Bob(?) Barnum Fights TPZ Ordinance
I believe that's supposed to be Bill Barnum, isn't it, that spoke to the Fortuna Chamber of Commerce against the recently enacted county ordinance "banning" home building in timber production zones?
It might be a surprise to some that I don't have much of a problem with the ordinance at this point. If nothing else, I don't want insult added to injury in this Maxxam/ Palco debacle and, not only lose Palco, but lose more timber land to development, as well.
Not that the land in question could have been developed anyway, could it? That's why I used quotation marks with the word banning in the first paragraph.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:38 AM
41 comments
41 Comments:
Let's not keep adding more laws. Did PL propose something illegal? There are certain allowances for building on tpz, why are we going to change them now? Palco was lost decades ago. Libertarians are almost always against adding new laws...
Fred: I usually am on the same page with you. Here you have it wrong. This emergency interim ordinance does nothing to preserve the status quo- it changes it.
There was a full ordinance fully and publicly considered and passed years ago which found a residence in TPZ land was an acceptable compatible use. A quick review of state law would reveal that a residence is also considered one of the select few recognized compatible uses. It is zoning and density restrictions that limit the amount of land able to sustain a residence. This emergency ordinance was absolutely stupid and unnecessary. It looks like the supes are now circling the wagons realizing their gross mistake in judgment and misplaced reliance on their part-time county counsel and planning director.
I read this morning that the only reason they passed the interim ordinance was to send a message to the bankruptcy judge in Texas and that it wouldn’t go past 45 days. Frankly, I am not buying that because not even Woolley could be so stupid to think that the bankruptcy judge gives a damn about this 45 day “emergency interim ordinance” which will have absolutely no effect on PALCO’s bankruptcy. I mean the only way I can reasonably interpret what I read was that someone on the board has realized that they stepped in it and that they don’t have votes to keep this thing going. Heads up folks, do you want this land excessively logged or do you want it preserved for selective logging by individuals. That is really the decision. That or just turning everything into a park like up in Del Norte County. Now that would really be counter productive for this county. But the same people that are pushing this interim ordinance are pushing for a permanent one and members of the board are taking this advice from the same people who would take everything and make it a non-taxable park.
The stupidity amazes me.
the same people who would take everything and make it a non-taxable park.
Please name a single person who supports the ordinance and is pushing for turning Palco timberlands into a park.
Mark Lovelace.
Humboldt Watershed Council.
Heraldo.
EPIC
Earth First.
Hmm,interesting that all the above names spoke last week saying that small scale timber harvest was the most environmentally and economically sound option for those properties.Not parks,golf courses,or anything in relation to human inhabitance.
You are all wrong about that. Old growth stands maybe (which most people would agree with). However, the likes of Mark and EPIC have been pushing for sustainable forest practices on these lands for years. Yes, this means harvest of timber in an economic and environmentally sound way. The timber companies have already adopted many of the practices these organizations have been pushing for and we need to thank and acknowledge them for that. There is still always to go to get to true sustainability (which means stable incomes for working timber families) and I think we will get there.
Oh, come on, Mark! You are not buying that BS.
You also made an interesting statement elsewhere that Mark Lovelace will still have a job if Palco goes away - so, you don't think it is all about Hurwitz? It really is about stopping all logging? The other timber companies are next - you know that.
mresquan, finally you state the issue: it is that damned "human inhabitance!"
Damn those humans!
We could NEVER stand having humans in the forests! NEVER!
lol
Fred, it is not a questions of "developing" these lands. The present law allows residences as compatible uses with TPZ zoning, as does the county's zoning ordinance. None of this crap about making a residence "necesary to timber management." That is a mis-read of the state law. The state law simply and clearly permits residences on TPZ lands. This does not allow "development," if that term means residential subdivisions into small lots. But current zoning allows a residence on each 40 acres (or 16 houses in a square mile) provided there is a joint timber management plan for all those parcels. Most of the parcels in the county are in the 160 acre class size, which means just 4 homes per square mile. Hardly "sprawl." But as Mark states above, apparently the issue for these opponents is any human inhabitance.
Fred Mangels the Humboldt Libertarian? More like Fakertarian.
Fighting golf courses and added development,such as roads and such, and inevitably more housing,will keep Lovelace busy enough.
"Oh, come on, Mark! You are not buying that BS"
Rose, I am not Mark.
10:14 wrote, "This does not allow "development," if that term means residential subdivisions into small lots. But current zoning allows a residence on each 40 acres (or 16 houses in a square mile) provided there is a joint timber management plan for all those parcels.".
Understood. Then nothing's really changed, has it, especially since the supes excluded people who already applied for building permits. That assumes the "emergency" ordinance only lasts short time and I'm not totally comfortable that it will.
"Please name a single person who supports the ordinance and is pushing for turning Palco timberlands into a park"
The naming of the names and orgs was in response to that question.
Those people would most definitely support a PARK over harvestable timberlands, even if using enviro-approved methods.
Fred, didn't you once write that you were related to Bill Barnum?
Fred check out the classifieds! They need a "Mop Operator" at the dog pound.
"Fred, didn't you once write that you were related to Bill Barnum?".
Yes. He is married to my wife's sister, Monica, so he's my brother- in- law.
So the Matteoli's are in-laws as well,i take it.I'd suspect that your wife is married to Mason's mother.
Well...not quite: Mason's mother is my wife's sister. They never got married and, as far as I know, they've never getting married.
In other words: Mason's mother, Jeannette, is my sister- in- law and Mason- as much as he might hate to admit it- is my nephew.
"they've never getting married".
Now I blew it. That was supposed to read: "they've never considered getting married.".
10:54 - mresquan is Mark.
"Those people would most definitely support a PARK over harvestable timberlands, even if using enviro-approved methods."
Like I said, besides old growth stands, I don't belive that to be true. Even so, there is no reason a "park" can't produce lumber and jobs. Look at the City of Arcata.
"I'd suspect that your wife is married to Mason's mother."
Chalk this one up my list of embarrassing quotes.
Fred, does Bill read your blog and other blogs?
LOL.....LOL.....3:06pm
" Even so, there is no reason a "park" can't produce lumber and jobs. Look at the City of Arcata."
Thank you, THANK YOU for making my point. There many who dont want ANY harvesting of timber even in the Arcata Community forest, or have you NOT seen the hue and cry over the ongoing harvests in that park?
There was recently an article in one of the two dailies decrying the fact there is harvesting going on in the arcata forest and accusing said harvesting to increased global warming.
So, yes, there are many out there who want NO harvesting of timber out there, who in fact would like it ALL converted to parks.
"LOL.....LOL.....3:06pm"
3:06 must be proud to receive such an appreciative review from 8:27.
So are you saying the Mark or EPIC are against harvesting in the Arcata Community Forest. I don't think so. Which was your point. Which is wrong.
"Fred, does Bill read your blog and other blogs?".
He's told me he stops by this blog on occasion. Don't recall if he said he visited any other ones.
I wrote, "They never got married and, as far as I know, they've never getting married.".
Poorly written by me and I wondered if someone would pick up on it. I make it sound like neither Jeannette or Connie have been married to anyone.
Just got a call from Jeannette asking me to clarify that she's been married to Marc Matteoli for over 30 years, their anniversery having been just a few days ago, as a matter of fact.
I had to explain that I was kidding around and saying that her and Connie had never been married to each other. Blew that one.
Jeannette didn't read that on the blog. Her sister, Monica (Barnum), called her up and told her about it.
Fred, Why are you posting that Marc and Jeanette aren't married? They have been married for around 36 years!!! I was there. Don't you have anything better to do?
In watching the rerun of the BOS meeting on the ordinance, the Board referred to Palco as the reason for this. I wonder if Palco could apply if the Texas judge would grant the sale of the land on a "hardship" that the BOS has said they will allow. I also wonder is Palco could have the ordinance overturned as they were targeted and were mentioned as the reason for the ordinance.
The other question is who is going to be able to purchase the 160 acre "lots" since they have to sell for a lot of money and most people just don't have a few million in cash laying around to spend on land (if the Texas judge approves the request).
Fred lies about everything. He is so ignorant that he doesn't think people will check on his claims, like him claiming that Schwartz said Arkley didn't threaten Glass when in fact Schwartz was quoting Glazer and then went on to state the opposite of what Fred claims. SHAME ON LYING FRED.
"are you saying the Mark or EPIC are against harvesting in the Arcata Community Forest. I don't think so. Which was your point. Which is wrong."
Ummmm, NO. Actually, my first point wast to counter Heraldos assertion that there is nobody out there who would like to convert productive timberlands into parks, when obviously there are.
Parks where NO sustainable logging will be allowed.
Then you walked right into it by bringing in the Arcata Community forest, pointing out that it has sustainable timber harvesting.
My counterpoint is that there are a large number of those who decry even that, and want absolutely NO logging in the Arcata Community Forest. Mark Lovelace was not mentioned as one of those.
Did you NOT read the opinion piece decrying the logging in the Arcata Community forest, attributing, in part due to timber harvesting there, an increase in Global Warming?
Fred, are you the black sheep of your family?
Mark Lovelace was mentioned as one...
10:17 AM
We have enough old growth protected, timber lands should be used just for that TIMBER.
Yes, 12:45, I agree. The folks who will disagree with you are the realtors, developers, and large and small timberland owners who want those lands to be forested residential estates.
Post a Comment
<< Home