The rules be damned; we must stop Linda Atkins

Last night Linda Aktins and community homeless advocates won a symbolic victory over the status quo. Other than symbolism we’re not really sure what that resolution actually does.

What was particularly astounding was the way they altered the meeting rules again in a attempt to thwart Linda from passing the resolution. There was motion moved and seconded and discussion going on when what appeared to be a pre-planned tactic between the City Clerk, City attorney and Ciarabellini. As it became obvious that Ciarabellini and Brady were going to fail, Mayor Jaeger allowed another motion to be made by Ciarabellini which would have put off the discussion for at least a month or longer. WTF! In all the years we’ve all been following City Council meetings no one has ever seen that maneuver be allowed. Ciarabellini, for her part, appeared to believe she could shame and intimidate Kim Bergel into voting against Linda. Then after admonishing the audience to be quiet Mayor Jaeger allowed an “out of order” Leo Sears to speak and vaguely threaten and question Kim Bergel while no other public comment was allowed. It was almost successful, Bergel started to waffle but in the end she voted her conscience and did the right thing.

All of this insurrection and political BS maneuvers over what was really a symbolic resolution. Imagine the blood that would have been spilled over an actual ordinance as opposed to a declaration!


20 thoughts on “The rules be damned; we must stop Linda Atkins

  1. Ciarbellini is up this year. Who is running against her. We must get her off the council. Liberal Man on a Bike usually has his ear to tre ground on those issues!

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Ciarbilini never has had to run. She was appointed by Jäger then ran unopposed. Does she qualify for term limits?

    Liked by 2 people

  3. It seems like years of running the jail has left a permanent scowl on Ciarabellini’s face and cruelty in her heart.
    What can be said about Brady, OMG


  4. Does the council ever act in the best interests of the community? I think it stinks of the same ole’, same ole’. It is so frustrating to see the same divide and conquer tactics go on and on and on, etc. The progressives will never get in a power position and people like Atkins must wonder why keep trying. Eureka deserves better. Joe6, Brady is a light weight in a heavy weight position.


  5. MOLA and TE, thank you and may I say…plzno.

    OK, for those of you like me who didn’t know, I think I pieced it together. 2008 Frank beats George C. for Ward 4. That was the last contested election btw. 2010 Virginia B. defeats Bonnie N. for 4th District Supervisor (not to be confused with Eureka’s 4th Ward) in June 2010. That leaves an opening for Eureka Major. Frank takes that spot and Melinda is nominated to take his spot. Ugh.

    Do you realize then that Melinda has never been elected? That in itself tells you all you need to know about Eureka politics.

    Well TE we need to get to work now. Establishment lefties like me and not-as-establishment lefties like you will have to work together to a) find a candidate to run against Melinda and b) find a candidate to replace Linda. Regarding b) I’d really don’t think this is the year for me, but I will still consider a candidacy if there isn’t another left-of-center alternative.

    Even more important is the fact that the property-rights advocates are running unopposed in Supervisorial races for the 1st and 2nd Districts.

    TE – one thing I hope this 3-2 vote shows. Politics matter. This is not the Brady Bunch. Natalie and Kim may not have been your first choice but they are a step in the right direction. That is the direction we have to continue to fight for, if we don’t we do know that there will be an endless line of candidates that the Elk Club and the Chamber of Commerce thinks would be dandy Councilmembers.

    Also, plz remember that it seems to me that on the one ordinance that seemed to if not start then aggravated this crisis Natalie voted no and Kim dissented but Linda voted with the measure. In my opinion, and this is just opinion based on no knowledge other than watching the progression from Arkley’s anti-homeless mob to the establishment of the B&B (Bohn and Bass) homeless task force and I believe Linda’s participation on that task force, Linda played a leading role.

    As we all know even the crisis declaration is too little too late. As far as the homeless are concerned, our collective actions have been a net negative this winter even with this hard fought and hard won resolution.

    We need to work together to elect left-of-center candidates that will get this. We need to continue the progress that was started when Natalie and Kim were elected. Do you disagree?

    Liked by 1 person

    • “Natalie and Kim may not have been your first choice” You need to go back a review our posts. We whole-heartedly endorsed both. Members of this blog had personal connections to both. We have expressed our profound disappointment with their unwillingness to take principled stands on important issues like the reckless killing of Tommy McClain, the Police Chief’s setting the City back 50 years and allowing the old guard to keep the iron fisted grip on the city without protest. This is the first time since elected that they have actually taken a principled stand on anything controversial. So we a least applaud them for that.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Tommy was killed before the election. Neither one chose to take the hard-line stance on the lethal mistakes (or corrupt mismanagement?) of our police force that you do. They could not have, btw, and gotten elected which is why they were completely mum on the killing of Tommy McClain.

        So you did have differences with them even before the election.

        In fact, I remember specifically Councilmember Bergel being rather cozy with public-safety type issues that would foreshadow some of her votes and the current anti-homeless direction of the council (pre-resolution).

        They are following their principled stands based on trying to do their best to represent the interests of not only those they had personal connections to, like you, but all of their constituents.

        And I do want to keep reminding ourselves of something. Councilmember Atkins was the driver of the original ordinance that gave the authorities the release to begin evacuating the homeless from the areas near the mall.

        Let’s not forget that please. Natalie voted against this ordinance and Kim dissented. The timing on this was awful and could have been implemented in a way that was not meant, in the end, to create and exacerbate a crisis just when shelters (even illegal, even on city land) were needed most – fall and the impending winter.


  6. I would add praise for this council’s groundbreaking vote to cut the public subsidy to the Chamber of Commerce. We can’t expect much from a novice 2-year reprieve following a 150 year legacy of plutocratic oligarchy.

    However, even if these were the only two progressive votes by this council, it clearly demonstrates an alternative path unthinkable in living memory. The right-wing is dumbfounded for allowing the public this opportunity (if reported) to imagine they might actually have a choice, and they will do everything possible to ensure that the public NEVER again experiences another alternative council majority.

    Unless there’s at least one local progressive ballot measure in 2016, or there’s a first-ever canvass to inform Eureka’s non-voting majority of what’s possible, the return of the right-wing’s Right-of-Passage is almost guaranteed.

    Another big reason the left rarely wins can be seen by comparing TE’s informative posts on this subject to print media and TV reports that embolden opponents to keep repeating tired lies and sophistry month after month, meeting after meeting. Where is this “ample housing”? If Eureka cannot afford to provide porta-potties and a dumpster, how is it affording the most expensive method of homeless management…the police? Opponents cry about “costs” that no one has calculated! So, where’s the professionals, the media, accountants, local academics, mathematicians, and sociologists perfectly qualified to estimate what we’re spending now per homeless individual…compared to housing them?

    To her credit, Bergel exposed Ciarabellini’s admission that she (and Brady?) were not going to support staff’s resolution despite all the hoopla over Atkins’ changes. Is that not “news”? Everyone can see homelessness is a local crisis. If the opposing council minority wants the city attorney to make decisions on resolutions for 5 elected council members, why didn’t they ONCE ask the attorney what Eureka’s liabilities are due to Atkins’ changes? Ooops. It was Atkins’ that finally asked for the city attorney’s clarification that there have been no suits elsewhere. Ever.

    If we had a public-interest journalist, editor and publisher worth their mettle, local residents would be well-informed after every public meeting of the profoundly troubling similarities between the bigoted and hateful language from well-known individuals providing public testimony, (and from our elected representatives), that vilify and degrade an entire class of unwanted residents for the purpose of eviction, indistinguishable from the language and evictions of unwanted native and Chinese residents.

    For the truth to be believed, it must be repeated. Instead, the public hears utter nonsense, hateful lies and bigotry without challenge.

    Everything is fine, no cause for alarm, keep calm, keep shopping, and stay positive.

    There’s no need to vote.


  7. There were two very good progressives just before Brady was elected. There was a progressive police chief’ however it all changed with the
    Brady bunch. Got to put that change on the electoral. They bought the crap being fed them from the far right. They had the big money backing and wall papered the city with signs.


  8. The only other way to win a progressive candidates in Eureka is by the same old (mostly) losing strategy of sticking to the money-corrupted process of struggling to train a camera-ready candidate that must spend most of their time raising tens of thousands of dollars needed for a campaign manager, data processor, and office assistants necessary for identifying, tracking and following-up on the small minority of actual voters.

    As usual, this minority will be ruthlessly fought-over, repeatedly canvassed, blanketed with mailers and calls, manipulated and outright lied to.

    Understandably, with few exceptions, the right-wing wins in a system rigged for the highest bidder and lowest turnout in the industrialized world.

    More people would be shamed into voting if media regularly informed communities just how small the minority of voters is, compared to the eligible non-voting, registered and unregistered majority, and how this negatively impacts our city and its residents.

    A reasonably informed person would question the legitimacy of such elections.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. been there and midnight anon…

    I agree with most of that, but your analysis of right-wing advantages misses one critical fault with the left wing desire for leadership and good government for all, not just campaign contributors.

    Can you tell me what that is?

    I’ll give you a hint, we had to elect all the members of the Council. *

    Answer: Candidates.


    Midnight, we don’t disagree. I had to go back to our previous too-long thread and found that even then I was saying AND.

    You are right AND we need candidates. In order to have candidates we need an infrastructure, some kind of political apparatus that can help find candidates as well as do the canvassing, maintain best-practices electoral strategies, etc.

    Do you know of any organizations that might facilitate such activities? But this organization has to be left-of-center. hmm.

    AND midnight, AND. In order to do this we will have to motivate the next generation of voters-plus. People who not only vote (what you are talking about – and I agree completely with your prescriptions) but that small percentage of those voters who are willing, yes, to get out there and do the work which might even include running for office.


    * Thanks to TE I now understand the very depressing truth about the Second Ward (Melinda’s currently). Melinda was appointed and then ran unopposed. She was never elected. Marian – ran unopposed last time. Frank – ran unopposed last time. What about the County? Both extreme property rights advocates from SoHum more than likely will run unopposed. If they do find a candidate they candidate from the left (or arguably sane middle) will find an opponent who has already been endorsed by Democratic leadership in the form of Assemblyman Woods and State Senator McGuire.

    At this point you are right, we have a problem of a money-corrupted media and political system, but even more fundamental that that, we don’t have enough warm bodies to help lead us into the future.

    Right? Am I wrong here? What do you or the TE propose we can do about this?

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Are these the same ?“Community Shooting Review Board members? How many years has Eureka had ex cops running the City Government? Does that seem wrong? To few players controlling the county and city piles of money. What does it mean to be called an independent “Community Shooting Review Board? To whom were they independent?


  11. The progressive community in Humboldt seems to be totally blind to what has happened to them over the last decade. I’ve only been involved on the periphery but it’s really pretty obvious. An incredibly effective pro-business political machine was developed by Lee Ulansey and a few others aimed at electing pro-business candidates. As best as I can tell they have been nearly 100% successful in their efforts. The only races that the left has won have been Bergel and Arroyo in Eureka and Higgins/Dale on the Harbor Commission. Not coincidentally these were the only races that the Ulansey machine for one reason or another didn’t get involved. We need to start smelling the coffee if we want to start winning races. We simply will never be able to compete with well funded and organized candidates running on a pro-job platform in an economically depressed area if we use a conventional enviro/labor message. It simply can’t be consistently done if ever. Take a look at every single poll ever taken and you’ll see jobs trump the environment each and every time, especially in a region that is hurting for work. We need to focus on turning officials like Virginia Bass, Richard Marks, and Greg Dale who can be convinced that their future lies away from the few who got them elected and towards majority. Look at Bonnie Neely for proof of how well this approach can work. We won’t get everything but it’s better than hitting our heads against a wall. We have also seen just how quickly the business community gives up when they don’t get what they want. Look at it from an economic perspective. I you make an investment and it loses you don’t make the same investment again. If we show the business machine that they are making a losing investment they will give up. Just a thought.


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