“Eureka Citizen” apparently wants to end the public debate

cropped-bret-harte.jpgThe “Eureka Citizen” group sent us an email, after our recent reporting about the City going after the Blue Heron Motel. Apparently, this Citizens group was not happy with our questioning of their stated priorities. Apparently they’re not interested in pursuing any debate with us or our readers.

Below is their email:

“As much as we appreciated the recent opportunity to fully explain our agenda, and your posting that explanation, we will no longer use the Tuluwat Examiner as a legitimate outlet for our press releases.

Your recent article, concerning the City of Eureka’s pursuit to close the Blue Heron Motel, closed with a parting shot for our group to focus our time ‘going after these profiteer slumlords than their victims (panhandlers)’.

This comment clearly shows that you did not read, or understand our previous explanation. If you had, you would have seen our efforts to close these types of rundown motels throughout the city. You have, instead, decided to take aim, and make jokes, at our efforts to clean the visual appearance of Eureka.

We, as a group, are working with the City of Eureka, and with Humboldt County, to find a viable solution to the homelessness that we see every day.

To date, our group has raised over $400K in business donations in an effort to purchase property within the City of Eureka and build a long term shelter for homeless individuals. While we continue to negotiate a facility purchase, and contract for renovations, we will provide information to legitimate news organizations. We do expect to have an operational facility by the end of July 2015.”

https://tuluwatexaminer.wordpress.com/2015/01/11/criminalizing-poverty-in-the-city-of-eureka/

https://tuluwatexaminer.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/if-the-blue-heron-motel-really-is-closed-thats-one-down-and-100s-to-go/

https://tuluwatexaminer.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/human-rat-cages-in-eureka/

take aim, and make jokes(?)”…….Sorry “Eureka Citizen” but this (ill) legitimate outlet “The Examiner” will continue the debate of your programs with or without out your direct participation.

We’re a blog, that’s what we do!

 

Advertisements

43 thoughts on ““Eureka Citizen” apparently wants to end the public debate

  1. Odd, i thought you gave them a lot of attention.
    Plain Jane asks a good question is this the downtowner property?
    “We do expect to have an operational facility by the end of July 2015.”

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Eureka Citizen:

    I didn’t think I was joking.

    Ask the question… hear the answer. Ask the question that arises from the answer. It’s the Socratic method.

    I do apologize if your answers caused you any discomfort.

    Liked by 1 person

    • You should be sorry Mola. This group of secret philanthropists has raised 400K to help the homeless! They just forgot to mention that in their emails about criminalizing a very common practice of those without homes….panhandling.

      You should have more respect for this group, Mola. They have money and influence. They have presented themselves as a diverse group (who has access to close a half a million dollars to donate). Obviously, this group is filled with the “best people” of Eureka.

      And by the way, you forgot to thank Rob Arkley for all his generosity as well.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Seems to me that the “Eureka Citizen” group is being a bit thin-skinned. So what if they are questioned and criticized? That is normal, and in a democracy that should be expected on blogs, in the media, and in our society in general.

    I hope they do succeed in their stated goal of opening a long-term shelter for homeless folks in Eureka. And while their anonymity certainly opens them up to criticism, anonymous commenters on an anonymously-run blog seem like an odd group to be criticizing that particular aspect of the group. It may be that they would just rather delay, until they have their funding secured, the inevitable vitriolic attacks they will have to withstand from the same kind of jerks who attack Betty Chinn and anyone else who tries to help the homeless.

    Which is why I am having a hard time imagining that Arkley would be part of any group proposing long-term shelter for homeless folks — my understanding is that he’s firmly in the “starve-’em-out” camp that believes that providing any services to the homeless just attracts more homeless people to the area. So, IF it’s true that they are working toward a long-term shelter for homeless folks, I very much doubt Arkley is part of their group. And if he is, and they are, well then good…maybe he’s actually has a change of heart…seriously doubt that though.

    As far as any proposal to criminalize panhandling, or even require permits for it, I think that’s a stupid, unworkable, and ultimately unconstitutional idea. If this group is pushing for that, I would firmly oppose them on that. But if they are also really going to help open a long-term shelter for the homeless, then I’m more than happy to wholeheartedly support them on that aspect of their work, while clearly criticizing them on any panhandling ban/permitting/criminalization thing.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sparky:

      That’s the issue: Can you trust what they are saying? I’ll get back to that in a moment.

      As to the “Anonymous accusing the Anonymous”… There is a difference. Us anonymous bloggers aren’t asking anyone for $400,000 nor are we trying to peddle influence with public entities (city and county as they put it).

      Back to who can you trust. Given Eureka Citizen’s track record (putting the equivalent of yellow stars on the homeless for easy recognition — which sounds very Arkley to me) how do you think they plan to run this institution?

      Institution? Yes… a place set up by a society to handle a segment of that society. And institutions have rules and procedures.

      What’s wrong with that? Only that many people who live rough tend not to access services because they don’t want the rules and procedures. Most shelters (rightly, I think) impose rules like no drinking or drug taking and others.

      Many shelters do not allow dogs.

      Others are just afraid of the places… they don’t trust their fellow homeless to behave themselves.

      I’m sure there are other problem rules and procedures of which I am totally ignorant.

      So it matters how things are set up and how things are run.

      And… what if someone, now that there is an official shelter for them, chooses to continue to live rough? What happens then?

      I’m not saying what Eureka Citizen proposes is a bad idea. I’m saying I don’t know enough about how they plan to do this.

      But considering the other ideas Eureka Citizen has gone into detail about… my warm and fuzzies are just not into this.

      Liked by 1 person

    • We have stated repeatedly that Mr. Arkley is NOT a member of our group, nor will he be.

      We took offense to the closing remarks on the Blue Heron article due to the fact that we had already explained, in an earlier release, that this location, and others in like condition, were on our list of targeted areas that need cleaning up around the city.

      We understand that this is a blog. We did not expect that the blog operator would fail to read our initial letter explaining our goals. If he had done so, he would have realized it was already covered.

      As for “going after panhandlers”, again, we explained what the goal was, how it could be achieved without violating any persons rights, and how it was designed as a safety measure, not a measure to criminalize the act of panhandling.

      Our members have answered several hundred emails from citizens that support our efforts.

      Our main reason for choosing to drop TE as a viable media outlet, even though they have published our goals and responses, is due to the lack of comprehension level on the part of TE staff and bloggers; having to explain the legal issues, the goals, and progress, and continue to have them “twisted” in such a manner that changes the intended goal, is no longer worth the efforts to correct the misinterpretations.

      We understand that there will always be individuals, and groups, that will oppose any action taken by others. We are prepared to continue our efforts, along with the assistance from city government, obtained on our current proposal, even as outlets such as TE continue to misinterpret and spread misinformation.

      Thanks for READING the entire response!
      We will gladly answer any questions posed by TE and it’s regular bloggers, but please include your comprehension level so we can have our answers crafted to grade school levels that you will understand.

      EUREKA CITIZEN

      Like

    • EC: “You can’t possibly understand our genius, because if you did, you would agree with us”

      Liked by 2 people

    • Eureka Citizen:

      — “We will gladly answer any questions posed by TE and it’s regular bloggers, but please include your comprehension level so we can have our answers crafted to grade school levels that you will understand.” — Eureka Citizen

      My Comprehension Level: Retarded Squirrel.

      Please do not forget you came to us (and seemingly to no one else). I assume it was for a reason but for the life of me I can’t see what it was.

      I appreciate your bringing your perspectives here. But that’s only half the effort… you need to try to understand the viewpoints of whom you are asking to engage (or there isn’t much point in taking your show here in the first place).

      Speaking of comprehension level… other than the legalities issue (which I am sorry to admit possibly favor your view), you seem to skate over the fact that the readers of the Tuluwat Examiner have other issues with your proposals, which you choose to ignore.

      In the only time you got off script; you accused me of wanting to kill panhandlers and yet advocate their free run through the city. It was all very Mad Max but really…

      Folks here appreciate that when we bother to raise an issue that you bother to respond to that issue… not just have you repeat the same talking point over and over. That causes some of us to doubt your credibility.

      *****

      Commenter’s Note: Please keep in mind that I do not speak for anyone but myself. Whenever you see the word “we” (or it’s ilk) in the above please remember I am just referring to myself and the mouse in my pocket.

      Oh… and my dogs heartily approve.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. for the record, some people called it long ago when he/they first appeared.

    Nothing ‘Eureka Citizen’ has said has changed my mind…and now they want to not ‘debate’ in the highly read Tuluwat Examiner? (That’s sarcasm: I wish more people read the TE, they’d be smart to do so.)

    there was no debate ever with he/them…it has been all one-way assertions with no proof and interestingly enough of all these highly engaged, ‘put your, or somebodie’s/taxpayer’s money where their mouths are’ campaign they have identified not one member…..in all this time I have seen not one member has come forward either here or on Loco…and that includes anonymous/user-named ones as well, and no actual named somebody-knows-them eureka citizens either.
    No actual journalists have interviewed and/or met EC, even the tameish ones..

    Don’t you find that just a bit odd?

    In this small and highly stressed and opinionated town, ‘Eureka Citizen’ has impenetrable operational security the kind governments can only dream of.
    And if i’m wrong about that, let’s see it, who stepped up? Who stepped up to publicly support this agenda, here in the land of the Vigilante Man….besides the lawyer who spoke about the panhandling ordinance…

    Even highly paid Washington and Sacramento lobbyists run more legitimate stealthy campaigns with phony supporters…the online version of the old stunt of packing the city hall meeting room with compliant seniors from the rest home. But I guess that would be extra.

    And I would be happy if someone could point out or verify or vet this whole Group..someone we could actually believe and that would prove accurate in the fullness of time…certainly someone the public trusts could do so?

    When asked EC said they wouldn’t ID anybody because of their ‘safety and security concerns’. Right, we readers of TE will shake our walkers at them, ooohh, plenty scary…and perhaps indicative of something surmiseable.

    Geez, this ain’t hard EC dude, ID someone and then throw a rock thru his window…’see??!!!..Danger Danger!!!’..read your ‘PR Campaigns For Dummies’ again, Chapter 6.

    Is this all about paving the way PR-wise for the Downtowner to be converted to a homeless shelter?….you know, to pre-settle the ‘debate’ …..haha, so when it comes before the packed chamber somebody/EC front person can claim ‘all these 100’s of eureka citizen members want this’?.

    Cause think of the stink if instead of a set of marginal small roommettes for seniors, that the owners/managers or the Downtowner figured out they could get more from the gubbmint if they were homeless people stuffed into small roommettes.

    The neighborhood activists might have something to say about it, they can be called nimbys and whatever, but there would surely be a ruckus, and a PR campaign is just what it would need.

    And…follow the money…where will the money come from to rehab and run whatever place this is?

    um…let’s see…could it be Satan the taxpayers?…of course.

    Maybe we will see this magic $400,000 become some bridge loan for federal grant money. Anti-taxers will howl…maybe. If they dare, after all ‘100’s of eureka citizen’s want this!!!!’ Maybe the $400,000 will get paid back…we of course won’t know…you know, cause Security.

    I think Plain Jane has nailed it…wherever it was she did so.

    So….Follow The Money…it’s probably yours.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Marmaduke:

      I’ll address a few issues that you brought up:

      A) Arkley is NOT a member of Eureka Citizen, not now, not ever! We have no use for a profiteer. The Down Towner is NOT under consideration for this proposal. We have an additional proposal, in progress, to convert the Down Towner to an assisted senior housing center.

      B) The shelter will be run as a non-profit. We have applied for a new non-profit group status, but are awaiting approval. The name used will NOT be ‘Eureka Citizen’.

      C) Due to possible repercussions to some of our member’s businesses, we chose to remain anonymous, for now. We value safety. Not just our own, but for the entire general public. As we get closer to making a complete, detailed proposal, we will have membership identified and we will hold public comment/suggestion meetings. As we previously stated, we want full community involvement in our goal of improving Eureka.

      D) NO government monies have been applied for use in this project. This facility will be run as a non-profit. Some operational monies may be obtained via government grants, but only after opening. Grants will be used for available programs (see E).

      E) Proposed services for residents of Eureka Shelter: 1) Drug & Alcohol Rehabilitation Services 2) Education Training (GED) 3) Job Training 4) Resident Pet Services (Kennel) 5) Mental Health Services 6) Medical Clinic Services

      Most of the services listed in section E will be contract or government grant services. We are working on obtaining these commitments.

      Yes, the facility will have rules and regulations that all residents will need to adhere to. We know that there are a small percentage of homeless that will not adhere to any rigid set of community rules, but most of the homeless will accept community responsibility as a trade for shelter and assistance. This will not be run as an ‘institution’. No individual will be forced to remain in the shelter.

      The entire purpose of a shelter is to provide a temporary living location while individuals, and families, make strides toward self-improvement and independence. The shelter will offer programs designed to assist residents in their journey toward self-sufficiency.

      The monetary funding we have raised, thus far, have mostly been presented by local businesses (or their corporate parent), and private individuals. Businesses have been willing to commit to this project to help improve the city community in which they (business) operate. Corporate donations show a willingness to invest in community development on a local level. Private donations have been made by those who just want to be a part of this community and it’s improvement overall.

      We have also received commitments from business for job training and possible employment of shelter residents. This will be part of the facility goals.

      There is no ‘underground conspiracy’ to make money off the homeless or for any business purposes. This is a project by the community, for the community. Period.

      EUREKA CITIZEN

      Like

    • Those do sound like good proposals….at first look. However, this claim peeked my interest:

      “We have an additional proposal, in progress, to convert the Down Towner to an assisted senior housing center.”

      Virginia Bass and Kevin Mckinney’s project? Well….I’m sure that the development community of Eureka will be well represented if this anonymous group is a part of the proposal.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. Calling the Tulatwat Examiner a legitimate outlet cracked me up !

    Like

  6. You caught that too JP. Congratulations! You’re a lot smarter than I thought, but then, that wouldn’t have taken much.

    Like

  7. I have worked with the homeless volunteered my time at the food banks we go to parks two days a week and bring a hot meal so they can have something to eat. most of them are down on their luck and need somebody just to show they care and help them out. but as far as the drug addicts that show no respect for anybody rip people off and are so bad that their own families don’t even want them around. I don’t think you could help those people because they’re not looking for help you’re looking to get high at any cost

    Like

  8. Mola, TE is not the only outlet we have discussion going on. LoCO was our first outlet, followed by an interview with the Eureka Times-Standard. We have had discussions with individual city council members and with state representatives. We were aware that TE picked up our initial panhandling proposal and responded directly to clarify our agenda after reading the discussion board and realizing that the reason for the proposal was lost, or misinterpreted along the way.

    From what we have observed, TE commentators number around 5, whereas the numbers from LoCO have numbered in the several hundred. Also, we received nearly 1000 emails directly, most mentioning LoCO as their source of information.

    Again, if this is too difficult for you to understand, I will lower the comprehension level one more time.

    Like

    • Eureka Citizen:

      Yes… I noticed the hot and heavy discussion going on LoCO. (That’s sarcasm, for my fellow Retarded Squirrels).

      Which leads us to one of my problems… You say you have a thousand emails from LoCO viewers. Great. I have in my hand a list of 127 Communists in the State Department.

      You claim vast armies supporting your noble efforts. Then based on that claim, you demand we recognize your legitimacy.

      We’ve heard this before… during the Measure R campaign. You might get by with this with the thousands on LoCO, but us 5 folks (rather Matt Owen of you, don’t you think?) who comment on the TE are a bit more discerning than that.

      You see, this doesn’t end with you. If it did, you would not bother to “consult with city/county” folks. You get something going… well someone has to keep it going.

      So who you are does matter. And what we get stuck with does matter if it is implemented incorrectly. Right now my concern is putting pretty ribbons on poor people. I’ve not had the time to digest the rest yet.

      Well, got to run. Must clean the drool off of my keyboard.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Mola, in response to your second comment:

    Accept our apologies if we overlooked a specific question in an effort to re-explain issues that were repeatedly argued based on “Free Speech” of panhandlers; we made it clear that the legal research had been done to propose an ordinance to regulate the act of panhandling and the safety issues surrounding the act of panhandling, while still protecting the freedom of speech provisions we all enjoy.

    What other questions, on the original proposal, did we miss?

    Like

    • Eureka Citizen:

      Questions? Oh, I had a bunch.

      What makes your effort to register and enforce behavior on poor people any different than the old vagrancy laws?

      What makes you think the poor will have anything to do with your plan to dress them up and make them behave?

      What happens to those who do not cooperate with your plan? Fines? Jail time?

      What makes you think the EPD (not the folks who give the speeches but the line officers) will have anything to do with this?

      Why do you think checking poor people’s ID’s are a better use of police resources than, say, fighting crime?

      What makes you think, beyond registering the poor, this has not already been done before and is indeed being done now? What do you bring to the table besides a dress code?

      What makes you think doing this will have an iota of effect on crime in the city of Eureka?

      What makes you think this is anything but a cosmetic white wash of the town to make it look prettier for visitors without addressing the basic issues that lie beneath these problems?

      What makes you believe Mr. Arkley has nothing to do with you? Just because he does not attend your “meetings” does not mean he is not there (his various minions, for instance).

      I asked all those questions.

      I concentrated on the homeless issue since that was the focus of your letter to the Tuluwat Examiner. The Urban Renewal stuff was first passed off without detail (while your panhandling program was discussed in detail). In fact, your championing of the Blue Heron closure kind of came out of the blue.

      I will need to see and hear more about your dressing up Eureka program. I am all ears for details.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Eureka Citizen — A little feedback if you’re interested: Your 8:21 comment and many parts of your other comments are helpful and appreciated (at least by me). Your snarky comments about “grade-school comprehension levels” are not (again, at least not by me). If you’re preparing to open a homeless shelter, you’d benefit from growing some thicker skin, because you’re likely to attract a lot more abuse from the “homeless people are subhuman scumbags who we shouldn’t help at all, lest we attract more of them” crowd than anything you’ve seen here. To be successful, you’re going to have to be relentlessly positive, and address negativity without reciprocating. Again, Betty Chinn comes to mind. That woman is a saint in my opinion — look at the amount of criticism that gets heaped on her, but as far as I’ve seen she never has an unkind word for anyone. At any rate, just some unsolicited advice, take it or leave it as you choose. I wish you all the best on your shelter plans, and look forward to your group and its tentative plans going public, and the larger public becoming involved in shaping the final plan, assuming that’s where this is headed.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Ah, and for the record… I never accused the Eureka Citizen movement of having a profit motive. Some have, I haven’t.

    I’ve accused Mr. Arkley of having a profit motive or two… but since Mr. Arkley and Eureka Citizen are completely divorced from each other then there is no chance of implying profit motive for Eureka Citizen.

    Just so we keep that straight.

    I swear to you Eureka Citizen… I am not your enemy. But you’ve come up with one complete clunker of an idea so please accept if I put questions to you it’s only in the best interest of everyone involved, including you.

    Liked by 1 person

    • You may think the panhandling permit proposal was a “clunker”, but it has been a success in Oklahoma, in several large cities, for some time. The proposal is in research stage at City Hall, so it may not be a dead issue, as some believe.

      We clarified the Arkley issue, as it continued to be presented to us in comments we received. There was no “divorce” needed, as there was never a “marriage”, or even a single date. Most of Arkley’s supporters were on board his proposals for profit or by direct association to Arkley and his trust. Our motives are a clean and safe community for all citizens of Eureka, not for direct profit. With the shelter project, all businesses in the city will benefit, in the long run. All Eureka citizens will benefit with a cleaner, safer city and the ability to benefit from bayside projects that have been stalled due to the homeless issues.

      We have homeless members in our group. We also have talked to Eureka homeless, panhandlers, etc. and have found a very positive response. The majority of homeless in Eureka want, and need help. This project will provide services that the smaller facilities can not offer, or have requirements that force religious, or personal views upon those that seek assistance. We will be offering facilities and programs to those that seek eventual self-sufficiency with regulations, but not forced opinions/views. The planned regulations of the facility are for safety and security of all residents of the shelter, and will prepare residents to be more adaptable to society rules.

      Vagrancy laws were designed to move undesirables out of area/county by force. We have a goal to clean up Eureka’s visual perception to citizens and visitors, yes. But, by doing so in a manner that allows everyone to remain in city and work together to make Eureka a better place. Those that chose to commit crime, use drugs, etc, will be left for their eventual legal problems and we can let the jail/prison systems remove those individuals over time. Again, only a small percentage of homeless are committing crimes, so the majority are open to our ideas; even the panhandling permit proposal.

      The permit proposal does not require additional staff at police headquarters. Permits are processed, and issued at the city clerks office. The fingerprint requirement is performed at the police station, but is the same process that they currently offer for employment fingerprinting. The process starts the same as any street vendor applying for a sales permit or a citizen getting a yard sale permit, yet has the added step of fingerprinting. Police would visually know if a valid permit is held by a panhandler due to the visual safety requirements along with a visually displayed permit. Non-permit holders would receive a warning, then a simple citation on any additional violation. Granted, we do not want police to spend a great deal of time trying to enforce a single ordinance issue; those that think the police would do so do not know true police procedures. Crime fighting is a priority.

      We have several members in law enforcement. Our proposals are known to the rank and file officers and have been welcomed, thus far. Most think that these proposals will help the community, as a whole, so are supportive. Any proposal that involves peaceful community involvement is normally welcomed by law enforcement.

      Most of the panhandlers we discussed the proposal with were open to the idea. Having approval to panhandle would give them more “legitimacy” in the public eye and may cause an increase of daily donations. (Actually not our goal, but a valid point given to us by several panhandlers). The idea of a safety vest was also acceptable to most as it would possibly make them more visible and less likely passed by.

      Do we think crime will drop? Yes. With the combination of the proposals and our shelter project, along with mental health projects, for the homeless, in progress we believe that lower level crime will decrease. Most of our major crime is drug related and not perpetrated by the homeless. Some of the homeless start small and, with success, get more brazen with criminal mischief. We hope the shelter project will provide outlets to the homeless to gain education, job training, and employment so that criminal activity won’t be needed as a survival method. Additionally, as the homeless numbers decrease, the seriously criminal homeless will be more exposed to the public and criminal activity will become harder to accomplish. Again, no guarantees, but projected in Eureka as the process has worked elsewhere.

      If we missed a question, or you need additional clarification, please let us know. It is rather late….

      Eureka Citizen

      Like

    • “The fingerprint requirement is performed at the police station, but is the same process that they currently offer for employment fingerprinting. The process starts the same as any street vendor applying for a sales permit or a citizen getting a yard sale permit, yet has the added step of fingerprinting.”

      Really? So now people who are panhandling will not only have to wear a visible permit, their panhandling registration will be permanently registered in Eureka, California, and with the FBI (the figerprints are run through the state and through the NCIC). But a street vendor, or business owner, doesn’t have to get fingerprinted?

      Eureka Citizen…..some of your ideas seem reasonable and potentially helpful. Panhandling permitting is not only a clunker, but the requirements seem worse and worse everytime you let people in on the various additional requirements the code would include.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Eureka Citizen:

      I guess I’ll take two of the issues you chose to focus on; and make a clarification.

      The word “Divorce” simply means split. However, you are right to criticize my use of the word as it’s usual context is in splitting marriages. I should have used another word, perhaps “separated”, but there again we hit the marriage issue.

      First; one of the red flags for me is the use of pet homeless people to claim legitimacy. The reason is during the Measure R campaign the No folks trotted out a few folks in wheel chairs and used them to basically accuse the pro R folks of being mean to disabled people.

      That sort of thing annoys me some and I can’t help but think it’s happening again. And since we are required to take your word for all your claims it becomes a tough sell for us when you do this.

      After all, as stated many times before by many people; your legitimacy is a major issue here… and you do nothing to establish that legitimacy.

      Second; you say the established folks working in this area are too small (among other issues).

      Do you have an objection to Betty Chin? Why not, rather than create a separate program, work with and expand the program that is recognized nationally to have at least some good effect?

      In short… Betty Chin knows what she is doing. I doubt you do. Working with an established leader in the field would make more sense (at least to me).

      I’ve talked until I am blue in the face about why your efforts in regulating panhandling is a “clunker” of an idea. You either get it or you don’t and the five readers of this blog either get it or they don’t.

      My only suggestion is that you actually consult people who do this successfully already AND back them rather than make up something that requires spending a large amount of money for what is essentially an amateur operation at best.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Mola, the snippy responses to demean your questions seem a bit familiar…let’s see…hmmm…the snippy frustrated responses, the call (by both EC as the registered disqus user as well as the unregistered Ec username) for the CHP to take over EPD from Chief Mills, a couple of other off track comments..and somewhere EC said they have received $400,000 implying actual money rather than pledges of support if this or that happens..some of the EC verbiage is cogent..it’s the not cogent part that would concern me were I thinking of granting them money based on any of this, along with the lack of visibility and transparency of even a minimal kind.

      I and my seventeen alternet personalities are supportive of the lofty goals expressed, but I see nothing yet other than happy talk..except for the snippy talk salted in as well.

      All I asked for, and am still waiting for was one, maybe even two could be found?…independent community voices/journalists/writers willing to standup and verify any of this in there well known names.

      Some refer to a public meeting? Is that true and who was there?

      I have seen communities get burned by people collecting funds based on happy hopeful talk…and then burn the people.

      Asking questions is a community service actually.

      Over on Loco they are really getting after EC today
      http://lostcoastoutpost.com/2015/jan/29/dumpsters-back-devils-playground-city-eurekas-late/

      maybe all 700 loco commenters…right. (made up unregistered disqus user name is a separate ID than the next unregistered disqus made up name…ok then.)

      ‘fortmerly lo’ (perhaps the banned troll previously named ho lee fuk) said there are at least two developers in EC..how he or she would know that..is, well, go ask…and also says McKinney and Johnson are not they..so..maybe yes, maybe no.

      community service TE

      Liked by 2 people

    • Citizen EKA:

      The problem with that is I am one of Joe Blow’s only five readers so the audience change for Eureka Citizen wouldn’t be all that dramatic.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. As a matter of public policy, I don’t think people should be required to register or have a permit to panhandle. I don’t have a problem with some of the kinds of rules that some cities have in place, like no panhandling in the doorway of a business or close to an ATM, no blocking someone’s path while soliciting, or harassing them if they ignore you or refuse you. But if someone wants to peacefully sit or stand along a sidewalk and ask for help — verbally, or with a sign or whatever — I feel that should be their right, just as I feel it should be anyone’s right to sit or stand peacefully holding a sign for or against a political candidate or issue. If aggressive or otherwise inappropriate behavior is an issue, that should be addressed as disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct or whatever.

    Aside from the freedom of speech issue, and the broader issue of not having government overstep its legitimate role (and yes, I know what that role should be is a matter of opinion) I just don’t think any kind of registration/permitting scheme for panhandlers is going to work out…seems like it would be pretty much impossible to enforce in a meaningful way. If people don’t register / get a permit, whatever, what then? A fine? What does a fine mean to someone who doesn’t have money for their next meal? What happens when they don’t pay their fine and/or don’t show up for court?

    I’ll admit I haven’t gone back and searched for any past threads on this and read them through, so if I’m missing something that’s already been explained, please forgive me, Eureka Citizen. And if you don’t mind, please humor me and explain again, or point me to the earlier explanation.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Sparky-

      Those types of acts are already regulated in the City under Municipal Code 130.06. Now…are they aggressively enforced? Sometimes yes, sometimes no I would imagine.

      The fact is that officers already have their work cut out for them dealing with the property/violent crime increases in the city. By adding more regulations for an officer to enforce, when the officer can barely keep up with the workload to begin with, is nothing but an exercise in futility.

      Liked by 2 people

  13. “$400,000? Hundreds of members? Already working with city government? A shelter up by July?”

    Yet, they lack an official spokesperson to avoid “reprisals” against members?

    Betty Chin and her supporters accomplished a shelter with full disclosure and without resistance, threats or reprisals.

    However, this group’s agenda is based upon ignorance and bigotry, relying on stealth to enforce their “stick and carrot” Calvinism:

    1) “…this location, and others in like condition, were on our list of targeted areas that need cleaning up around the city.”

    Permanently evicting people from the dignity of independence in exchange for temporary shelter-life is outrageous. City representatives should refuse to entertain secret wish-list meetings with moneyed individuals prescribing how the lives of the destitute will be awarded and punished “by July”.

    From what we’ve read here, these folks are not human service professionals.

    If these properties are “target(ed) for cleanup” then clean them up! If it’s a chronic scene of violations there’s precedence for Eminent Domain and an EC/city partnership can “clean it up” for income-adjusted independent residences.

    2) “We know that there are a small percentage of homeless that will not adhere to any rigid set of community rules, but most of the homeless will accept community responsibility as a trade for shelter and assistance.”

    Again, knowledgeable human health advocates and professionals do not write ignorant drivel like this and expect to be taken seriously.

    Yes, the destitute will accept shelter after their permanent home is leveled. “Community responsibility” is the responsibility of the Eureka and Humboldt community to find the solution that retains people’s independence and dignity.

    Shelters are a last resort of desperation resulting of community’s NOT taking responsibility.

    3) “No individual will be forced to remain in the shelter.”

    And after you level their previous flop-houses where else will they go?

    4) “The entire purpose of a shelter is to provide a temporary living location”.

    Unfortunately, people willing to work require modest, dignified living through affordable independent homes.

    In effect, that’s exactly what this community’s deep-pockets refused to build and instead, made damn-sure no regulations interfered with their housing bubble goldmines because the development industry and their political hacks “failed to adhere to a rigid set of community (planning) rules”.

    Deregulation for the rich, rigid rules for the victims…or else…

    Liked by 2 people

    • Do we see YOU finally stepping up to help these individuals and families? Obviously not! Seems like criticism of methods is all you have. Since you are not footing the bill, nor is taxpayer monies, and you have not opened your doors to the 400+ homeless, and you haven’t provided meals, provided job training, employment support, what gives YOU the right to know who is providing funding to a private, non-profit shelter?

      What exactly are you so concerned, and afraid of? You spout off about how terrible this group must be, but you have zero justification other than not having a name to point at? How many times have you demanded to know every person that donates to a local church collection? Thrift store donation? Donations to Betty Chin?

      Do you demand that every charity in the area reveal every donor? Why demand from this group, something you have never demanded previously.

      To be truthful, you attack this group, in any way possible, simply because you are not a part of the group? Not financially capable of equal contribution? Haven’t ever taken steps to get involved with homeless programs? Perhaps you do so because, deep down, you don’t want anyone to help the homeless?

      If anyone’s motives are questionable, it is your’s, not this groups’.

      Like

    • Wow USAF! This group and it’s supporters seem very angry when anyone questions their proposals. When did the TE call this group terrible? The TE simply pointed out in a post that the group might want to take on the slums in Eureka, instead of just the panhandlers. The group responded by saying that they were supposedly taking on the slumlords, and that they would no longer be using the TE to release information. Pretty thin skinned group it seems to me.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Even right-wing Utah can count.

      They discovered it was cheaper to house the homeless in small, attractive apartments with kitchens than the cost of incarceration, emergency room, and mental health admissions. Those with families elsewhere returned once they were back on their feet.

      As we have seen around the nation, the moment a citizens begins taking in homeless people, curmudgeons like “USAF COL. (RET) are the first to file a complaint.

      If this group has so much money it is easily leveraged with state and federal grants to take over these flop houses and make them safe, especially after they are acquired through Eminent Domain by a city working for the common good.

      Unfortunately, this county’s development industry that manufactured much of this problem also controls most elected and appointed offices insuring:.

      Deregulation for the rich and rigid rules for the victims…or else…

      Liked by 2 people

  14. EUREKA CITIZEN….participating in this blog does your cause no good. The handful of commenters will not be swayed. Besides….you’re taking them away from their primary mission: spewing contempt for the police dept.

    Like

    • Just Watchin….participating in this blog does your cause no good. The handful of commenters will not be swayed. The multitude of non commenting viewers are not swayed by your arguments, given that the comments frequently include vulgur and adolescent refrences to a females anatomy.

      Liked by 2 people

  15. JP…..I realize it’s a higher level of comprehension than what you might be capable of, but you should have recognized by now that I have no cause. Y’all are just funny to watch. And by the way…. vulgar is spelled with an “a”. Our education tax dollars at work….

    Like

    • I like that the TE’s icon for you has a little red asshole. Fits y’all well

      Like

    • Not tax dollars, just a small screen on my cell phone. But thanks for carefully reading my comment. It’s nice to know that at least one person really pays attention.

      Liked by 2 people

    • If you had intellectual curiosity you might enjoy intelligent debate rather than being a childish voyeur.

      If deregulation for the rich and strict rules for the destitute hasn’t been working in the past, why support more of the same failed prescription?

      Liked by 2 people

  16. Exfill……you apparently haven’t paid much attention to your own icon. lol!

    Like

  17. Looks like the Colonel has broken the Tulatwat code…invent a boogieman, then criticize it ! He apparently has missed the anti-cop rhetoric.

    Like

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s