local politics

I should have pictures from the Bay Area trip soon, maybe even tonight. But first, some commentary on yesterday's election.

I'll stay clear of the national news for now, plenty of others have things to say about that. Right now, today, I'm more interested in local results. Three of the Humboldt County Board of Supervisor's seats were up for election yesterday, and the results foretell a lot about the direction we'll take for at least the next two years.

As in so many places in California, there are pro-growth and slow growth factions here. Unlike most of the rest of the state, we haven't paved the entire landscape with big box stores yet. So the choice still matters, more than in some other places where it's already too late.

In the First District (my home district), it was a straightforward two-man race, and I know both candidates quite well, have worked very closely with them on the Salt River restoration project. Incumbent Jimmy Smith, a gentleman, a diplomat, a mediator, with a proven track record of bringing in state funding ($6 million for Salt River) and a key player in the Klamath River talks. John Vevoda, a local rancher with a long history of involvement in issues related to the land. Jimmy won re-election easily, with 71 percent of the vote.

Although I consider both men as friends, it was an easy decision for me. While John raised some important issues, among them the excess of planning and scarcity of actual results by county government, his positions were ultimately undermined by lack of a coherent philosophy, which resulted in glaring contradictions. The most important was an emphasis on growth, especially on creating jobs, while at the same time stating a desire to maintain our rural lifestyle.

Sorry John, you can't have it both ways. Double our growth rate, as the general plan update alternative you favored would have it, and soon enough we'll look like Sonoma County. And I have no desire to make Humboldt just like everywhere else. If that's what I wanted, I would have moved... somewhere else.

Apparently lots of other voters saw it that way, too.

In the Second District (southern Humboldt) it was more complex. Incumbent Roger Rodoni was locked in a heated three-way race, which he most likely would have won, when he died in a car crash a few weeks ago. The Governor appointed his very capable wife Johanna to fill the balance of the term, which runs through the end of this year. But the ballots were printed, Roger's name was already there. So his campaign ran a dead man, assuming that Johanna's re-appointment would follow.

This mattered because Roger was easily the most conservative, the most pro-land-rights, member of the board. On 4 to 1 votes, he was often the 1. Yet as I've learned elsewhere, this role of contrarian... especially an assertive contrarian, unafraid to speak his mind, as was the case with Roger... is an important one. Somebody needs to ask the tough questions, and sometimes it does make others stop and think. Fortunately, Roger was an easy contrarian to like. While I knew him only casually, I had immense respect for the man. I'll miss him.

The dead man got more votes than anybody else last night. Not many more, but he led the field of three. However, because he fell well short of a 50 percent +1 majority, under a quirk of California election law, he won't be on the ballot for the November runoff election. His two opponents, who appear to be less conservative, will battle it out for the seat.

In the Third District, which includes liberal Arcata, incumbent John Woolley chose not to run for re-election. We'll miss John, I've come to know him quite well after sitting next to him on two regional boards these past couple of years. I doubt he's going away though, just being active in a different role.

This was a three way race with two serious candidates. Any of the three would have done well, I think. It looks like Mark Lovelace scraped out 52 percent of the vote, so he's in, no need for a runoff. I just met him last weekend, with a favorable impression. He's a bit more progressive, I think, than opponent Brian Plumley, although not as far off the left edge as Paul Pitino, who refused to take contributions and thus doomed his own candidacy from the start.

Bottom line: The new Board appears to be (if they're as good as their word) solidly behind general plan alternative A, the slow growth/maintain the current growth rate/minimize sprawl alternative. That's a clear defeat for the real estate lobby, which I'm being careful to distinguish from the ranchers, who I respect. The redwood curtain holds, for now; we've fought back the SoCal hordes, although I'm certain they'll regroup and return.

The pro-growth candidates raised some important issues, though, and they have me re-thinking a couple of items. They're absolutely correct about the paralysis of county government, I see it firsthand every month at Salt River meetings. My thinking coalesced a few weeks ago on a car ride to Crescent City, talking to another County Supervisor, one not up for election this time. She was telling me about the recent controversy involving so-called building code enforcement checks (thinly veiled excuses for warrentless pot busts, according to others), where code officers were accompanied by armed backup who allegedly drew guns and pointed them at people. It had just happened again, same guy as last time, despite the lurid press coverage. After hearing about an ambiguous chain of command, I asked the obvious (to me) question: Where's the accountability? When one of these guys screws up, what happens, if anything?

I just read a few days ago that the overzealous individual in question had been transferred back to the Sheriff's Department, which in this case is a demotion, and serves the dual purpose of putting him back where everybody (including him) knows exactly who his boss is. No more ambiguity at least for one individual, although the larger issue remains to be solved.

But it has me thinking about accountability. There's a massive bureacracy out there which I suspect has lost track of the end goals and become bogged down in the process itself; a process without end, without deadlines, without measurable performance criteria. And we need to change that. We need to get government working for the people again, instead of working for the hive-mind.

That isn't easy to do. The Brown Act means that elected officials can't just sit around and brainstorm these things, not without calling a public meeting. And there's an understandable hesitancy to go out on a limb with partial information. So I need to think about this for a while, think about a way to set a policy with enough teeth to make a difference.