The future shape of Humboldt County

The future shape of Humboldt County

There are 15 comments on the Eureka Times Standard story from Jan 9, 2010, titled The future shape of Humboldt County. In it, Eureka Times Standard reports that:

As Humboldt County grinds its way to the General Plan rewrite, we see the push to restrict rural residential opportunities and to force new development into already existing communities.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Eureka Times Standard.

Anonymous

Santa Rosa, CA

#1 Jan 9, 2010
Shepherd shovels us more of the same anti-environment BS. The words may change but the message doesn't: I want to destroy what is beautiful about Humboldt County so I can have my McMansion in the woods.
Lefty McEarplugs

Alameda, CA

#2 Jan 9, 2010
Dear Mr. Shepperd,

Your facts don't support my taking over the county so I am going to ignore them and attack you instead. Obviously, I can't dispute the facts, so I am not pleased.

Furthermore, blah, blah, blah, global warming.

Yours truly,

Lefty McEarplugs
FoolOnTheHill

United States

#3 Jan 9, 2010
Anonymous likes to shovel his BS from his McMansion in San Francisco but then I guess he knows what a good job the timber companies do for the environment. We all love those tree stumps. Making land use decisions based childhood obesity seems absurd.
Lacking Logic

Menlo Park, CA

#4 Jan 9, 2010
To think that you can draw any of these conclusions from the data you are referring to suggests the need for a remedial course in logic. At the very least you need to seriously qualify your conclusions--there are so many potential confounding variables and alternative explanations for the conclusions you (or perhaps even Dr. Lindsay) would like to find in the data.
Hilarious

Santa Rosa, CA

#5 Jan 9, 2010
Leave it to Ben Shepard to decree "there's only ONE CONCLUSION" from the link between poverty and obesity.

"DEREGULATE RURAL DEVELOPMENT"!??

Unbelievable.
Another Shill

Santa Rosa, CA

#6 Jan 9, 2010
Using Ben Shepard's own logic, we need to focus our limited public resources away from rural areas to begin in-fill development in our cities. Building affordable housing near transportation, services, jobs and schools makes living inherently cheaper, another way to increase income, thus, lowering obesity rates.

Mr. Shepard must ignore actual demographics in order to fit his statistics into simplistically narrow conclusions.

The fastest growing population is single households of retiring poor, working poor and single young adults. Few have the resources to buy 40 acres 50 miles from town, in fact, their rent just increased to pay a water/sewer bill following 30 years of rural sprawl beyond infrastructure capacity.

It is well known that former county supervisor candidates like Mr. Shepard depend upon the largess of the development community to have a chance in hell of winning.

We've been blessed with a few exceptions to this rule in recent years.
rainbow haze

Fort Morgan, CO

#7 Jan 9, 2010
Th infill loons want to see everyone living in an apartment in Eureka or Arcata. My guess is that all these "social engineers" live in areas like Bayside or Fieldbrook in single family homes on large parcels. These no-growth fools don't want any new neighbors.
32 Year Transplant

Eureka, CA

#8 Jan 10, 2010
Mr. Shepard, you make a good point.

Since McKinleyville is rural, I say lets expand our multiple family housing in McKinleyville. There are plenty of services available and a good mix of wealth and poverty.

Let it be so.
Hilarious

Santa Rosa, CA

#9 Jan 10, 2010
rainbow haze wrote:
Th infill loons want to see everyone living in an apartment in Eureka or Arcata. My guess is that all these "social engineers" live in areas like Bayside or Fieldbrook in single family homes on large parcels. These no-growth fools don't want any new neighbors.
"Loons, fools, no-growthers, social engineers..."

Precisely the kind of intellect required of Sherpard-supporters.

Human beings have always needed affordable housing and many decades ago we had it in spades, especially in our "Old Towns". Just like the middle class we used to have.

The problem?

SOCIAL ENGINEERING BY THE HIGHEST BIDDERS!!!

They made a killing building larger homes on cheap, remote resource lands, larger cars, bigger mortgages, higher credit card ceilings, bigger fees and finds, tricks and traps...Right up until they looted the U.S. Treasury.(Those who couldn't afford bigger homes, cars and mortgages, ended up subsidizing them anyway, READ:TYRANNY!!!). None of them were jailed, many were appointed to Washington D.C., so now it begins anew!!!

Those who attempt to limit the definition of "growth" to serve the "BIGS" and not "We The People", are traitors serving the new feudalism.

Tyranny always has its supporters.
Nor-Cal Native

Mckinleyville, CA

#10 Jan 10, 2010
Hilarious wrote:
<quoted text>
"Loons, fools, no-growthers, social engineers..."
Precisely the kind of intellect required of Sherpard-supporters.
Human beings have always needed affordable housing and many decades ago we had it in spades, especially in our "Old Towns". Just like the middle class we used to have.
The problem?
SOCIAL ENGINEERING BY THE HIGHEST BIDDERS!!!
They made a killing building larger homes on cheap, remote resource lands, larger cars, bigger mortgages, higher credit card ceilings, bigger fees and finds, tricks and traps...Right up until they looted the U.S. Treasury.(Those who couldn't afford bigger homes, cars and mortgages, ended up subsidizing them anyway, READ:TYRANNY!!!). None of them were jailed, many were appointed to Washington D.C., so now it begins anew!!!
Those who attempt to limit the definition of "growth" to serve the "BIGS" and not "We The People", are traitors serving the new feudalism.
Tyranny always has its supporters.
I like it.
Lois

Palo Cedro, CA

#11 Jan 14, 2010
I don't know about these Mc mansions here. Sure haven't seen any of em. Not sure those comments apply here. Srsly, where are they?
How about some comments about our actual situation here, not a general comment about development which holds no local merit.
Merit Police

San Carlos, CA

#12 Jan 14, 2010
Lois wrote:
I don't know about these Mc mansions here. Sure haven't seen any of em. Not sure those comments apply here. Srsly, where are they?
How about some comments about our actual situation here, not a general comment about development which holds no local merit.
You must be joking.

Eureka, Mckinleyville, Humboldt Hill, Cutten, all suffer McMansion sprawl and its tell-tale infrastructure failures and rural roads never designed for the Lanes, Ways, Place, Court and cul-de-sacs that inundate them.

Many thousands more are planned, waiting for the MOMENT the market improves, and the taxpayer-reaming continues.

With 75% of Humboldt County unable to afford to own their own home, it takes unbridled greed, and foolish voters to keep allowing remote subdivisions!!
rainbow haze

United States

#13 Jan 16, 2010
"Merit Police" , am i correct that you think that limiting "remote subdivisions" would make housing more affordable? Please explain how limiting the supply of a good (housing) will make the price decrease. It seems to me that with a larger supply of housing the price of housing would drop. Or do you consider supply and demand to be "unbridled greed"?2197
Nor-Cal Native

Mckinleyville, CA

#14 Jan 16, 2010
rainbow haze wrote:
"Merit Police" , am i correct that you think that limiting "remote subdivisions" would make housing more affordable? Please explain how limiting the supply of a good (housing) will make the price decrease. It seems to me that with a larger supply of housing the price of housing would drop. Or do you consider supply and demand to be "unbridled greed"?2197
That's right there is no unbridled greed in the housing market,what were we thinking?
Merit Police

Santa Rosa, CA

#15 Jan 23, 2010
rainbow haze wrote:
"Merit Police" , am i correct that you think that limiting "remote subdivisions" would make housing more affordable? Please explain how limiting the supply of a good (housing) will make the price decrease. It seems to me that with a larger supply of housing the price of housing would drop. Or do you consider supply and demand to be "unbridled greed"?2197
Your logic won't play well with the families whose home values will plummet with over-development.

According to the Home Builders Assoc. and H.C. Planning Dept. our county is already saturated in middle and upper income homes! It's profitable to build more of them as long as Uncle Sam bails them out later!

Building the stepping-stone of affordable in-fill development is a part of what builds a strong middle class, they are the ones that can eventually afford remote subdivisions.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Newcastle Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
David Dallas Withrow (Apr '15) Jun 1 BeauVine 9
Review: Duane Lyons Group (Mar '11) May '16 Unpaid 4
Auburn Walmart News May '16 Jeff 2
How Long Does It take to get divorced in Placer... (Oct '10) Apr '16 filling there poc... 26
News Rescuers give details surrounding teen's drowni... Apr '16 Julie Jane 1
News Serial ADA lawsuit filer striking Bay Area Apr '16 Julie Jane 1
Party weekend Feb '16 BuzzThor 1

Newcastle Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Newcastle Mortgages