Humboldt Residents File Ballot Initiative to Ban Large Warehouses from the Coastal Zone
Press release from Indivisible Trinidad:
Humboldt County residents have filed a ballot initiative to permanently ban large-scale warehouse and distribution facilities from the county’s Coastal Zone — protecting the local businesses and coastal ecosystems that make this one of California’s most extraordinary places.
The measure, submitted by Indivisible Trinidad, would prohibit new warehouse or distribution facilities exceeding 20,000 square feet within the Coastal Zone. Marine-dependent uses are fully exempt. The prohibition applies to all pending applications for which a Coastal Development Permit has not yet been issued.
“We have something special here worth preserving,” said Dr. Tina Freeland, Indivisible Trinidad organizer. “Old-growth redwoods. A spectacular coastline. Working harbors and fishing families who’ve been here for generations. Small seaside communities with local shops. People come to Humboldt because it means something different. Industrial warehousing dismantles that.”
Businesses that thrive in Humboldt reflect the place itself — independent bookstores, galleries, art studios, nature outfitters, handcraft shops, farm stands and small inns tucked into the trees. Their customers are visitors who drive hours to be somewhere that doesn’t look like everywhere else. That environment and the economy are fragile and irreplaceable, not compatible with industrial truck traffic, security lighting and concrete warehouse pads on the coastal bluffs.
Large warehousing can be located anywhere. There is no reason to put it here. “Communities up and down this coast have watched industrial development hollow out the very thing that made them special,” said Dr. Freeland. “Humboldt still has what those places lost. This is how we keep it.”
As soon as their petition is approved, Trinidad Indivisible and other community organizers will be collecting 4,874 valid signatures from registered Humboldt County voters to place the measure on the November ballot.
To get involved, contact [email protected].
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
Is this about the planned Amazon warehouse/distribution center? Sure sounds like it.
The Amazon warehouse will use 6,000 robots and AI. There will probably be a human flying in to repair robots when they malfunction.i can’t see a single community benefit.
Hopefully the robots will not take over the Arcata Plaza.
Bot spangers are the worst! Relentless and smell of weed and rancid oil….
Lies 💯 Where’s the proof to your exaggerated and deceitful comment?
This ballot initiative from Indivisible Trinidad and the Humboldt Indivisible crew to ban large warehouses over 20k sq ft in the Coastal Zone is exactly the kind of ideological nonsense we’ve come to expect from this crew. They claim to speak for “residents,” but it’s the same national progressive activist machine trying to strangle economic activity and jobs right here in the Emerald Triangle.
Humboldt Indivisible isn’t some pure local grassroots thing—it’s tied to the national Socialist Indivisible network. That national operation has taken millions from George Soros’ Open Society Foundations (over $7-8 million reported), the Tides Foundation and its pass-throughs, Reid Hoffman money, and other big-money “progressive” lol donors. These aren’t small-dollar Humboldt moms and pops funding this. It’s outside billionaire cash and national left-wing infrastructure pushing more regulations on our coastal lands and businesses.
Most working Humboldt people—cannabis growers, truckers, warehouse workers, small business owners, and practical folks who actually live off this economy—don’t want more barriers to responsible development. We’ve already got the Coastal Commission breathing down our necks. This is just another power grab by activists who want to limit warehouses and distribution to fit their environmental and anti-growth ideology, even if it kills jobs and opportunities in a county that needs them.
These groups are out of line with the real Humboldt. They posture as community organizers while aligning with a national socialist-leaning agenda funded by globalist donors who don’t give a damn about our rural realities or the cannabis industry that built so much of this area’s economy. Expose the funding. Expose how the national Indivisible machine (with its anti-Trump, big-government roots) props up local chapters to do their bidding.
Shame on Humboldt Indivisible for selling out local livelihoods to chase ideological wins from D.C. and billionaire foundations. We don’t need more division and restrictions—we need practical policies that let hardworking people thrive, not activist veto power over our coast and economy. Signatures or not, Humboldt deserves better than this imported “progressive” commie socialist nonsense.
Yes, you should be reserving coastal areas for high-end housing, resort traffic and Billionaires…
Arcata is the new Santa Cruz, after all…
And Trinidad is Carmel-by-the-Sea if we let them
Well Humboldt is staunchly Anti-Business…
Coastal HC is not my cup of tea, but you go on and enjoy!
I prefer inland also. With trips to the cool coast. Stuck on the coast due to elderly animals that can’t handle the heat. Not complaining- I’m grateful they get to roll out in comfort. Enjoying the coast for this time. Miss the heat and the rivers but yeah this area is great all over…
It’s the typical closed door, Humboldt good ole boys syndrome. But it’s o.k. to build another fast food joint.
Repurpose pirate grows? Offer special tax incentives. (I mean, that land is already trashed, right?)
Another way someone with some money can try and keep jobs out of this area.
IMHO:
>”Businesses that thrive in Humboldt reflect the place itself — independent bookstores, galleries, art studios, nature outfitters, handcraft shops, farm stands and small inns tucked into the trees.”
All I can say is ‘Holy Shit’.
As it turns out, 101, the major travel corridor distribution centers need to access, is entirely in the coastal zone,between Prairie Creek State Park and Alton.
Siting distribution centers outside the coastal zone will mean more big trucks driving on surface streets.
Fed Ex has had a distribution center on ACV property for years.
Hwy 299 will bear the lion’s share of traffic, not 101.
Yeah this is incredibly short sighted. Locally, the coastal zone is where the vast majority of the most appropriate sites for large warehouses exist.
It’s the main travel corridor, the bulk of the population, the site of most of the unused industrial space, and the location of the most robust utility infrastructure.
People in Humboldt already use Amazon, whether or not there’s a warehouse here won’t change that. Banning warehouses from zoned business parks doesn’t impact Amazon, it just makes life harder for any business that wants to establish or grow in our county. Including our beloved local businesses
Environmental insanity at its most destructive peak. Any basic industry with product to move is going to need a warehouse with a loading dock connected to a deepwater harbor.
Humboldt is rapidly kissing its economic ass goodby.
“Communities up and down this coast have watched industrial development hollow out the very thing that made them special,”
That is absolutely wrong! Industrial development is what made them become communities in the first place. It is the root of every community.
Thank God I am retired, I can’t imagine wading through the bureaucratic mess that humboldt business has become.
“Humboldt is rapidly kissing its economic ass goodby.”
Oh heck, Ernie, it’s been gone for a decade…
Couldn’t have said it any ruder myself…
Ignorant Hicks or not, they want it all their own way…
Whole place will look like West Sacramento in 100 years…
Yeah, I tried to go through the cannabis-producer permitting process and had to jump through more hoops than the NBA and a Sea World dolphin, plus fees. Wore me down. Seemed to me you were a real champion in running the cannabis industry out of the County with a “good riddance” attitude. Am I unfair? Exaggerating? Depends on whose ox is being gored.
Yes, let’s kill any chance for economic growth on the north coast. Brilliant.
People with inheritances or large trust funds don’t need to care….
Trinidad Trustafarians – maybe not the Yee-Haw participants.
Trinidad demographics are always a hoot- rich, white, male, old, advanced education degrees, unemployed wives. Even their immigrant population is 100% European. Only 10% of the population are under 30 but children make up more than 40% of the people living in poverty while while only 6% of seniors live in poverty. Perfect progressive NIMBYs. Time, money and the education to know what your problems are.
https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US0680448-trinidad-ca/
https://statisticalatlas.com/place/California/Trinidad/Educational-Attainment
Good point, but that happened decades ago.
“Marine-dependent uses are fully exempt.”
______________________________________
That caveat is included so the wacko wrongheaded Libs don’t shoot themselves in their own wind farm pipe dream”s foot…
As in…
…”would prohibit new warehouse or distribution facilities exceeding 20,000 square feet within the Coastal Zone, except new warehouse or distribution facilities exceeding 20,000 square feet within the Coastal Zone, THAT WE FUCKING WANT, RIGHT ON THE FUCKING BAY ITSELF…!!!”
Can they really pick and choose like that…???
Can a wacko Liberal obstructionist initiative really circumvent principle permitted structures and uses on appropriately zoned private property…???
Would that even be legal…???
Isn’t that what the general plan update already covered…???
I wonder what John Ford, and the tax assessor, and the tax collector would have to say about this obstructionist “Progressive” bullshit…???
Maybe someone should propose a counteractive ballot initiative that would prohibit any and all permit renewals for…
“independent bookstores, galleries, art studios, nature outfitters, handcraft shops, farm stands and small inns tucked into the trees.”, within the Coastal Zone…???
Give them a taste of their own medicine…
In fact, let’s propose prohibiting “permitting” Bleeding Heart Liberals’ establishments entirely within the Coastal Zone, an see how many signatures we can collect, and then we can propose working on cleaning up the rest of the zones after that…
That would make as much sense as this…
I’d rather prohibit permitting tourist traps in the coastal zone…
Trinidad INDIVISIBLE is showing it’s true colors, and they damn sure ain’t red, white, and blue…
Let’s show them the Giant Warehouse Door…!!!
Boycott Trinidad…!!!
Trinidad Indivisible is the bunch of “senior citizens” sitting in lawn chairs across from the market holding signs. They somehow think this will preserve their home, – or potential VRBO,AirB&B market value in Trinidad and thus everywhere else should do it. It’s the new “Trinidad Way”.
I also support that all “Trinidad Indivisible” members who are not Native American give back their “stolen properties” to the Tribe.
No but they support your doing so.
Is this the same “Dr. Tina A. Freeland” that hails from, and/or, previously hailed from Laguna Niguel, CA…???
If so…
It’s a bad idea to try and force the coastal zone of Humboldt County into a Laguna Niguel way of thinking…
Because this damn sure ain’t Laguna Niguel…!!!
Better for her to adjust to the ways of the Humboldt County Coastal Zone, than for her to try and force the Humboldt County Coastal Zone to adjust to the ways of Laguna Niguel…
On board with that one !!!
I think it’s principal permitted structures rather than “principle.” An easy mistake, for one of us anyway. Holy jumpin’-up-and-down!
Funny how the rules can be broken, as long as they are specifically broken against me…
What happened to Mr.Clark…???
He seems to have been banned for crossing an arbitrary line…
Yet here you still are…
Ridiculous . They are essential around the bay.
Right…!!!???
No new LUMBER warehouses or distribution facilities…!!!???
These Trinidad Indivisibles are completely out to lunch…!!!
No ‘new’ warehouses/ distribution facilities. Seems there are plenty, some unused, already.
Tiny, tiny, INDIVISIBLE TRINIDAD, is way too big for their bulging britches…
This is much ado about what will amount to absolutely nothing…!!!
“Can a ballot initiative banning future permitting of large warehousing circumvent the authority of the coastal commission?
“No, a local ballot initiative cannot unilaterally circumvent the authority of the California Coastal Commission.
While a local vote can change county zoning rules, any development within the designated Coastal Zone still requires a Coastal Development Permit, and the Coastal Commission retains ultimate authority to ensure compliance with state Coastal Act guidelines.
The interaction between local ballot initiatives and the Coastal Commission involves several key constraints:
Local Coastal Programs (LCPs):
A ballot measure modifying zoning laws within the coastal zone legally operates as an amendment to an area’s LCP.
Any such amendment does not take effect and cannot be enforced until it is formally reviewed and certified by the California Coastal Commission.
State vs. Local Authority:
The Commission evaluates these changes against the state’s California Coastal Act of 1976. A ballot initiative cannot authorize a land use or ban that goes against state environmental or public access guidelines outlined in the Act.
Appellate Jurisdiction:
Even if a local government (like a city council or county planning commission) complies with an initiative and denies a warehouse permit, the developer could appeal that decision to the Coastal Commission, which has the authority to review the denial for consistency with the certified LCP.
The balance of power between local governments and the Coastal Commission has been a heavily contested legal issue.
➡️ While a unanimous 2026 California Supreme Court decision (Shear Development Co. v. California Coastal Commission) successfully reined in the Commission’s appellate jurisdiction over certain locally-approved building permits, the Commission’s fundamental oversight role over land use changes and zoning in the coastal zone remains intact.” ⬅️
The case you cite is one in which the Coastal Commission denied a project a county approved.
The issue at hand here is the exact opposite.
Do you have anything to support your claim that the Commission can approve a project the County prohibits?
Can you cite evidence that the Coastal commission cannot override a county ban, on appeal…???
What part of…
“Appellate Jurisdiction:”
”Even if a local government (like a city council or county planning commission) complies with an initiative and denies a warehouse permit, the developer could appeal that decision to the Coastal Commission, which has the authority to review the denial for consistency with the certified LCP.”
…do you not understand…???
The CCC’s authority is not absolute: “The State’s Coastal Act, for example, limits the power of the California Coastal Commission to veto reasonable land uses when a local government has approved development that conforms to the local government’s Local Coastal Program (LCP).” https://pacificlegal.org/case/shear-california-coastal-commission/
An you have still not cited an example of a time the CCC shepherded through a project that local restrictions prohibited.
The County’s authority is not absolute.
I see by your responses that you have conceded that you have nothing to support your claim that the CCC can prevent the County from enforcing this– should it pass.
I graciously accept your surrender.
He will now spend every waking hour scouring the internet for such cases, dusty old archives, The Library of Congress, data centers worldwide will overheat.
California Supreme Court limits Coastal Commission’s power to block development
https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-limits-coastal-commissions-power-block-development-1
If the County votes to prevent offshore windmill development can the CCC overturn that or enforcing it. Asking for a friend.
Waiting for TRG to provide an answer to that.
As far as I can tell, the CCC can, with cause, a project that has been approved. But I am aware of no instances of the CCC overruling a local government’s ban on a certain type of development.
The state might be able to.
Also, the courts may find that an ordinance like the one proposed is illegal. I would expect that there are a number of stakeholders that would object to this initiative
How’s the weather in “Arcata”? Titter, giggle.
It was beautiful this afternoon. Im real keen on the foggy mornings too.
Excellent question…
I believe the answer is yes, because it’s energy infrastructure…
Yours is a misunderstanding…
Recaptcha creates a nearly impenetrable barrier to commenting for me…
Any other commenters experiencing this nightmare…???
The only reason I succeed is that I’m exceedingly stubborn, and so I have developed some workaround hacks, that I’m sure almost no one else would go through the trouble to engage here…
I figure that it might have something to do with the absolutely plummetting participation here…
Engaging with you is not worth the additional extra effort necessary to out debate you, due to the obstructive recaptcha barrier…
Your taunts are nothing more than taunts with no substance…
Enjoy your fantasy, while my ability to participation is severely compromised…
My hands are basically tied…
Have been for months or more…
You should actually be pretty embarrassed by how excessive your wild imagination is gloating…
I’m dragging an unmanageable anchor and you are congratulating yourself for barely pulling ahead in your fictional imagination…
Bravo, Jebs, Bravo…!!!
True sportsmanship..!!!
Fine example…!!!
Fine example…!!!
Make no mistake, Jebs…
I would never surrender to you…
Let’s not kid ourselves…
The only reason you even fancy yourself victorious is merely due to yet another one of your many misunderstandings….
The playing field is tilted heavily in your direction…
Your “win” falls somewhere between a delusional, and a hallucination…
It’s a mirage, Jebs…
Just a mirage…
It’s OK.
I forgive you.
Forgive me for what…???
Besting you again…???
Even with my hands tied…???
Sounds more like you are gratuitously surrendering, rather than accepting surrender graciously…
“Can a permit applicant whose permit in the coastal zone has been denied by a county, appeal to the California coastal commission?”
“Yes, you can appeal the denial, but your initial route must be through the county’s internal local appeals process.”
“The California Coastal Commission generally does not hear appeals for denied permits; their appellate jurisdiction is normally reserved for approved projects.
Understanding the appeal process involves several key distinctions:
1. Exhaust Local Remedies First
Before you can take any land-use dispute to the state level, you must exhaust all appeals available within the county where your project is located.If a zoning administrator or planning commission denied your Coastal Development Permit (CDP), you must first appeal that decision to the County Planning Commission or the County Board of Supervisors.
Strict deadlines apply, usually ranging from 10 to 14 calendar days following the local decision.
2. Appeals to the Coastal CommissionIf your county’s Board of Supervisors ultimately denies your permit, the Coastal Commission typically cannot overturn that denial.
However, there are limited exceptions where you might still get the Commission involved:
Substantial Local Error:
If the county failed to follow its own Local Coastal Program (LCP) notice or hearing procedures.
State/Federal Lands:
If the denial affects tidelands, submerged lands, or public trust lands”
___________________________________
This initiative would ridiculously reduce the allowable warehouse size in the coastal zone by 92%, from 250,000 square feet to just 20,000 square feet or less…
If the county allows this, you can bet your bottom dollar that Amazon will take it on appeal all the way to the California coastal commission…
And there doesn’t need to be any case law precedent in order to allow it…
TRG said:
“Recaptcha creates a nearly impenetrable barrier to commenting for me…
Any other commenters experiencing this nightmare…???
1) You aren’t trying hard enough.
2) No.
2a) You have zero apparent problems finding obscure bits of people posts from a year ago and spin some weird angle on them, surely you can figure out this “impenetrable” barrier.
This is a great example of the problem with relying on LLMs to answer questions like this.
The coastal commission does not determine local land use ordinance, they only act as a check on approved development. Projects that are not approved by the relevant municipality have no context for every coming before the coastal commission
Gotta hand it to them for their dedication, creativity, and seemingly endless supply of cash to pay for their legal comrades. All in the name of stifling business.
Oh great! Another group of whiners. This is sooo tiresome. Just go back to wherever you lived before you moved here. We’re just fine without you or your selfish ideas.
Tina expresses well what we have and must protect here! She should be a writer for the agencies that are looking to promote Humboldt County!
A few fundamental questions:
This is for the Humboldt county ballot, correct?Is there a mechanism under which the county (with an election process) can (amend) the authority the Coastal Commission has over Humboldt county? Or would this proposal, if it is approved by the voters, be more of a way to influence the Commission’s decision(s)?Is it necessary for signatories to be registered voters in Humboldt county in order that they qualify as one of the 4874 required signatures?
Allowing a ballot initiative that reduces the allowable new warehouse size in a coastal zone from 250,000 square feet down to just 20,000 square feet, would be the equivalent of allowing a ballot initiative that reduces an allowable new home size in a coastal zone from say, a 2,500 square foot home, down to just a 200 square foot home …
Would the planning department allow THAT…???
Pretty damn ridiculous, either way…
Especially since property tax is based a great deal on square footage…
You should call the Coastal Commission.
They’ll put a stop to this– or so I’ve heard.
Maybe I should start a ballot initiative to limit any new house in the coastal zone to 200 square feet…???
I’m pretty sure I could gather the necessary number of signatures to get it on the November ballot…
An additional advantage would be that no county building permit would even be required…
People are getting awfully excitable about this issue in this comment section. Why not let the people of Humboldt decide if they want Amazon here in a free and fair democratic election?