Apparently the Law, like Science, is open to Uri Driscoll’s personal interpretation

Why Uri is full of it…uri driscol
Uri’s first “fake” argument was, “I would like to commend Supervisor Sundberg for his persistence and commitment to making sure that our elders and less able are able to participate in beach activities like clamming at Clam Beach. By reestablishing a legal access for vehicles on a limited basis he is making that possible.  While I won’t say I miss the vehicles on the beach I will always support responsible access.
elderly people
Ahhh, we’ve seen this before in Humboldt.  Misusing the comprehensive ADA laws of the US and California to try and push some conservative agenda.  If it can be used to blame the failure of local businesses, that works for the agenda.  Recently, businesses that were already failing (ahem..Arctic Circle and a BBQ joint), blamed an attorney on their business going ass up.  They said they failed because they were requested to provide pretty minimal upgrades so that folks in wheelchairs could enjoy a burger.  For instance; “Can you open the doorway 2 inches so that my grandfather, a world war II veteran who is now confined to a wheelchair, can come in and get a good tri-tip sandwich?”  After several such letters were sent in the mail, with no response) local folk’s decided to get the access they were entitled to by the law and just good human nature. The requests would have cost less than making a new sign advertising cheap beer.  When the failing businesses finally failed, the local right winger hero’s blamed the ADA.

However, providing access to the local beaches for “elders and less able” is now the thing.  Well….what is access? Lifted big block trucks tearing down the beach?  Whether or not they can sway the argument in this tearing up beachdirection, the fact is they want to make sure that locals who love “off roading” can tear up our beaches in style, and do it legally.  Making beaches accessible to vehicles, thereby endangering those walking on the beach, creates an “undue hardship”.  We won’t try to explain in depth all the legal jargon, but here is some information about “reasonable accommodation” provided in the ADA:

Lotta words in the law.  But, what it comes down to is this…..there is no lift up to the peak of Mount Lassen.  Nowhere on the coast, are there government provided ladders on the side of underwater cliffs for people to have easy access to abalone.  Many parks and public areas are inaccessible to all but the most fit among us.  Why?  Because it isn’t reasonable and it creates an undue hardship on the government, the public, and the environment.  These areas have been set aside so that we can leave them pretty intact.

Uri also wrote, “This is public land that has a legal mandate to provide for vehicle access.”  We scoured every available resource to find his source for this mandate.  We didn’t find it.  So, to quote Not a Native, “There is no legislative mandate for motorized vehicles on any beach. Show me the statute or shut up.”

So Uri, shut up!  

snowy plover

“Ya, I maybe little but I got a lot of friends”


17 thoughts on “Apparently the Law, like Science, is open to Uri Driscoll’s personal interpretation

  1. in response to rick curtis:

    How about limit access to Clam Beach to those vehicles with current valid disabled placards.

    Good idea, I thought of it too but you posted it first.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Obviously Mr. “Apparently” is afraid of his own self and is unable to own his own name.
    I recommend reading the Clam Beach Master Plan that was developed through much negotiation and compromise. This is also a historical vehicle access in case you are at all interested in history.
    Why would you need to use photos that were not even taken at Clam Beach?
    Must not be interested in accuracy.
    For the record I have yet to drive on our beaches and hope I never have to.


    • So you’ve changed your tune from a legal mandate for vehicular access to “a historical vehicle access”. Well, not too long ago in local history it was acceptable to slaughter indigenous inhabitants, pollute the environment and extract every resource. Not very nice stuff “in case you are at all interested in history”.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Uri on 8-11-14:
    “This is public land that has a legal mandate to provide for vehicle access. Until the beavers altered the Strawberry creek access I felt that the best access would have been through the north parking lot.”
    not a native called you out and said prove it……………..still waiting

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Are you just to lazy to look up the counties Clam Beach Master Plan?


    • “Are you just to lazy to look up the counties Clam Beach Master Plan?”

      Well I know I sure am! But not too lazy to read an excerpt if you’d care to provide one.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. How about we ban dogs on the beach too? They’re nonindigenous, kill and harrass wildlife, poop everywhere, carry disease, but that’s different right? Laws have been made to allow the disabled to bring their dogs places nonservice animals can’t go,why can’t that be the approach to this issue? There are just as many bad,dog owners as there are nimrod drivers, but I doubt that the same people that are so concerned about the snowy plover would appreciate being told they can’t take their dogs to the beach. There are assholes that own dogs and assholes who drive but not all drivers and dog owners are assholes. sr


    • ekanfromdows:

      The number of places I can not take my dogs (State Parks, for instance) is growing… and pretty much because of the same reasons the four wheeling community has become unwelcome in many places… pin heads who will not behave themselves in public.

      So to a certain extent you have my sympathy (not that you are asking for any).

      To my mind dogs are less invasive than vehicles. But I can see if one is not fond of dogs that one does have grounds to disagree with me on that observation.

      But where we do entirely disagree is the issue of equating service dogs and vehicles on the beach. Service dogs facilitate everyday living for the disabled… they are a necessity for daily existence. A visit to the beach in a vehicle is not.

      Well trained service dogs, unless one is hypersensitive to the presence of dogs, are not disruptive. That can not begin to be said of a 4×4 on the beach.

      You have made a good argument; but it is still based an apples to oranges comparison. And I still wish folks would stop using the disabled as a justification for what they really want to do.

      You have your own reasons for being on the beach. Don’t we all? Just be honest and make your arguments based on that.

      Liked by 1 person

    • assuming ‘people concerned with Plovers..etc’ …big assumption me bucko, and even respectful people with dogs on a short lease do scare the birds in these refuges almost but quite as quickly and strongly as people who let Binky off leash when he sees a bird and says ‘go get it!’

      Birds have good vision but they can see dogs but not into the hearts of their owners.

      For you to suggest bird lovers are dog off leash ordinance abusers is not substantiated either.

      Off lease violations are the worst of course, you conflating dogs-on-leash ordinances with being told no dogs off leash is pretty disingenuous….and unfortunately such hyperbole is par for the course to often rabid dog owners

      I hope their dogs have all their shots with such constant exposure..


  6. Mola it is my impression that you are inferring much from my text that is not what I mean. As my handle implies, I grew up just up the hill from the beach in question. I have neither a dog or a 4×4, but I remeber driving very slowly and respectfully down the beach with my father, and he is not the only person who did. In a perfect world we could figure out a way for everyone to enjoy the beach and not let the assholes ruin it for everyone. That is what I hope for and am willing to work towards. It is an unfortunate assumption you appear to make that we all just want to haul ass and use grammy to justify it, and quite frankly, if anyone,is using anybody as a human sheild to justify their agenda, in my opinion that would be Jason Singleton. How many of his clients are local? The reason I ask is it seems to me if any of the businesses he has shut down (which really improves access) were routinley causing a hardship for the disabled, he would have plenty of clients in this,community.


    • ekanfromdows:

      Mr. Singleton is not my homey. He is an extortionist. He files suits under the ADA then tells his victims he’ll go away if they pay him off. Please do not associate what I have to say with him.

      And… as a responsible dog owner talking to a responsible 4×4 guy… I see your point. On that basis we have agreement.

      I stand by everything else I have said, including yesterday’s Guide article.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Singleton is an extortionist? Since when is asking for accommodation that is required under the law extortion?


  7. I have seen more pooping and peeing in the alleys of old town than dogs pooping and peeing on any of our beaches. I have also seen some ver unsafe driving on Eureka streets. Not only that but most dog owners clean up after their pets. When I say most, I guess I just hang out with the right crowd. When I take my dogs for town walks, I clean up after the there as well. I also look carefully both ways before crossing the street. I just don’t want to do it while on a quiet beach walk.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Too bad. Uri says there’s a mandate for big rigs on the beach, so there’s nothing anyone can do!


      Liked by 1 person

    • You’re right, you are hanging out with the exception to the rule if you all clran up your poop. In my neighborhood, anywhere there is grass is fair game for lots of poop. I feel bad for the poor dogs who try to poop on my lawn only to get hauled off by their people when I let them know I’m home and see whst they’re about to do. Just pick it up! I understand dogs need to poop, I just don’t want to have to deal with it on my lawn! That is one of the reasons I don’t have a dog. I like dogs, I would loove to have a border collie, but not enough space/time to excercise them….


  8. One point in Uri’s favor is he’s not pretending this is about disabled access. But its also not a mandate. Its a policy choice.

    We can all agree that vehicles are capable of doing a lot of damage. Even one inconsiderate or reckless driver can ruin the beach for everyone else and kill protected wildlife. And we can all agree that strict enforcement of vehicle behavior isn’t possible.

    I think we can all agree that community standards for behavior in public places are more strict than in the past. For one, wildlife protection is a much higher priority. And we can all agree that reckless beach driving has been a tolerated part of the tradition. Current evidence of that is the county closed the gate because numbers of drivers drove into the creek and were got stuck, They weren’t being prudent and careful even as they accessed the beach.

    The current management plan can’t be implemented because the situation on the ground has changed. The creek isn’t going back to how it was when that plan was crafted. So a new plan is necessary.

    I think its time to close the chapter on allowing unlimited vehicle access to the beach. The bad drivers spoil it for everyone. Unless the good drivers can come up with a convincingly feasible plan that ensures only good drivers can get on the beach the beach should be closed to all.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s