Local political action group “Eureka Citizen” responds clarifying their agenda


Our original story:


Eureka Citizen responds:

Clearly, our intentions were not to criminalize panhandling in Eureka.

Other cities have required the same, no charge permits, and have cut panhandling in half.

Being homeless is a tragedy, and needs to be addressed by all citizens.

Getting the community talking about issues, that are all closely related, and then being actively involved in the search for solutions, is what our group’s end goal.

We, in no way, are related to R. Arkley; he advocated programs that produced large financial gains, for himself, if implemented. Some of our members, and the term is used loosely, are business owners tired of their businesses being affected by Eureka blight, vandalism, shoplifting, and equipment theft. Others, in our group, are ordinary citizens, young thru old that have tired of Eureka looking like ‘hobo-central’; every corner covered by panhandling, run down hotels, and trash everywhere. We also have 4 homeless members that are tired of the dangers they face every day due to the condition of the city. Side note: these 4 members have accepted help from our group, but, by their choice, have limited what they accepted.

Our group chose to push Eureka’s City Council, due to the council’s history of stalling action on homelessness and city cleanup efforts. We push EPD, due to rising crime rates that increase the risks every citizen faces daily.

We advocate change, not criminalization of life.




46 thoughts on “Local political action group “Eureka Citizen” responds clarifying their agenda

  1. I appreciate the TE allowing Eureka Citizen an unabridged (I hope) chance to tell their side of the story.

    To my knowledge the Tuluwat Examiner has always been willing to allow the “other side” to speak for themselves. Eureka Citizen is one of the rare examples of lighting the proverbial candle rather than cursing the darkness (or the TE).

    Liked by 2 people

  2. “Cut[ting] panhandling in half” shows that the unconstitutional requirement to get a permit would mean prohibiting people from exercising that form of speech. Criminalizing happens when you make something illegal that people MUST do, when they are not actually committing any crime or harm to anyone.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. Who the hell is “Eureka Citizen”? I’m a Eureka citizen and this baloney about trying to get permits for panhandling does NOT represent my interest, not does it adhere to morality or the Constitution.

    The only interest such a law could serve is to stop people from exercising that kind of speech (asking for help). What other purpose could one claim for trying to create that kind of law? I believe it’s like telling people if they want to talk about, say baseball, they need a permit! Unconstitutional and serves no purpose but to prohibit speech. And what does one do if they need to panhandle in the morning? at night? when someone is stuck with no gas somewhere? Are they expected to get a permit anywhere they are, at any time? Is someone supposed to plan to need to panhandle? The only purpose for requiring permit is to stop people from asking for help, which is protected activity.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. grammar correction/clarification from my 12:08pm comment:

    This baloney about trying to require permits for panhandling does NOT represent my interest, nor does is adhere to morality or the Constitution. (CA or U.S.)

    Liked by 2 people

  5. To “Eureka Citizen”: You help no one by requiring a permit to panhandle. Your group is misled and clueless, at best- otherwise, the groups is oppressive and full of shit. The fact that you can claim homeless people in your group does not give your “secret, caring, fed up” group any credibility or ethical standing.

    Liked by 1 person

    • If you had actually read the entire proposal, the ordinance, in NO way, violates the right to panhandle. Is is a permit to use public property for fund raising activity, which the courts have already approved as a legal requirement.

      I can understand your confusion, since you obviously did not ascertain all the facts from the initial announcement.


      • You have been fooled by semantics, or you simply want to ignore that whether you call something “fundraising” or “talking about the weather” or “asking for directions” or “praising a good deed” or “complaining about the state of the world” the government cannot restrict the content of peoples’ speech. The only purpose for the bogus permit rule WOULD BE to restrict certain speech. It is unconstitutional because it targets and restricts certain speech. A permit requirement would serve no other governmental purpose. And that purpose is prohibited.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Again, permits are based on the same premise that is used to regulate fundraising using city owned property, the sidewalks and intersection walkways.
      The courts have already approved of the permit ordinance for panhandling, since it does not forbid panhandling, only requiring that a safety permit be required to do so on city property. The same type of permit is used for street vendors, mobile thrift sales, and even fundraising groups like the Salvation Army Santas.

      The permit, according to previous court cases, does not infringe on free speech, since it targets location, not the speech.

      The permit system is already in use in Oklahoma City, and Tulsa. Court challenges have failed, since free speech is not affected, and not the target of the ordinance.


    • Verbena, you need to do more research on what you call “free speech”. The courts have already ruled that free speech is ok, as long as money is not exchanged. Panhandling can, according to the courts, can be regulated (requiring permits), when the panhandler uses monies raised for personal gain (any purpose for self, including food, shelter, or vices). Also, using city, or government, owned property, for fundraising, requires a permit in nearly every city in the country; therefore, the courts have allowed similarly written ordinances that do the same for panhandling for personal profit.

      Again, please do your full research. This is NOT a free speech issue, as proven multiple times, by multiple courts. The ordinance regulates the act, not the speech.


      • I have researched this issue for years. And, by the way, you seem to think that PUBLIC property does not exist, only ‘government’ property.
        If “money exchanged” was not considered free speech (distinct from SELLING something for money), then Citizen’s United would never be. And Measure T would have not been overturned. Unfortunately, those two decisions rooted in freedom of expression were lacking court consideration of power inequities and potential for government corruption… but panhandling does not risk those abuses and corruptions by people ‘in power.’ Read the ruling about Arcata’s panhandling law. It was deemed unconstitutional.
        On another level, given your attempt to show how generous and caring your “group” is, think about the horrible conundrum the permit law you want would cause for someone who finds themselves out of gas driving home from, say, College of the Redwoods, at 6:30pm. They have no opportunity to get a permit, so they can only break the law by asking for some gas or bus money, or they can break the law by sleeping in their vehicle, or they can… hitchhike. Should they have secured a permit so that they can ask someone for a ride?
        Your desired permit law will not stick. I will make sure of it (not alone, of course). Your group’s idea (not original, but you seem stuck on it) is a disgusting blow against people who have few material resources. It is an ill-conceived, clearly targeting/discriminating idea. Put your “caring” energy elsewhere. Creating more laws to criminalize one of the ways that people humbly survive is callous and inhumane. If you don’t like people panhandling, don’t give us any money.

        Liked by 2 people

    • As a civil rights attorney, I have to agree that this type of ordinance will, and has, passed all legal challenges.

      For those of you that think panhandling is a free speech issue, you would be correct, except when the panhandling is performed on PUBLIC or CITY owned property. Local governments have authority to regulate the use of publicly owned, or city owned properties.
      Roadway intersections fall under the designation of city owned, or county, since they maintain and upkeep the intersection equipment and walkways. Since the ACT of panhandling on government owned property can be regulated, a permit can be required.

      So, I do not necessarily agree with the ordinance, it does exactly as it states. It regulates the ACT, not the SPEECH of the panhandler when using PUBLIC/CITY property.

      Sorry, Verbena, but you would lose in court, just as the past challengers of this ordinance have done.


  6. Council’s history of stalling? Another “Eureka Citizen” wrote this:
    “Many of the things/actions happening now, were started by the old City Council members to address these problems of the homeless/transients.”*

    A panhandling ordinance was in the works. Like the shopping cart ordinance and bike ordinance mentioned at last night’s meeting, it was one of the suggestions that came from private meetings of the CHIP group.

    Last night it was reported that there were concerns with a panhandling ordinance; free speech concerns.

    In case the “Eureka Citizen” that responded here didn’t notice, the recent election saw slight change in the Council.


    Liked by 2 people

    • Yes, we worked hard to help with the campaigns of Arroyo and Bergel.

      The quote from the other poster, using our moniker, was inaccurate. Yes, the aggressive panhandling, shopping cart, and bicycle ordinances were in the works, or passed, by previous councils.

      What we said was recent, was the joint venture between DHSS and EPD to help possible mental health issues among the homeless, the nearly 2 month early release of Eureka crime numbers for 2014, and the community meeting held Wednesday. These items are all recent, and due to pressure we have kept on civic leadership to get the community involved to solve Eureka’s problems.

      Please, do not try to put your own “spin” on our statements. We give clear, concise, and legally researched suggestions and statements.


    • Re Eureka Citizen’s comment at 12:31 yesterday,

      Now that you have clarified that you are not the other poster we can talk about what you did write:
      “Our group chose to push Eureka’s City Council, due to the council’s history of stalling action on homelessness and city cleanup efforts. We push EPD, due to rising crime rates that increase the risks every citizen faces daily.”

      You are recommending a permitting system that will do nothing for the homeless, it will only criminalize people, homeless or not, who are engaged in a self-help activity.

      How will having the police out checking for panhandling permits help the rising crime rate?

      Congratulations on the early release of information and the community meeting on Wednesday.

      EPD has had a homeless liaison for at least a couple years, DHSS has had outreach workers on the street also. I would be surprised if there had not already been some coordination in the form of information sharing between EPD and DHSS. Whether or not joint on the street efforts will be helpful is unknown.

      I would like to point out that the people with “mental health issues” that are out and about on any given day may or may not be homeless.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. From last night’s Operation Safe Streets-Eureka


    “Lot of people want to blame the homeless for crime in this town, I can assure you homeless are not the ones stealing your stuff”–The above quote was by event organizer Gene Bass. Gene is hardly a lefty. Yes, his Aunt is Virginia Bass.

    Yet Eureka Citizen states: “Some of our members are business owners tired of their businesses being affected by…vandalism, shoplifting, and equipment theft.”

    Eureka Citizen needs to know that homelessness is not a crime. The homeless are far more likely to be victims of crime. And even what passes for a local right-winger Gene Bass does not believe that the homeless are who is stealing your stuff. Homelessness is a victim of societal economic abuse by our corporate elites who have destroyed the middle class economy. Fight them, fight wall street, fight income inequality, and you can see Eureka turn around, otherwise it won’t. Go ahead and blame the homeless, instead of holding the real culprits responsible.

    Liked by 4 people

    • We NEVER stated that the homeless were to blame for the rise of crime in Eureka. Again, we NEVER stated that the homeless were to blame for the rising crime rate in Eureka!

      If you read our statement, we want citizens to get involved, and civic leadership to partner with citizens, to clean up Eureka. We need to get homeless off the streets and into shelters or housing. We need to physically clean up the city of all the physical trash and blight. Get rid of rundown hotels, etc. If the city is cleaned up, business and jobs will come.
      As for the panhandlers: With panhandlers at every city corner and major business in town, our physical appearance is poor and rundown; especially to visitors. With the permit ordinance, we can regulate panhandling as the fundraising business it has become.

      The one thing that the homeless HAS taken, from every citizen, is the waterfront! How many citizens feel safe to walk the waterfront trails? It’s time the Devil’s Playground be extinguished and returned to all the people of Eureka.

      If you have trouble understanding our message, please feel free to email your concerns directly.




      • “If the city is cleaned up, business and jobs will come.” NOT.

        If businesses here paid their workers above poverty wages and business and gov. would stop keeping this area in a state of poverty, businesses would make more money and business and people would survive.
        Panhandling is not a business. It is SPEECH. And it’s bare bones survival. I’m done with your oppressive bullshit, shrouded in some fake “concerned citizen” civility.

        Liked by 2 people

  8. Hobo-central, more like ex-con central because of all the slumlords that cater to them


  9. The fact that 4 homeless only accepted LIMITED help tells it all. It is their choice to live this lifestyle. You can’t fix stupid.


    • Just Watchin:

      “The fact that 4 homeless only accepted LIMITED help tells it all.”

      Four out of how many offered the “help”? What were the conditions? Limited the help offered by how much?

      For that matter… what was the help offered in the first place?

      You kind of got ahead of the facts (what precious little that were given).

      But you are right… You can’t fix stupid.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Mola, The 4 individuals of our group, that are homeless, accepted home-cooked meals, blankets, and some money to help during the holidays. Some of our members offered places to stay, shower use, clothing, and help finding employment. 2 of the 4 are single, and wanted to stay in the “camps” to get additional info that would be helpful to pass to civic leaders. The other 2 members have families, and have accepted additional help from the entire group. We placed no conditions on the help we offered; we simply offered assistance to fellow group members. In fact, we have other members that needed assistance during the holidays with simple things like getting Christmas trees for their families, PG&E payments for utilities, gas money to get to/from work, etc. We don’t make demands for accepting help, and we certainly don’t expect repayment. As a group, we simply have a united goal to improve Eureka for everyone. In achieving that goal, our members also help each other when need be.

      Just Watchin, as a group, we take offense that you would label any of our members as “stupid” for any lifestyle choice. Being homeless in Eureka is a hardship that some people fall into due to unforeseen reasons. Every homeless person we have met, would rather NOT be homeless; most were embarrassed to be in their situation. Most homeless feel ashamed to ask for help. As a community, we should offer help to those in need. But, we should offer the type of assistance that improves the situation and eventually gets the person(s) to be self-sufficient, not dependent. We advocate a help-up system, not a hand-out system.

      Thanks for reading. We hope we have clarified the misguided perceptions that some have about ‘Eureka Citizen’ and our intentions.



    • Eureka Citizen:

      I made no judgement about the four homeless folks who are part of your committee. I was just merely pointing out that a certain “fellow” commenter got ahead of the facts presented.

      If we are to dialog effectively we need to keep as close as possible to the facts.

      I appreciate your making the effort to reach out into what is possibly hostile territory for you.

      I agree with you that the homeless and the crime problems are two separate issues. However… taking on the homeless is a relatively easy cosmetic fix. The crime problem is not.

      I think you might have a problem with your legal stance. As near as I can tell… the court challenges to the “permit to beg” regime have been in places like Oklahoma and Arizona. I don’t think a Federal court has had a chance to pass judgement.

      And this isn’t Oklahoma… a California court will quite probably take a different position. At any rate… appeals are expensive. The Enviro’s can appeal to their heart’s content because they have poster children like spotted owls and seal pups to garner sympathy and get folks to give.

      The homeless, alas, do not have much of a “cuddle factor”.

      On it’s face… a “permit to beg” regime is pointless. It would have only one purpose; to provide a means for the police to harass homeless people who wander out of their rightful “place”.

      You can’t jail a person because he/she doesn’t have a begging permit. If we are letting home invaders and persons accused of assault and drug sales out the revolving jail door… would you dare fill up the jail with beggars?

      I would prefer having our public employees engaging in other labors than harassing beggars.

      And the begging is a basic survival strategy… they will continue to beg no matter the consequence… no matter if they possess a piece of paper stating they may do so or not. Why should they bother?

      So… what is your REAL purpose concerning permitting the poor?

      I do agree with your stated goal of engaging the homeless and helping them transition to a better place in life.

      I also agree with your aim to clean up Eureka’s image.

      I just disagree with you that a “begging permit” is anywhere near the answer we all are looking for.

      Liked by 2 people

  10. MOLA….I had “inside” information. That’s OK, isn’t it?.


    • Eureka Citizen clarifies their agenda on the local National Enquirer. That is sufficient reason to distrust those involved.


    • Local National Enquirer? Wow. I didn’t see an endorsement from the TE for this group. It appears as if they just posted a response to a not so friendly post. You might actually like this group! Just give them a chance, they might surprise you and end up being a group of right wing nutballs…a group you would fit right into watchintoo.

      Liked by 2 people

  11. http://wtvr.com/2014/10/05/man-goes-off-on-panhandler-with-new-car/

    Link above is to watch a “permit holding panhandler” get into a new Fiat, and the reactions of givers when they found out!

    Another example:

    In Oklahoma City, panhandlers are required to get a permit and an insurance policy. The cost of the permit is $200 per day. Earlier this month, OKC police arrested a man for panhandling near Interstate 40 without a permit. The man offered to buy a permit for the day and told police he thought $200 was a pretty good deal, because last year he made $60,000 from panhandling. “I’m lazy,” he said. “Why would I go get a job?”

    You have to wonder if the people who ask strangers for cash are completely on the level. I personally witnessed the nightly pick-up of a panhandling team who were regulars in front of an Albertson’s supermarket. A black SUV with heavily tinted windows pulled up at 11:00 p.m., just as the store was closing. The panhandlers collected their blankets, buckets and signs, piled into the vehicle, and off they went.

    Has the Supreme Court created a safe haven for rackets?

    So, how many Eureka panhandlers are scamming you?


  12. It’s not entirely “Eureka Citizens” fault for blaming the victims, intolerance enjoys a long history in America. Who can forget Eureka Mayor Nancy Flemming cleverly ripping up Old Town’s park benches and pay phones to “help business”, and the countless raids on homeless camps? And yet, the problem worsens!? Let’s try some regulations?

    Unfortunately, reality has, once again, become so uncomfortable it has blinded otherwise intelligent people from taking more appropriate and effective steps against the predatory economic and political corruption that is manufacturing record levels of poverty and homelessness.

    How outrageous and immoral to regulate panhandlers in a “conservative” community preaching deregulation for everyone else, local politicians have been keeping the regulatory path clear for the third lucrative housing bubble since the 80’s, while ignoring chronic affordable housing deficits and neglecting to regulate the other numerous local contributors to poverty… .pawn shops, storage units, slumlords, check cashing, usurious loans for autos, homes and “public” universities, reverse mortgages, payday loans, rent to own, rental agencies, debt collection, liquor stores, bail bonds, job scalpers, distressed loan servicing, dollar stores, debt adjusters, unregulated growth-industries that turn family disasters into profit and that turn poverty into destitution, filling our cities with homelessness.

    It’s madness to construct a tent-city at one end of the Bayshore mall while at the other end sits another monument to a disgraceful American paradox, another empty building large enough to comfortably house every homeless county resident with enough space for services offering a fundamental hand up.

    Are the homeless to blame for a tax code that rewards empty storefronts and buildings with write-offs against other profitable properties for years? Are they responsible for a bay surrounded in job-killing brownfields? Did they cause the 2008 crash?

    “Every once in a while subordinates of this world contest their fates. They protest their conditions, join movements, make demands. Their goals may be minimal and discrete, but in voicing them, they raise the specter of a more fundamental change in power. They cease to be servants or supplicants and become agents, speaking and acting on their own behalf. More than the reforms themselves, it is this assertion of agency that vexes their superiors.” (Cory Robin, “The Conservative Mind”).

    Liked by 1 person

  13. “It is curious how people take it for granted that they have a right to preach at you and pray over you as soon as your income falls below a certain level.” –George Orwell

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Wise words from George Orwell in “Down and Out in Paris and London”:

    “It is worth saying something about the social position of beggars, for when one has consorted with them, and found that they are ordinary human beings, one cannot help being struck by the curious attitude that society takes towards them. People seem to feel that there is some essential difference between beggars and ordinary ‘working’ men. They are a race apart–outcasts, like criminals and prostitutes. Working men ‘work’, beggars do not ‘work’; they are parasites, worthless in their very nature. It is taken for granted that a beggar does not ‘earn’ his living, as a bricklayer or a literary critic ‘earns’ his. He is a mere social excrescence, tolerated because we live in a humane age, but essentially despicable.

    Yet if one looks closely one sees that there is no essential difference between a beggar’s livelihood and that of numberless respectable people. Beggars do not work, it is said; but, then, what is work? A navvy works by swinging a pick. An accountant works by adding up figures. A beggar works by standing out of doors in all weathers and getting varicose veins, chronic bronchitis, etc. It is a trade like any other; quite useless, of course–but, then, many reputable trades are quite useless. And as a social type a beggar compares well with scores of others. He is honest compared with the sellers of most patent medicines, high-minded compared with a Sunday newspaper proprietor, amiable compared with a hire-purchase tout–in short, a parasite, but a fairly harmless parasite. He seldom extracts more than a bare living from the community, and, what should justify him according to our ethical ideas, he pays for it over and over in suffering. I do not think there is anything about a beggar that sets him in a different class from other people, or gives most modern men the right to despise him.

    Then the question arises, Why are beggars despised?–for they are despised, universally. I believe it is for the simple reason that they fail to earn a decent living. In practice nobody cares whether work is useful or useless, productive or parasitic; the sole thing demanded is that it shall be profitable. In all the modem talk about energy, efficiency, social service and the rest of it, what meaning is there except ‘Get money, get it legally, and get a lot of it’? Money has become the grand test of virtue. By this test beggars fail, and for this they are despised. If one could earn even ten pounds a week at begging, it would become a respectable profession immediately. ….”

    Liked by 3 people

  15. Eureka citizen… “hobo”???


  16. Janelle,

    Thanks for your questions/concerns. Let me clarify the reasons for the panhandling permit, and it’s goal, one more time.

    The panhandling permit ordinance does NOT restrict free speech; the courts have already approved of this specific ordinance, even here in California.
    The purpose of the ordinance is to regulate the ACT of panhandling, not to criminalize it; penalty is not a criminal offense, it is a civil violation, payable by fine or community service. To obtain a permit, one only has to apply, at EPD, just like any other person getting a vendor, yard-sale, or sidewalk use permit. There is no fee to obtain the permit. A background check is performed by EPD, and if background is acceptable, the permit is issued. Along with the permit, which must be worn for all to see, the holder must also wear a safety vest while panhandling at intersections, or near traffic.

    For those of you claiming that it would make running out of gas, and panhandling for gas money illegal? Only if the individual does so from the intersection corners, not from gas station property, where most do so.
    For those “free speech” violation claims: The courts have already ruled that this regulates the ACT, not the speech. It also does not prohibit panhandling, but does improve safety for the panhandler and the motorists.
    As for EPD “wasting time checking permits”: Since the permits are brightly colored, and worn about the neck, EPD can easily recognize properly permitted persons.

    As for the EPD/DHSS partnership: EPD and DHSS have run separate programs, with only occasional teamwork at the jail or hospitals. Our suggestion, which has been adopted, was to form team partners on the streets. This way DHSS is protected by EPD, and EPD has immediate health evaluation/services upon an initial contact with street subjects.

    Thanks again for reading,



    • Eureka Citizen,
      “The purpose of the ordinance is to regulate the ACT of panhandling.” What is the goal?

      Does not an unpaid civil violation become a criminal violation? Or will it just create a bad mark on their credit score? Or hang there waiting to be garnered from a paycheck? Or held back from their assistance check?

      Please share the case where background checks for a speech related permit were found Constitutional.

      Will only those who solicit money for personal use be required to get a permit? Some people seem to think it matters whether the person is homeless or not, will lack of housing be a requirement of obtaining a permit?

      You wrote that it “does improve safety for the panhandler and the motorists.” How does it do this?

      I have witnessed people yell at simply because they appeared to be homeless. There have been documented cases of violent attacks on homeless people.

      Please understand that I find this statement insulting: “EPD can easily recognize properly permitted persons.”

      And this one: “This way DHSS is protected by EPD.”

      DHSS workers have been out making contacts without EPD protection. It is my understanding that the EPD liaison came from DHSS. Is it helpful to have third person? Perhaps. Of course that third person used to be doing something else, or did DHSS add staffing hours for this?

      When those providing for themselves behind the mall or the alcoholic in the doorway have a place to legally sleep a burden will be taken off EPD.

      May everyone be safe, warm and dry tonight.

      Liked by 3 people

  17. Eureka Citizen:

    I’ll let Janelle talk about the free speech issue… except to say it takes a very pretty bit of surgery to separate the speech from the ACT.

    In any case I hope you got the extra dough rattling around to defend this idea in court. The City of Arcata found out the hard way people will litigate against this sort of thing.

    But I’m beginning to see that the harassment strategy is what this is really all about.

    First off… a “background check” to see if a person is “worthy enough” to panhandle on the Streets of Eureka? Huh?

    Second… you got all the city’s panhandlers wearing their bright pretty ribbons and safety vests… wait… What street beggar will even bother? Who would want to wander around town in this decidedly unfashionable yellow star outfit?

    But here’s the best part… let’s say a scruffy looking dude is wandering down the sidewalk and he makes the place look bad. By the way… as the President of the Scruffy Looking Dude Society I apologize for our existence.

    Anyway… scruffy looking dude… obviously no permit… the cops say the S.L.D. (Scruffy Looking Dude in police lingo) is panhandling. How is the S.L.D. supposed to prove otherwise? But the cop will be nice if the S.L.D. will kindly get out of sight ASAP.

    And now things look a whole lot better on the city streets. Problem solved.

    Look Eureka Citizen… just be honest and bring back Vagrancy Laws. Then we will all feel better knowing what you are really up to.

    If the Vagrancy Laws are still legal to enforce. Are they?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Again, this type of ordinance has already been approved by the courts, even in CA. All challenges to the ordinance have failed, and with legal precedent already set, future challenges would be mute.

      Just recently, a elderly panhandler was struck and killed in Eureka by a motorist. There are 14 other incidents recorded in Eureka of pending legal action against motorists, by panhandlers, for vehicle vs pedestrian.

      You keep defending these panhandlers, but are you ready to defend yourself if one is touched by your vehicle because they were in the intersection? How about legal action because you struck their dog?

      This ordinance regulates the act of panhandling and takes measures for safety.

      Your continued objections show that your concerns for the unsafe actions of the panhandlers outweigh the safety of the general public.

      Good luck with that.


    • Eureka Citizen:

      Oh, that’s lovely. I don’t agree with you and now I’m all for throwing panhandlers literally under the bus?

      And at the same time I am also defending them?

      Gosh, what a confused soul I am. Either I need help or you need help for making this stuff up.

      I am not defending panhandlers. I want them to GO AWAY as of yesterday. I have… up to now… been criticizing the methods you would use.

      Now I have other things to criticize… like your using John Fullerton like logic and rhetoric to defend your views. Shame.

      At this point I no longer really care if you can win your case in court or not. You shouldn’t but in a country that enjoys segregating-out it’s problems you quite possibly will.

      But you are being dishonest if you claim to give a hang about the homeless or the street beggars. Because what this really is… as stated before by me and ignored by you before… is this is the Next Generation’s version of the Vagrancy Laws.

      For those who are too young to know… this is where basically (in the good old days) you could pick up any person who didn’t match the dress code and kick them out of town (or hold them in jail).

      I think there are good reasons why we don’t do that anymore… but you have managed to dress this concept anew in laws that still smell the same as the old even if those laws don’t look the same.

      In my not-so-august opinion your method of dealing with the problem is cosmetic at best… and pretty damn nasty in the middle case.

      No doubt using the John Fullerton “Guide to Success in the Great Societal Issues…” (calling your opponents names and scaring the public) will probably work in Eureka very well… it has in the recent past.

      You want to get into a spitting contest with me? I have all the mucus I need and then some.

      Or… you might want to get back to the method of civil discourse. Your choice.


    • Thank You, MOLA42.

      Next “Eureka Citizen” will bring back ‘Sundown Laws’ and ‘Ugly Laws’, and claim that they are constitutional and don’t criminally target anyone because black, homeless, Latin@, and disabled people can be out past sundown on PRIVATE property, just not on public property. (And when they get arrested and harassed by police, it’s somehow a civil matter.)

      Fines and community service are the result of criminal proceedings. (Yeah that’s f—-ing brilliant- FINE someone who is panhandling.)

      You’re a bad joke, “Eureka Citizen.”

      Liked by 1 person

  18. Well done MOLA.

    “Eureka Citizen” members need to sound-out their thoughts in their heads prior to publishing them.

    Imagine the public outrage if EC held a town hall meeting at the Warfinger publicly demanding permits, enforcement and prosecution for garage sales.

    Obviously, EC’s intent here is to paint a sense of “equality and fairness” upon the stench of inherent injustice when equal laws have immensely unequal impacts on the destitute.

    After so many centuries of examples, it’s hard to mask the human weakness for desiring to cleanse the Homeland of history’s various kinds of “undesirables”.

    With real crime statistics soaring, there’s no justification requiring police to be distracted by such nonsense.

    I don’t like seeing all those churches in a city with so few christian values and I’d like to start taxing them too…instead, I just step aside when I encounter one.

    I suggest you do the same for panhandlers.

    Liked by 2 people

    • FYI: The City of Eureka already requires permits for garage sales. They are available via the clerk, at no charge to residents. Without a permit, EPD can write a ticket and shut down the sale.

      Please make sure you know your facts first, next time.


  19. FYI: The City of Eureka already requires a permit to hold a garage sale. They are available, free of charge, from the clerk at city hall.
    Without the permit, EPD can write a ticket and shut down the sale.


    • Eureka Citizen:

      Garage sale busts?

      And how often has that been done?

      Are there city-wide “garage sale sweeps” to curtail illegal rummage sales?

      I imagine the answer is never (or almost never). Because that would be silly.

      If I were a line EPD officer I’m pretty sure I’d have the same attitude over rounding up homeless people because they aren’t wearing their colorful ribbons.

      It’s not practical in the first instance (garage sales)… and there is nothing to cause it to be practical in the second (rousting panhandlers).

      After all… the cops are already busy fighting the scourge of kids riding their bikes on the sidewalk and rounding up shopping carts. I guess we will just have to add this to the list.

      Eureka suffers from a galaxy of real, nasty, intractable problems. Is this where you want to expend very limited policing resources?

      Liked by 2 people

  20. FYI: The law, in its majestic equality forbids the rich, as well as the poor, from sleeping under bridges.

    You honestly have no concept of the injustice of equal permitting laws having unequal impacts on the poor?

    How, exactly, do you explain to your son or daughter that was being severely attacked, (where every second counts), that the nearest officer was outside his vehicle delayed by your complaint against a panhandler that you suspected of panhandling without a permit?

    “Utterly idiotic and potentially deadly”.

    Just walk around them and do everything you can to elect compassionate city representatives that will finally respond to chronic deficits in affordable housing, poverty wages, high rents, and predatory businesses.

    Liked by 3 people

  21. MOLA….was EC lying about needing a permit for a garage sale, or were you just claiming more “inside” information?


    • Just Watchin:

      May I ask that you direct your attention to the third comment above yours… by Eureka Citizen (10:05). When you read that you will know everything I know.

      As to whether Eureka Citizen was lying… Ask Eureka Citizen, not me.

      I’ve never claimed to have inside information on any subject Just Watchin… although you have at least once (this thread 1/22/2015 5:03 pm).

      Liked by 1 person

    • Just Watching,
      The answer to your question is in the Eureka Municipal Code, CHAPTER 118: PEDDLERS AND SOLICITORS, which is online.

      No Municipal Code needed to answer this question:
      Eureka suffers from a galaxy of real, nasty, intractable problems. Is this where you want to expend very limited policing resources?

      Liked by 2 people

    • Thank you Janelle. To clarify JW and EC, no permit is required for 3 yard or garage sales at one location per year. EMC 118.03 (c). I certainly hope that the police are looking for more pressing SAFETY issues, like solving the 2 murders last year, as opposed to counting garage sales or checking permits for the poorest among us who are asking for charity.

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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