Letter Writer Opposes Development That Threatens Their Historic Home and Well-being
Welcome to our letters to the editor/opinion section. To submit yours for consideration, please send to [email protected]. Please consider including an image to be used–either a photograph of you or something applicable to the letter. However, an image is not necessary for publication.
Remember opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect that of Redheaded Blackbelt nor have we checked the letters for accuracy.
Dear Editor[Background Image from By Johnny_Spasm (talk) (Uploads) – Own work, Public Domain]
My name is Dan Reid and I live at 709 w.Buhne st. In Eureka. My property lies to the east of a vacant lot on West Buhne st, in which a multi family 5 plex has been proposed to be developed by ACGC(Adams commercial general contractor). This project, if built as proposed, will be set only 7 feet from the west facing side of our home, where our bedrooms and bathroom are located. The building will stand at 30 ft high, towering over our single story 132 year old home, taking all of our afternoon sun, essentially turning my westside into a Northside. At 132 years old, our house relys on that afternoon sun not only to warm our rooms but to keep it dry from the threat of mold. The proposed 5 plex is 160 ft long, running the entire length of our property, taking away all of our privacy as well. It will be like taking a cruise ship and plopping it down next to our house! All of this will greatly diminish our property value, not enhance it.
Recently, we spoke at the Design Review Committee meeting, where we shared our deep concerns on the negitive impact of the proposed design. The Review board voted to deny the design, which has now been appealed. In the appeal, the appellant stated that the Review board did not provide quantifiable reasoning to support their montion to deny. This is not true. They clearly recognized that this project would be of detriment to the health, safety, welfare and/or material injurious to us, as a property in the vicinity. I have enclosed letters from local Real Estate Brokers that have all agreed this project would diminish our home value, professionally speculated at between 10-15% minimum upon completion. This satisfies the aspect of material injurious to our ONLY investment, our home. This is all we have!
All we are simply asking for is a design change, altering the building from 2 stories down to 1. Yet what is most disturbing is that no one from the City nor the developer has reached out to work with us or be understanding to our serious concerns. The size of this project will impact our entire property, from front to back (167 ft to be exact, which is the entire length of our property), making it a far less desirable property to purchase.
It breaks our hearts that we are not important as citizens of Eureka. Please understand we are not opposed to new housing. But the irresponsibly of this projects placement sets an unfortunate precedence of how the City will move forward in developing these infill lots, while ignoring its citizens by hiding behind their self serving zoning laws. We will not be silent.
Thank you for taking the time to read this and all enclosed letters.
Sincerely, Dan Reid.
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
Where are the letters from Real Estate Brokers that Mr. Reid enclosed? Seems pertinent facts supporting his claim are omitted.
Well, since the “editor” isn’t going to publish the enclosed documents that Mr. Reid provided, let’s try a different tack…
http://extras.times-standard.com/preserve/may1.shtml
So the Queen Anne was completed in 1892 for a cost of $6000.
Eureka now has a median home price of $415,000. Down 4% in the last year and continuing to fall because of the vacuum of no industry in the area.
https://www.zillow.com/home-values/45191/eureka-ca/
So having said that, Mr. Reid can sell now and expect $415,000. Or 10- 15% less than that. His letter does not say when he took possession of the house, but if he inherited it, his family has made a killing in the last 132 years and Prop 13 ensured his taxes were minimal.
Sorry Mr. Reid. End of the line comes for everyone. The wise recognize it and get out when the getting is good. The sentimental stay put and lose their ass. (Just ask the indigenous people of the county how trying to stay put on their land of choice worked out for them.)
Sell now! Some fool will overpay!
Ten to fifteen percent loss in value? Here in Covelo we have experienced 50-60 percent loss since the influx of “migrants”. This influx has, of course, created a need for more housing. High rise housing is right up there on the liberal agenda. You know, the fifteen minute cities wet dream. If you punched the democrat ticket, it’s on you. This is what “open borders looks like. That warm and fuzzy narrative gets real.
Oooo yeah you MUST be right! The recent influx of migrants had to be where and how Covelo went down hill! Because nothing at all was going on there before, it was like a quiet oasis. 😂
I am right, I’m here. The house across the street, previously occupied by a lovely retired couple, is now a place of “business” occupied by a dozen Salvadorians. Average daily traffic, 60-70 arrivals and departures a day. At night the cars arrive, sit for a minute or two on their phone, enter the property, then leave 2-3 minutes later. Hmm, I wonder what they’re doing? The home to the east is now a house of ill repute, occupied by 4-5 women from Chile plying their trade, and they are busy little bees. I’ve been here 50 years so don’t preach to me about Covelo dynamics, I don’t need a weatherman to tell me which way the wind is blowing.
What’s the address of the house to the east? Renting “entertainment” is much less costly than paying to date an entitled American woman…
Yeah…we had an opportunity to drive into covelo many years ago. 😳
And herein lies our problem. Democrats are not building next to his property. I’m willing to lay odds that half the people on the design committee are Republicans. This is basically just a community issue. Why is it being turned it into the usual us vs them political issue? It’s truly sad that we have turned every problem we run into as “their” fault. There is no them and us, just people trying to solve the community issues. It’s time we get back to stopping blaming and bullying the “other” side, grow up, and get things done.
Still struggling with the more people more housing dynamic are we? Time to readjust those blinders.
You dreamed up the fact that it’s the republicans…
Who are the “migrants”? I had a hundred year old book of cowboy tales from Mendocino. Sounds like it’s always been majority Mexican and Native. I think it was called “The Adventures of Johnny Jack” or something close. Obviously this was Mexico until the Bear Flag revolt, and subsequent “invasion” of F.O.the B. Europeans.
Who grew all that weed you talked about flying back east? All of our agricultural production, from weed, through dairy and timber relies on Mexican and Central American labor. The Mexicans I see all day every day aren’t hanging out up here on a vacation. In fact, they are doing the labor that is increasing the values of the successful farms out here.
Actually it was not so much F.O.the B. Europeans. They tended to stay in metro areas out east when there were already established communities from “the old county.” What really pushed the immigration was first the gold rush where people from every corner of the world came to get rich, mostly to San Francisco. Followed by people who suffered lost and destruction from the Civil War. There was hardly any Mexican immigration this far north until recently.
Legal immigration and “open borders” are two entirely different issues. One is a regulated influx of people, with background checks, are assimilated into the tax system, contribute to a prosperous economy, and establish a path to citizenship, which I enthusiastically endorse. In fact, I know it’s essential for that prosperous economy. Allowing anyone, despite their background and medical status is a mistake of mammoth proportions. This is about expanding populations in democrat districts to increase their congressional numbers. It has absolutely nothing to do with sanctuary, or “here for a better life” bullshit. It’s politics at its raw base.
We no longer have the luxury to bitch about how we don’t want new housing “in my neighborhood” and how it will “change” things that have been well established. We either build more housing in EVERYONE’S neighborhood and bring necessary change or we continue to be a town overcome by homelessness. It’s either/or like literally. Read every comment by people who stop through and they’re all overwhelmed by the blatant problem. Not to mention how people who aren’t homeless suffer with out of control rents with the current supply of rentals so limited. We are a community and the community has long done changed without us and in a bad way. Now we all have to accept changes and we may not like all of them, but then again we all don’t like the way it is now, do we?
I did not notice that the letter writter said anything about the housing being low income or potentially for houseless individuals. With the architect haven already drawn up the plans, it may be unlikely that they will change it all to single story housing. The letter also did not mention who owns the land and who will own the apartments.
Sometimes change is difficult….
“sometimes change is difficult” yeah. That’s the little gem of advice I use when I tell my wife I’m leaving her for the stripper. I say ” I’m doing ok with this, so it must be your attitude. Change your vibe.”, and “your sad face is ugly, how am i supposed to like you?” “Sometimes change is difficult. Remember to keep the charger on the mini van if you want to get to work on time.”
If there’s going to be infill, it’s not going to be as unpopular if the city steps back and looks at the fit for each project. Walling in an existing home is obviously shitty, and a third grader architect could have recognized the issue.
Not true. The homeless are a very small percentage of the population who are homeless because of wither their addictions or their mental illness. They just cause so many problems both because they are allowed to and because drugs are easily provided that they seem a bigger demographic than they are.
Clarify what your community is.
Eh ? Eureka population has been fairly stable… if not declining !
—
Those apartments won’t serve the ‘homeless’, ‘the bumz’ or the ‘low income residents’… they will rent for $2K (+) a month, and that is plus a $2K (+) security deposit.
Intended to rent to er… ‘incoming’ Humboldt professors/staff, or ‘Offshore Windmill’ people.
Guy has his lifelong home… ruined.
—
Go figure.
You got it. Glad the windmill people moniker is taking shape, And yes, these housing projects are occurring in small towns all over. Build giant, 5 to 7 story apartments which mar the character of neighborhoods for some Democrat 15 minute city agenda. Well, the Democrat Party and their 15 minute agenda can fuk right off.
It’s far past time to start putting giant 5 story apartment complexes in their gated communities. How about we start on Diamond Drive in Arcata. I propose a 10;story, 1000 resident complex right on Diamond Drive, at the top, adjacent to the Community Forest 8 to 10 houses will have to be condemned and taken. Next, we need to put an 8 story apartment complex right on the bluffs off Main Street in Trinidad. The poor deserve an ocean view too! Again, 8 to 10 houses will need to be condemned. The leftist loonies in town opposed to the Trinidad Rancheria hotel will have an aneurysm over my idea.
At both locations, the owners will be reimbursed at fair market value and no more. If they don’t like it, they should think of the poor homeless they are helping. They could consider it their contribution to making Arcata and Trinidad great for everyone again! If this occurs, problem will be solved the next day, no more giant apartment complexes as all the liberals will go crazy at the next city council meetings. Let’s move forward with this plan, We want a Giant Apartment Complex on Diamond Drive in Arcata and lMain Street in Trinidad. Judging by their crazy and hostile reaction to the Trinidad Rancheria hotel proposal (so much for DEI, eh, liberal nimbys) it’s time these same Biden voting Democrats sacrifice their well being for the greater good. Why not, they are always reminding everybody else they need to sacrifice for the common good but somehow always leave out themselves in the end. Not this time, fools…….
I feel for this homeowner. But what they should have done years ago was to purchase that empty lot as many people do who have a vacant piece of land next to them. Of course it’s not always feasible.
i also think putting in apartments right next to homes is a bad idea unless they put no windows on the new building so that it at least maintains privacy if they’re losing their sunshine.
Honestly it infuriates me that old people who bought homes decades ago don’t care about the housing crisis. All they care about is their property values and ability to grow a garden.
A huge percentage of children in Humboldt County live in poverty or are even homeless because of NIMBY baby boomers that try to stop all new construction. They are the most selfish generation of all time.
Insulate your house, run your heater more to keep it warm and dry inside, and paint the exterior more often.
Honestly it infuriates me that people (old or young) who sacrificed much to buy a home (decades ago or yesterday) have to hear from others who do nothing but indulge their impulses blame other for their poor life choices.
Frankly there is zero “housing crisis” in Eureka. There are any number of vacant properties that are declared unfit to be rented after drug ridden squatters trashed them.
What there is is a working crisis where drug addicts cannot get over themselves enough to put their labor into the community then demand that the aforesaid community take care of them. And whiny young people who think that they and only they have problems because, while they learned no job skills, they did learn in detail how bad every is and that is imposed by someone else. And the space needs to be made for the two million immigrants who flood into the State, unconcerned by law ( some of whom are certainly a lot less whiny than some citizens.)
This letter writer’s request to not have his property over towered by a new construct is mild and recognizes that infill housing still needs created. All he asks is that it be reasonably respectful of him.
The letter writer made it clear that he’s not opposed to housing or infill: he’s requested a design change so that his quality of life in remaining years are not destroyed by something that doesn’t have to be designed the way it is. Your rage at seniors is ill-warranted.
“Insulate your house, run your heater more to keep it warm and dry inside, and paint the exterior more often.”…..
Because the architect, and developer, and city can’t apply any more thought, or context to the project. It’s too overwhelming. How are the developers supposed to profit if you don’t do your part to help them earn a profit? Actually it’d be nice if you volunteered to demolish that Western side of your house. The new neighbors could add a sixth unit and a little more profit.
Eureka is like the Barcelona of Humboldt Bay there are just NO MORE possible spaces to build ANYTHING. Besides next to your house: Socialist who hates housing.
Unfortunately this is what happens when you have older communities that were not well-planned out for housing.
Like that was needed a hundred years ago. What we have is a transition going on after a couple of decades of the loss of the labor market that created the local non-native population (lumber) through the market that filled out the resulting vacuum but contracting now (pot) to the current not-so-clear next big thing.
However we do need planning now.
High density infill is necessary.
Anyone unhappy about it should take their complaints to anyone who chose to have more than two kids.
How Progres… well not really Progressive. But a comment definitely not without blinders. California has been losing population recently and has not increased by more than a couple of percent each year in 50 years. It is not citizens producing babies that is the problem. However the foreign born population has increased by over 60% in the last past 30 years.
“California’s immigrant population is still growing. But that growth has slowed significantly in the past 30 years. From 1990 to 2022 the state’s foreign-born population grew 61%, reaching 10.4 million. While this increase is substantial, over the previous 30 years (from 1960 to 1990) the immigrant population grew 381%—from 1.3 million to 6.5 million.”
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/states/california/population
https://www.ppic.org/blog/how-has-californias-immigrant-population-changed-over-time/
Well there goes the neighborhood. This homeowner had a good run and needs to leave if this change is bothersome. Living nuts to butts is city living. Move to the country if you can’t stand being close. Eureka has several apartments nestled among single family homes.
It’s the two story part that he’s objecting too. That is not unreasonable. Frankly I appreciate those who keep up old housing. I’ve done it out of love for them but in essence followed your advice about leaving. That though is how history is lost and that history deserves at least a little respect.
The trouble with moving to the country is that you then become objectionable yourself for the same reasons. No one gets more angry than a place overrun by Californians running away from the messes they created then demanding that the locals allow them to make new messes. You need sharp elbows these days to make others move aside. Ask any local tribe.
I agree about history. There is a small movement called “Pocket Neighborhoods”. I’ve seen one in Washington State. Instead of slapping up another generic apartment building, a lot is (through permitting) allowed to build several small homes (not tiny homes) on a lot or two that would otherwise only allowed one house.
https://pocket-neighborhoods.net/examples/single1.html
Seems good. And is what people have been doing in Eureka for a long time. One of the things I loved about Eureka was the diversity of it. An expensive house next to little old house. It seemed so organic and I always hated the “The Stepford Wives” vib of HOA places.
I just have so little trust that the combination of government, politics and greed will not soon corrupt it and people will be facing the same problem in their subdivided lots. It created the horror of public housing in cities and will happily repeat the same here. If only people really treasured diversity instead of formulaic solutions imposed…
Apartments are the future and any home next to apartments will lose value. If this old home is so precious then declare it a historical site and get a lawyer demanding your right to sunshine if a two story structure is built. Good luck with that. I grew up in the city and moved to the country first chance I got. I’m happy people like to live on concrete jammed together. If Kneeland gets too crowded I’m outta here.
If you really are old school, you’ll be gone before Kneeland get crowded anyway. No water to support the masses.
I’m 75 and have seen a lot of changes up here. Property prices have kept the flatlanders from moving in for now. Greenwood Hts looks congested to me and may not have a future.
Well, you are a flat-lander. You beat the big dope rush from LA & SF.
I bet if this homeowner tried to add another story to his house the city would tell him that he can’t do that but it is okay for them. I personally would not want an apartment next to my house where someone could look in my windows or have the sunlight blocked out by an apartment. All of you that think this is a good idea let them build it next to you.
709 w.Buhne st looks like a perfect location for a multi family