supervisors has voted to drop the current TPZ proposals, and let the General Plan process proceed.

The "heraldo"/Lovelace camp is not happy.

The Morning News
ER Supervisors discontinue TPZ revisions discussions
TS Supervisors step back from TPZ revisions
EUREKA -- County staff's recommendation that the supervisors postpone action on timber production zone revisions pending a recommendation from the planning commission took a different route Tuesday when the board voted 4-1 to end consideration of the matter at the board level until the county's general plan update is complete....

Archived audio streaming of the meetings

Neely says TPZ hearing should be delayed

Humboldt County Supervisor Bonnie Neely said Monday she will recommend postponing an anticipated Dec. 11 hearing about development on timberland.

A temporary moratorium on building in timberland production zones -- or TPZ -- sponsored by Neely and Supervisor Jill Geist sparked a major controversy in October. The moratorium was brought in response to the Pacific Lumber Co.'s proposal to divide 22,000 acres of its timberland into 160-acre exclusive ranchettes as part of its bankruptcy reorganization plan, they said.

Initially supported 4-1, the moratorium was allowed to expire. The matter was passed on to the planning commission, which has wrangled with proposals for a new ordinance that would fit within the new general plan. The commission didn't finish its deliberations on the issue at the end of November, and won't take it up again until Dec. 20.

”I'm recommending to the board that the TPZ hearing schedule for December 11th be continued,” Neely wrote in an e-mail. “The planning commission should be able to complete their deliberations before making any recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.” Neely says TPZ hearing should be delayed

Update: The item was pulled.

Strike three

A staff-proposed timberland production zone revision received literally at the last minute left the Humboldt County Planning Commission at a loss on Thursday on how to prepare a recommendation for the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors’ Dec. 11 meeting.

Commissioners commented at the meeting’s start that they had received the amended staff report minutes before....

The staff report on Thursday included a change in the permitting dynamic, as well as suggested creating the zones “TPZ exclusive” and “TPZ.”...

“The Planning Commission was going to continue the matter; there wasn’t any question about that in the beginning,” Deputy County Counsel Carolyn Ruth said on Friday.

She said in retrospect it might have been more productive to let everyone know that at the beginning of the hearing.

Ruth said the staff’s amendment “happened literally yesterday.”

“To a certain extent this has to be a dynamic process of responding and creating,” she said.

Some objections had been made that the new information wasn’t properly noticed.

Ruth said state law requires a notice “contain a general explanation of the matter to be considered.”

The commissioners agreed to consider the topic again on Dec. 20, the date for which a general plan update workshop had already been noticed but will be continued.

Ruth said the county counsel and planning department will recommend to the supervisors they continue their hearing until the commission can finish its deliberations.

Last-minute revisions stall Planning Commission's TPZ decision

This makes the third time that residents and property owners have been received little or no notice about decisions which have dramatic effects on their properties.

Though the Board of Supervisor's prior acts may have been technically "properly" noticed, the first came to light over a weekend through an article in the paper with a Monday holiday preceeding a Tuesday Board meeting, making it impossible for residents to contact Board members prior to the meeting IF they even received any warming about what was about to transpire, and the second agenda became available before 5:pm on a Friday before a Tuesday meeting.

This stands in stark contrast to the process that took place when the TPZ plans were initially considered and then put in place, where every affected resident and land owner was notified and contacted.

Property owners no longer trust the County's planning staff or the Board. This is very clear from the testimony at the hearings.

Compatible Use w/pdf docs

TPZ at county Planning Commission tonight

(NOVEMBER 29, 2007 6:00 p.m.
Board of Supervisors' Chamber County Courthouse, Eureka
There will be a break on or about 7:30 p.m.)

ER Humboldt County staff’s proposed revision of the timberland production zone is the only item on the Planning Commission’s agenda tonight. (agenda)


Humboldt County Deputy County Counsel Carolyn Ruth said she doesn’t expect to make a formal presentation during tonight’s meeting, but one of the issues, she said, for which commissioners might seek her opinion is a recent letter penned by Edgar B. Washburn of San Francisco law firm Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Through some research, The Eureka Reporter discovered Washburn’s firm as of Oct. 11 had served as special litigation and regulatory counsel to Pacific Lumber Co., Scotia Pacific Co. LLC and Salmon Creek LLC as is evidenced on a document that is part of the files for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi.

The county’s TPZ revisions were sparked by PALCO’s bankruptcy reorganization plan.

It includes a proposed sale of six old-growth redwood groves totaling 6,600 acres for conservation purposes and an adjacent 21,800 acres of second-growth, commercial timberland for developing 136 residential parcels titled “Redwood Ranch Development Project.”

The planning commissioners held a public hearing on Nov. 15 for the purpose of considering staff’s proposed TPZ revisions. It continued the hearing to tonight at 6 p.m. in the Supervisors’ Chamber at the Humboldt County Courthouse in Eureka.

Staff maintains the current TPZ regulations fail to address a state law that a residence be “necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production.”

Washburn’s letter stated, in his opinion, staff’s interpretation of California Government Code 51104 (h) is incorrect. Further, he stated, staff’s interpretation of No. 6 in that section is wrong.

This section describes what can be considered a compatible use on TPZ land, and it shouldn’t “significantly detract” from harvesting timber. No. 6 of the compatible uses reads “a residence or other structure necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production.”

Washburn argues the intent of No. 6 was that residences were to be included and with them other structures necessary for management could be considered.
***
TS Commission takes on TPZ again
***
Morrison-Foerster on treatment of residences as compatible use within TPZ land. an 8-pg pdf document
***

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.

relevant TPZ documents

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

Couple of articles/Op-Eds on TPZ...

State law affects TPZ issue
During the 1970s, Jacoby Creek-area resident Jerry Partain was a forestry professor at Humboldt State University. He was also a county planning commissioner and active on the state’s taxation advisory committee, which advised the Legislature on how the state’s timber tax could be amended.

Partain said he feels the growing fear locally of government’s intervening in private-property rights is secondary to the reality of complicated and costly state regulatory requirements for timber harvesting....

Retired assessor explains 1975 TPZ law

...The Z'Berg-Warren-Keene-Collier Forest Taxation Reform Act of 1976 changed the method of taxing “timber” in California. The act encouraged the protection of immature trees and continued use of timberland for the production of trees for timber products and provided restrictions on the use of timberland to the production of timber products and compatible uses...

There has been much discussion recently regarding a residential site on TPZ, and if the site is good or bad for TPZ properties. It seems to me that if a property owner is living on the property, he or she will better manage the property for forest management, fire protection and scenic beauty. This is good not only for the owner but also the public....

County's take on state TPZ under fire
In a letter supplied to the county Planning Commission before its Nov. 15 meeting, Edgar B. Washburn of Morrison & Foerster LLP stated that in his opinion, staff’s interpretation of California Government Code 51104 (h) is incorrect.

Further, he stated, staff’s interpretation of No. 6 in that section is flawed.

The Washburn letter was delivered to the county via Eureka law firm Mitchell, Brisso, Delaney & Vrieze....

crossposted on TPZwatch

Timber Production

California has about 40 million acres of forestland, whereas Oregon has 28.8 million acres and Washington has 23 million acres of forestland, yet both states are still out-producing California by considerable amounts.

"As recently as 30 years ago, we harvested enough trees in California to meet the wood products needs of our residents," said Donn Zea, President of the California Forest Products Commission. "Today, we meet less than 20 percent of the needs of our residents, even though we have abundant forests that are overgrown."

"In so many ways, California has led the nation in adopting environmentally friendly principles," Zea said. "However, implementing policies that prevent or discourage sustainable forestry leads to a shirking of our responsibility to meet our wood product needs locally."

Source:
CALIFORNIA FOREST PRODUCTS COMMISSION RELEASES ANNUAL 'STATE OF THE INDUSTRY' REPORT
California Lags Behind Oregon and Washington in Meeting Residents' Wood Needs

County does not need more suffering

John Campbell needs to write more often, his historical perspective is invaluable, and it is a story that has not been told.

Recently, while watching the first Board of Supervisors meeting to consider whether to place a moratorium on home construction on lands zoned for timber production, I noticed a witness who was advocating for the moratorium.

This individual was Greg King, who is the new executive officer of the North Coast Environmental Center.

Almost 20 years ago, I had a meeting with King, who at that time was a quasi-journalist, environmentalist and proponent of an extreme individual called Dave Foreman, who along with Mike Rozelle started Earth First.

This meeting occurred because I wanted to find out where this movement was going and what was its philosophy and goals. I naively thought a negotiation was possible.

After a brief discussion I realized I was dealing with an individual who was a derivative of this new radicalism.

I suggested that if he and his local group were successful, would he accompany me down to the sawmill and plant and would he suggest that I start to fire folks more than 50 years of age or those forty-nine or younger?

His reply was, “Mr. Campbell, you do not understand, with things of this magnitude, there has to be some ‘suffering.’” The meeting ended abruptly with me escorting Mr. King to the side door of my office.

Today, my question is, how much more suffering does this community need? Let’s add up so far.

1. Eel River Sawmills, 400 jobs, no timber from public forests.
2. Blue Lake Forest Products, 250 jobs, low volume from private lands. No timber from public forests.
3. Louisiana Pacific, 400 jobs, exited Humboldt County completely, following “Redwood Summer.”
4. Britt Lumber, Arcata, 250 jobs, lack of timely harvest plans.
5. The Pacific Lumber Co., 1200 jobs eliminated. Environmental litigation, protests, land and timber transferred to public ownership, etc.
6. Associated business ancillary to sawmills, trucking, heavy equipment, maintenance supplies, etc. 600 jobs.

This list refers to very good, well paid jobs that also had 401K plans, private medical plans and other benefits. Truly “living-wage” employment.

This tally just scratches the surface when one begins to see the tertiary effect on local schools.

Lower student enrollment, equate to less ADA dollars, as working families leave the area.

No traditional federal dollars for schools and roads due to zero harvest from national forests in our region.

Teachers’ pay has fallen behind statewide averages. It was reported quite recently that in Humboldt County more than 20 percent of children live in households with income at or below the federal poverty level.

Is it the wish of Mr. King and his associates to keep these children and families in bondage?

Local hospitals are financially strapped due in part to the removal of local private health care insurance programs and excessive government regulations. Recruiting new medical staff is difficult as we cannot compete with other areas.

The timber industry is struggling to survive, from excessive environmental regulation to protecting wildlife and fish habitats. Not from a lack of trees. This area has been harvesting trees for more than 130 years.

In “working” forests, trees are actually harvested, not “protected.” The Legislature considered this when the timber production zone designation was established in 1976.

If landowners are unable to harvest trees on land zoned for “maximum sustained production of forest products for the people of California” as legislated by the state, the land will go for other uses, fundamental economics will prevail. Recent catastrophic fires at Tahoe and in Southern California demonstrate the need for active not passive management in our local national forests.

We do not need more county rules. We do not need more suffering. We do need to let the professional foresters manage our forest lands for real, sustainable production and quality jobs.

Loggers need to get back to work in both private and national forests. We have sufficient land in public hands.

A recent piece earlier this month in The Economist (the international weekly) stated that on the West Coast of the United States there are “coastal soviets.” We need to be careful, otherwise “the planners” will tell you where to plant your organic products and what seeds and how many rows you can plant.

Our organic beef producers will be told which field to use and how many fences they will need along streams to protect fish which they will be unable to catch.

Every so often, people need to stop, take a deep breath and assess their situation. Humboldt County does not need more suffering.

Government at all levels should be encouraging and creating a climate where folks can achieve their hopes and dreams, not discouraging them with excessive rules, roadblocks and red tape.

It is paramount that private property rights be fully protected, not further compromised.

y John A. Campbell, 11/22/2007b
(John A. Campbell resides in Fortuna.)
***
Heraldo's snarky post on John Campbell's Op Ed. Heraldo may not like what he hears, but Campbell has a right to express his opinion, and it should come as no surprise to anyone that his opinion of Greg King would be negative. He has lived the side that has been affected by King/Darryl Cherney/Earth First!

King hasn't changed either, he is now more than happy to meddle in minor subdivisions in Arcata, his opinion being that he has a right to 'take' his share of the lots a developer proposes. He has also turned his sights on Green Diamond, using them and their 'transgressions' as lfundraising fodder.

It's about time people like Campbell spoke out and made sure that their side becomes part of the permanent record."

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

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.

Forestry Review Committee against TPZ draft

The consensus Tuesday among some Forestry Review Committee members was a residence on land zoned for timber production shouldn’t “detract” but it need not be “necessary.”

During Tuesday’s meeting, committee member Gary Rynearson said he felt “the issue of necessary” as is written in the California Government Code has caused confusion.

California Government Code Section 51104 (h) states a “compatible use” for timberland is that “which does not significantly detract from the use of the property” for growing and harvesting timber.

Subsection No. 6 states a residence or other structure could be included if deemed “necessary” for timberland management.

Rynearson said with respect to the issue at hand, whether a residence is “necessary” is less important than what constitutes a compatible use of timber production zone land....

...After about two hours of discussion on Tuesday, Rynearson crafted a five-part motion, which was revised several times and which also had as its centerpiece the issue of 160 acres.

The vote, which was approved 4-2 (Yana Valachovic and Mark Andre dissenting), was for the following:

1. Residences on parcels 160 acres or more should not require discretionary review.

2. The committee does not approve of the current draft TPZ ordinance.

3. The FRC would like to work with staff to develop objective standards for residential construction on legal substandard parcels that are less than 160 acres. These standards would take into account “consistency with the definition of compatible use” and that the developments “do not significantly detract from the use of the property for, or inhibit, growing or harvesting timber.”

4. TPZ matters should be put back into the Humboldt County General Plan Update discussion.

5. The committee requests a study session on Jan. 15 or “another suitable date” with supervisors, the Planning Commission and county staff on TPZ issues.... Read the full article

Interesting post at Save Ancient Forests