Override the Supervisors

agricultural land
Once again siding with the dominant Developers cabal, here in Humboldt County, on March 19 2014 Chair Rex Bohn wrote a letter on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Humboldt County in Opposition to AB 1961 – The Sustainable Farmland Strategy Act

Summary- AB 1961 would require counties to develop a Sustainable Farmland Strategy (SFS), which includes maps of agriculturally -­‐ zoned lands and local goals, policies and ordinances for the retention and mitigation of agriculturally -­‐ zoned lands.

The Sustainable Farmland Strategy Act creates opportunities at the county level to discuss and plan for the long -­‐ term retention of farmland, while maintaining flexibility and local control of land use planning decisions.
AB 1961 would require that, by January 1, 2018, counties develop a Sustainable Farmland Strategy (SFS), which inventories agriculturally -­‐ zoned land, describes the local goals, strategies, and related policies and ordinances to retain agriculturally -­‐ zoned lands where practical, and mitigate the loss of agriculturally -­‐ zoned lands.

The SFS will be posted on the county’s website. Counties with less than 4 percent of their land base in agriculture are exempt. Counties will have the option of complying with the SFS requirement by relying on existing inventories and maps of agricultural lands and existing goals, strategies and related policies and ordinances that substantially comply with the provisions of the bill. The bill also requires the Office of Planning and Research to include best practices that support farmland conservation in its next update to the General Plan Guidelines.
This concept of retaining our agricultural land base is supported by the vast majority of county residents.

Here your chance to weight in let the State Assembly know Rex doesn’t speak for the majority of citizens in Humboldt County.

Write your own Letter refuting the supervisors here is a template
SAMPLE LETTER – AB 1961 – Please use your own words as much as possible.eggman
Please send to Victor Francovich via FAX: 916-319-2184

The Honorable Susan Talamantes Eggman
State Capitol, Room 2003
Sacramento, CA 94249-0013
Fax: 916-319-2184
RE: SUPPORT – AB 1961
Dear Assemblymember Talamantes Eggman,

On behalf of ____ (person,organization/business), in Humboldt County, California; (we/I) write in support of AB 1961, the Sustainable Farmland Strategy Act. The Sustainable Farmland Strategy Act creates opportunities at the county level to discuss and plan for the long-term retention of farmland, while maintaining flexibility and local control of land use planning decisions.
Please disregard the letter from the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors chair Rex Bohn, It does not reflect the true sentiments of the people here, just a small group of property rights zealots and developers.

California is home to one of the world’s five Mediterranean-climate growing regions, enabling year-round agricultural production. California is the number one agricultural state in the country, generating over $40 billion in sales on over 25 million acres. Recent studies find that agriculture provides multiple benefits to the state, including climate protection. Research funded by the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) program found that an acre of irrigated cropland emits 70 times fewer greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than an acre of urban land.

This finite resource is fundamental to our agricultural economy and food security. But despite its significance to our state, we continue to lose farmland to non-agricultural uses at an alarming rate of 30,000 acres annually.

Counties have jurisdiction over the majority of the state’s agricultural land and play a vital role in regulating the use of land, including the development and conservation of agricultural lands. AB 1961 creates the opportunity at the county level to discuss and plan for the future of our agricultural lands.

Thank you for your leadership in authoring AB 1961, the Sustainable Farmland Strategy Act. We look forward to working with you to support its passage.
Sincerely,
Name
Person or Organization/business
Address

Advertisements

19 thoughts on “Override the Supervisors

  1. These fools know no limits to their corrupt agenda. Lets destroy everything that makes this place loveable and liveable.

    Like

  2. <i "Lets destroy everything that makes this place loveable and liveable."

    More Lovelacian hyperbole please!

    Like

  3. Would you mind at least providing a link to the Bohn letter? Thank you.

    Like

  4. Mitch-

    Go to the BOS agenda packet from March 25. Its marked ‘Approval of board orders from March 18’. Sadly, Lovelace voted in favor of the letter in opposition.

    Like

  5. ” Sadly, Lovelace voted in favor of the letter in opposition.”

    So I guess the Tuluwat Examiner’s “staff” simply forgot to mention that Lovelace was also “siding with the dominant Developers cabal” on this issue. I’m sure it’s just an innocent oversight, and not an example of the TE leaving out an important piece of context in order to try to shoehorn this story into fitting their precious “Developers cabal” narrative.

    Like

  6. yep…glad I have a “momma” troll though, and crikey mate, after only two weeks!

    Like

  7. The TE title is Overide the Supervisors. Plural. Bohn authored the letter. Good job trying to start a rabbit trail 7:35 and my sometimes nasty child.

    The TE seems to be an equal opportunity critisizer. Props to Jager for a heartfelt apology letter (albeit not approved) and thumbs down to Atkins in the same post. Doesn’t quite fit in your box, does it?

    Like

  8. “Liberal Jon” just answered for Linda on the Wiyot noon-apology thread, maybe he’ll come here and answer for Lovelace. Does the fact that Lovelace and the other Supervisors all signed this letter mean that they were all, unanimously, “siding with the Development cabal?” Or perhaps it’s not quite that simple?

    It would be helpful to see the actual text of the letter Bohn wrote and that they all signed onto. If someone can supply a link, that would be helpful. I am having trouble finding it.

    Like

  9. I couldn’t find the text of the letter itself, all I could find was that the Board voted, unanimously, on the 18th to send a letter to of opposition on the basis that they consider it an unfunded mandate. That appears on the second-to-last page of this document:

    http://humboldt.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=humboldt_7e50f4d65b06805075fa08f057f5203c.pdf&view=1

    Look for the boldface type.

    So it looks like they all voted to authorize Bohn to sign the letter of opposition on the part of the Board. So it doesn’t sound like this was something Bohn initiated, or bears any more responsibility for than the rest of the Board. He’s the one who signed it, because he’s the current Chair. So if anyone “sided with the Developers cabal,” then I guess they all did, Lovelace included.

    Like

  10. Or maybe none of them were siding with any “cabal,” they were just siding with the taxpayers in not wanting to have another unfunded mandate shoved on them, in this case for a bill that appears to mostly just duplicate what the County already does in mapping and protecting agricultural lands.

    Like

  11. 9:39

    Is that what the letter says? Good scoop. Maybe you should post a link so the rest of us non-insiders can see for ourselves.

    Like

  12. Does “Mitch the Bloginator” ever give up on tearing down other blogs?

    This post is another illustration of the importance of having representatives other than those anointed by the development community serving in elected and appointed offices.

    Lovelace/Atkins supporters will be more interested in the details of their reasoning.

    Maybe it’s a reasonable vote, and maybe it’s a psychosis from being repeatedly outvoted, working alongside developer industry lapdogs year after year after year, especially after performing a local miracle of being a liberal elected within an uninterrupted local legacy of corrupt, industry-dominated politics.

    Like

  13. Haven’t seen the letter, but the Board minutes state that they objected to it being an unfunded mandate. The description above suggests it’s basically redundant:

    “Summary- AB 1961 would require counties to develop a Sustainable Farmland Strategy (SFS), which includes maps of agriculturally -­‐ zoned lands and local goals, policies and ordinances for the retention and mitigation of agriculturally -­‐ zoned lands.”

    Meanwhile, the TE’s sample letter says:

    “Please disregard the letter from the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors chair Rex Bohn, It does not reflect the true sentiments of the people here, just a small group of property rights zealots and developers.”

    So since the letter was approved by all 5 Supervisors, then I guess Mark Lovelace must be one of those “small group of property rights zealots and developers.”

    Under the bus with ya, Lovelace!

    Like

  14. “So since the letter was approved by all 5 Supervisors, then I guess Mark Lovelace must be one of those “small group of property rights zealots and developers.” “Under the bus with ya, Lovelace!”
    Look over there at Mark! Don’t look at Virginia! Look at Mark! Whatever you do don’t look at Virginia!

    Like

  15. Liberal Jon is Linda Atkins. Tulu is either Chet Albin or Josh Drayton or MOLA.

    Invasion of the Body Snatchers is happening right here at the Tuluwhat Examiner post by post.

    And they say sex changes are complicated!

    Like

  16. “Look over there at Mark! Don’t look at Virginia! Look at Mark! Whatever you do don’t look at Virginia!”

    Well since it was an unanimous vote, they’re all equally responsible. But yes, it’s especially interesting that in voting to send the letter, Lovelace was, according to the TE, siding with “the Developers cabal” and “property rights zealots.”

    Why? Because if true, that would be quite a switch for Lovelace, right? But if not true (which I think is about a zillion times more likely), that suggests that maybe this issue isn’t really about “developers” or “property rights zealots” at all.

    Like

  17. Knight22014:

    I’m not on the staff of the Tuluwat Examiner but I do have three people on my own staff.

    Their names are: Me, Myself and I.

    As for the TE; who knows who they (she/he/it) are? Personally, I would like it to stay that way.

    Like

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s