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:
Editor,
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”.
Sincerely,
Randy Gans
Vice President of Real Estate
This article appears in Black Friday.
Ahh, dang. Facts again. Why ruin a perfectly good conspiracy theory with facts? Heraldo had quite a field day with this one.
These are beautiful parcels, and I can see from Loleta Drive the trees that were planted in the gulches.
Something needs to be done about the County Planning Department!
Don’t worry, “proper land management” means that all options will be on the table when new opportunities arise. Subdivided properties for sale will be a very real opportunity in the near future.
You mean the County Planning Department that saved local developers from themselves by not rubber-stamping every development brought before it? Think about it. If the County had been any less judicious over the past 10 years, half the builders in Humboldt County would be bankrupt right now from having over-built during the housing craziness. The developers of Humboldt owe the County a debt of gratitude. Don’t hold your breath waiting for them to acknowledge it.
I appreciate Mr. Gans objection to not being contacted for the story. That’s a valid point. To clarify, though, I did not mean to imply that the companies in question intend to “develop [the land] as a subdivision.” Rather, my comment, “Perhaps looking to subdivide the property…,” was intended as inquisitive: To what end are the companies pursuing these documents? Subdividing land is done for many reasons, and if my phrasing conjured images of a cookie-cutter housing development atop Loleta Hill, that was certainly not my intention.
I am puzzled by the “pending subdivision” in quotes at the end of the letter. That phrase did not appear in my story.
Regardless, cheers to the property owners for the redwood seedlings. They’ll be welcome residents.
Bull Moose,
The 85% percent of us who cannot afford to purchase a house would like to say “thank you” the planning department too.
bull $hit
It’s fine to apologize for not contacting Gans, but why wasn’t he contacted? How do you report on a controversial topic with a title like “Arkley vs. Humboldt” without trying to contact Arkley or his spokesperson? How is what you’re doing different from what Heraldo is doing?
Basically, without getting too deeply into the sordid details, someone at Security National recently told us that neither Gans nor anyone in the organization would be comment on Journal stories in the future. We took that person at their word, which was a mistake. And that’s all we’re going to say about that.
We definitely appreciate Randy Gans’ letter, and we look forward to discussing Marina Center and other subjects with him in the future. We appreciate the invitation, and we will definitely take him up on it.
At the same time, and with due respect to Mr. Gans, I don’t believe the story was in any way incorrect. The certificates being sought are sought in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. Alleged violation of the terms of that act are at the heart of Security National’s lawsuit against the county.
So it’s definitely reasonable to wonder if a subdivision is in the works. And I’ll have to ask — I will ask — if SN just wants a determination about the parcels to tuck that information away for future reference, what’s the rush? What does it matter if it takes the county a month or two years or 10?
But we’ll discuss that with Mr. Gans at a date in the not-too-distant future. Or here, if he would like.
Mr. Sims, that would not fly as an excuse for a school teacher. Shame on the writer for not getting both sides. National Security could have told the writer we are not going to comment. However, they were never even asked. Typical.
Security National not National Security, dear Anon, although one could interpret it as Orwellian. There has been some development in this area that has been on-going for years. So I can understand the speculation that there will be more development to come. There are new houses across from the Loleta elementary school and the building of new homes has continued, since the moratorium on building in Loleta due to a former bad water situation has been lifted because of a new water source.
If I want speculation, I’ll read Heraldo.
There is nothing wrong with this article, and I guarantee you Gans wouldn’t have responded to any phone calls. He’s too busy spewing bullshit over at the Balloon Tract.
It’s not an excuse, it’s a statement of fact.
Well, he probably would have. Again, though — the story is accurate. It could have been more complete, but we’re addressing that right here.
Gans full time job seems to be playing aggressive defense
I truly respect you Hank. I was truly not impressed by this article nor the writer. He can do better by contacting both parties and by understanding what the issues really are. It is clear from my reading of the piece that Ryan didn’t understand that planning’s refusal to do their job and tell land owners whether their parcels are legal or not is not something confined to Arkely but is suffered by many small property owners who have waited YEARS FOR THE COUNTY TO MAKE THE SAME DETERMINATION WITH THEIR PROPERTIES. The difference between them and Arkely is that the little guy just has to put up with it because most don’t have the money to do anything about it.
The motto over at planning and county counsel – “we get what we want, no matter how illegal it is, if you can’t afford to sue us.” Now that is the story.
From the story:
“Over the years, Vroman has seen increasing resistance to development on agricultural lands, which he attributes to an irrational ideological bias. … “I was tired of spending money,” he said, “so I abandoned my project.” … “I think we’re on the path toward regulatory gridlock,” Vroman said.
That’s it for a response Ryan? How about the hundreds of other folks in the same boat as Vroman?
I’m not rebutting the argument, which seems a valid one. Just pointing out that it was voiced in the story by Mr. Vroman. Also by the complaint.
On Tuesday December 9, 2008 during the 9am board of supes calendar there are three items during closed session. Evaluation of county counsel; appointment of the permanent position of county counsel AND the whether to raise the salaries of county counsel and deputy county counsels.
NOW WHAT IS UP WITH THE BOARD POSTING A FIFTEEN MINUTE SPECIAL MEETING AT 8:45 AM THE SAME DAY FOR THESE SAME THREE ITEMS?
Could it be they have already decided and want to make it formal without allowing anyone in the public to comment on it?
OK, so reporters are suppose to report “both sides” of the story. The problem is that when there is an active lawsuit, the county will not comment to the press. As we have seen with the Tooby Ranch case, that leaves the other party free to say anything without rebuttal. So what would be the point of getting Security National’s version in the article?
Plus, didn’t they tell us “no big boxes, read my lips” when they bought the Balloon Track?