“The Great October 7th BOS Guiding Principle Massacre”

Despite the title which came from the interview below, Bob Froehlich is a level headed advocate for a pro-growth and pro-environment set of Guiding Principles (GP)to the General Plan update.  I admire him, his descriptions of what has happened in recent history are less emotional or partisan than mine and therefore might be able to reach a wider audience.

You can hear his excellent review of the GP process on the October 14th Monday Morning Magazine.  (Scroll down to get the the right program, his segment starts at the beginning of the 8 a.m. hour)

While at the KMUD web site, Bob made an appearance on Tuesday’s (October 15th) Environment Show.  I haven’t listened to it yet but it’s sure to be great as on the second Tuesday of each month Scott Greacen hosts  KMUD’s The Environment Show.  So Bob Froehlich and Scott Greacen on the GP?  FUN! (at least for us land use nerds who care about our long-term human impact on this beautiful piece of land.)

Also, Supervisor Fennell wasn’t there for that a.m. for what apparently is a regular Monday a.m. appearance for her.  Not surprising.  Have you heard any full-throated defense of this GPU process from the BOS or their supporters (HumCPR and KINS and Sunshine for Humboldt)?  Of course not.  They know this is not defensible, at least by the Humboldt electorate as it is.  Simple as that.


12 thoughts on ““The Great October 7th BOS Guiding Principle Massacre”

  1. UPDATE: I changed the original title which read “The Great October 7th BOS Massacre” which doesn’t read well, especially when I read it on LoCO and it wasn’t what Bob Froehlich said. OOPS! BOS Massacre is much different that BOS GP Massacre I am so sorry, and can’t update the header on LoCO unfortunately. AHH! UPDATE 2: Thanks Kym Kemp for fixing the LoCO Blog Roll title HOORRAY for Kym and Lost Coast Outpost!

    1. Hopefully this June, and November. If we can’t get their attention by then, well, in 2016. We can just never let the conversation go again. They got us through deception and money, now we know their tricks, maybe we can counteract them with dialog and people power – because those are our strengths. Unfortunately, those are not as easy to organize as money, so it may take a couple of years. (all imho of course)

  2. Jane says:

    Personally I find the pro/anti growth argument a bit silly. Of course the economy will grow. And it will retract. It will go through cycles just like the bigger economy. The idea is to make a net gain of growth and to make the retractions less like a roller coaster ride. Which means the question is how do we grow rather than pro-growth. That pretty much sums up the argument that has been taking place as well. Do we give the best opportunities to make growth happen to the developers? Do we subsidize developers by allowing and tolerating more free access to community resources such as water quality, air quality, and infrastructure (which the developers really don’t pay a price for but gain extra value for when they sell whatever it is they develop or do we ensure that growth happens at a rate which can sustain jobs and the value of those natural resources so more people can share in their value over a long time.

    The BOS is worried about job creation. For good reasons and for political reasons (it is how they continue to get re-elected to a cush seventy-grand a year job). Yet not seriously worried apparently because they are willing, so it seems, to cater to a very small special interest group believing that the benefits will trickle down to everyone else. More housing means more people and a few jobs related to construction and maintaining the housing. It will also mean more sales because those people will shop. Where? On the Internet and at the Big Box retailers most likely according to common Humboldt demographics.

    Retail is changing quite dramatically with the times. Considering the time frame the guiding principles oversee. I see this is a shortsighted view on the part of the BOS. It speaks a lot to the influences several of the BOS are listening to. I am familiar with Estelle’s cronies and… well, enough said.

    Jobs are going to be completely different in the next generation as I see it. The infrastructure will be dynamic and technology driven. Fuel and energy sources will become extremely costly given to scarcity and demand. Natural resource harvesting is going to become increasingly difficult to do because of environmental pressures to rebuild declining stocks and climate change. Alternative materials will be developed and used. Thus our traditional retail systems will change even more. Settling in the very rural areas isn’t going to be nearly as attractive as it is now especially if Mary-Jane is legal. Which, my view, is likely to happen. We could see a whole sale abandonment of outlying properties and tax revenues. It will become exceptionally expensive to live outside of town. Technology will increasingly take out jobs such as cashiers, clerks, as well as teachers and educational support personnel. So we have developers building houses and new business units for whom?

    Could I be wrong? Of course. It is my best guess. However it is pretty daunting to see the BOS jockeying for prime re-election position through a traditional route of special interest favoritism and seemingly blind to the hand-writing on wall. Their job is to objectively consider the future and instead, most of the BOS, is considering what the past has been like, ignoring what has been proven now not to work (trickle-down), and using that same special interest system to ensure their own jobs. And the planning department, which has to work with the developers, is giving their stamp of approval on everything. At least behind the scenes.

    It is a pretty hick mode of operating.

    1. Thanks Jane. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your contributions. We are having a progressive Democrats meeting next Thursday if you want to show up or get ahold of me through Eric or Mitch who both have my number. I’d like to chatarooski with you when you are in the neighborhood.
      Unfortunately I don’t think you are going to be wrong, because in the end I do believe the most comprehensive evidence and facts inform our narrative or our assessment and predictions for what is and will be going on.

  3. To readers, this is from another thread which I don’t want to domineer. So I invited TOA to continue this conversation here. It may or may not be of interest


    “But once the dust settles and the new rules are finalized, my hope is that you (and others like you) will be more open to constructive engagement in terms of how to mitigate some of the impacts you’re concerned about.”

    I’m at the table right now. Apparently though I am not considered the public at this point. Apparently to be the public you have to agree with Peter Child’s section 1500 group. This is exactly the line that Lee Ulansey was trying to sell me too. I love it. Where are we going to have the constructive engagement? HumCPR’s table? That’s why we have BOS’s. It is where the constructive engagement takes place. Unfortunately, for my concerns, (ie protecting natural resources and protecting agriculture and timberland for the long term) this dialog is taking place where you get to define “constructive engagement” and “modest growth” among many other things.

      1. Yes somebody, I sat in for much of a couple of elements, including Energy which I did note called for infil. I don’t know what kind of legal construct that will be – I don’ think much as it wasn’t a controversy.

        I don’t find it my responsibility to make it into the weeds of the GPU. My take is the GP should be a great spot for the public at large to have a say – and despite Dan Taranto’s protestations, the public was given zero input as far as I’m concerned. That was proven beyond a reasonable doubt October 7th.

        Having said that I am going to take it upon myself to learn all I can for the next time the GPU comes up. So please feel free to educate me any time somebody.

        1. somebody says:

          OK – these are not necessarily in order, but these items i am pasting are from the board of supervisors draft plan (the one they are working on now) and include justification for why i believe you have been fed a line of bullshit to get you stirred up over growth/no growth/development.

          chapter 4, Land Use:

          Humboldt County’s population growth rate increased in the late 1980s and early 1990s and
          has since returned to a level more consistent with historic growth rates over the past 20 years.
          Between 1985 and 1990, the County grew by about 8,000 people (7.3 percent), representing
          an average annual increase of 1.4 percent. The current annual growth rate is about 0.7 0.6
          percent. California Department of Finance projections indicate an anticipated average
          annual growth of 0.58 0.41 percent over the next 20 years which is lower than the 0.83 0.80
          percent annual growth experienced in the past 20 30 years.

          This Plan promotes existing focused community development patterns. Land use designations
          contained in the Land Use Element and Land Use Map promote efficient use of public
          infrastructure and provide higher development potential in urban areas with access to public
          sewer and water. This Plan also establishes a framework for the phased expansion of urban
          areas. This strategy offers the best opportunity to create housing opportunities for the majority
          of the population, assure the continued fiscal viability of infrastructure and urban services and
          safeguard the continued profitability of resource production in rural lands.

          The development timing measures of this Plan primarily consist of designating areas
          where near-term availability of services are feasible and designating outlying areas as
          the next logical areas for development. The outlying areas are reserved until the primary
          areas are nearing capacity.

          Urban Expansion Area Review. Review Urban Expansion Areas during
          Community Plan or comprehensive General Updates to determine if the
          boundaries reflect current conditions and community needs. The boundaries
          of an Urban Expansion Area shall remain fixed until modified through a
          General Plan amendment.
          GP-P10. Conversion of Resource Lands. Parcels of timber site quality III or higher and
          prime agricultural lands suitable for resource production should not be
          included within Urban Expansion Areas unless the County makes a finding that
          there are no alternatives to increase the Urban Expansion Area on lands less
          suitable for resource production.

          Town centers typically are the hub of a community and contribute significantly to
          community character and identity. To promote and guide town center development,
          the Plan includes policies to increase the range of allowed uses and streamline approval
          of projects that are consistent with town center standards.

          This Plan supports the development of a Neighborhood and Town Center ordinance that
          would apply to specific mapped locations within Urban Development Areas. Ordinance
          standards would grant more flexibility for preferred uses and simplify and streamline the
          development review process to encourage private investment. The selection and
          designation of neighborhood town center areas would occur during General Plan
          Neighborhood and Town Centers. Within designated neighborhood and town
          centers, the County shall:
          A. Allow buildings with commercial uses on the ground or lower floors and
          residential uses on upper floors and in other designated areas, as long as
          residential use is subordinate to commercial uses.
          B. Reduce the County’s off-street parking requirements to encourage new
          business development and to reflect multi-modal access options.
          C. Allow ministerial approval of development that conforms to performance
          standards adopted by ordinance.
          D. Encourage and provide incentives for the following design characteristics:
          1. Pedestrian-oriented scale and character.
          2. Orientation of buildings toward the street or central open space areas
          rather than parking lots.
          3. Parking areas to the side or rear rather than between buildings and the
          street edge.
          4. Placement of buildings that create a central open space, or plaza,
          where passive activity can occur.
          5. Transparent ground-level façades designed for pedestrian-oriented
          6. Landscaped pedestrian walkways.

          1. somebody, I will read those, I just have to reply to the first paragraph. My writings are not based on anyone else’s baloney, just my own – baloney or not I guess I’m not the one to judge that. I’ve wanted to rely on others through the time I’ve been involved in this, and their are a few… Greacen, Dan Ehlsman, and even Ryan Burns for his fair reporting (IMHO). What has really been noteworthy to me is there hasn’t been anyone else feeding anything – baloney or not – from a smart growth perspective. I just wanted to clear up the record before diving into the weeds. more later.

            ps Sohum Parlance is acting wierd for me – it isn’t showing the latest comments anymore are you having the same problem with it?

  4. And TOA, I think it’s fair to address the TRA issue, even if it is why you don’t want to discuss it. When I go back to look up this or that Google search, more often than not tra is there. What gives? Or at least let me know that this topic is off limits. I won’t go there any longer if it is.

  5. TOA: Facts and evidence regarding water. We have none – see Scott Greacen’s environment show on KMUD Tuesday October 15th about 27 minutes in. There is a group working on this. More later.

    Later: Scott’s guest was Dana Stolzman Executive Director at the Salomonid Restoration Federation. http://calsalmon.org/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s