Home > Uncategorized > Don’t Defend the Indefensible

Don’t Defend the Indefensible

[A copy of this letter from Marc Delany was provided to the Herald. A petition for the repeal of the ordinance is here.]

Dear Supervisor Mark Lovelace,

I am distressed tonight to learn that Humboldt County, at significant expense, intends to “defend” a lawsuit challenging the “urgency ordinance”, (possibly 1 of many lawsuits to come) passed by the board [earlier this] year. I expect that this ordinance was drafted in haste, in violation of our “due process” requirements (Brown Act, State Constitution, Federal Constitution). The 1st, (or 2nd) lawsuit is now before the county, even as the county contemplates a replacement ordinance.

There is no current “Occupy Eureka” demonstration, and all of any defense’s considerable costs can be completely avoided simply by terminating the “urgency ordinance” while moving forward with a new ordinance that fully benefits from citizen participation.

I am curious why the BOS, having accomplished the apparent goal (removing “Occupy Eureka”), does not simply take the responsible route (declare victory), and void the “urgency ordinance” as the suit simply requests.This would save the county the legal costs of defending a rather hastily conceived, constitutionally questionable, currently unnecessary ordinance… simultaneously demonstrating, tolerance, wisdom, financial pragmatism, and the  BOS’s respect for all citizen’s civil rights defending our input into an ordinance reducing our access to local government. Many jurisdictions over reacted to “occupy” sit-ins, not all jurisdictions were successfully tricked into passing and then defending new laws reducing our fundamental rights to be seen, heard, and bring questions … before our supervisors at the courthouse in Eureka.

I understand this ordinance was drafted and prepared by the county’s professional (non elected) administration. The BOS is responsible, ultimately for requesting and approving the county administrators choices however. Do not the other supervisors also value citizen participation in a democratic process supporting citizens using long established, locally traditional forums for political actions (day or night) at the “courthouse” as much you apparently do? In Humboldt county this is also the supervisors’ offices, where should we go? Should this not be discussed in the public arena and approved by all? I’m shocked that any supervisor would vote not to listen to constituents….

Having served its purpose it’s time for the other supervisors to join you in abandoning this ill-conceived ordinance, and save the county some money.

Thank you for your “NO” vote. Don’t let the BOS literally make a “Federal Case” over this… Many citizens did not want the ordinance, and more don’t want to pay to defend a hastily enacted ordinance that is now an additional limitation to communicating with or demonstrating against future BOS actions.

If the county loses this in court, we all are then also responsible for costs of both sides generally. This is a no win situation for Humboldt County residents, and is of very dubious value to us. I do not support the county expanding this ridiculous ordinance to apply to all eighty or so county managed properties. This proposal, at least, is under discussion.


Marc Delany

cc BOS Humboldt County
1st District – Jimmy Smith <jrsmith@co.humboldt.ca.us>
2nd District – Clif Clendenen <cclendenen@co.humboldt.ca.us>
3rd District – Mark Lovelace <mlovelace@co.humboldt.ca.us>
4th District – Virginia Bass <vbass@co.humboldt.ca.us>
5th District – Ryan Sundberg <rsundberg@co.humboldt.ca.us>
  1. Anonymous
    June 12, 2012 at 10:40 am

    I am glad the county is defending. Based on past court cases, they will win.

  2. Just Middle Finance
    June 12, 2012 at 10:47 am

    Only well dressed, middle class, tax payers should be allowed to protest. After obtaining the necessary permits, of course.

  3. just middle class
    June 12, 2012 at 10:52 am

    Protesting and a homeless camp are two different things.

  4. Just Middle Finance
    June 12, 2012 at 10:58 am

    Exactly. And they never applied for protesting permits!

  5. Eric Kirk
    June 12, 2012 at 11:22 am

    I’m shocked that any supervisor would vote not to listen to constituents….

    Unfortunately, I’m pretty certain that the majority of the constituents support the ordinance. That’s why the BOS voted the way it did, and even Mark’s opposition was somewhat restrained.

  6. Anonymous
    June 12, 2012 at 11:26 am

    If rights depended on a majority vote they wouldn’t be rights, would they?

  7. Anonymous
    June 12, 2012 at 12:05 pm

    I have a right not to be hassled by scumbags every day on the way to work. I also don’t hassle the homeless nor do I shit in their encampments . The Occupiers demand respect but refuse to give it to the rest of us.

  8. High Finance
    June 12, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    The “constituents” have a right to not have a squalid homeless camp on downtown sidewalks.

    Those campers are not protestors, they are having a 24 hr a day party.

  9. Just Middle Finance
    June 12, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    The Occupiers have never hassled me and I walk by every day. The banksters however, have peed and pooped all over the American economy. The Supervisors haven’t said “boo” about Wall Street nearly bankrupting America. But then again, they are part of the machine feeding American Workers to Wall Street, WalMart, and every other business looking for workers to exploit and customers to over-charge.

  10. Eric Kirk
    June 12, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    HF – Even if true, that doesn’t justify an overreaching ordinance which now actually prohibits candlelight vigils.

    If rights depended on a majority vote they wouldn’t be rights, would they?

    So then you’re saying the BOS shouldn’t listen to its constituents?

    I should say that I’m not certain how the lawsuit will play out. The threshhold of community/government interest for regulating time, place, and manner of expression is considerably lower than that for content restriction. The latter requires a “compelling state interest.” The former requires only a “rational basis.”

  11. Just Middle Finance
    June 12, 2012 at 12:19 pm

    Hi Liar is now the arbiter of who is a protester and who is not.
    “1. To express strong objection.
    2. To make an earnest avowal or affirmation.
    n. (prtst)
    1. A formal declaration of disapproval or objection issued by a concerned person, group, or organization.
    2. An individual or collective gesture or display of disapproval.”

  12. Mitch
    June 12, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    If I understand correctly, Eric, the law must have a rational basis for its interference with free speech.

    A law which restricts someone’s right to speak because they draw a crowd which happens not to appeal to some citizens is not constitutional, because it is not responsive to the actual problem. If the crowd’s behavior is illegal, the constitutional approach is to deal with the illegal behavior found in the crowd, not to ban the speaker.

    Further, if some types of speech are likely to draw a crowd that displeases the powers-that-be, and the regulation is “needed” because of the type of crowd that is drawn, that regulation is not content-neutral, no matter how many pretty words it includes asserting its neutrality.

  13. RefFan
    June 12, 2012 at 12:57 pm

    JMF, do you just walk by the courthouse or walk by into the courthouse? Most instances I’ve heard of where the homeless bother ppl is the ones who have business inside the courthouse, not the passerbys. They somewhat try to portray the occupy protestor to make all think they r there for a reason.
    You’re takin it to the extreme. Ppl dont want their courthouse littered with homeless folk & occupy should of dealt with that from the beginning & this wld of never gotten this far out of hand.

  14. Thirdeye
    June 12, 2012 at 12:58 pm

    It is a long-recognized procedure for permits to be obtained for protest events at public facilities. The degree to which un-permitted events are allowed is at the rightful discretion of the County. Most of the time, they aren’t restricted. Nobody ever bothered Code Pink of Women in Black when they protested. The prerogative of restricting an event is exercised when it becomes a public nuisance. Don’t want restrictions? Don’t be a nuisance. But being a nuisance is part of the “statement” that OE wants to make.

  15. Just Middle Finance
    June 12, 2012 at 1:25 pm

    RefFan, I walk in every day, no problem.

  16. June 12, 2012 at 1:43 pm

    Mitch wrote, “…If the crowd’s behavior is illegal, the constitutional approach is to deal with the illegal behavior found in the crowd, not to ban the speaker.”.

    No one has banned speakers, or anyone else. They just can’t hang out directly in front of the courthouse. No big deal. Just walk 30 or 40 feet to the sidewalk and you can do as you please.

  17. Eric Kirk
    June 12, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    Further, if some types of speech are likely to draw a crowd that displeases the powers-that-be, and the regulation is “needed” because of the type of crowd that is drawn, that regulation is not content-neutral, no matter how many pretty words it includes asserting its neutrality.

    So you’re saying that the BOS voted to limit the hours of protest because the Board doesn’t like criticisms of Wall Street? If so, then that requires a compelling interest rather than a mere rational basis.

  18. Eric Kirk
    June 12, 2012 at 1:53 pm

    A law which restricts someone’s right to speak because they draw a crowd which happens not to appeal to some citizens is not constitutional, because it is not responsive to the actual problem. If the crowd’s behavior is illegal, the constitutional approach is to deal with the illegal behavior found in the crowd, not to ban the speaker.

    This issue was actually dealt, sort of, within California with the case against Dan Siegel. In a speech in Berkeley during the Vietnam War he said, “someone ought to burn down the ROTC building!” Later that night, some people burned down the ROTC building. The question raised under the old standard was whether his speach created a “clear and present danger.” But the Cal Supreme Court ignored that standard for purposes of prosecution for incitement to violence, saying that it was clearly hyperbole and that they had to prove that he actually intended for his listeners to burn it down. They ruled that he would have had to say “let us burn it down tonight” rather than “someone ought to…”

    He was later admitted to the bar, after some difficulty.

  19. Matt
    June 12, 2012 at 3:03 pm
  20. Anonymous
    June 12, 2012 at 3:06 pm

    When Fred is the sound of reason in a discussion, it’s time for everybody to take a step back and put down their doobies.

  21. 2 cents
    June 12, 2012 at 3:31 pm

    Eric – Have no problem with your recent comments, but I would differ with the first: that “the majority of the constituents” support this. I think possibly the more vocal have. And the more powerful, who have always had the supes’ ear, have. But not, in fact “the majority”.

    More generally: unfortunately, even the author of this letter fails to recognize the ‘homeless contigent’ (“There is no current ‘Eureka Occupy”). It is a symptom of the greater problem and IS, therefore, an appropriate inclusion in any Occupy. What better eveidence of income disparity have we got? Seriously. They are perhaps currently outnumbering the original Occupiers (but they’re not the only ones there daily). They are definitely still there. Whether we should allow them to be the face of Occupy Eureka and not all of us I don’t know. But we should at least recognize them as part.

    To whomever it was that said they didn’t want them in front of the courthouse – – But it is fine for there to be (millions of) ‘homeless’? In America? As long as they aren’t a problem for us? How many of you consider yourselves Christian?

    It is a mistake to come at it this way. Have they succeeded with ‘divide and conquer’ yet? When we support the passage of such…….

  22. SNaFU
    June 12, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    Call out the EFD & give ‘um a bath. Grrrrrrrrrrrr!!
    Patchouli not allowed.

  23. Anonymous
    June 12, 2012 at 4:43 pm

    2 cents, forget about asking “How many of you consider yourselves Christian?”

    Most “conservative” “Christians” have a thick firewall between Christian doctrine and their own behavior and attitudes.

    Disconnection and denial is their MO.

  24. Eric Kirk
    June 12, 2012 at 5:28 pm

    I’m sort of a cultural Christian. Sort of.

    2 cents – I understand what you’re saying. But I’m pretty convinced that if the ordinance was put before the county in a referendum, it would pass easily. I’m not sanguine about it.

  25. Mitch
    June 12, 2012 at 6:06 pm


    So you’re saying that the BOS voted to limit the hours of protest because the Board doesn’t like criticisms of Wall Street?”

    No, I’m saying the board voted to limit the hours of protest because it doesn’t like homeless and mentally ill people hanging around a county workplace.

    When the Humboldt Association of Realtors or the Eureka Chamber of Commerce holds a demonstration on the courthouse lawn, it is not generally going to attract homeless people and those with mental illnesses (with the obvious exception of sociopathy).

    When Occupy Eureka has a demonstration protesting, among other things, the county’s abysmal response to homelessness and the unsheltered mentally ill wandering around Eureka, it is more likely to attract a crowd that the BoS dislikes.

    So the Board’s decision was anything but content-neutral.

  26. June 12, 2012 at 8:08 pm

    No, I’m saying the board voted to limit the hours of protest because it doesn’t like homeless and mentally ill people hanging around a county workplace..

    Not quite. The BOS voted that way because 99% of the people they heard from wanted the courthouse cleaned up. The BOS listened and agreed, with Lovelace dissenting for honorable reasons I have no problem with.

    Again: No protests have been shut down. People just have to keep their grievances on the sidewalk.

  27. Matt
    June 12, 2012 at 10:59 pm

    Is Occupy Eureka really still going on in some sort of “official” capacity? It doesn’t seem like it – looks more like a hobo party these days. It’s definitely taken on a whole different characteristic lately.

  28. Eric Kirk
    June 12, 2012 at 11:49 pm

    Mitch – still, in order to trigger the rigorous “compelling interest” standard, the target has to be the message itself.

  29. Mitch
    June 13, 2012 at 6:31 am


    Check out Forsyth County v Nationalist Movement 505 US 123 (1992).

    The court holds that a jurisdiction cannot charge protesters for the costs of public reaction to their protest, because that would not be content-neutral.

    Same logic should apply here — a jurisdiction cannot solve the problems that result from a particular protest by taking action against the protest. The appropriate response is for the jurisdiction to target the problems that result. The laws already provide for that: you can’t defecate in public or harass people trying to conduct their business. The county should enforce those laws, not banish people from a traditional public forum.

  30. High Finance
    June 13, 2012 at 7:30 am

    The Supervisors passed the ordinance not to stop legitimate protestors protesting but to stop a permanent homeless camp from forming on the Courthouse lawn.

    It would have worked except for the disgraceful non action of CalTrans.

    Now we have a trashy homeless camp on the sidewalk complete with tents and office chairs they stole from the county’s trash bins. The camp will grow ever larger and become permanent unless somebody grows a backbone and does something.

  31. Mitch
    June 13, 2012 at 7:39 am

    …and the backbone owner should make the trains run on time, too. There are many historical personalities that might be up to the task.

    How does refusing to allow someone to lay their picket sign on the lawn contribute to “a permanent homeless camp?”

    How is it possible that newspaper vending boxes are legal, when the County has banned the placement of any self-supporting structures on its property, and uses that to outlaw a literature table?

    How has the curfew helped?

  32. Smart 5th Grader
    June 13, 2012 at 7:42 am

    aw Hi Fi, you’re a Hater!

  33. Smart 5th Grader
    June 13, 2012 at 7:43 am

    “How is it possible that newspaper vending boxes are legal,…”
    No questions, obey!

  34. Eric Kirk
    June 13, 2012 at 9:59 am

    Mitch – It’s a good argument, but it’s a stretch to apply Forsyth County to here. To charge protestors for the public reaction is more clearly content oriented, because if the message had been different the public reaction would have been different – unless Forsyth could show that the public reacts to all protests in the same way. Did the homeless show up at occupy protests because of the message about inadequate services to the homeless, and is the ordinance aimed at the message about homelessness?

    Mark my words, the Court will not require a compelling interest showing. The only portion which I think may be overturned is the curfew. That doesn’t make the ordinance good policy, but the courts generally don’t interfere with time, place, and manner restrictions.

    In 1984, the demonstrators against the Democratic Convention fought San Francisco’s decision to corral protext into a smallish V-shaped space easily controlled by riot police making all sorts of “content control” arguments. They lost. In the Ninth Circuit.

  35. RefFan
    June 13, 2012 at 11:19 am

    This is getting soooo flippin old! Did the courthouse have probs with homeless camping out in front before occupy? Not like this if ever. Our county officials and police need to clear them out, whether they provide them with a place to go is not part of their job when removing them. Where were they b4 the occupy movement? With that said, providing shelter for the homeless is another issue that needs to be addressed by city & county officials/personal now and the community needs to come up with some ideas on how to help. There needs to be a community meeting with officials on how this can be accomplished. But they still need to be moved from the courthouse.

  36. Smart 5th Grader
    June 13, 2012 at 11:58 am

    aw RefFan, you’re a Hater!

  37. Amy Breighton
    June 13, 2012 at 12:34 pm

    Of course, no one knows how a court will rule, the standards for limiting Constitutionally protected protest require compelling evidence of interference with others lawful activities.

    In this case, none.

    The complainer’s anti-Occupy event was publicly promoted to turn-out 250, yet, they only drew a tiny group compared to the Occupiers that day. The supervisors have not sided with the majority and were sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

    It is a sad day when Eric Kirk joins “Highly Mistaken” and Fred Mangled in making ludicrous and irrational assertions about the meaning of a potential referendum on this obscene ordinance….in a county where the vast majority could care less! They never vote! According to the 2010 U.S. Census, half this nation’s citizens are too busy trying to stave-off poverty, many see the electoral system being rigged by the wealthy. (“The Rich and The Rest of Us”, Princeton professor C. West and journalist T. Smiley ).

    The U.S. vets, the homeless, and the mentally ill protesters downtown are the tip of the iceberg.

  38. Eric Kirk
    June 13, 2012 at 5:03 pm

    Amy – It’s when you talk outside the activist circles (for either side of the issue) when you come to realize that the Courthouse occupy protesters had lost much of its luster even from people sympathetic to the cause. I work in the legal community, and secretaries and legal assistants who had to enter the courthouse are tired of it, and haven’t always felt safe. I’m not even saying that the demonstrators did anything to deserve it. I’m just saying, for many people working for a living, it’s getting old. Again, I think this is part of the disconnect that the new left and post new left have had with working people. And I guarantee you, the vast majority of the county does not “care less.”

    Lest you think the disconnect is a new theme for me, I’ve been complaining about it for years. The link used to have a very lively thread, but many of my threads got lost when I converted the blog from Blogspot to WordPress. Don’t know what happened to them.


  39. June 13, 2012 at 6:04 pm


    What did this ordinance do to make things better for the secretaries and legal assistants? What does restrictions on my rights have to do with the “luster ” of the Courthouse occupy?

    This is a traditional public forum where regulation of speech is examined under “strict scrutiny” and they need a significant governmental interest. See paragraph 43 and 45, on page 12 for citations.

    And while health and safety are significant interests, look at the comments above and tell me you think that is why this ordinance was enacted. “Trojan Horse” comes to my mind.

    For 4 months we tried to convince EPD that taking protest signs were unconstitutional. Then a couple weeks after the DA agrees and says he won’t prosecute under Penal Code 602(f) the County passes an urgency ordinance reinstating the EPD’s hand-held-signs-only-rule and the Sheriff comes arrests Pat for again hanging her hand painted U.S.A. flag on the fence.

    Health and safety? Before arresting Pat the Sheriff explained that because he heard it was going to rain he decided not to wait to enforce the ordinance. So there he was to require removal of a tarp offering a bit of rain protection. My health and safety in Jan. and Feb. storms or the health and safety of those I saw awakened at 3am and told to leave the shelter of the covered walkway in the middle of a storm? Obviously not a consideration.

    But Amy is right, no one knows how a court will rule…

    If you haven’t yet, please add your name to those asking the BoS to repeal– http://signon.org/sign/repeal-the-urgency-ordinance

  40. Amy Breighton
    June 13, 2012 at 6:10 pm

    “And I guarantee you, the vast majority of the county does not ‘care less’ “.

    Yet, the evidence demonstrates that the vast majority, in fact, never vote. In the U.S., half the eligible voters don’t even register!

    The “American Left” never “failed”!

    They lost the class war long ago…but that’s not enough, a New Depression, ie, fire-sale, is driving half the nation into poverty. How was an actual leader like Cheryl Seidner to compete against 6 phony front groups…the developer machine wins one mediocre candidate after the next via an electoral process completely corrupted by money.

  41. HUUFC
    June 13, 2012 at 6:16 pm

    Ms.Seidner was no more or less qualified than the posters on this blog to be a county supervisor, she lost plain and simple get over it.

  42. Anonymous
    June 13, 2012 at 7:50 pm

    On the contrary, HUUFC, Ms, Seidner was California 2005 Woman of the Year. She was more than qualified.

  43. tra
    June 13, 2012 at 7:59 pm

    “She was more than qualified.”

    I like it!

    “I ran for public office, but it seems that in the end, most of the voters decided I was overqualified, so they voted for the other candidate.”

  44. Jack Sherman
    June 13, 2012 at 10:08 pm

    A brief review of most of Eureka’s city council members….like McKeller, Madsen, Hunter-Meeks, demonstrates exactly how the development community largess turns mediocre, average citizens into winners.

  45. Verbena
    June 13, 2012 at 11:53 pm

    To Marc Delaney,
    I can appreciate your commentary about the so-called “urgency” ordinance being unconstitutional, unnecessary, and undesired by the people. However, when you wrote the letter, there certainly WAS an Occupy Eureka!!

    From October 7, 2011 until June 13th, Occupy Eureka had a 24/7 presence in front of the courthouse. !Viva Occupy Eureka!

    Time will continue to reveal the various lessons about persistence, courage, community, autonomy, resilience, humanity, commitment, resistance, care, etc that emerged or were generated at Occupy Eureka. There are also important lessons about injustice, prejudice, capitalism, repression, classism, etc that were exposed through Occupy Eureka.

    Nightly candlelight vigils are ongoing in defiance of the so-called “urgency ” ordinance. 9:30pm – 11:30pm See you there (step away from the computer…)

    Please work and struggle for justice.



  46. Anonymous
    June 14, 2012 at 7:31 am

    Those “protesters” have been pooping wherever they can, within walking distance of their “protest”, including my office yard. They don’t have a place to go. It is a homeless camp that is using the courthouse as a legal campground. Stop allowing.

  47. June 14, 2012 at 8:01 am

    Your problem could be simply solved by the county BOS if they installed a couple of portapotties discretely near the courthouse.

    Is that too simple? Is it too expensive?

    have a peaceful day,

  48. High Finance
    June 14, 2012 at 8:15 am

    The left constantly misunderstands & blames all the wrong people whenever they lose. They say its because the conservative had too much money and the voters are stupid and swayed by the money. Other times they blame the left’s candidate as weak.

    Stacy Lawson and Karen Brooks had more money than their opponents and yet they lost, you can’t blame money for Rex’s win. Rex didn’t win because of money, he raised a lot of money because a lot of people liked him.

    Blaming Seidner is blaming the messenger when it is the message that lost.

    The fact is Eureka and the First District are far more conservative than liberal.

  49. June 14, 2012 at 8:18 am

    Those deceptive mailers you purchased for Bohn were just icing on the cake.

  50. Just Curious
    June 14, 2012 at 8:23 am

    And where was Heraldo and the North Coast Journal when Bonnie Neely purchased the Republican slate mailer in 2010?

    Was that “deceptive” by Neely?

    Just curious.

  51. High Finance
    June 14, 2012 at 9:27 am

    You’re just bitter because your candidate lost so badly Heraldo.

  52. June 14, 2012 at 10:36 am

    As for elections– It seems to me that any candidate that wins spending substantially less is worthy of respect; any candidate that wins spending substantially more still has to demonstrate that s/he will spend my tax dollars wisely. Dirty tricks are dirty tricks, especially when one is out spending an opponent and are clearly going to win. Whether the candidate had anything to do with the decision is the great unknown.

    As to the topic– RefFan asked: Did the courthouse have probs with homeless camping out in front before occupy?
    Yes, RefFan, there were people sleeping at the courthouse prior to Occupy Eureka. They were “criminals” then and they are “criminals” now.

    The ordinance did not change that; it only criminalized peaceful demonstrations.

    I was arrested because I stepped over the line in the sidewalk created by the ordinance. I did not do that so I could sue the County. I did that because there was a man in a uniform standing there telling me not only what I should say, but how I should say it – by hiring an attorney. AND then he was telling me what I should do during the upcoming election. He was trying to explain how to avoid getting arrested. I decided I would rather be arrested then have a peace officer idirect my political speech and conduct.

    This is not a complaint against that officer, he was only trying to help. And he did.

    I hope he sees this, understands there is another way and adds his name to the petition. If he doesn’t we need to understand that it is much easier and advantageous for a government employee to speak in favor of the current policy than against it. http://signon.org/sign/repeal-the-urgency-ordinance

  53. George Carlin
    June 14, 2012 at 10:53 am

    “The next time they give you all that civic bullshit about voting, keep in mind that Hitler was elected in a full, free democratic election”

  54. Jack Sherman
    June 14, 2012 at 11:49 am

    Hitler’s election was blanketed in the premier propaganda machine of his era, aided by numerous U.S. deep pocket fascists like Henry Ford who was one of the few to receive the Grand Cross from Hitler himself.

    The beauty about an electoral process corrupted by money is that, anyone who dares to challenge candidates anointed by the local development community are immediately tainted by the funds it requires to compete.

    The rule is that the biggest spender wins.

    Those who emphasize the few exceptions are sophists seeking to deceive readers.

    Meg Whitman was not an idiot, her millions put her in the game to win and she knew it. It took Jerry Brown to stop her.

    Bohn was backed by deep-pocket dirty tricks that only Patty Berg could have balanced…lacking the funding Bohn had access to.

    Bohn’s two campaigns were the only ones in Humboldt County political history to benefit by phony front-group fliers costing unreported hundreds of thousands of dollars.

  55. June 14, 2012 at 11:51 am

    Let me put it this way, 7:21.

    If I were on the BOS I think I would have the sense to rent a few portapotties. I might even arrange to negotiate with a few of the local businesses and pay them to site these portapotties in discreet locations. Maybe like the gas station on the corner. Pay the owner $500 a month for the placement of three potties on the back of his lot, and for his inconvenience. I think I might even be smart enough to find $1,000 a month or so in a county budget, that yes, may be strained, but is also many millions of dollars a year. I swear I could find $1,000 probably without causing much pain at all.

    I have talked to Virginia Bass several times. I know she is smart enough (she is a very smart woman) to realize the benefits to the community of the above plan.

    I lived in Reno for 25 years and worked in the casino industry. Reno takes tourism seriously. They have encircled the downtown casino district with portapotties a block or two outside the periphery. Reno is a very conservative Republican town, but they understand tourism and they understand the public health risks that can be so easily and economically mitigated, without jails or heavy handed police repression.

    Human beings when given the opportunity for privacy when doing their natural functions will opt for privacy almost 100%. This is true even of people who you might consider very mentally ill.

    If the supes simply followed the plan above for a few thousand a month, you would not have shit in your rose bushes. Or if you did it would be a rare event.

    The current state of affairs is simply a failure of government.

    have a peaceful day,

  56. High Finance
    June 14, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    Bill, there is a reason that 99% of the people that live & work in Eureka would oppose such a plan.

  57. High Finance
    June 14, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    And since none of you can guess the reason I will have to tell you.

    Those of you here who support the vagrant camp in front of the Courthouse and spend more money on these bums are the REAL 1%.

  58. Fact Checker
    June 14, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    Hi Liar. Those numbers wouldn’t pass the muster of a 5th Grade debating club.

  59. June 14, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    The courthouse situation involves much more than just common sense sanitation. There is a group of alcohol addicts who mainly used to hang in Old Town, but when your genuis city goverment drove the liquor stores and the drinkers out of Old Town they joined up with the courthouse market crew, doubling it in size. So the biggest thing you need to do if you want to move on the people around the courthouse is to close courthouse liquors.

    But that’s not going to happen (and I’m not advocating it) but it is a fact.

    The fact that we have a sizeable and chronic street alcoholic problem in a city this size is evidence of a failure of government. Police repression and repressive laws clearly are not working.

    have a peaceful day,

  60. 2 cents
    June 14, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    The protestors were capable of and would have (had they not been stopped) of providing their own porta-potty. And the jail bathrooms had been used until they were also denied.

    No sooner than Social Services were dropping by regularly and had begun to help the ‘problematic’ homeless and mentally challenged, who have attached themselves to the Eureka Occupy, than this unconstitutional ordinance was passed.

    Those of you actually in Eureka know this only made a real mess of things – with the people now on the sidewalk! It could be argued that ingress is now impeded (though it’s not – but if you’re scared to get near ‘these people’, it’s more intimidating than it had been).

    It serves those who oppose Occupy to have those homeless folks there (and they are the best example of income disparity to be had and therefore will not be rejected by the Occupiers. I’ve said this already). It helps to make the whole thing look like crap and loses public sympathy.

    There are compassionate ways this could have been handled. It was never about the expense. Instead we have a problem with nearby businesses (or so you say). Why didn’t you support the porta-potties before this, Highbolt?

    Instead we have to deal with this ordinance now and believe me, THAT will serve the 1%. Let’s hope you’re never on the wrong side of the line kids – it’s gonna cover a lot more territory than just the courthouse and it is creeping facism (THANK YOU JANELLE!).

    Can’t help it if so many of you fail to recognize the Occupiers are your proxies in the fight against the 1%. I SERIOUSLY doubt any of you belong (in the 1%), as you’re the same folks who are happy to have a Wal-mart.

    Divided, nearly conquered. Sad.

  61. Jack Sherman
    June 14, 2012 at 9:35 pm

    People have been defecating in and around Eureka’s alleys, businesses and vacant buildings for decades and nobody cares, the lamplighter Blight motel next to the Eureka Inn has been deteriorating for 15 years and nobody cares….

    …not until there’s an uncomfortable political message implied by “those people”.

    It’s pretty amusing to read idiots decree that “they aren’t protesters”.

    Technically, the supervisors aren’t really representatives when 75%, or more, of eligible voters abstain in every election.

  62. High Finance
    June 15, 2012 at 7:14 am

    You obviously do not live in Eureka Jack.

  63. Just Middle Finance
    June 15, 2012 at 8:03 am

    High Finance, I served with Jack Sherman, I knew Jack Sherman, Jack Sherman was a friend of mine. High Liar, you’re no Jack Sherman.

  64. Jack Sherman
    June 15, 2012 at 11:16 am

    Clever middle finger from Middle Finance.

    If you’re nice, maybe Highly Mistaken will finally explain how our electoral process isn’t corrupted by big money and how Bonnie Neely’s loss was NOT an exception to the rule.

    You can count on one hand the number of candidates that won a Eureka city council seat without the usual development community’s largess in the last 25 years, and two of them had that support for one of their terms!

    Corrupt to the core.

  65. High Finance
    June 15, 2012 at 1:05 pm

    Just Middle Finance paid me the biggest compliment !

    However he did not mean to do so intentionally. Just like his “facts” are often mistaken so are many of his other posts.

  66. What Now
    June 15, 2012 at 1:39 pm

    ,”…we need a level playing field and we need to go back to the realization that Teddy Roosevelt had: that we have to have a limit on the flow of money and that corporations are not people.”
    -U.S. Senator John McCain (R-Az)

  67. Just Middle Finance
    June 15, 2012 at 2:34 pm

    High Finance, I served with Dan Quayle, I knew Dan Quayle, Dan Quayle was a dumbass. High Hater, you’re Dan Quayle.

  68. What Now
    June 15, 2012 at 3:15 pm

    The U.S. Defense Department; thoroughly indefensible.
    Simply a conduit for coporations to fleece the taxpayer and loot the treasury:


  69. High Finance
    June 15, 2012 at 7:04 pm

    How ironic that “Factless” would call me a hater.

  70. Jack Sherman
    June 17, 2012 at 11:55 am

    We’re still waiting for Highly Trite to explain how is our electoral system is NOT corrupted by money.

  71. High Finance
    June 17, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    A link from you to where I said that would be helpful.

    I suppose a honest post from you is too much to expect ?

  72. RefFan
    June 19, 2012 at 9:36 am

    Janelle, the homeless were not living in front of the courthouse before Occupy, they wld congregate on the right side of 4th st. mostly, around the liquor store & CCCU. Ppl like you can cry wolf over your 1st amendment rights but all u’ve done is create more of a problem for the BOS, HCSO, EPD, County,etc. do deal with when they shld be dealing with more pressing issues. The majority are not listening and are doing all they can to make a decent living for themselves & families. How about you & Jack Sherman talk with the gas stations and get the porta potties installed. You want to make a difference, there you go.

  73. June 19, 2012 at 6:09 pm

    And where did they sleep at night? Anywhere they could find shelter and I’m told that included spots at the courthouse. I may have been told wrong, you may be right that during the day, they were elsewhere or perhaps only a few dropped by the courthouse. All history now. The courthouse has been cleaned up, the homeless dispersed. What is left is the ordinance.

    How about you go read a few Supreme Court cases and come back and tell me I am crying wolf. As for the porta potties, that was tried back in October, the problem is that they asked permission first.

    I am glad the majority still have jobs, But whether or not they are listening, I hope you hear this– government “shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    The Supreme Court has added, “except…” in a few cases but they haven’t repealed the first amendment.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

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