First. Thank you TS for today’s GPU coverage. I don’t ding you if the reason for not publishing a news item yesterday was a matter of deadline. I get that and I don’t think news has to be served hot. However, it would have been nice to have an above the fold box saying “GPU GP full coverage tomorrow” or something to that effect. Just a note to the new publisher if she is listening.
I wonder. I have thoughts and wanted to write them today but life beckons. So if the reader has any thoughts, let me know in the comment section. I’ll scribble my thoughts on this tomorrow. But here is a start…(turns out I wrote a bunch more than I thought I would)
I think this is critical because during the September 23rd BOS GPU GP debate , the Supervisors came to a consensus on #4 right before our eyes. Then on Monday they mysteriously backtracked using this Arcata letter as their reasoning which, after reading the letter, makes absolutely no sense. Speaking with Supervisor Bass in the hallway she also mentioned Arcata Councilmember Mark Wheetley (D). I’m not sure exactly how he was involved, just that Supervisor Bass mentioned his name. Also, please note that the regular developement/realtor/homebuilder crowd was very vociferous about changing #4 during the public comment period on Monday. I smell something fishy. I think the Arcata letter is a convenient, and absolutely mind-boggling non sequitur chosen to evade the obvious calls Supervisors Bass and Sundberg must have received from their friends in the private sector who of course never get mentioned. It’s as if they don’t exist. (or Councilmember Mark Wheetley received from his friends, or maybe he just knows himself, I/we don’t know!)
I mention Supervisor Bass and Sundberg because after my question asking about accountability on this issue during the public comment period, Supervisor Sundberg offered that he and Supervisor Bass approached Planning Director Kevin Hamblin to come up with the new language that was adopted by a 4-1 straw vote with a heavy, impassioned, and reasoned objection by Supervisor Lovelace. BTW, Supervisor Lovelace’s last minute 5 min lecture on the important of keeping the “discourage resource lands conversion” based on a 2004 survey by a local (or state?) agricultural group was rebuffed by Supervisor Bohn based in part on his conversation over the past weekend with his ranching friends who apparently are more clued into reality. Admittedly the survey was from 2004, but still. Anecdotal evidence over statistics – it’s a theme if you watch for it. A theme that always seem to argue for conservative interests.
Remember, there was an impressive turnout by the smart growth/environmental crowd for the Sept 23rd meeting – so much so that it did seem there was a spirit of conciliation and cooperation that gave Supervisor Lovelace a voice despite his minority position on the board. Obviously this did not go over well with the other 4 Supervisor’s campaign contributors because the backtracking on #4 was only the beginning of the new tone Monday. As I wrote yesterday, the critical Guiding Principles 6 and 7 were steam-rolled and any environmental or resource protection was quickly modified out of existence. Congratulations Money, you win again.
Having said all that, credit where it is due – thank you Times Standard for the article today. It is important and informative. I hope you follow up.
BTW, I love the last two paragraphs of the article. Go read it – it’s a good article. When you read those last two paragraphs remember, Supervisor Bohn won his district with $42 per vote of direct campaign contributions. Supervisor Lovelace? $13 per vote. Money buys ideas, Money buys influence, Money buys….democracy.
Get our there and vote and work to change this because if there is one thing Money hates, it’s a concerned, educated and active citizenry.