Yesterday Security National's Randy Gans wrote a letter in response to last week's story, "Arkley v. Humboldt." Unfortunately the letter arrived too late to make it into this week's paper, but we'll put it up here and run it next week:
Your article "Arkley .v. Humboldt" (November 26, 2008) implies that our companies that own the Loleta area land in question intend to develop it as a subdivision. Had your reporter contacted us before writing the article, he would have learned that we have no intention of doing so. Nevertheless, ascertaining the correct number of legal parcels on a particular property is only prudent land management.
Since July 2007 we have sought from the County Planning Department Certificates of Compliance. Inasmuch as the land is made up of a number of small parcels, the Certificates would clarify the status of each. The process begins with a "Determination of Status." The county's instruction sheets states, "The purpose of the Determination of Status is to assist applicants in obtaining quick and accurate information of the legal status of parcels." I do not know how the planning department defines "quick," but I think almost no one would consider 18 months "quick". That is the length of time we have been waiting for the Certificates. We are aware of other land owners who have had similar experiences. We finally filed suit for the purpose of bringing the issue to a conclusion.
Meanwhile, all of the land in question is under lease for cattle ranching, have been planted with more than 100,000 redwood seedlings and are managed for future Arkley family generations which is hardly indicative of a "pending subdivision".
Vice President of Real Estate
GOOD! I was Boycotting the Businesses that Advertised on them anyway!
Hopefully the agreement didn't include payments, since most all of the billboards were placed illegally…
Police? Looks more like an invading army to me. At last, the boys got to…
To the family....peace ..
Do you dummies really think if he was black he would be riddle with holes…