(Eureka, CA) The Humboldt Coalition for Property Rights (HumCPR) announced today that it has filed a lawsuit against the County of Humboldt to compel them to stop the practice of arbitrarily and unjustifiably declaring over a thousand parcels of privately-owned land effectively “illegal.” The County refers to this land as “shaded parcels.” The act of “shading a parcel” puts a cloud on the legal status of the parcel, with no legal notification of this act to the landowner. This “shading of parcels” has been practiced by the County for over 20 years and is not authorized by any law.

“This practice requires a landowner, once they become aware of their status, to pay money to the County and prove their land entitlements are in order,” HumCPR President Lee Ulansey explained. “In other words, Humboldt families have been declared ‘guilty’ by the County in many cases, without the County having performed any research or analysis to justify the ‘shading.’ By doing so, the County has declared you guilty and you must pay the County to prove yourself innocent. Anyplace else this might be called extortion, but in Humboldt our County Counsel has blessed the process.”

Typically, when a county legitimately becomes aware that an illegal division of land has occurred it is required by law to follow a specific process. This process is designed to notify and protect the public, especially future purchasers of such land where there is a justified question regarding the legal status of the parcel. The law requires the County to notify the owner that the parcel was illegally created and then give them an opportunity to prove otherwise.

Our Planning Department, instead of timely notification to property owners (or potential purchasers of these parcels), only informs affected people when someone applies for a permit. Then the planners unveil their map and make the “shaded” status of the parcel publicly known. When the property owner becomes aware of this determination by the County, it is the landowner who must undertake a process to prove their parcel is legal (no matter who, when or how the parcel may have been created). In most cases the County doesn’t even have a record of why or when the parcel was shaded or even who did the shading.

“Most of us believe a person is innocent in this country until proven guilty,” said Ulansey. “Unfortunately not all of our County officials got the word. Even worse, they have been told by our County Counsel that this is acceptable. We wholeheartedly disagree”

“We believe that hundreds of property owners have had the value of their property placed in jeopardy and potentially have been harmed through this illegal process,” said Petitioner’s Attorney Timothy Needham, from the law firm of Janssen, Malloy LLP, and Co-Counsel with William Barnum of Barnum Law Office. Both firms have stepped forward to represent HumCPR in a concerted effort to force the county into legal compliance and uphold the property rights of Humboldt County landowners.

“It is unfortunate that it is necessary for a lawsuit to be filed in order to get the county to follow the law,” continued Needham. “We would hope that this will encourage collaborative efforts by the county to resolve the problems that this practice has created.”

“What a shame that private citizens must spend their hard-earned money to force the County to stop this unauthorized practice,” Ulansey said. “There is a process outlined in law to handle situations like these and the County needs to follow the law just like all the rest of us.”

Related Links
HumCPR Seeks Answers for Humboldt County Property Owners

Shaded Parcels – “Sub-Holes” of a Very Deep Hole by Charley Custer

(Eureka, CA) –The Humboldt Coalition for Property Rights (HumCPR) announced today that it had filed a lawsuit against the County of Humboldt to compel them to produce documents sought under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) (Government Code 6250-6277).

The Records Act request by HumCPR to the County was made on December 5th of last year and to date, the information sought has not been provided. “The law provides the documents to be produced within ten (10) days of the written request and we have been waiting for over three months” stated Lee Ulansey, HumCPR Chair. The information sought by this CPRA was to ask the County to provide the amount of taxpayers’ money that has been spent on attorney’s fees to defend itself or pursue lawsuits filed on land use and private property issues. Ulansey added, “Our County Counsel has had the audacity to tell us that they do not even know how much they have spent on these lawsuits. If it was a Humboldt family or business that had spend tens of millions of dollars on lawyers I guarantee we would know exactly who we paid it to”.

“We believe that the citizens should know how much money is being spent on lawsuits on private property issues,” said Ulansey. “Particularly in these difficult economic times the public needs to know how much money is being diverted to often unnecessary litigation and not on programs that the taxpayers desperately need”, he continued. “Our roads are falling apart, our people are out of work, we are cutting public safety staff and are paying lawyers millions of dollars,” he concluded “Not to comply with this request, as they have done, is a violation of the public’s right to know the truth, and moreover is is blatantly against the law”.

As stated in the request, the California Constitution, Article 1, provides: “The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government and for redress of grievances. . .and (b) (1) The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.”

Eureka, CA. ..As a follow-up to HumCPR’s August public information request letter -(pdf file) for the Humboldt County Planning Department to release a list of land parcels considered to have questionable legal status (shaded parcels); HumCPR is now asking the County to release additional information regarding how the State of California views many of these parcels.

HumCPR is aware of communication, going back at least 7 years, between the California Department of Transportation (Cal-Trans) and County officials over the County’s position of classifying remnant parcels created by State acquisition in the furtherance of road improvements projects, as “shaded parcels.” In a 2011 letter the State asserts that “a continuation of this practice might create certain implications for the State, and can also expose the County to claims by property owners …”

A February 2004 letter from the State expressed opposition to how the County was handling remnant parcels created by State highway acquisitions. The State cited several Code Sections and court decisions exempting the State from local governmental control over State acquisition activities. These exemptions ranged from “impairing the State’s sovereign powers” to a State Supreme Court decision which states that “municipal governments –which are created by the State – cannot have superior power over the State …”

“The classification of parcels as ‘shaded’ at the new interchange at Alton, as well as various improvement spots along Highway 36, are just some examples of what HumCPR feels is bureaucratic overreach by the Planning Department and the County Counsel’s office,” said HumCPR President Lee Ulansey.

Local title company officials have also voiced their concerns for the process that the County has outlined to address the nearly 2000 “shaded parcels” currently in existence. They believe that the process the County has outlined to address this problem may “lead to a false sense of security, which may have drastic results…” They go on to say that, with respect to the innocent purchasers of bonafide illegal parcels, “due to the length of time that the County has ignored its responsibility … many responsible parties can no longer be held accountable …“.

Mr. Ulansey further stated that the most distressing revelation in this ongoing fiasco is found in the February 2011 letter, when the State says, “we were under the impression that this issue had been resolved when we did not receive a response to our 2004 letter.”

Is it proper for County officials to ignore, and fail to respond to, issues affecting the property rights of hundreds of County citizens?

It is our hope that the release of this information will help answer the following questions:
1) Why is Humboldt County the only county in the State taking this position on “shaded parcels” and 2) Why is the Humboldt County Counsel’s Office always uniquely interpreting so many sections of the law in a manner much different than the rest of the State, and almost always detrimental to the interests of Humboldt County property owners?

HumCPR will make the results of this information request available to the public when received.

HumCPR is dedicated to preserving the rural lifestyle that has been the historic tradition of Humboldt County. We will aggressively pursue the right to allow all members of our community a broad choice of alternatives for living, working and recreating. HumCPR will actively monitor and oppose actions that erode property rights or diminish the economic viability of our community.

October public information request letter – links to a pdf file

HumCPR Press Release_CPRA – pdf file for this post

Daniel Mintz, The Independent 4/20/2010

Homebuilding on Timber Production Zone (TPZ) parcels is one of the most argued-about aspects of the General Plan Update (GPU) and a majority of the county’s Planning Commission supports allowing one residence per parcel as an unconditional right.

The Commission reviewed the policies of the draft GPU’s Forest Resources chapter and debated whether allowing a residence on a TPZ parcel should be based on a connection to logging operations. Four of the five commissioners at the meeting said they think a single TPZ residence should be allowed through a ministerial permit – one that doesn’t require conditions – and that second units should be similarly allowed on parcels bigger than 160 acres.

That will disappoint those who view small-scale residential development of timberlands as a slippery slope toward conversion. But those who support it say that it maintains property rights and land value.

The issue was discussed extensively during the meeting’s public comment session, where various people suggested that a public uproar and litigation will happen if residential development is restricted.

Kevin Dreyer, the president of the Humboldt Association of Realtors (HAR), said that a house is defined in state law as being a “compatible use” with timberlands. He warned that requiring it to be conditionally permitted would devalue land and spark protests similar to the ones that ensued when the Board of Supervisors placed a temporary moratorium on TPZ development.

“You’re taking away the livelihood of members of your constituency,” Dreyer continued. “Taking away that right … is going to hugely affect a lot of people.”

The debate boiled down to the use of a small word in state law. State statute says that compatible uses in TPZ include “a residence or other structure necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production.” Eureka Attorney Bill Barnum told commissioners that the use of the word “or” is disjunctive and the timber management requirement refers to the “other structure,” not the residence.

Barnum said that if a staff recommendation to require residences to be related to timber management is adopted, it will contradict state law and the county will be sued.

Julie Williams of the Northern California Association of Home Builders gave a similar warning. “No matter what staff is telling you, you’re taking people’s property rights and that’s going to cause litigation and a lot of problems for the county – and we can’t afford it,” she said.

The current county ordinance allows one residence per every 40 acre TPZ parcel, which has been described as a motivator for splitting up larger parcels. And Jennifer Kalt of the Healthy Humboldt Coalition said 35,000 acres of TPZ land has been “broken down into smaller parcels” in the last 12 years. Proposals from Barnum Timber and Southern Humboldt’s Hilltop Ranch would add 12,000 acres and 50,000 acres respectively to that, she continued.

Commissioner Ralph Faust, a former attorney for the state’s Coastal Commission, referenced Barnum’s interpretation of state law and disagreed with it. He said the rest of the state law talks about preventing timberland conversion to urban uses and discouraging the expansion of urban services into timberland. “How can a legislature that says that is the purpose of its law then go on to say that any parcel zoned TPZ gets a residence? How does that limit urban expansion into timberlands? It does precisely the opposite,” he said.

Faust added that allowing the homebuilding “makes perfect sense if you want to maximize the residential economic value of your parcels – but that’s not what the legislature had in mind.”
Commission Chairman Jeffrey C. Smith disagreed. “When you look at these parcel sizes that we’re talking about in TPZ, they’re very large,” he said. “And I don’t think allowing one house on a TPZ parcel is converting it to an urban use.”

Commissioner Dennis Mayo said he agrees with Barnum’s read of the law. “I can tell you that my sixth grade teacher, Mrs. Orrin, would roll over in her grave if I didn’t know that the ‘disjunctive or’ always goes to the right, not the left, in a sentence – that’s pretty clear,” he continued.

Mayo added that if residential development is conditioned on timber management, “We’re not only going to throw the baby out with the bathwater, we’re going to destroy our economy and any hope of keeping a timber base here.”

Faust was the only commissioner who disagreed with allowing one house per TPZ parcel as an unconditional right. Commissioner Mel Kreb was absent. The hearing was continued to the commission’s April 22 meeting.