Mystery group Eureka Citizen reveals some details of their plan


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.

The plans call for the following:

  1. A) Intake dorm for 25 men
  2. B) Intake dorm for 25 women

The dorms are for initial intake processing; health evaluations, initial program registration, etc. These areas are more for the protection of the majority of residents from possibilities such as lice or other medical transmissions. Also, single men and women will be evaluated for roommate compatibility, medical needs, etc.

  1. C) 10 Small studio apartments for couples without children

Studies have found that separating married couples in shelters, based on a lack of children, puts undue stress on the relationship and difficulty obtaining joint services. Initially, childless couples would be separated in the intake dorms for the same evaluations as singles, and for verification of marital status.

  1. D) 25 standard 2 bedroom apartments for families with children. Families will be immediately placed in apartments for initial intake evaluation and for long term stays.
  2. E) 60 Townhouse, 2 story units

These units will have 4 bedrooms, 2 baths, and a small kitchenette. Units are designed for roommate style living; 2 upper bedrooms with shared bath, 2 lower bedrooms with shared bath. Kitchenette will have small individual dorm style refrigerators (4), and 2 microwaves. Kitchenettes are for use as personal use “snack” facilities, as a full cafeteria style kitchen, serving 3 meals per day, will provide meals for the entire complex.

  1. F) 20 Senior/Handicap Studios

These units will be for seniors and single handicapped individuals. Also for special need individuals

Resident facilities, other than residential services:

  1. A) Full cafeteria dining hall and kitchen. Provides full meal service, 3 times per day, for the entire complex. Kitchen facility will also be used for classroom/training facility for culinary arts program.
  2. B) Computer learning center:

Facility designed for continuing education for GED, job training, and general computer use for job seekers. Computer center will also serve as an additional facility for computer training and for social services applications.

  1. C) Full laundry facility
  2. D) Daycare Facility and After School Facility

Provide full daycare and pre-K center. After school programs for resident children

  1. E) Various office facilities for combined social service programs.

At present there are separate locations, throughout Eureka, for programs such as WIC, SNAP, DHSS, Medi-Cal, etc. Offices will be provided for these services to be located on-site for ease and speed of qualifying residents for services. We will attempt to include services that the MAC will eventually drop for families.

  1. F) Medical Clinic

Clinic will process initial intake evaluations, outpatient care, and pediatrics. Additionally, facility will provide mental health services. AA, NA and other addiction services will also be available for all shelter residents.

  1. G) Kennel facilities for resident pet owners

All dogs owned by residents will be kennel kept; no in resident pets allowed. Vet services will be offered as needed; all resident pets will be required to have full vaccinations and be spayed/neutered in order to qualify. Pets must remain on leashes at all times, except while in kennel day care facility. Service dogs will be allowed, with City of Eureka license and ADA requirements.

This project does NOT include religious services, but will be capable of providing offices and facilities for services as requested by residents.

Drug use and alcohol use by residents will automatically disqualify individuals from the residential facility.

The overall development is designed to be a combination facility offering “Shelter style facilities” during intake processing, Rapid Housing style facilities via roommate units and family units. Senior/Handicap facilities for elderly and handicap residents. Also, some of the family units will fall under the same style that the MAC currently provides.

Most of the facility services will be provided by residents as a condition of qualification. Kitchen duties, facility grounds-keeping, facility laundry, etc. will be performed by residents as part of job training and/or condition of residency.

Overall, the facility will have up to 45 full time employee positions plus additional part time positions.

We are still trying to obtain adequate property for the facility. Then construction and staffing will be determined.

It is possible that the facility will combine services with Betty Chin, but details have not been completed.

There has been quite a bit of legwork and research done to design a facility where residents can comfortably live while making progress toward self-sufficiency.

To date, total raised toward construction: $3.56 million.

Total raised for operations: Annual commitments of $1.85 million.

Estimated construction cost: $5.5 million

Estimated annual operations: $2.2 million

IF you have constructive recommendations, please let us know.

Again, this is a combination facility modeled after new programs, such as those in use in Utah, and other large shelter programs in use in San Diego, Dallas, and Tampa Bay. Eureka Citizen members have toured facilities in each of these locations to assist in design of facility and services offered.



60 thoughts on “Mystery group Eureka Citizen reveals some details of their plan

  1. This seems very ambitious for a private group in this area to be able to accomplish. Since no organizers with demonstrated ability and commitment to see this through have identified themselves, I have doubts.

    I also have doubts that private individuals here with financial ability have made the financial commitments cited. It took over a year to raise $1M for an airline fund. And that’s not a donation. The sponsors will receive airline flights for their money. The sponsors also weren’t mostly individuals. They’re companies, non-profits, foundations, and organizations like HSU.

    There actually is more than enough private money in the community to fund this vision. But the people who own that money have consistently and publicly called for dealing with homelessness as a criminal offense by enacting restrictive laws and funding more law enforcement.

    Two things about the idea struck me though. If alcohol/drug use is a disqualified for residence, how can someone with drug/alcohol dependency be served? Stopping drug/alcohol use doesn’t happen in an instant. Requiring that isn’t practical. Another thing lacking is the plan to help people not disabled to obtain and hold jobs. A ‘computer learning center’ is hardly adequate to structure daily schedules for people reintegrating into society. Finally, many homeless people are disabled and unable to work. Is this long term housing for disabled people?

    Liked by 4 people

    • As with any rehabilitation program, we would not expect individuals to be 100% clean/sober upon initial enrollment.

      The restrictions would apply once intake is in process and they qualify for residential quarters.


    • Following the program offered in San Diego, we plan to have a 2 year max residency program. Exceptions are possible. For disabled persons, we would hope to partner with long term disabled housing before the 2 year maximum is approached.


    • I’m sorry Paul P., but you haven’t adequately addressed my doubt about the practicalities of addressing the needs of homeless people who are drug/alcohol dependent. If they can’t be housed while still being drug/alcohol dependent, then they won’t be served by your concept. You’re using vague jargon such as “once intake is in process” has no meaning because no plan of operation has been published. Its evasive, at best.

      And the subject of occupational rehabilitation was unaddressed. So, far, all that’s been put on offer is “it will be…”, and “we will do…”.

      So with no actual written procedures document coupled to dedicated resources and capabilities available that can implement it, the whole thing could easily just be a imaginary idea pipe dream. Time for you to put up or shut up.

      Liked by 1 person

    • NAN: The details of the program services have only just begun to be formed. Our primary focus, for now, is obtaining funding commitments for the project. As we begin construction, we will finalize the programs. Rehab services will be ironed out, employers willing to offer job training will be recruited, etc.

      As we stated, these are programs we plan to offer; we do not have details set in stone, as this is still in proposal stage.


    • Native: Simple question for you: If you had a rental unit available, would you be willing to take on a tenant that has no plans to give up their addictions, or a person who makes a commitment toward rehab, remains in a program for 30 days to prove that commitment, and then applies to you for housing?

      Drug/Alcohol use will not be permitted in the long-term units. In order to be assigned to long-term housing, individuals with drug/alcohol problems will remain in the intake dorms, until they start, and succeed, at entering rehab services. Upon a minimum 30 day completion of rehab services, and if they remain drug/alcohol free, they then qualify for long-term units.

      The entire facility is for use by those persons who want to end their homelessness and/or drug/alcohol use and want to improve their lives through rehab, skills training, and job placement. We want this to be a progressive facility that truly helps persons who want to improve.

      Those persons who have no desire to self-improve, want to remain on drugs/alcohol, or don’t want to join the general society (with the same rules we all follow), won’t work out at this facility. This facility can’t possibly house every homeless person in Eureka. What it can do is house and help those persons who have the desire to end their additions and homelessness via self-improvement and success.


    • Eureka Citizen, Well, the local people who are assuring us the North Coast Railroad will be in operation as soon as they ‘obtain funding commitments for the project’ are also blocking use of the rail bed by others. Many say they’re tyrants, demanding their way or no way.

      On the one hand you write “The details of the program services have only just begun to be formed.” while in the very next post you give all sorts of details as if they have been fully formed. You’re inconsistent, and that goes to reducing your credibility. When someone has all sorts of tiny details but no basic elements in place, it indicates they are dreamers and wannabes. Especially when they are anonymous and put no personal reputation at stake.

      So no, I’ll not discuss any more tiny minutiae about what you say you will do, because its pointless. You do something tangible, you get recognition and support. Until then, peddle your papers elsewhere. What you’re doing is a distraction at best. And at worst it harms the interests of homeless people because it takes focus away from helping them in favor of just talking about helping them.

      Liked by 2 people

    • I’m sure Eureka Citizen is heartbroken that NAN won’t be speaking to him anymore.


  2. How are you going to find 25 homeless people that don’t do drugs. Those are some of the ones that need this kind of intervention the most.

    Liked by 1 person

    • We do not expect every person that wishes to enter the programs to be 100% clean/sober when they enter intake. Upon initial evaluation, and determining their goals, programs will be offered for their particular needs. Intake times will vary per individual.

      The 100% clean/sober requirement will apply to all permanent residents; permanent housing will be offered to those who, if they entered will drug problems, have completed the required drug free time and continue with rehab.

      All residents will have to remain drug/alcohol free to qualify for permanent housing options. Drug use by residents would automatically require an eviction from the facility.


  3. And yet, if it’s for real, it would be a huge help for some of the people in our area who need help. Not every approach will solve every problem, but I certainly hope the claim that people are working on a facility like this one is real.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. How bout remodeling the downtowner motel that McKinney owned? Plenty of rooms


  5. If all this is for real then it’s definitely a giant step in the right direction. Other than my recommending your changing your PR approach you might have something here.

    But, as I have noted elsewhere… the Devil is in the Details.

    I share Not a Native’s skepticism about the money claimed to be raised but we will find out soon if those capital pledges are solid or not.

    And I note that elsewhere Eureka Citizen (or the Paul P. version, anyway) is contemplating dropping the panhandler plan, at least for now. That I also find acceptable.

    Again, assuming all of this is for real. We shall see.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I agree. If this is a real proposal and works out, this would be a good project for Eureka.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Mola: Yes, we are dropping the permit ordinance proposal, at this time.

      In our opinion, if we can focus on the shelter proposal, get it developed and operational, then the ordinance would not be needed as an overall reduction in panhandling would occur naturally.

      We have had our differences of opinion on the ordinance issue, but perhaps with the shelter/program project, we can still accomplish our (yours and ours) goals together, without any problems.

      Liked by 2 people

  6. Well Mitch, the longer this goes on as a nebulous list of maybes by unidentified people, the less real and the more of a distraction it becomes. Obtaining resources such as a site to locate a NIMBY project can’t happen by leaking it publicly way in advance of open support by community leaders.

    There are good reasons projects this large aren’t typically announced before some basic conditions have been established though confidential negotiations. Potential site owners will seek to increase the asking price of their land, potential neighbors will organize to oppose it. Potential donors want to know their money won’t go to inflated costs due to prematurely revealed intentions.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I don’t disagree, NaN.

      I don’t understand why people would put this out there if it’s all smoke and mirrors, but neither do I understand why the initial response has been so negative. Perhaps there is power chess being played, but I’m unable to follow it.

      It would be very exciting to see a private group actually put together something to help people in a way that was independent of DHHS’ top managers. But, yes, this could all be some power politics scam. I can’t tell.

      Liked by 3 people

    • The reason for the initial negative response is simple….it was backed by business owners. It goes against the perception that those with money refuse to share, and must be evil.


    • “To date, total raised toward construction: $3.56 million.”..anybody believe this?

      and then ‘pledged’..etc etc…so the writer made the distinction right there.

      And no one with a recognizable name has put themselves out there as a donor or an anything to do with EC. That is pretty amazing that not one of the 300 ‘members’ has been unable to contain themselves about their good works…and in such a small town as this, too.

      and, of course, it sounds good, it was supposed to.

      And may something similar come to pass.

      Liked by 3 people

    • whatever the Plan, this is all for laying the groundwork against anybody with any questions, especially the supporters will be programmed then to holler NIMBY at them and ‘because we have 300 members, STFU hippie.’

      This blather and bibble babble is all groundwork for the inevitable ‘debate’ to come…it’s called immunizing the debate…that since
      ‘it’s been argued online
      learn to read
      get a life
      you don’t get it
      we’ve been all over that
      endless whining(why do we waste time with it, I am sooo
      tired of it)
      this is why we can’t have nice things
      don’t look a gift horse in the mouth

      … therefore you, whiner, are way too late so sit down.’

      And don’t forget the junior high catchall..’what’s your positive alternative then!’..(you mean other than taking a public park, building on a wetland, building next to or on top of a school?)…other than that does anybody have any belief that The Plan won’t be for a site along the waterfront and probably in Old Town and be a big concession for this good idea?

      Back room deals, steamrolling the inevitable public questions, astroturf groups, unsubstantiated claims, all of this is standard lobbying activity, and it costs somebody money…so…follow the money, again.

      Remember, there are two developers…no wait, now NO developers in EC…

      The best possible spin they could put on it would be ‘they are investing in the community’..the usual would be I have this empty building/lot inconveniently zoned/in a wetland/next to…..etc etc

      Also in the lobbyist/manipulator toolkit things like this are often followed by a petition signed by the residents of an old folks home somewhere…or actually busing them to a public meeting to hold signs.

      Otherwise, besides the cloudy history of this group, the panhandling nonsense, the attack on Chief Mills calling for him to resign and the EPD to be taken over by the CHP…yeah, I know, but there it was by both versions of ‘EC’…so …..too much wackiness for me to yet trust it.

      I stay hopeful in the long run…we’ll see.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Mitch, I won’t speculate on the reasons the person making these announcements is doing it. If I did, it could be perceived as being negative and that’s not my thinking. I’m doubtful.

      But if this keeps getting attention with nothing substantive being shown, it will be a distraction and disincentive to people who have other ideas to do things to reduce the incidence of homelessness. Essentially, its now taking up the oxygen of the public discussion, encouraging others to hold their breath.

      Liked by 2 people

    • We have already been in negotiations for potential sites.

      At this time, the site we are considering is not in a residential neighborhood, nor is it on the bay front; we are trying to avoid residential backlash and would prefer that the waterfront remain useful for all residents of Eureka.

      We opted to remain anonymous due to past projects in Eureka being planned, but never accomplished, due to investors backing out after encountering public resistance.

      The majority of our donor commitments are not from Eureka, but have potential future investments in the area. In our seeking donations, we realized that local businesses, while tired of the homeless problem, lost faith in the local leadership to make corrective progress. Our fundraising efforts turned to outside interests that would like to do business in Eureka, but have avoided doing so due to the homeless and drug/crime problems. These outside donors hope, that this will improve Eureka and make moving to the area a more sound investment; donating to help, prior to entering the market area, is a much smaller risk than spending to enter a market with problems and failing to gain solid footing and having to withdraw.

      Again, our main reason for announcing our proposal, at such an early stage, was to gauge the community support and therefore additional outside donors to the project. If the community will support this type of project, then donors are a bit more open with funding.


    • What local programs, supported by local government, are currently in the working stages that our proposal is distracting from?

      The City of Eureka has no other plan to help the homeless; they keep studying the problem, but have done nothing to help improve the situation.
      The Board of Supervisors plan is to take the one government funded program that is working, and end it’s family oriented mission with a radical change to target single men with additions. That’s a plan for the greater good? It’s a money grab; they know that they can pack more single men into the MAC and receive additional funds from government grants. Then, they can divert those funds to other pet projects by loosely claiming it is related to the program. That’s a plan you can support? Right?

      Betty Chin has succeeded in helping as many as her small facility can and we commend her for her progress and successes. But, her facility can not keep up with the growing homeless population; the homeless population is growing faster than any other group in the area.

      People want rapid re-housing, but in order to do that, you need the rental units. Where will those come from. Most home/apartment owners are not willing to take on the risks by volunteering their properties. For the government to build the properties, where would the funding come from and how soon would it be available? With the government processes, 3-5 years until a project could be developed and operational.

      So, in short, what other options are available?

      Only a privately run facility, such as our proposed project, will provide the housing and the services to help the homeless on all fronts, not just a roof.

      We, as Eureka Citizen, can not afford to fail in this endeavour. Therefore, we do not plan to seek government funding for development, construction, or operations of the facility. The facility will be run as a charitable non-profit. The only government funding/grants to be requested will be from residents as they apply for assistance via their assistance programs.

      Hopefully, the Eureka community can support this project and eventually see the overall improvements it will provide to the entire city.


    • There has been a regular effort locally to establish some kind of campground space where basic sanitation and security services would be provided at nominal cost to the public. Existing social services would be used more efficiently because clients have a fixed place, and there would be less need for police services due to complaints of homeless people in unpermitted areas and trash/human waste.

      This non-proposal, couched in very conservative terms(no government involvement, would you allow them in YOUR home?) is a way to pretend to be an alternative to a well run campground by taking discussion away from that very realistic proposal in favor of a pipe dream.

      Now campgrounds don’t provide housing but they do provide opportunity and reduce the conflicts within the community. And they make it possible for the legal system to focus on the truly disruptive and antisocial individuals instead of wasting time criminalizing those who are just different, individualistic loners, or without resources

      Liked by 1 person

  7. I like this concept and think it could become a model for smaller/regional population centers.

    The construction budget could be stretched if one of several empty buildings were rehabbed. The old Safeway, the old Raleys and the old Blockbuster locations come to mind. All are near services and transportation links.

    Are the Feds involved in this? HUD, VA, Dept of Ag would be likely sources for funding.

    Are our Congress reps onboard and ready to help find funds? (This is Boxers last term. She may be willing to donate from her left over reelection PACs & funds.).

    Are you working with Gov Brown? This kind of idea is a good fit for his POV. He may be willing to champion it within the state. Brown could help get state depts to make this project a priority.

    In addition these political leaders may be willing to serve as honorary chairs and help give fundraising a shot in the arm.

    Unfortunately there isn’t enough private funding in the area for this size of a project, but there is enough private money for individual pieces. Naming rights for the kitchen could get top $.

    I appreciate wanting to keep the first draft of this idea within a small circle, but it’s now time to start putting together a larger public group of advisors.

    Best of luck.


    • There has never been a Raleys in Humboldt county.
      The old Safeway is about to be another hardware store
      The blockbuster idea would be shot down by ALL surrounding businesses instantly

      Liked by 1 person

    • Zoner: We do not wish this to become a political “feather in the cap” issue. Nor, do we plan on selling “naming rights”. The donor commitments we have secured are mainly from outside interests that would like to enter the Eureka area market. Eureka has lost it’s base of income (logging/fishing), for the most part. If Eureka is to improve the economy, outside business ventures and manufacturing have to be recruited. Unfortunately, those ventures will not approach the area under current conditions of homelessness, drug use, and crime. Those same ventures are willing to make this small investment of a shelter program, in the hopes it will improve the overall basics of the city, and improve the chances of making larger business investments to the area.

      We all know that good paying jobs are needed in the area. But, in order to attract those jobs, we have to have an attractive area for them to want to come to. Our civic leadership has “put the cart before the horse” for some time; trying to get cruise ship terminals, and other tourist based businesses to the area, but have not focused on cleaning up the area to make it attractive.

      Our approach is simple: We are recruiting businesses that want to be here, but have not made the investment due to Eureka’s blighted conditions. A small investment toward making improvements, makes the larger investment more viable in the long term.

      Some may be negative about business investment into the project; there is no direct profit from this project, since it will be run as a non-profit. The “profit” these donors seek is in a cleaner, safer Eureka so that their future business ventures, including manufacturing and services, can be successful.

      As this project develops toward full operational status, our corporate donors will come forward, upon seeing the overall improvements in Eureka, to announce further investments into the business community.

      We have all seen that civic leadership has failed to correct these problems and that these problems have harmed the overall growth of the local economy. Additionally, the money is not available from government to accomplish a project of this size and potential. Everyone wants jobs that pay good wages, a safe community, and a growing economy, correct? What we currently have in Eureka is not working toward those goals, nor without major changes, will Eureka ever obtain those goals. Since local interests are unwilling to make the difference, we chose to go to outside interests that want to be in Eureka.

      Let us know if we are on the right track. If not, then let us know if you have a better, locally financed plan that can accomplish the same goals.

      We will continue with making this project work for Eureka.


    • If the program is a success, and some of the backers are what the locals consider “big box” businesses, would they be welcomed to open stores or operations? Might be an interesting scenario.


  8. Are these people serious? 🙂


  9. Oops, sorry, I meant to forward.


  10. Lot of talk, no action from the mysterious EC. NAN, if they can raise the money they claim, they have the political muscle. Announcing it publicly will not derail it. I do not take this group seriously. They go back and forth whether they like TE or not and have not contacted, their words not mine, “legitimate outlets”. They like the attention but no accountability.

    If they can raise this kind of money, why not just pay rent for a few months and get people off the streets? Then they can truly be self-sufficient. Something smells rotten.


  11. Eureka Citizen and Paul P.,
    This is exciting, every bit of housing helps. Quick tally puts this at about 300 to 325 adults plus children, is that right? That is a little less than about half the Eureka homeless in the 2013 Point-in-time count (although I helped with the Eureka count and there were a good number that declined to participate).

    You didn’t mention what the rent will be. Did the places you visited with a two year residency limit indicate how successful have they been with remaining transitional, and did they have a program for residents to accumulate the deposit that will be required for their next home?

    Please reconsider the drug and alcohol ban and consider a behavior code instead, and a community based grievance process.

    The mix of ages will provide more of a community feel to it.

    As this is all in the future, would you all support sanctuary camps in the meantime? There are people who are camping out illegally because they have no other option…

    Liked by 1 person

  12. An anonymous blog writing about an anonymous group funded by anonymous stating they will provide a services for anonymous. What are you all so afraid of? Otherwise this is all just plain silly.
    People need to work together and stop being so secretive and fearful.

    Liked by 4 people

  13. “There has been quite a bit of legwork and research done to design a facility where residents can comfortably live while making progress toward self-sufficiency.” EC

    Unfortunately for many “progress toward self-sufficiency” means “being evicted from shelter the moment an individual is arbitrarily and capriciously deemed able to make a rent payment”.

    Utah has already proven that when they gift homeless people small independent apartments they are immediately self-sufficient at far less costs to the community than homelessness, or the costs of condemning flop houses. New Zealand has successfully offered this for its indigent residents for decades. Only a minority requires more intensive rehabilitation.

    Statistically, 25% of rural populations already suffer addiction problems, indigent, or not. EC lost me with their ludicrous panhandling ordinance and identification patch.

    Regardless of whether this is a real project, the public needs to demand that actual solutions to homelessness are acknowledged by local government that should be estimating those costs and applying for the grants (yesterday) to get these free apartments going now!

    Serving the emergency is great as long as we know we are also serving the solution, otherwise, EC’s doubling of existing shelter space will need to be doubled again soon enough.

    Liked by 3 people

  14. Ok EC if you are serious:
    1) A program is as good as its staff. Finding and keepibg skilled staff in direct service jobs is not easy. Being able to reach people and at the same time provide a safe and structured environment is not easy
    2) Anything other than clean and sober would be a free-for-all. It is well known drugs are used at the MAC and if people are flat-out caught they are kicked out. But the reality is that a lot of people are using. However, you need to prevent active addicts from being dangerous around other people and their children when high or drug-seeking. Plus in close quarters there are bound to be sales then fights. You need a few draconian rules in a shelter to keep people moving down the road if they are not ready to make it work. And this sounds like transitional livibg/shelter programs, not really rapid rehousing. “Shared apartments” might work, but they might not.


    • As stated, active drug use will not be tolerated at this facility. There can be no exceptions when the overall safety of shelter residents would be jeopardized.


  15. Not a Native:

    We included details of the programs we will offer, based on our research at other facilities we visited and based on what really works to help these people.

    The working on the details takes into account the resistance we have encountered from County and City Services.

    In all other programs/projects of this type, the social services divisions have jumped in to ensure all project residents get all the help they need. Here, in Eureka, both county and city services are resisting by saying they will only assist those individuals who travel throughout the multiple offices in the correct order; missing an appointment restarts the application process.

    We have our plan, and, if necessary, we will deploy a shuttle service to ensure shelter residents make all necessary appointments.


  16. Just Watch’n: Well, that does it! Without support from “Not a Native”, we will have to give up the proposed shelter project!


  17. A lot of this sounds very promising. The proof, of course, will be in the pudding. Here’s to the hope that this pudding (a) actually comes into existence, and (b) is as tasty and nutritious as advertised. 😉

    But in the meantime, it’s understandable that there’s a healthy dose of skepticism here. After all, we’re being told that there is a group of hundreds of citizens, all of whom are maintaining perfect public silence about their involvement, and that outside corporations have donated and/or pledged millions of dollars with the hope of improving the situation in Eureka and Humboldt so that they can invest and open new businesses here someday. This implies that other than the homelessness issue, Eureka and Humboldt are seen as excellent opportunities for investment and profit by these corporations, which is not immediately, intuitively obvious why this would be, given our small population, relative geographic isolation, transportation issues, etc.

    I will say that the most convincing aspect of the communications from “Eureka Citizen,” “Paul P,” etc., is that someone does seem to have done their homework as to what a much-improved temporary-to-long-term shelter situation might look like. I sincerely hope that means that the rest of it is real. But until the group comes forward publicly to share their plans, timetable, etc. (with at least some spokesperson willing to use their real name) and until there is some tangible sign of progress towards their goals, people are naturally going to retain some healthy skepticism. It would be kind of crazy not to.

    Liked by 3 people

  18. Let me tell you my anonymous plan to … Force people to submit finger prints or DNA to acquire a business license… my plan to force pan handlers to gain a permit or go to jail… with a fingerprint or DNA submission for a panhandling permit.. Let me tell you about how great the Illuminati is at giving millions of dollars to a person who gets their planning ideas from a 27th level Sorcerer…
    LOL, Eureka Citizen is pure comedy gold, or possibly engaging in a little Discordian theater. Definitely a lot of windbag schemes from an anonymous source, that earlier stated that they were no longer using this blog for making press announcements.
    “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.”
    – Eureka Citizen 01/29/2015

    I guess that was only until LoCo stopped publishing Eureka Citizen lunacy? Eureka Citizen is so funny I setup a Google alert to notify me whenever they post new material.


  19. “Therefore, we do not plan to seek government funding for development, construction, or operations of the facility.”

    …makes me very nervous. There are many reasons to avoid government funding, many or most of them illiberal. Things I worry about is the “pet projects” that Eureka Citizen purports is a problem with government. I don’t disagree at all times for all projects, but I hope Eureka Citizen would agree that accountability is greater with Government than without – except by those in the know.

    Focusing on a large project will help local large scale developers. It seems to me this is something we should be paying attention to. I hope we work toward solutions that insure we are not segregating our community further. I will be one of the voices against NIMBYism. As we plan for growth, we do need to all make what may seem like sacrifices. In the long run, if we don’t approach development, including necessary affordable housing, whether privately or publicly funded, holistically, we’ll continue the inequitable, unsustainable and disturbing growth pattern’s of California’s past.

    Also, I am a defender of our local religious institutions trying to join projects to help the homeless and disenfranchised in our community, but there is value to those who may not be a part of this or that creed to have facilities and programs enlisted by public OR private support to be non-denominational. Has this subject been addressed?

    Finally, Carol, I couldn’t agree more.

    Liked by 1 person

    • You don’t happen to work for DHHS, do you?


    • Hey Bozo, we’re all NIMBY’s on this bus.

      Jon, I’d like to crank at you about you saying

      I will be one of the voices against NIMBYism. As we plan for growth, we do need to all make what may seem like sacrifices.

      This naked attempt to pre-program any planning process, it is really back room deal making with a planning process rubber stamped. It mocks public input..and will use these long online dialogs as proof, irony of ironies.

      People who are affected will be tasked with some cost to them of this project, they certainly have a voice and a right to question something like this, especially as now paved with this goofy PR move to make everyone so ready to jump in a obvious attempt to pressure, subvert, and disrupt any normal democratic process. ECetc says there will be public hearings..yeah right, after the back room deals have been made and the appearance of ‘listening’ must be made. That’s NOT community planning, that’s a clown show, a farce, a pastiche of civics.

      If this was a court case it would be jury tampering.

      I am shocked you seem so ready to let monied people trample anyone affected, especially as something like this certainly would never be considered for better neighborhoods. Ever.

      A homeless shelter will have neighbors,

      They/we will be affected.

      There/our property values will be affected.

      We cannot dismiss and mock their/our concerns.

      Calling someone a NIMBY is fighting words, just so you know.

      We’re all NIMBYs on this bus.

      We need a good decision making process.
      I have experience with a bad one, the siting of a homeless shelter actually.
      I have family still there and it is still a bitter ongoing issue 25 years later with most of that part of town still being wracked with turmoil from a poor subverted arm twisted planning process for a local small homeless shelter….in fact much smaller than this one in a town much larger than Eureka.
      Decentralizing such facilities is one way of spreading the load this sheltering makes on any neighborhood it goes into, costs and flexibility would be a benefit instead of the mega footprint of a giant institution and how it would impact changes around it.

      anyway, I know your hearts in the right place.

      Liked by 2 people

  20. The Feb 7, 2:11 am post by “Eureka Citizen’ has convinced me this is a total scam.

    I wish what Eureka Citizen describes represents the way the world works: a group of corporate citizens from outside a community, deciding they would invest in the community if only its homeless problem was solved, and so investing in a non-profit to invest in the community.

    Unfortunately, that is so completely not the way the world works that anyone peddling this is full of **it.

    Outside corporate interests do not move into a community to make it better; they move into a community because they think they can make money from it. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, if they make money by employing people at fair wages while using the community’s natural resources sustainably. Does that sound like Maxxam? Does that sound like Wal-mart?

    I might believe it if a group of wealthy people who were already located here somehow decided to do the right thing for a change, and decided to try to solve the homeless problem in a positive way, rather than trying to move the homeless out. That would pleasantly surprise me, but I’d still be suspicious, and look for the hidden motive. But a group of outsiders deciding to solve Eureka’s problems so they can invest in it. Sorry, just not happening.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I agree that’s the hardest-to-believe part of this story. Next-hardest is that there are 300-400 members of this group, all of which have maintained complete secrecy about their involvement. Either one of these would be hard to believe on their own, but even harder to believe both. But…we shall see. On the other hand, stranger things have happened in this world. On the other, other hand…not very frequently.

      Liked by 2 people

  21. I do sparky and would be honored to lose my job to more effective means of distributing aid. It’s what we got and it has survived many attempts by monied interests to diminish it’s work. HumCo’s DHHS is the front lines of Federal and State programs to help the needy and it does a good job of doing what it is tasked to do. I’m proud to work there and with the extremely competent people I’ve met during my first year there. Thanks for asking.

    Liked by 1 person

    • “it does a good job of doing what it is tasked to do”

      Not sure how one would confirm or refute this claim. I get that you believe it, but perhaps you can understand why others may not. Personally I’m agnostic on this point. Certainly agree there are some great people working for DHHS, as I’ve met and worked with some. Higher-ups…I’m not so sure about that part. Not sure how I would even judge that, or anyone would. The problems DHHS is tasked with addressing are so difficult, and their causes are in some cases so far beyond the control of anyone in Humboldt that even failing to make much progress on them doesn’t necessarily mean the leadership of DHHS is at fault. Which makes it pretty hard to assign either credit or blame. Which, in turn, makes accountability pretty hard.

      Liked by 1 person

      • “and their causes are in some cases so far beyond the control of anyone in Humboldt” Exactly.

        The problems, the politics, the ethics of what the DHHS does is more often than not above our paid grades, even of the 5 Supervisors much of the time. I would think that a different County leadership over the past 10 to 20 years would have been reflected in a different DHHS tact to leadership as well.

        As only Nixon could have gone to China, possibly only a conservative BOS could have made the significant changes in that have been made at the front lines of the DHHS that I see?

        What I see now is generally pretty good. I don’t disagree with what you’ve wrote.

        The DHHS is an inherently political bureaucracy which will always have it’s critics. It is the front lines of the political divide that divides those believing we can have a great society and those that want market forces, non-profits, and boot-strap-pulling to be our society’s safety nets.

        But this seems to me to be off topic. Sorry all.

        Liked by 1 person

  22. sparky,

    I worked for DHHS something like ten years ago. I agree that many of the direct service workers were wonderful, perhaps some of the lowest level managers were as well. I also need to say that it was my first experience of working for a county government (though not my first experience of working alongside government).

    I’d never seen anything with a more completely awful set of managers, and still haven’t. I have viewed it since as a total loss, acting the way it does with the full support of powerful interests both liberal-brand and conservative-brand, and this has definitely colored my view of those who think problems can be solved with more money given to gubmint.

    That’s part of why I don’t think either liberal-brand or conservative-brand solutions are likely to work.

    If Liberal Jon is anything like representative of the extreme liberal position, then that position represents a refusal to see the obvious, in the name of a very kind and compassionate ideology. DHHS management is what you get, because it sucks money out of the federal government at minimum cost to locals, and then refuses to use that money to help poor people, because its management basically loathes poor people, as became obvious to me from my first day of work there — DHHS management exists to get itself well paid without costing the general fund money, knowing that it will lose its support base if it costs locals money.

    But most conservatives are simply misnamed selfish people, who are not so much interested in solving the problems as in refusing to take any responsibility for dealing with them. Thus the groups that want to expel the homeless, or make their lives more miserable rather than less, in hope they self-deport, as Mittens would put it.

    There are some people, generally labeled conservative, who genuinely want to help people, are willing to pay what is necessary to do so, but who recognize that existing government bureaucracies have not just failed but are doomed to fail for structural reasons.


  23. The big problem at DHHS is its director Phillip R. Crandall.
    He’s only interested in keeping and consolidating his power.
    Under his rule that department has almost no bang for the buck.


    • …and this is really well known throughout Humboldt County, yet Crandall remains.

      All Jon would have to do to convince me DHHS had a chance would be to give me one name of someone at the Assistant Deputy level or above who would do the right thing for poor people at the risk of eliminating their chances for a rise through Crandall’s power structure.

      He can’t do that. Even if he could, unless he is stupid, he wouldn’t, because it would damage his friend’s chances within the agency.

      But I don’t think the problem is Crandall — he’s a symptom. Go one level up to the Board of Supervisors to get closer to the problem. But you’re still not there, because there have been “liberal” boards and “conservative” boards, yet Crandall remains. So it’s a level “up” from the Board of Supervisors, which is either the voting population of the county or the small set of people who are able to form and support public opinion.

      This county has so many problems, such incredibly bad policies, and I view them as being created and nurtured by whoever has real power in the county. Somebody is making money, or at least not losing it, due to the county’s problems.


  24. Marm – 2/8/14 @ 9pm.

    We don’t disagree on the inappropriateness of railroading the process to favor profiteers OR to dump on the disenfranchised.

    Which is exactly why it’s so important that we do allow for a process that will make the best possible decision. Sometimes that means good people will have a hazardous waste incinerator downwind from them, windmills or tidal energy generators within view.

    I didn’t mean NIMBY mockingly, I take the idea very seriously and I understand that it will rightfully be a hurdle public plans necessarily will have to clear.

    And this is an important question from the junior high school “’what’s your positive alternative then!’.”

    The answer should be to find a process a majority free of favor can agree with, involve experts and learn from experiences of history in our community and others and reach for solutions that will maximize the benefits and minimize the negatives.

    Blah, blah blah, but I’ll give you an example from your experience. That shelter had to be placed somewhere. If this was an example of those in power – ie those in the nice neighborhoods placing this shelter in what they considered expendable, that’s wrong.

    But to say, not in my neighborhood, but that other one over there makes it just as wrong. In the end, it will be the most disenfranchised to who will get that shelter.

    The solution? One thing would be to make sure the shelter or housing is first class and fits into the characteristic of the neighborhood. Create programs that work so the community can be part of an exciting solution bringing more, not less, interest into the community. This will cost money, which is really where the political battles are currently being waged, and those that don’t want to spend money on others that have suffered under the inequitable economic structures money has wrought on our country are currently the ones railroading the process.

    Long story short, NIMBY is a problem for liberals and we do need to come up with the answers to that junior high question.

    Like you alluded to, the answer is, we are us and we need to have processes to make these difficult solutions. We agree that the model Eureka Citizen is demonstrating is extremely wanting.

    Last thing…I’d like to point out this paradox which really gets to the crux of the problem…

    “I am shocked you seem so ready to let monied people trample anyone affected, especially as something like this certainly would never be considered for better neighborhoods. Ever.”

    and …”A homeless shelter will have neighbors. They/we will be affected. There/our property values will be affected.”

    These are monied interests too, just, presumably, from those with less money than many of the power players in this chess match.

    Globally, we are still growing and still addicted to all these consumer goods and highly differentiated labor/capital payments/rewards. Until we change this we should strive to make sure we solve problems based on the large picture – not on the narrow, myopic ones.

    I for one would rather live in a neighborhood/town/state and country that contains and addresses it’s problems rather than one that passes them along to that other community downstream.

    Sorry for the long response, but you really hit the nail on the head of an important divide that needed addressing – and I appreciate your response. This will obviously be an ongoing conversation in HumCo and will be at the heart, if not always discussed openly, of many of our public planning processes.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. In case anyone here hasn’t seen it yet:

    Someone claiming to represent “Eureka Citizen” replied in that comment thread:

    Eureka Shelter 2015! Mercy Me, Mabel! • an hour ago
    Actually, the balloon tract requires that any project placed there be associated with the waterfront and be of marine relation. But, if you had researched that fact, as Eureka Citizen has, you would have already known that.

    As for Eureka Citizen’s shelter project, it is alive and well!
    Seems that just because we did not remain verbal every day with the media and with the city, we “dropped off” or were “spoofing” / “trolling” on Eureka.

    The fact is, we are in process of finalizing the land purchase and getting all the paperwork ready to submit for permits. We have raised enough to start construction, after the land purchase, and have commitments for operational expenses.

    We have a major donor that will address the City Council at their next meeting, and will provide additional information.

    The entire project should be open before the end of 2015.

    Thanks for your confidence as we assist the homeless where our local governments have failed.


    So, it would be nice if the person/people posting as “Eureka Citizen” and/or “Paul P.” here on the Tuluwat Examiner would confirm whether this statement is from the (alleged) group or not. If it is, then at least we’ve finally got a commitment for when this group will “go public.” And then we’ll see what happens (or perhaps more likely, doesn’t happen) at the next City Council meeting.


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