EC’s panhandling ordinance on shaky legal footing

we the people

Here is just a sampling of legal challenges to panhandling ordinances:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan sent letters to 84 municipalities across the state notifying them that anti-begging ordinances on their books are unconstitutional and should be repealed. The ordinances are nearly identical to the Michigan law struck down in August by the Court of Appeals for unconstitutionally preventing peaceful panhandling in all public places.

“Anti-begging laws that punish that most vulnerable segment of our society are not only harsh, they are unconstitutional,” said Dan Korobkin, ACLU of Michigan staff attorney. “No one should be thrown in jail or subjected to a fine for holding up a sign or simply asking for spare change. In the wake of the appeals court decision, we’re putting these cities and townships on notice that it’s time they repeal their unconstitutional ordinances. Our municipalities cannot and should not use the force of law to silence the voices of innocent people who rely on charity to survive.”

A federal judge has ruled unconstitutional an Arizona law that bans panhandling.… (Luis Sinco / Los Angeles…)

An Arizona law that makes it a crime to beg for money or food in public is unconstitutional, a federal judge has ruled.

The decision comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona against the city of Flagstaff, which has drawn national attention for its aggressive stance on panhandling by jailing some violators.

The New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, with the assistance of the law firm Sheehan Phinney Bass + Green, filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday against Hudson, challenging the town’s practice of detaining, harassing, threatening, dispersing and citing peaceful panhandlers. Hudson’s practice not only lacks compassion for the poor; it also violates the First Amendment.

The ACLU-NJ filed a lawsuit against the City of New Brunswick for two unconstitutional ordinances – one forbids panhandling and the other requires a permit to solicit philanthropic donations – that violate the First Amendment and in effect criminalize poverty. With pro bono attorneys from McCarter & English, LLP, the ACLU-NJ filed the suit on behalf of John Fleming, a New Brunswick man who has been cited several times and arrested for violating the ordinances, and on behalf of the New Jersey Coalition to End Homelessness.

The lawsuit seeks an immediate and permanent end to the ordinances and requested the court schedule a prompt hearing.

“The inconvenience a passerby might experience from hearing a plea for money pales in comparison to the violation a homeless person experiences in losing an essential constitutional liberty,” said ACLU-NJ Deputy Legal Director Jeanne LoCicero. “Unfortunately, New Brunswick isn’t alone – not in the U.S., and not in New Jersey. The ACLU-NJ is committed to making sure towns in our state don’t use poverty as grounds to strip people of their rights.”


93 thoughts on “EC’s panhandling ordinance on shaky legal footing

  1. Pesky leftist butt-fuckers and your concern for civil rights!

    Liked by 2 people

  2. I noticed that you only chose ordinances that ban panhandling while avoiding the ordinances that regulate panhandling.

    Next time, include Oklahoma City and Tulsa ordinances, as the Eureka proposal was modeled after; those ordinances passed legal challenges.

    Looks like the score is EC 5, TE 0


    • Retired USAF Col:

      As I said before; it not up to you, it’s not up to Eureka Citizen and it’s not up to me. It’s up to the courts.

      Not that I think much of your scoring system… this really isn’t a contest. Score keeping is for kid’s games.

      What matters is people (you, me, them) trying to figure out what is right for our community. There’s no scoreboard for that.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Ya the score in in your crazy world. Here in the real world TE scored a touchback on EC

      Liked by 2 people

    • And the proposed panhandling permit ordinance has already passed muster through the courts.

      You really need to go get a helmet, you keep beating your head against a brick wall reinforced by the courts….

      It is really hilarious that it has only taken a few comments to get TE to do 3 retaliatory articles and simply self-destroy it’s former reputation. TE has become the laughing stock of Humboldt County.


    • “The ACLU-NJ filed a lawsuit against the City of New Brunswick for two unconstitutional ordinances – one forbids panhandling and THE OTHER REQUIRES A PERMIT TO SOLICIT PHILANTHROPIC DONATIONS [emphasis added] – that violate the First Amendment and in effect criminalize poverty.”

      Oklahoma has no great record for constitutional laws.
      The purpose of a permitting law is to prohibit panhandling. Even EC (whoever the hell that is) typed about cutting panhandling in half. There would be no other purpose, and that purpose is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Name-calling on your part does nothing to change that.

      Liked by 3 people

  3. And I thought that liberals were against keeping score in kid’s games. Can’t hurt their self esteem and all that.


    • Just Watchin:

      Or for crimminy’s sake, just give it up. There is no fun in going after low hanging fruit and in this case your fruit is laying on the ground.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. MOOLA…..a little creepy that you’ve got your eye on my fruit.


  5. If you think that the ordinances sited in Tulsa and Oklahoma City are the standard bearers for case law, think again. Even the venerable Chief Mills understands that the “law” hasn’t really been decided as of yet. For some more case studies, go to the “Problem Oriented Policing” link below. Good information and links:

    Liked by 3 people

    • Again, you have pointed out more cases that support the permit ordinance rather than against it.

      The key is the proposed ordinance does not ban right to panhandle. I simply regulates panhandling. In doing so, the courts declared that free speech and personal rights were not violated.

      Again, TE loses by their own research. Keep it up, your continued research keeps making the case stronger and stronger for the ordinance to be passed by council.


    • “for the ordinance to be passed by council.”

      I see, you don’t actually want public input or for it to be voted on by the public, you want the City Council to force it on us without it ever coming to a vote by the public at all despite peoples objections and questions.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Some commenters appear quite knowledgable about buttf!&*er specs standards and s.o.p.s….
    the crickets from some usual folk who chime in have me wondering….I wonder if E.C. has a pull up ladder for their clubhouse?

    Liked by 3 people

    • ekanfromdows:

      I’m regretting treating Retired Air Force Col seriously. Waste of keystrokes as he is capable only of talking about court cases (which he has been coached on) and vulgarities.

      Eureka Citizen has only focused on what they believe to be their strong points and have ignored any other dialog subject presented to them. Thus the good colonel’s stuck record performance of today.

      No doubt that long but coherent thread comment he claims to have written yesterday was written by someone else and he only wrote the vulgar last sentence.

      Just Watchin now has someone to keep him company. They can pass the time discussing their anal fixations.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Seems like the Col got the better of all of you.


    • The first person that started cussing and used vulgarities usually got the loser tag.. when did THAT get changed?!!

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Mola42, So far, you have yet to present anything other than research that actually supports the permit ordinance.

    The other dialogue (you really should spell-check your posts) that you presented was nothing short of stammering dribble. You have yet to make a single valid statement. Additionally, by TE constantly putting up new articles attacking the group ‘Eureka Citizen’, you have exposed your pettiness and actually given the EC group more public validity while discrediting yourself.

    Please, keep it up! Soon, there will be so much research, provided by you, that supports the permit ordinance, that Eureka City Council can approve the ordinance knowing that it has multiple courts to back it up.

    Nice Job! Give yourself a hand. But please, wash it first!


    • Looks like you got caught giving yourself a hand, “just say’n”!

      Liked by 3 people

    • “that supports the permit ordinance”

      Apparently you’re forgetting one minor lil detail when you’re asking for public support for your lil “Panhandling Ordinance.” “Legal” or not the Public doesn’t seem to support it very much.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. I just erased a long and we’ll researched comment. Why? Because Mola is correct. Time to stop feeding the troll (s). Thank you Mola. And if anyone wants the proper etiquette for this sort of thing, Mola wrote a wonderful post for this blog some months ago.

    Btw- Miss my Wednesday Mola posts. Just sayin’ 🙂

    Liked by 3 people

  9. You do realize that this group, Eureka Citizen, has totally consumed Tuluwat Examiner for nearly 2 weeks. You and your fellow bloggers have become obsessed with this group. 5 of your last 6 articles are about, or mention the group. Additionally, you let members of the group completely take control of your blogging; they easily manipulated every member of your blog. You completely played into their hands.

    I’ve always used Tuluwat as a 3rd opinion to read and absorb. After the past week, it’s sad to say you have lost all credibility. Good luck with that.


    • Greg Sparks:

      I don’t understand your objection.

      This is an important issue, right? It deserves a close look, right? So we did. We asked questions, got a few answers, asked more questions and Eureka Citizen got mad at us.

      If you consider that to mean:

      “you let members of the group completely take control of your blogging; they easily manipulated every member of your blog. You completely played into their hands.”

      Then I hope we disappoint you on each and every other issue that comes before us.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Time to get back to the Tulatwat’s comfort zone…..bashing the local police department. But remember, they don’t make up stuff to post. It’s based on “insider information”.


    • “has totally consumed Tuluwat Examiner for nearly 2 weeks”

      Imagine that, y’all ask for comments from the public then whine when you don’t like the questions that we’re asking or the feedback you’re getting from the public. Is it just me or am I the only one who thinks that “Eureka Citizen” is one guy posting under about 3 or 4 different profiles so it looks like someone agrees with them? I’m getting the feeling that this whole thing is someones idea of a joke, the whole thing is a scam and we’re all being punked.

      I also think it’s funny that they’re concerned about being retaliated against but it’s the Righties and local businesses who whine about Betty Chin and her “Ilk”
      and I don’t see any of them complaining about that.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Since when does a city manager not understand the inherent suspicion generated by secrecy in government?

    Who’s hands are we playing into Greg? Who are you representing?

    Must be fun keeping secrets while ridiculing detractors.

    You won’t answer, so I will.

    You were hired by the representatives bought and paid for by the same A’holes that have been contributing to local homelessness for decades. The moneyed shot-callers dominating every elected and appointed office in this county for the distinct purpose of keeping regulations off their backs, not the regulations that stop lower-income families from building smaller homes with recycled materials, but the regulations that might interfere with building overstocked subdivision behemoths and the financial tricks and traps that funneled families into them…because affordable housing is chronically under-stocked. A fraud that ultimately crashed this nation and the world economy with huge impacts on poverty.

    Instead of protecting your ass by protecting their identity, our community would be better off if you exposed the machinations of our corrupt underworld.

    How many human service and psychology professionals are on this “EC team”?


    If the wealthy decree that carrot and stick Calvanism makes sense, we’d better go along with it.

    Since the public will be paying after construction, my (unwelcome) vote
    is to use Eminent Domain to seize offending flop houses and refurbish them to restore dignity in life for those wishing to better themselves.

    Trashy flop houses, volunteer internment camps and dorm shelters are inhuman and ultimately more costly than simply housing the homeless in independent dignity.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Sounds like you should, in future elections, do more than just sit back and be a spectator.

      No one in the city government is protecting anyone. The law allows for charitable organizations to be formed that protect the principles from direct exposure as long as all principles remain simple contributors without direct control over decision making.
      At this point in time, the group making this proposal has followed the letter of the law in all it’s activities and filings.
      Local government is always perceived as corrupt, but rarely is.


    • That would be great! Step up and take action!
      Oh, wait, you haven’t so far, and unlikely will do anything but object to those who do step up to the plate


    • “without direct control over decision making”

      Who’s doing the decision making then and why all the secrecy? This is sounding more and more like a scam to me. Did anyone remember the movie “The Rainmaker?

      “During the Depression era in the Midwest, con man Bill Starbuck acts as a rainmaker, but is chased out of town after town. One day, he arrives in a drought-ridden rural town in Kansas and showed up at the door of spinsterish Lizzie Curry and the rest of the Curry clan…”

      Liked by 1 person

    • Where is it said that a private group of donors must publicly disclose their identities on a privately funded project where NO government funds are used?? NOWHERE!

      So, there is no secret conspiracy in the local government; your theory is another dead horse.


  11. Imagine that, a public figure posting anonymously, defending an anonymous “charitable organization” that has lots of money tied to their prescription for “taking action”. Legitimate charitable organizations are required to publish the names of their principle members. Our elected “representatives” seem to hold transparency with the same regard as the police chief.

    Nothing changes for poor little Eureka, the wealthy developers and their political lap dogs allowed chronic deficits in affordable housing decade after decade and now the wealthy are going to dictate the remedy. The same tired scenario where the council is debriefed and the public hearing, months later, is merely a formality.

    Critics are dismissed for not equally “stepping up” because “We The People” only count when backed by money and attorneys.

    Had Eureka appointed volunteer Xandra Mann to its planing commission she would have been the only lettered professional planner ever seated. She was ungraciously told that it appeared she had an “agenda”, a label reserved for those whose professionalism might conflict with the moneyed agenda.

    No one is allowed to “step up” without the proper agenda.

    Corrupt to the core…and perfectly legal.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I seriously doubt that the “real” City Manager Greg Sparks is commenting on the TE. The person commenting sounds an awful lot like other “Eureka Citizens” group members.

      Liked by 2 people

  12. Eurekajim:
    I remember the group asking for input, but having to argue the same point, over and over, due to TE community beating the same dead horse, I can understand why EC ended the discussion here.

    As for the privately funded shelter, what reason do you have for needing to know the identity of it’s charity donors? When you make a charity donation, do you publish your name in the press? These donors have a right, by law, to remain anonymous, if that is their choice. Even if you knew the donors, what then? You’re still on the outside with no way to stop the project. Again, TE beats a dead horse.


    • Paul P.:

      They are asking for changes in the law.

      They are asking the City of Eureka to enforce those changes in the law.

      They are asking for the City of Eureka to take part and probably take over a long term commitment of responsibility for what they start.

      Yes… it does matter who these people are.

      Since all we really know in detail of these people are their plans for panhandlers, we are concerned.

      I hope that answers your question.

      As for asking for input; yes Eureka Citizen did. And they didn’t like what they heard. Is that the Tuluwat Examiner’s “fault”? We disagreed with Eureka Citizen and they got mad and took their ball to play elsewhere.

      Were we supposed to agree no matter what they had to say for themselves? How is that an honest request for input?

      Do you consider the above the “same dead horse” being beaten? Or are you yet another Eureka Citizen apologist trying to create the illusion of being the reasonable ones bravely soldiering on against the barbarians?

      Here’s a question for you, Paul P.: Why not use that money and support to expand the work of Betty Chin? What’s wrong with that? Why create a competing program for grants and other funding that only, at the very best, duplicates what she is already doing?

      Can you answer that? Or am I indulging myself in another example of abusing deceased equines?

      Liked by 1 person

    • The horse is alive and kicking…which makes you guys upset. Sorry.

      If the council was to move forward with the ordinance, the city will be bogged down for quite a while fighting in court. In the end, the city would lose. But who cares, it’s just tax money, right?

      Liked by 2 people

    • “I can understand why EC ended the discussion here.”

      Yeah, they didn’t like what they heard from the Community they were asking for feedback from and now, whoever they are, they’re going to go ahead and try to force it thru anyway despite what the Public might think about it.

      Liked by 1 person

  13. Mola: I saw nowhere in the EC proposed shelter project where the city would be involved other than permitting, zoning, building codes, etc. You assume that the city will be a part of the project; well, that makes you the ass, correct?

    As for the panhandling permit proposal, it has to go through a public hearing at city hall, before it can go to a council vote. Nothing is forced on anyone. If you want to voice your objection, then go to the council meeting, and voice your complaints. Not doing so, makes you an ass, as well.

    As for Betty Chin, her facility is small scale. If you look at the number of residents, and programs this project is slated for, a new facility will be needed. Also, Betty Chin, although nationally recognized, does not have the financial backing this facility will have. Again, no government funds will be used to run the facility, dining hall, or utilities. Offices for government programs, like DHSS, WIC, Healthcare Clinic, Job Training, Unemployment, etc., are being included in the project, but the offices are offered to the departments at NO charge for rent; this saves the city and county money, and puts all services in the same location.

    Yes, the EC group asked for feedback. But you beat the free speech horse into the ground and killed it even though free speech was never an issue.

    You constantly demanded that EC reveal their membership working on the homeless shelter. Yet, you STILL have not given a valid reason for knowing the donors of a private project.

    JP, you fail to realize that the permit ordinance has already been upheld in court, so challenges will be mute when filed. Again, you, and others claim you want to help the homeless, yet your priority is to waste government monies on court cases, defending the homeless you NEVER actually help.

    Back to Mola:
    Why is answering my questions so hard for you?

    A) Why demand donor information on a private project, that does not use government money, never solicited your funds, and you have nothing to do with?

    B) IF you did know the donor names, what difference would it make on the project and it’s success?? Again, you still won’t be involved.


    • Eureka Citizen begat the Retired Lawyer in turn he begat the retired USAF Col, then he became Greg Sparks which has now turned into Paul P. Looks like we got ourselves a Mighty Shape Shifting Troll

      Liked by 3 people

    • Secrecy equals no accountability. It also means the whole thing could be bullshit.
      That secrecy plus the fact that, as someone who has studied and focused on free speech issues as well as issues of persecution against homeless people and has been homeless off and on for many years, AND who has organized in sheltering and works daily to ensure people have basic necessities , I KNOW just what that permit for panhandling is an attempt to do -it is not only disgusting and unconstitutional, but it is oppressive.
      Those who defend this baloney EC are probably people who regularly and actively fight against human rights for homeless people. And those of you who are going along with this oppressive charade, I recommend you DON’T.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Paul “Spoof Boy” P.:

      I’ve had no problem answering your (or your various other personalities) questions.

      The first three sentences outlined my concerns about your anonymity.

      You don’t agree with my analysis? Well that’s obvious. So what? That’s your privilege, just as it is my privilege to not agree with you.

      Yes, Betty Chin’s facility is small scale. Such are most beginnings.

      That doesn’t disqualify my question, why not work with her rather than go your own way? Why not get what is nationally recognized as one the best experts in the field to work with you and expand that success?

      I suspect it is because you don’t want to.

      As for your knowing what you are doing… I have no faith that you do. Your little panhandling proposal shows me you don’t.

      As for the unfortunate free speech horse… it was beaten into the ground because that was all you and your various incarnations would talk about.

      I (nor anyone else, now that I think on it) have never said you are trying to force anything. I imagine you don’t have to, as long as people take you at face value and ask no questions.

      Your project is not a private project… saying it’s private does not make it so. Two years down the road your anonymous committee will not be running this thing. The city, or some entity tied to the city will be running it, warts and all. And city employed police officers will be enforcing your panhandler ordinance (at the least).

      The fact you so jealously guard your anonymity despite your attempt to unveil a very public endeavor causes your credibility problem. I’ve done nothing more than point that out to you. Somehow you are oblivious to that.

      As for your “B” point, I already answered that in my original answer to you.

      You, Eureka Citizen, created the atmosphere of distrust. I could possibly be a strong supporter of you, except I would not really know what I was supporting and I am not fool enough to go down that road with you.

      I knew it was a mistake answering you in the first place since I got the Sophist response from you I expected.

      All you’ve done is trot out the old troll trick of creating multiple personalities to fake the impression that anyone agrees with you.

      I’m done with you.

      Liked by 2 people

    • “Yes, the EC group asked for feedback”

      Then “They” got all bent out of shape when the feedback they got wasn’t exactly what they wanted and decided to take their ball and go home because we wouldn’t play by the rules that “they” were making up as “they” went along.

      I’m still thinking that this is all some kind of prank, it would be kinda funny too if the subject, homeless people, wasn’t so serious.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. Regulating panhandling may be *legal* if done in the “right” way. But even if that turns out to be true, that in and of itself is not a reason for the city council to pass such an ordinance. It would just mean that legality would not be a reason to *not* pass such an ordinance. If EC, or whoever, really wants to pass such an ordinance, they should have to show that it would be in the best interests of the city, and not harmful to it’s homeless residents (personally I don’t think they’ll be able to show either).

    The good news is that nothing can be passed without a public hearing, and neither the proponents nor opponents will be able to be anonymous in that setting. So, should this idea even move forward at the council level, we’ll see who is willing to come forward, and what arguments they make.

    By the way, the council majority has recently changed. Could be that the old council majority might have rammed this thing through, over the objections of many of their constituents…but I seriously doubt the new council majority will do any such thing.

    Meanwhile, I sincerely hope that all this does not get in the way of a true community effort to improve housing options for homeless folks. EC has said they’re working on adding to those options, and if true (and if it’s a good approach) I wish them the very best on that, despite wholeheartedly disagreeing with this permits-for-panhandlers nonsense, which I think is an unfortunate distraction, and a failed policy waiting to happen.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Regulating the act of panhandling, in a manner that provides safety for all. Again, you keep beating the same horse…..

      What’s odd is that 4 of 5 CURRENT council members already support this proposal. Getting it passed should be easy…..

      Also, I do not belong to EC; never have. I do agree that something needs to be done to curb the panhandling; if it can be regulated for safety, by requiring permits, safety vests, and avoids heavy traffic intersections, I’m for it.
      There have already been 6 accidents in Eureka where panhandlers were struck by vehicles at intersections. Now, drivers who should not have to worry about someone hanging out at an intersection, and darting between cars for dollars, are facing insurance claims or possible lawsuits. Panhandling needs safety regulations; for protection of panhandlers, but also for vehicle operators.


    • “What’s odd is that 4 of 5 CURRENT council members already support this proposal”

      O’rly? When did that happen seeing as you haven’t had any public meetings about it yet?

      Liked by 1 person

  15. I will be very interested in Betty Chinn’s opinion on the proposed long-term shelter for the homeless. The “Eureka Citizen” group would be very wise to seek out her input, if it hasn’t already. Betty is not an empire-builder, and if the EC group has a good plan and can make it happen, I am sure she’d not only be on board, but would actively help make it happen in whatever ways she can. I know that her opinion on any policies and and initiatives related to helping the homeless counts a great deal, not only with me, but with opinion leaders and decision makers in this community. So I will definitely be watching to see what she has to say, if/when this proposal becomes public and begins moving forward.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. I also think Betty, and many of those who work with her, will be quite capable of setting aside any potential differences* over other policies (like the proposed permits-for-panhandling ordinance, which, again I think is a lousy idea, to say the least) to work together and.or voice support for a long-term shelter for the homeless. Because from what I’ve seen over the years, Betty and those who work with her are focused (as we all should be) on anything and everything that can help homeless folks improve their lives, and not on scoring political points or supporting any particular political “team.”

    (*I very much doubt Betty or very many of the folks who work with her, would support the permits-for-panhandling scheme. But since I haven’t talked with her about it, I won’t presume to say that I know for sure how she’d feel about it. But I’m confident she won’t be afraid to voice her opinion, even if it conflicts strongly with people who are at the same time trying to pull together a long-term shelter for the homeless, something I assume she would enthusiastically embrace, if it’s a good plan. That’s how grown-ups do advocacy — you work with people on the things you agree on, voice your disagreement on things you don’t agree on, and don’t let the latter undercut the former.)

    Liked by 2 people

    • You would be surprised!! Betty Chin already has safety vests available for loan to homeless when panhandling.

      Even if the ordinance only required a vest be worn, Betty Chin would probably be supportive, if only to protect the panhandlers.


  17. Verbena, again, you beat the SAME dead horse! The proposed ordinance has already passed court scrutiny as not violating any person’s rights. The courts have already ruled that communities CAN regulate the act of panhandling, as long as they do not prohibit it or free speech. Please, let the dead horse alone.


    • Legal challenges will succeed because it violates basic rights. There are already challenges in the courts that will win. I will challenge it and easily win if anyone is fool to try and make it law.

      Liked by 3 people

    • “The proposed ordinance has already passed court scrutiny as not violating any person’s rights” which is really neat except for one thing, apparently the Public doesn’t seem to support it very much other than some mysterious, anonymous bloggers who for all we know is one person with multiple fake accounts trying to pull some kind of prank on the citizens of the City of Eureka.

      Liked by 2 people

  18. Here’s what I would suggest for the Eureka Citizen group — lead with the shelter proposal. Get it done. Then spend a good deal of time at the shelter, and in outreach for the shelter, really learning about the realities of life for the city’s homeless population. Get to know people as individuals, and get to know the population as a whole. Then, if you still want to “do something” about the panhandling “problem,” at least you will be doing so from a position of some understanding (hopefully). Better yet, work with the homeless population that you will now have experience and relationships with, on addressing those aspects of panhandling that you find problematic, and see if you can’t reach some accommodations that don’t require anything as draconian as requiring panhandlers to obtain permits.

    This all assumes, of course, that the intention is to help the city as a whole, without harming it’s homeless residents in the process. If, on the other hand, the intention is to drive homeless people away with a “crackdown” approach aimed at making their already very difficult lives a bit more difficult still, then starting with something like a permits-for-panhandling ordinance and making that your top priority, would, I guess, make sense. I sincerely hope that’s not where this is coming from. Unfortunately, there’s reason to believe it may be. Eureka Citizen, please prove me wrong by taking a step back on the permits-for-panhandling thing, and move forward with the shelter idea first. Also, find someone who will publicly speak for your group. That could make a world of difference in terms of credibility.

    And yes, I am fully aware of the irony of me, an anonymous commenter posting on an anonymously-run blog, advocating for an anonymous citizen’s group to get someone in their group to put their name and reputation on the line. All I can say is that when I have recommended to the city council specific policies that I wanted to see (or not see) in an ordinance (and I have), I have used my real name in all communications with council members. I would not expect them, or anyone else, to take me seriously if I did not.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I can’t argue with the overall logic of your statement this time. Well said. As I said, I’m not an EC member, but I do understand the request to remain anonymous until all funding is obtained and project approved.

      I do remember an article here, on TE, where EC stated that their main goal of proposing the permit ordinance was to get the community stirred up and discussing the homeless problem. Perhaps that’s all that proposal was….a dialogue starter? Now that EC has gotten reaction from the community, and determined that the majority want to help, but don’t, they have come up with a solution via their power of funding donors? I’m not sure, but it’s an idea….


  19. Paul P.,

    If 4 out of 5 council members already support the proposed ordinance, they yes, it should be very easy to get it passed. But, one, I’ll take that a lot more seriously if I hear it from them, rather than from a fellow anonymous commenter on a blog. And, two, I’d hope they’d have an open mind on any such proposal at this time, given that there hasn’t even been a public hearing yet.

    Meanwhile, as to Betty already offering safety vests to prospective panhandlers, I think that’s great, I have no problem with that whatsoever. But there’s a pretty big difference between *offering* something to people to wear and *requiring* them to wear it. Not saying the latter isn’t worthy of at least being discussed…but if it is going to be discussed, there should be a very wide-ranging and thoughtful discussion, which should include homeless folks and folks like Betty who have a track record of providing effective and (for the most part) very welcome forms of help.

    I will say this — if I was going to be standing on a busy street begging, and perhaps sometimes having to approach a car to accept an offered gift, I would definitely be glad to have some kind of bright clothing. But I might feel very differently about being *required* to wear some specific item. It might feel a little like a scarlet letter. I know that may sound overly dramatic, and maybe it is…but I do think there may be an aspect of that…or at least a perception of such.

    Again, my number one suggestion to the “Eureka Citizen” group would be to back-burner any kind of panhandling-permit ordinance, and put their energy into their long-term shelter idea first. That would do wonders for their credibility and perceptions of their motives, and might also lead to the kind of direct experience and compassion and dialog that might bring less controversial and possibly more effective solutions to light.

    Liked by 3 people

    • We have made the shelter project our priority and will take your advice on shelving the permit ordinance. Perhaps offering the safety vests will be enough to improve safety.

      Liked by 1 person

  20. Eurekajim, have you ever called and set an appointment with a council member? I have, with every one of them, all within the last 30 days. I voiced MY opinion on the permit proposal; and yes, during the meetings, 4 of 5 said if researched as having passed the courts, it would be a viable ordinance to provide safety for panhandlers and the vehicle operators. THAT would be council’s main reason for passing the ordinance, to cover safety issues.


    • I see, you’re not a “Member” of EC but in the last 30 days you’ve had meetings with all the City Council members to discuss this particular issue and you claim that they’ve already made their minds up to support it.
      Sorry. I ain’t buying that one at all.

      Liked by 2 people

  21. Paul P,

    Thank you for your thoughtful 12:00 am response.


  22. Verbena: Still beating the same horse, aren’t you?


    The ordinance mainly provides safety measures, and the permit is no more restrictive than current vendor or yard sale permits.

    Challenge away, but remember, when you lose, like others have, you will be required to reimburse the government for all legal fees. That can be collected via multiple means…..


    • You clearly don’t give a shit about homeless people if you think civil rights are a ‘dead horse,’ and if you believe that a panhandling permit idea does not violate peoples’ rights. Where have you and EC been all these years while people are struggling on the streets? Probably rooting for (or being) violent cops who hurt, steal from, and beat homeless people. You certainly haven’t supported any safe sleeping spaces, advocated for humane conditions in town (bathrooms, potable water, freedom from harassment for being poor), or spoken out about safety FOR HOMELESS PEOPLE.

      Don’t recall ever having to reimburse the government for legal fees… I do remember winning more than once when I was arrested at organized safe sleeping spaces.

      Fact is, with the inhumane way you think, you will always lose.

      Blessed are those who struggle for justice.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Verbena, once again, you beat the dead horse!
      The ordinance proposal is based on current ordinances already in use by other jurisdictions and approved by state and federal courts. You continue to make the same objection, over and over. IF the ordinance is implemented, and IF you, or others, challenge it in court, get use to hearing the phrase “OVER-RULED!”, as it will be the only response to your objections in court.


  23. “4 of 5 said if researched as having passed the courts, it would be a viable ordinance…”

    Again, saying that if something can be shown to be likely to pass muster in court it would be a “viable” option is a lot different than believing that it would be the only option, the best option, or that they would definitely vote for it. So, again, given that this hasn’t even (to my knowledge) been discussed at a city council meeting, or been subjected to the public hearing process that all proposed ordinances must go through, I will wait to hear it from them before I agree with the likelihood of the EC permits-for-panhandlers proposal, or something a lot like it, passing. Way premature at this point, IMHO.

    Again, I appreciate the civil discussion, Paul P.


    • Sparky, this board understood, from the beginning, that this was a proposal to city council. It also was understood that it would require public comment before being implemented. No one ever stated that it would be forced upon citizens. In fact, EC stated, originally, that if the council did not put forward a like ordinance, they (EC) would attempt to have it placed on a city-wide ballot via petition.

      As was stated originally, EC proposed a LEGAL ordinance that has been well researched and approved by the courts as not being restrictive of civil rights. EC also stated that all processes to implement the ordinance would be taken via legal means.

      EC, with over 300 members to date, is well aware of legal processes, when making their proposals or projects.


    • My understanding is that council members have asked staff to research the proposed ordinance prior to asking for public comment. The plan is to avoid having an ordinance overturned as Arcata did.


    • Now it’s 300 members instead of 400? This groups credibility is highly suspect. Especially since it seems that only one member is commenting with multiple identities.

      Liked by 2 people

    • “Nearly 400” or “over 300”, wow, sorry for the big difference.


  24. I can see why EC dropped TE. You people, with exception of Sparky, all continue to be negative about proposed help for the homeless, while in the same breath, try to defend them while actually never doing anything about it!

    Like the Col said, you are two-faced. You don’t want anyone to actually make progress helping the homeless. If the homeless, that you “protect”, actually get help, you would no longer have anything to bitch about. You are all voice, but no action.

    Sparky, thanks for the well thought out responses. I wish you luck with the rest of TE. Bring a shovel and high waders….


    • “You don’t want anyone to actually make progress helping the homeless.”

      That’s pretty funny seeing as I was Homeless when I got here, didn’t have a job and didn’t know a soul in town,
      I guess according to you my opinion doesn’t count tho.

      I can see why EC dropped the TE too, “EC” didn’t really want any feedback from the Community, they figure that they can do whatever they want concerning their proposed ordinance without any feedback from the Community at all.
      Good luck with that, you’re going to need it.

      Liked by 2 people

    • “Like the Col said….” Uh-huh. Speaking in the third person isn’t just dishonest, it’s downright funny. Good job Colonel Paul P. Eureka Citizen Just Sayin’. You’ve managed to show your self as an adept personality shifter on a blog with no credibility. Kudos to you!

      Liked by 3 people

  25. On the safety vests issue, why not start by *offering* safety vests to panhandlers, rather than jumping right to *requiring* them. The former shows concern for their well-being, without any of the potentially negative aspects of a forced approach. Put that together with my advice for the EC group to put the shelter proposal on the front burner, and I can envision the shelter offering these vests to all clients, and trying to enlist them (very much voluntarily, of course, and certainly not as a condition of using the shelter) in outreach to other homeless folks to make them aware of the availability of safety vests (or some kind of highly-visible clothing) for any homeless person who wants them. Again, why not start with things most people can agree on, and see how much of the problem can be addressed that way? I guess it’s the left-libertarian in me (and yes, there is such a thing), but I really hate to go with mandatory approaches, when voluntary approaches have not yet been fully explored and tried. Perhaps that’s just me…but I suspect quite a few others — from various political points of view — would agree with that as a general principle.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Sparky… acknowledge in an earlier post that Betty Chin offers safety vests to panhandlers. How many do you see on the streets? Looks like the answer to the question: “how much of the problem can be addressed that way” is…..not much.


    • I suppose you would also argue that the use of headlights when driving at night, or inclement weather, should have been suggestive, rather than required by law. Correct?

      When safety is involved, suggestion is not always feasible; in this case, a regulation for vests to be worn, is the better route.


  26. Paul P,

    Though you singled me out for praise, I’m going to risk your possible disapproval by stating that I don’t think your 12:19 am critique of everyone else is entirely fair. I think a lot of folks here really do want to help the homeless, and the city as a whole, but just have a different perspective. Homelessness, panhandling, and the whole raft of issues that arise out of poverty and social dysfunction are not easy, and IMHO reasonable people can reasonably disagree about the desirability or justice of various policy proposals and priorities. This being the internet, there is of course a fair amount of unreasonable, and sometimes unnecessarily uncivil, disagreement. But, well, that comes with the territory. What works best for me is to try to find common ground where it can be found, disagree respectfully when it can’t, and move forward as best we can in that fashion. I know, I’m a bit of an idealist. I like to think I”m a “practical idealist” with a fair amount of pragmatism in my approach…but I can understand how this sort of thing may come off as naive. And there may be some truth to that, too. But between maybe being a bit idealistic/naive, and being more on the side of cynicism (from either direction), I’d rather err on the side of a little idealism. Idealism often leads the way, with pragmatism following up to “get things done,” but cynicism leads nowhere…or at least nowhere good.

    Gotta hit the sack now. Have a good night. Not going to be around my computer tomorrow morning, but will try to check in later in the day.

    Liked by 2 people

  27. “Bring a shovel and high waders.”

    Good advice for all internet comment thread participation! 😉

    Liked by 2 people

  28. Fyi- Eureka Citizen is just Chet Albin and a few friends. He can make claims about hundreds of members, but that’s just him claiming any loose associate who nodded their head when he was speaking is a “member” of the group.

    Liked by 2 people

  29. EC Member…..get used to it. The Tulatwat and it’s minions regularly post lies, then claim it is “inside information”.


    • Thanks, I had noticed.

      So much for “legitimate” journalism in the spirit of Bret Harte.

      I guess his editorial on the “massacre” was another made up lie, as well.


  30. Too bad ol’ Bret won’t do us all a favor and delete you two obnoxious trolls

    Liked by 1 person

    • That’s right, protect the lies of TE. Journalism at it’s finest.


    • Eureka Citizen, I mean Paul P, has shown the true face of what this group represents. Thank you for continuing to comment.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Apparently, my comment about the massacre was too difficult for you folks to understand, so let me put it in terms you should be able to comprehend.

      Bret Harte published the TRUTH about the massacre of the Wynots. He did so after great thought and a true desire to have the truth known.

      Here, with Tuluwat Examiner, you claim to publish and discuss topics in the “spirit of Bret Harte. Unfortunately, TE publishes before knowing facts, and then spreads lies and rumors based on partial and incorrect information.

      So much for the spirit of Bret. If TE does so in his name, then by your actions, you make him out to be a liar and rumor monger. If you truly want to keep within his ethics, then stop the lies and total misinformation.


    • Paul “Spoof Boy” P. (4:52):

      I know exactly what you meant but personally I decided to give you a taste of what it was like to say something and hear nothing in return but twisted versions said back to you.

      I hope you enjoy it.

      Liked by 1 person

    • No more bashing on P P, or EC, or Sparks or whoever this 1 person group of “300” is. His comments are a goldmine for insight into this “group”, and it’s best to keep the dialogue going so the BS proposals will be taken as seriously as they merit.

      I hate to say it, but this group may be too out there for the likes of Matthew and Virginia to support!

      Keep it coming anonymous Eureka group with 400K, your efforts are really going to bear fruit!

      Liked by 1 person

  31. Apparently the historical facts about the massacre 200 women and children and old people on Tuluwat are also just more whiny libtard spin and therefore is also bashing the poor EPD.
    Got it.
    Kudos to EC/PP et al for mining that vein as well.

    This is a proud moment for you. But you needn’t have, there was never any real question about which side you are on and which side you would have been on in 1860.

    Liked by 2 people

    • One thing I always liked about this blog was the lack of annoying trolls. Ever since this blog raise questions about a ill conceived panhandling ordnance. These EC trolls have taken over. TE will you please start deleting them?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Reader: This is listed as a public blog. I thought the point was to have varied opinions.


    • Marmaduk: Again, you and your fellow TE pals still don’t comprehend simple explainations. Is this deliberate, or did all of you quite grade school and never return?

      Go back, re-read my statement, then have your mommy or daddy try to explain it to you. Then, you will finally understand what I stated, and you will feel like the ass you truely are.


  32. Paul P said: “We have made the shelter project our priority and will take your advice on shelving the permit ordinance. Perhaps offering the safety vests will be enough to improve safety.”

    This is very welcome news! Also appreciate the details recently shared about you shelter proposal. I look forward to seeing a public announcement about the shelter, at this point it’s understandably difficult or folks on this blog, or in the public a large, to know whether this is all for real. If it is, I commend you and the group on stepping up and taking action. I also encourage you to brace yourself for the wave of negativity you’ll likely receive from the “helping the homeless just creates a ‘magnet’ for more homeless people to come here” crowd that has so viciously and unfairly attacked folks like Betty Chinn. On the bright side, if/when that happens, you may find that many of the same people who have reacted so negatively to the proposed panhandling ordinance will rally to your side on the shelter issue. At least I very much hope so.

    Liked by 1 person

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