The MCSD posted a list of potential rezone parcels on their Web site
http://mckinleyvillecsd.com/sites/mckinleyvillecsd.com/files/County%20Rezoning%20Plan.pdf

Hawaii County uses strong language regarding the importance of agricultural expansion and adjacent residential issues. Comparisons exist although Humboldt is not at this level of production.

Really? — my property is adjacent to this 38 acre parcel and our neighborhood is 5 acre minimum. Are referring to the properties north of the 38 acre site?

The owners of the Gilardoni parcel were trying to transfer their parcel ownership to a responsible enterprise. The owners must have thought this was the right thing to do as ag property owners. What will the owners do now? Unfortunately for those with any ideologically-based objections, it is still the right of private property owners to make their own decisions.

It personally saddens me that some loud Arcatans are so blinded by media depictions of massive feedlots and overflowing chicken sheds that they forget about what elements constitute the continued principled use of our landscape’s resources. Humboldt’s dairy farmers need the help of local people, not distrust or disdain.

For the GPU to address this edge issue effectively, there needs to be mechanisms in place to gauge a parcel by the incompatible uses present on its surroundings. In the case of the Gilardoni parcel, that decision was already made by the county due to the incompatible uses. Rezoning was then blocked by the influence of Arcata. I am in agreement with the spirit of what Arcata’s politicians did in taking the unconventional stance of preserving ag zoning on the parcel. I disagree with the lack of formal mechanisms to deal with the inevitable disputes. Without conflict resolution, Arcata’s position and the county going along with this position are just words.

In the case of Dow’s Prairie, the county has zoned nearby parcels for rural residential housing with 1.5-3 acre lots. There is no question as to the character of Dow’s Prairie with all the sheep and crop growing activity there. Historically, there was no question as to the character of the Arcata Bottom either, it was expected that dairy operations would be expanding even with the threat of urban encroachment.

I think the GPU is on track as far as addressing open space. I do not think land use issues which pit ag and residential interests against each other are solved by Right To Farm statutes. Call me a skeptic, but I hold the opinion that the local smear campaigns with their uncompromising labelling of humane, profitable long-term ag production as “factory farming” will eventually result in more multi-family homes and associated sewer lines. I just don’t see the end result being new farm business in the form of the Bloomfield newsletter’s promotion of so-called “land-based agriculture.”

As to the odds of the same people participating in the GPU as participated in the smear campaign, I would say that likelihood was sufficiently demonstrated by their attendance during the last open space meeting at the county courthouse.

Anyway, maybe the neighbors will now participate in the county General Plan Update so as to distinguish between the types of agriculture they consider permissible on the adjacent land. What do you suppose the odds are of that happening?

Perhaps you can shed some light on the non-bullshit artist viewpoint. What is appropriate use for our landscape? Appropriate at the urban-ag edge? Why do you think it is that some communities live peacefully with farming while others (i.e. Monterrey, Arcata, Ukiah) have broad objections?

Mind that you don’t have to type as if you are yelling to join this conversation.