(UPDATE!) Eureka City Council: Can’t make a decision to save their City (UPDATE!)

Holy Crap Batman! The Eureka City Council finally actually did something! Sorry to be so slow with this update but after staying up way past our bedtime watching the Council meeting on TV we slept in this morning. Not that the celebratory case of Mike’s Cider had anything to do with our slow morning or anything. Believe it or not but late last night, before a totally packed and overflowing crowd the City Council voted 3 to 2 to finally take some kind of action to clean up the drug infested, crime ridden hell hole behind the Bayshore Mall. On top of that Linda Atkins, hold on to your hats, is the one who made the motion to approve the clean up plan recommended by staff. Of course Melinda Ciarbellini’s hand picked replacements for Mike Newman and Chet Albin continued to vote against anything involving common sense. Natalie Arroyo sorrowfully told us how much sleep she was losing because her beloved campers (read bums) have no where to go and advocated for someone to find a better home for them before taking action to curtail the crime ridden infestation that has infected our community. Damn Natalie, try doing something other than kicking the can down the road for once. We really wish she cared as much as our children who are petrified to walk our streets. Kim Bergel was even better as she sobbed her way through yet another meeting and yet another vote against any kind of progress that doesn’t include a ‘parklet’. We think it’s great that Kim cares so much about our bums but jeeze, get a grip. Maybe all the extra emotion is simply the result of way too much Zanax? We also have to wonder if Linda’s vote for a crackdown was more motivated by the fact there has been a huge migration of homeless into her Cooper Gulch neighborhood. Even Linda acknowledged her issues with her new neighbors after it was brought up by many members of the public. Another topic that came up over and over again was just where Eureka P.D. is going to herd these “campers” after they push them out from behind the Mall? Since Mom’s house isn’t far from Broadway this really got our attention. We’ve already had several shootings and a murder nearby and we know that the homeless really have a fetish for Mike’s so we’re particularly concerned that they might sniff out our stash and attempt to storm the basement. We think that Ukiah might be a good stopping point but no answers seemed forthcoming on this one so we’re heading out now for more ammo. Much more on our homeless situation to come soon but for now check out our original post on this fiasco here.

Lastly, a big shout out to a really cool fella named Bob Bartley. Bob spent his three minutes at the podium pointing out Humboldt Area Foundations role in all the shit stirring in many of our communities. See what has Bob and thousands of others so concerned here and here. Thanks Bob!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to (UPDATE!) Eureka City Council: Can’t make a decision to save their City (UPDATE!)

  1. An Anonomous says:

    I wonder what Melinda Ciarbellini thinks about her backing of Kim Bergel now? Dumb does not begin to describe how utterly clueless she is.


  2. ken d says:

    I have a friend who has served on a certain City Commission for years and has usually been on the opposite side of most issues as Councilwoman Atkins. After several meetings with this new majority he took the opportunity to tell Ms. Adkins, almost apologetically, that she was now the most logical and coherent member of the Council. Sad, but apparently true.


  3. Anon says:

    Unfortunately the cleanup action the council took does absolutely nothing to solve Humboldt’s homeless problem. We can push them around town all we want but that just moves the problem to another neighborhood. Free housing isn’t the answer either. Someone at the meeting pointed out that it “only” cost $11,000 a year to house a homeless person. Apparently that person finds math a little challenging. Assuming the $11,000 is correct then housing our homeless will “only” cost us 12 to 15 million dollars a year. The County’s latest tax increase “only” was supposed to bring in around 4 million. The money simply isn’t there to pay them off with free housing. The answer isn’t simple and it sure won’t fit in a bunch of new “tiny houses”.


    • “pay them off”

      Let’s do the math then. $11,000 a year for a home. $12 to $15 million dollars that means you are assuming we will house from 1090 to 5454 individuals depending on if we assume 1 person per home or 4.

      What does it cost to incarcerate a person? This nyt article says a study showed about $30,000 K. Let’s say $25,000 per year. Is that the comparison? Taking the low estimate you used that would be $27,250,000 per year. That is not including the increased cost of the police state that anti-government (with broad exceptions for military and police) partisans appreciate. Generally these police-state (aka public safety) taxes such as Measure Z are regressive, because the anti-government partisans don’t want to pay for it themselves. This in turn makes life even more difficult for those on the economic edge, with some number of these people then taking out an economically incompatible life on someone close to them or themselves. This then only adds to the number of people that now have to be homed or incarcerated with funds or effort from others.

      Of course I’m missing at least two other much cheaper alternatives. a) a $150 bus ticket to the beautiful AnywhereButHumboldt. Rumor has it that this place has a wonderful climate this time of year so this could be considered a win-win. b) a significant number of these people could gently pass-away in our upcoming winter helping to solve our problem a little and the cost of disposal/mortuary work would be quite easily counted underneath the newly consulted function of the sheriff. We might not even see a separate bill in that case.

      Of course there are other options that anti-government-pro-everything-else people would come up with. Religious institutions, community and family support, etc. All good and real options (not sarcastic). But that’s the key to this line of reasoning, these people are not our collective responsibility – they are responsible for themselves. Possibly when sick or impossibly disadvantaged these people should be the responsibility of our society’s other institutions but not our collective responsibility. If these other institutions cannot handle the weight of the need and people continue to live (or die) desperately, then, so be it. Life and nature are after all rough.

      The important point was they were never our responsibility in the first place.

      Even as we accept a growing influence of a mind-altering drug on our economy. Even as we have a government/capital complex that allows for an unconscionable distribution of wealth and even income. Even if we don’t work to insure a 40 hr job can pay for a living wage which would include a home and possibly even other needs such as food. (the argument might be that if we DO pay higher wages, where will our children work as entry-level jobs)

      *wipes hands* It’s not our responsibility. Do the math. It will cost to much to pay our disadvantaged off.

      * http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/nyregion/citys-annual-cost-per-inmate-is-nearly-168000-study-says.html?_r=0

      Liked by 1 person

    • Sam says:

      Too true. See, the likes of Natalie and Kim don’t want to think it through…. not sure about their math skills.


      • Sam, my argument is $11K is a bargain compared to other alternatives (incarceration and increased policing). The other alternatives would be to force people to leave or to wish them a gentle last deep sleep as the cold weather comes in.

        And we are responsible. We are the ones bringing in Weed Inc and its associated not-ready-for-prime-time-employees and we have accepted that we as a society do not have any guarantees for minimum wages that would afford a living.

        We are responsible when we have allowed 40% of our nation to own, what? Can you see the percentage? <1% ofthe wealth of our country? 60% to own <10%. These percentages are getting worse.

        And no, more laissez-faire and fewer taxes is not the way to fix the problems before us.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Anonymous says:

    Thanks THC. We really appreciate your insights. Especially over those of Shilpa Mehta. Talk about a “conflicted” personalities. It’s nice to have an independent perspective rather than self serving BS chived up our backsides.


  5. Just Watchin says:

    With the Tulatwat Examiner dying a slow death, their anti John Chiv minnions are looking for a new home…..


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