Atkins trims the bushes, makes way for homeless in Cooper’s Gulch, City’s greenbelts

A friendly THC reader asked us today why a fence has been installed surrounding parts of the Cooper’s Gulch Park and greenbelt area. We, too, were curious why such a fence would be erected.

You see, it’s disturbing to us that rampant transient camping occurs in the City of Eureka’s environmentally sensitive greenbelt areas. What’s even more upsetting is the thought that a fence has been erected to keep the general public out, while the area’s homeless are allowed to camp willy-nilly and wherever the hell they please.

So we did a little digging, and discovered the culprit leading the charge to create a safe haven for the homeless in Eureka residents’ backyards, in areas that are supposedly off limits. Of course, we are talking about the same Eureka Councilwoman who is leading the push for a sanctioned tent city, and successfully led the push for declaring a state of shelter crisis.

We mean none other than Linda Atkins. And you see, she has invested a ton of time ensuring that housed folks stay out of her precious homeless zones,and has also done a lot over the years to ensure the place looks nice for them, too. See this clip, from News Channel 3, to get an inkling of what we mean. (The segment in question begins at 6:03.)

atkins' wax

What about the front yard? The homeless care about aesthetics, too!

Did you catch the part where Atkins wants to extend the Cooper’s Gulch trail all the way to Eureka High School? Great, so our county’s kids have an even more direct route to join the homeless brigade down in the greenbelts. (Not to mention the general economic malaise that already puts our youth on the hobo fast track.)

Hooray! Who else can’t wait for the elevated pedestrian walkway leading straight to the Devil’s Playground? THC is certain that’s included in Atkins’ trails vision.

We guess we shouldn’t be surprised, considering Atkins’ dedication to carving out a nest for the homeless via her tent city and homeless parking lot pet projects. The real shame is the lack of a long-term solution – but to Atkins, a satisfactory solution is a homeless camp in the people of Eureka’s backyards, or in front of their businesses.

Just so long as the camp for the homeless doesn’t go into Cooper’s Gulch,  Linda’s backyard. You see, that’s why she had the fence erected. So she could force the homeless into a sanctioned camp in someone else’s neighborhood, while merrily kicking the homeless issue down the road for someone else to figure out.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Atkins trims the bushes, makes way for homeless in Cooper’s Gulch, City’s greenbelts

  1. Stormy says:

    Ok, which of you hapless fools voted for this hapless fool?


  2. Just for skinny-dipping? says:

    So, first you say that the fences are there to keep the housed out, and separated from, the homeless that are living in Coopers Gulch. Then you say that the fence is there to KEEP OUT the homeless from coopers gulch.
    Which is it? I bet its neither. Probably to keep the “un-house-able” from snatching kids off the street: for if a predator/sex offender status keeps a certain somebody from renting/buying a house/apartment nearly anywhere, guess what that person becomes…
    PS I”m down with you not being down with turning the game trails of the greenbelt into hiking trails for teens to party on. Good call.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Boy, when you get your hands on a story, watch out.

    First of all, you are half right and thank you for bringing attention to the ugly and outrageous fence in our (Ward 2 residents) neighborhood.

    Here is the real story, one that you and your readers will be constitutionally unable to understand b/c of how you view liberal/left of center/assholish/progressive/not-your-politics politics and policies. (ie whatever you want to call those policies/politics that you disagree with).

    The real story, and this is my opinion base on watching events unfold and being in the last 4or5 of 5 or 7 ECC meetings. This is based in part on something I believe to be true but am not 100% – Councilwoman Atkins was on or has been involved in the houseless committee that Supervisors Bass and Bohn headed up shortly after Rob Arkley galvanized local action on Eurekas problems with homelessness.

    Atkins led the push to pass the Open Space Ordinance which ultimately passes 3-1 (Councilmember Arroyo dissenting and Councilmember Bergel did not vote). I feel you’re counterpart on the left, the TE is missing this very basic fact and I commented just yesterday on this fact.

    Here is the thing. Houselessness is bad and is getting worse. The crisis we are currently experiencing (from the houseless point of view) is due in large part because we as a community gave the police the authority to take newly austere measures to remove the homeless in areas like Devil’s Playground and that corner on Myrtle and 7th.

    Linda did what she thought was best for Eureka and when she did she voted with support form people people like Jennie Breslin, Sue Brandenberg, Leo Sears and Matthew Owen, not to mention the votes of Councilmembers Brady and Ciarabellini. (apologies to all those whose names I inevitably spelled incorrectly)

    That fence was part of a public-safety measure that Linda helped bring about. Just so you know. And while on the Council she did mention that she herself feels the danger in her neighborhood of what happens when the houseless are extracted from their chosen resting areas.

    So, bottom line THC, is it possible for you to talk about the pro’s and con’s of policy rather than personalizing politics? What did you support? Do you support the extraction policies AND not taking measures to allow those with nothing to rest?

    This is the Arkley endorsed idea. Get rid of all services (he would go as far as to get rid of Betty Chin and her “ilk” – I doubt if you would go that far) for those with nothing to include taking emergency campground measures, or any other means of helping those we just kicked out of make-shift homes during winter.

    a) these people should be able to find a job and housing
    b) there is always a bus to take you out of here if you can’t make it. We’ll even pay for the ticket.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. jmms says:

    Thank you THC! I appreciate your take on the Atkins’ resolution which is a gateway to a sanctioned camp. I attended the Jan. 19th city council and watched Linda stumble through her rewording of the original resolution to the point where no one could follow along. The public never got to see the final rewording. I’m wondering if the mayor could veto this resolution.


  5. Just Watchin says:

    When I read “Atkins trims the bushes”, my first thought was that someone snapped a picture of her coming out of a bikini wax shop…..


    • Which is exactly why THC wrote the headline that way. Did you miss the “Completely Bare” ad?

      If you did, I did too. I was focused on the policy at first before I noticed the disturbing (politically) undertones. This is about sexualizing those you disagree with – especially associating the sex of what are perceived to be less powerful. (ie women and the LGBT community).

      It sounds crazy and PC, but I challenge anyone to go through THC’s blog history and tell me this isn’t true. It happened at the Mirror too. It happens on Rush Limbaugh (Sandra Fluke, Lindsey Graham, John McCain).*

      It’s sadly normalized to some extent, but it also is why in the end THC, Rush and Trump politics cannot win sustain-ably. These three politics are not equivalent, but they all share a thread of misogyny – as long as the woman in question questions of the men that are spewing (sorry) crass baloney such as what THC published and you celebrated.

      The reason these politics aren’t sustainable? 1919s 19th Amendment.

      *A quick internet search did not bring anything up, but those listening to KINS over the past 15 years have been listening to a satire with Lindsey and John playing roles of the main characters in Brokeback Mountain. Upon further searches I’m pretty sure it is Paul Shanklin’s “Saddlesore Canyon”, but I can’t find it without a fire-wall. You gotta pay-to-play in the (highly regulated and controlled) free market!


  6. You got me again Dubs. That sentence was referring to when things like when THC places men in Alice in Wonderland customs. To you Councilwoman Atkin’s marriage to her wife can be described as “queer” in a blog about politics. To me and an increasing percentage of Americans she is married to her wife. (period) The fact that her marriage is to someone who is of the same sex did not even cross my mind. But it does to you and to many others who might giggle (when young) or diminish or ostracize (when older) the queerness is significant.

    To THC’s credit, they did not nor have they ever mentioned Atkin’s family circumstance. Kudos to them for that. I’m sorry I gave you the opening. (Not LGBT bigotry in this post, only misogyny – you gotta start somewhere)

    To catch up on how the right wing uses hatred toward those who are queer (to use your terminology), here are a couple of headlines from

    “Louie Gohmert: ‘It’s Time To Start Impeaching Judges’ For Marriage Equality Ruling”
    “Ted Cruz Endorser: Gay Marriage Is ‘A Unique Sign Of The End Times’ ”

    Even though in Humboldt we have begun to see people for who they are and not they love, the rest of America (even those supposedly in Florida) is still in the midst of this battle. A battle, btw, which people like Gohmert, Bachman, et. al. will eventually lose and America and it’s people will be better for it.


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