Our Issue: Humboldt and Sierra County Assaults on TP Allowable Uses: Why You Should Never Ever Let Your Public Officials Go Unmonitored

What’s the deal?
In two separate actions, Humboldt County and Sierra County have both attempted to prohibit construction of residences on TPZ lands, although this use is specifically permitted in state law, CA State Government Code Section 51104(h)(6).

“Compatible use” is any use which does not significantly detract from the use of the property for, or inhibit, growing and harvesting timber, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the following, unless in a specific instance such a use would be contrary to the preceding definition of compatible use: ...

(6) A residence or other structure necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production. Unfortunately, staffers and county officials often treat portions of a law that don’t match with their vision of how it ought to work as excess verbiage, and thus immaterial.

In the Humboldt County case, Maxxam Corp submitted a reorganization plan before the bankruptcy court that would subdivide some of 22,000 acres of PALCO’s timberland into 160 acre high-end, low-density residential and recreational properties. Fearing the plan would take this land out of effective timber production, Humboldt County overreacted by temporarily prohibiting any TPZ land from getting a building permit. The County then pushed to make the ban permanent. It did not seem to matter to them that smaller timberland owners throughout the county who wanted to live on their land would be catastrophically affected. They held the line that the residence must be proven necessary to the maintenance of the land before it could be allowed. The usual reading of that line is a residence, which needs no further justification, or another sort of building needed for land management.

Sierra County’s push started in the planning commission with the Planning and Building Director and a former county assessor. The “reasoning” behind this proposal was that since so few building permits had been requested for TPZ lands, it clearly was not a needed compatible use. The fact that very few are requested should suggest this use is very low impact and need not be of concern to the county. After a big row in February of 2007, the Sierra County Board of Supervisors directed staff to draft ordinance change to restore residences back into "compatible use" for TPZ status, but try to work up some size upper limits on new houses and house-site improvements. The issue went underground to pop up unexpectedly in January 2008 when the Planning Director tried again to sneak his version allowing only small cabins without special permission through.

In both cases, the local landowners came storming out of the woodworks in high numbers supported by other interested parties and beat the proposals back. The Sierra County Board of Supervisors are particularly sick of the situation, since they didn’t even ask for it in the first place.

However, the local landowners don’t for a moment think that these issues are dead and continue to monitor the situation.

Why do I care?
The anti-timber advocates all feed off each other.  If something gets passed in one county to further undermine the forest landowners property rights and property values, you can bet it will quickly show up elsewhere.

The ability to live on your forest land while caring for it is an enormous right very few of us would be willing to forgo.It makes or breaks the dreams of many small landowners.  The management benefits should be obvious; the owner is actually on his land, monitoring and maintaining it at the time problems arise, because he sees daily what is happening to it. The landowner is not under any pressure to harvest timber prematurely to pay an inflated tax bill, and can choose the time that best suits his and his land’s needs.

Our public officials don’t see it that way. They see a house that is “getting away” with an unfairly reduced tax structure. The welfare of the land has little to do with the equation. They believe allowing residential use on timberland, however light, will lead to a large number of landowners who build their mini-mansions in their woods with no intention of harvesting those trees and paying the timber tax, yet forever reaping the benefit of a tax structure based on raw land value alone. This is not strictly true. The residence put on the timberland can itself be taxed as a property improvement at the going rates for the land it occupies, while still recognizing the development possibilities for the remainder of the land are still limited.

back to the top

Where do I find more?
Humboldt Coalition for Property Rights: http://www.HumCPR.org

The Forest Landowners of California, executive director Melinda Fleming, has been heavily involved with this issue and has contact with many of the key players.  Forest Landowners of California

What can I do?
First and foremost, keep an eye on your Planning Commission and County Board of Supervisors.  Network with people in other counties to find out what is going on there.  If you see or hear anything suspicious, let us and your neighbors know.

Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors - Meeting List

Santa Cruz County Planning Department - Meeting List

Get on our email list. We want to inform you in a timely manner when we hear of something.  We often have only three or four days to get a response together.

Testify, write letters and otherwise make your opinion known when an agenda item affecting your rights appears. Know your state laws and applicable court decisions and include this information in your testimony. Provide assistance to out-of-county landowners when they are in need; they will return the favor.

Get to know your county decision makers.  Show them you are not wild-eyed radicals or petrified luddites, but reasonable people seeking reasonable solutions to mutual problems.

Get news coverage and be available to reporters.

back to the top