Doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results…..surprise!

Chief Andy Mills comes off to many as quite the innovator. He has seen the problems with houselessness facing Eureka and he has a plan. In fact, as Mills professes to be moving his department forward he is adopting tactics to deal with the houseless behind the Bayshore Mall.  What is this strategy? What is the enlightened direction he has gotten for our first supposedly progressive majority on the City Council? What could all his years of training and studying the issue of houselessness have led him to decide?

Do the same ol’ despicable shit Murl Harpham did. That’s right, Mr. Progressive Mills is doing EXACTLY the same failed thug processes that Murl Harpham followed; conduct raids and “evict” the unlawful campers including tearing up and destroying all their belongings. A barbaric tactic that has worked so well for the past 50 years. Not!

What in the hell is he thinking. Does he think he has a magic wand that will cause all the houseless and downtrodden people staying behind the mall to completely disappear? Well we all know that’s not gonna happen, these folks have to go somewhere so they are going to move to the nearby spot where they can camp.

Yup, those folks who are kicked out will move to the vacant house, or greenbelt, or the forest near your home. They aren’t going to leave, because they have nowhere to go. The City and County haven’t gotten together the necessary structures so that there is emergency housing or outreach available for the people they are evicting. Instead, Mills EPD is telling them to move on….and that means moving on to your nearby green belt, vacant field or house.

The more Mills preaches about change the more he keeps things exactly the same. Or in this case, take us back to the by-gone days of the 1950’s style dealing with “the hobos”.


27 thoughts on “Doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results…..surprise!

  1. Point of order:

    1) the only real reason why the camps behind the mall are receiving attention is because of “business” being affected at the mall.

    2) The deception is that when many of these people relocate near a home or residential neighborhood, the popo won’t give nearly as much a shit, no pun intended.

    3) Mills is just pawning off the mall for residential neighborhoods or places along the road, near a water source.

    After relocations, police funds will go elsewhere for salaries and wages, etc…

    4) Personally, even if structures existed to help pick people up, a certain percentage will always “stay the same”.

    5) At least if the structures existed, it would be more understanding to roust those who camp illegally while creating additional crimes. At least HOJ could feel OK to dismantle and destroy these illegal camps at that point.

    Eureka is literally and figuratively a dirty town full of problems. As the county seat, that is a bad deal.

    Lastly, a bypass is needed so traffic congestion is no longer. Further, many cross streets between 4th and 7th need to be shut down and/or 1 way traffic, converted for additional parking spaces only for shoppers and special events users. Keep open the more frequently used streets like E, H & I, L or M, and maybe two others.

    Some people are just leaches on society, rich or poor.



  2. Move it along doesn’t work. It hasn’t worked and it won’t work. Shouldn’t the City Council expect more from Mills?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Shouldn’t the City Council expect more from Mills?

      I would think it works mostly the other way around. He can make suggestions, but the city council and staff are the ones that have the final say. They would then give the Chief at least guidance, if not explicit instruction, on how they want the situation dealt with.

      Regardless of that, there are no easy answers to the problem. Trying to blame the problem, or attempts to deal with it- which existed before Mills even came to Eureka- is a bit over the top.


      • But doing the same thing over and over again that hasn’t solved the problem isn’t over the top? I thought he was hired to bring in some fresh ideas and ways of doing things. Yet, when it comes to dealing with “the biggest problem in Eureka”, he’s doing the same old-same old. Why not just keep Harpham as Chief in that case? He didn’t really want to leave anyway and it would have saved in all the PERS cost’s by keeping him around.

        Liked by 1 person

      • The council can’t give the Chief guidance that has to come from the City Manager. Murl wasn’t enrolled in PERS.
        I agree why make the change at the top if there’s not going to be any change in the dept.
        Fred is wrong as always this is all on Mills

        Liked by 1 person

      • “The council can’t give the Chief guidance that has to come from the City Manager.

        The City Manager works at the “convenience” of the council. They are a team of sorts. Watch a council meeting on occasion.

        “…when it comes to dealing with “the biggest problem in Eureka”, he’s doing the same old-same old.

        I’m sure both Chief Mills, the city council and city staff are open to suggestions. They’ve probably tried, or at least considered, most of them. I’m sure they’d be all ears if you have something different to add that might work.

        What would you do? I’ll be the first to admit I’d like something done, but have no idea what the “answer” might be.


    • I thought the Chief was going to find a safe, legal place for them to camp? Next thing we hear he’s back to, as you say, “The same old Same Old” that didn’t work when they were chased off the South Jetty and moved into town.


  3. Those upstanding citizens couldn’t even keep a couple of portapotties upright for 3 weeks.


  4. It’s not hard to understand why people still claim they don’t know what the answer is.

    For too many, personal wealth provides their only source of self-worth, therefore, without other’s needless suffering in a wealthy nation, they no longer feel “special”.

    Civilizations have known for millennium that people need shelter.

    Eureka can’t provide housing for all its homeless, like Utah did, but moving in that direction is the only proven solution that actually pays for itself in less emergency services, incarceration, and admission into mental health, drug rehab and ER’s.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Utah gave houses only to the “chronic” homeless, only a fraction of the overall homeless. Don’t make it sound like they solved the problem.


      • Official counts of the homeless in Utah decreased 75% after housing was provided.

        Don’t make it sound like housing doesn’t solve homelessness for most people needing it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Anon….new stats have that number at 91%….of CHRONIC homeless, and the CHRONIC homeless make up 10 % of the total homeless. Don’t read just one article in a liberal rag and take it as the gospel.


      • Why would I search for a citation on something I already understand, and Utah proved, is the only effective solution for homelessness…a home?

        A 9 year old can understand that.

        I was unaware of the narrow Federal definition of “chronic” but am not surprised when looking at other Federal definitions…like how much radiation is “safe”.

        However, that doesn’t change the point, nor republican Utah’s research showing that providing free, modest, independent housing is less expensive than the public costs associated with homelessness.

        Every municipality in the U.S. that isn’t following Utah’s lead, to the extent possible, is not effectively dealing with homelessness.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Anon….you falsely stated that Utah had reduced homelessness by 75%…. then say you didn’t need a citation after asking for one….then say you didn’t understand what chronic meant, right after saying that you understood everything. The only thing you had right was that anyone with the intellect of a nine year old should have understood.


      • Wrong again JW.

        My statement was not “false” it was merely incomplete, and irrelevant to the subject of this post that you continue to dodge.

        Your citation, and all the others I’ve seen, confirm that providing homes for the homeless have dramatic impacts in reducing homelessness at a cost savings to the public.

        With Utah’s results, every municipality should seek to emulate Utah’s success and expand it to other categories of homelessness, (including Utah!).

        Again, it’s something most 9 year-old kids can understand.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “The entire state of Utah has fewer than 300 homeless people and will likely eliminate chronic homelessness by the end of the year, a housing expert told Mother Jones this week.
        “We did it by giving homes to homeless people,” Lloyd Pendleton, director of Utah’s Homeless Task Force, told “Daily Show” correspondent Hasan Minhaj in January.
        Since 2005, the state has reduced the number of people living on the streets by almost 75% by giving them access to permanent housing, no strings attached, according to Utah’s 2014 homelessness report.”

        Read more:

        Liked by 1 person

      • Post lies to push a liberal agenda, and when you get caught, say your information was just “incomplete”. LMFAO! Typical.


      • Thanks EJ and TE…

        “Trolls and Morons”?

        Everyone has the right to make mistakes and to dodge issues.

        I’ve gotten too old for name-calling to phase me.


  5. Mills is following the direction of the City Manager; you keep blaming Mills, and forgetting that he takes direction from Mr. Sparks. These raids are ordered by Greg Sparks; and they are much needed.


  6. Pretty good article in today’s NCJ about the evictions. The City is partially blaming a lawsuit that was won by a person who was severely injured on City property behind the mall. Funny thing is that even after losing the suit, the city still hasn’t put up fences, signs, or any real deterrent to keep people off the building. It’s a known hazard but they have done nothing to safeguard the property. Not that I would advocate purposely breaking a bone, but if someone was to get injured again back there the city could face some serious liability.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s