“Silly Crosswalk”: Arcata’s bid to upstage Eureka as home of craziest street crossing

Anyone who regularly drives through Eureka – and thereby regularly plays the thrilling game of tweaker-frogger that is unavoidable on on the 101 through town – is familiar with zany road-crossing antics.

froggerBut Eureka’s neighbor to the north, Arcata, has landed on a promising idea to take the crown of weirdest street-crossings in the County. From the  Mad River Union: The Silly Crosswalk: crazy idea or preposterous notion?

As noted in the MRU, the Silly Crosswalk proposal would designate a specific crosswalk in which citizens are encouraged to let their freak-walking flags fly high.

silly-sign-1-1-230x298

Of course, if Arcata did their homework, they’d realize you don’t need a special crosswalk for citizens to express their artistic/silly walking style. You just need to discourage business development and ignore the  issues of drug abuse, homelessness, and poverty the way that Eureka has for years!

The Silly Crosswalk: crazy idea or preposterous notion?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to “Silly Crosswalk”: Arcata’s bid to upstage Eureka as home of craziest street crossing

  1. Sammy says:

    Seriously?

    Like

    • Yup. It appears that Arcata is actually serious about silliness. Sure would be nice if Eureka had so much extra staff time and taxpayer money that they could waste some on silly crosswalks. Actually wait, apparently Eureka does have money to burn, anybody seen them “parklets”?

      Like

  2. John Chiv says:

    California, the government comedy channel, featuring top stars San Francisco and Arcata!

    Like

  3. Why doesn’t Arcata just declare itself the Twee Capital of the World?
    (“twee: Excessively or affectedly quaint, pretty, or sentimental OED”).
    In English usage it is not usually complimentary. In the present situation I
    think the part about “Excessively or affectedly quaint” is what would apply.
    And how quickly such fashions change!
    If the proponents are hoping one of the remaining Python lads would show up
    for a party to make the official ‘opening’, well let them hold their breath, the blue
    color might be attractive on some of them.
    Were I an Arcata voter anyone in favor of this would forever brand themselves eyes
    as someone clinging to a last residue of having once been exposed to English humor.
    Yes, the Pythons did what is now iconic humor. But for those who have not made it
    a necessary part of their cultural CV, it’s not something that can be grafted on to
    unknowers or unbelievers.
    Those who have made other choices in the humor department might wonder why the
    Arcata police department, to bring laughter and a lighthearted approach to policing
    don’t declare on day a month “Arcata Keystone Cops” day and let the officers wear
    silly impractical uniforms, wear false mustaches and run around doing things that
    would certainly make Arcata better known. Dell’Arte might give instructions in
    pantomime and other buffoonery. Think how popular the Arcata policemen
    would be a gatherings of other LOE if they did a little skit that might actually have a
    safety message to it also.
    And consider that a local support group could be formed where they would perform (the support group members, not the police) and raise funds for special projects. With easy access to Keystone Cops costume hats and such it would be a low overhead and high enjoyment group!

    Well, so much for whimsy. Now to the facts.
    http://www.cityofpasadena.net/humanservices/Safe_Streets_Now/
    I know, I know, a party-pooper always has to show up and ruin the fun with actual facts.
    Blame the State of California education system before they decided to focus on what was relevant and not what was actually useful.
    Here is the pertinent quote from the link:
    “What is a Public Nuisance?
    A public nuisance, according to state law, is anything that is:
    1.Injurious to health
    2.Indecent to the senses
    3.Unlawfully impeding free use of the streets
    4.Obstructing free use of property so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property”
    I’m looking at #3: UNLAWFULLY IMPEDING FREE USE OF THE STREETS

    Most, if not all of us know what kind of characters can be found around the Plaza and telling some of them that they can practice ‘funny walks’ on one particular crosswalk without threat of any controls or limits, well who is going to protect the right of others? Those who want to get from point A to point B and that would require traversing a crosswalk (as they have always safely done in the past with every expectation of being able to do so in the future) where now there would be possibly grotesque physical body movements that block one’s way or make it difficult to find a safe path.
    Not for the rude or crude a properly tailored Python lurcher or wobbler, no there could be no controls (freedom of speech, remember) on what the funny walkers wore, or when, or how and tell me there aren’t more than enough people who would enjoy angering the general citizenry on a regular basis.
    Let us look also at traffic controls. Someone who is mincing along the crosswalk will not have a time limitation so funny-walking back and forth in front of a particular vehicle (or any reason or for no reason). It’s a creative activity! How can you set up roles to limit a person’s time without making a mockery of the whole project and system?

    I have one very serious issue with the idea and one which I have not seen discussed. Funny-walking could be interpreted as mocking those who are physically impaired. I am not trying to be PC here, I am being angry and upset that these leading lights of Arcata didn’t take such an effect into consideration.
    Before: “Mommy, why is that man walking funny?” “He was in an accident/suffers from a problem with his body/ cannot always control his body”. And wise mother uses the episode to teach the child about non-discrimination and kindness to others in thought and deed.
    After: “Mommy, why is that man walking funny?” “He suffers from a movement problem” Mommy, “what about the other man?” “He suffers from being a self-indulgent stupid idiot”.
    Mommy “Why”.
    Why indeed wise child, why indeed.

    The link above has a lot of useful information on what the city of Pasadena does to make for Safe Streets. Worth reading.

    Like

  4. “Anyone who regularly drives through Eureka – and thereby regularly plays the thrilling game of tweaker-frogger that is unavoidable on on the 101 through town – is familiar with zany road-crossing antics.”

    It’s interesting to me that you are completely unconcerned about the need for safety for people crossing a major highway in the middle of a town. I had to cross both 4th and 5th (twice) this am with two dogs in tow (as I do regularly) and would like to say a special thank you to a HCSO who was driving a little fast, but then took the time to do the right thing and stop for the pedestrian.

    I wonder how many of you do? Isn’t it a conservative notion to work as individuals and a community (rather than government) to protect a vulnerable group? Pedestrians v vehicle on hwy 101 is an ultimate example of how those with momentum and power treat those, whom in these specific circumstances, don’t have this power.

    So it’s interesting to read your take and see how you automatically dismiss all Eureka pedestrians by categorizing us all by a group you and your readers despise. How many of you drive that way too? Trust me, at least 9 of 10 of you don’t respect pedestrian cross walks on 4th or 5th, even those with the signs and the little triangles.

    Re-frame the subject of pedestrian v vehicle rights by a whimsical Arcata government action and you have a made-for-order THC red meat post.

    “I hate government and unions and working people, don’t you? They and the stoopid politicians we don’t like make such stoopid laws. This is just another important example of government action from a long line of examples and we are clearly not cherry picking, so shut up. One more thing, this parrot is definitely dead.”

    Like

    • Cousin Eddiie says:

      LMOB, I think they are talking about the tweaker zombies who wander in and out of traffic randomly, not people waiting at the crosswalks. Congratulations on somehow making this a partisan issue. I’ll have to remember that :

      1. Liberals wander around drugged out of their mind on highway 101
      And
      2. Conservatives like to run them over.

      Like

  5. John Chiv says:

    Lenny, lucky for me, not everyone feels the need to make any comment I make on THC about me personally. You can’t see me as an individual, you cannot stand that I actually am not a victim, and god forbid conservative. I don’t need a blue state that gives lip service to those who agree nor do in any way identify with the “lgbt” community which has become a joke of anything goes. I am me, get over it.

    Like

  6. Cousin, first of all, please. I never wrote anything like your #2. My contention is THC and it’s readers, as populist conservatives, would generally favor fewer regulations (ie traffic safety measures) on Hwy 101 that would serve to protect pedestrians. I think that it is car vs person (power vs not) is a significant window into how we see the world differently.

    Secondly, Eureka’s “tweakers” is how he framed an intentionally frivolous traffic safety proposal from Arcata. Was I really the one to bring partisanship to this discussion?

    I think this blog and it’s topics prove that this is a conservative political blog. I hope you don’t dispute that, we can start running through the election coverage if you like, but that is not how I’d like to start 2017.

    The difference is, and what I was commenting on, is difference in how conservatives vs liberals see the world. Please, Cousin, please, show me one liberal site that would ever call another human a “tweaker” as a way to introduce a topic about…traffic safety…or any other topic for that matter. And for liberals, it’s not about being politically correct or adjusting our language for others, it’s about how we think it is important to respect the dignity of the humanity in all of us at some basic level.

    This should, by the way, be a conservative notion too. I think the reason the movement conservatives have allowed this respect for humanity to degrade in political discourse is the populist conservative notion of distinguishing citizens based on if they have lived the good life, making the right decisions, or not. “Tweaker zombies” have had an opportunity to find Jesus in church or in the free market and have failed. They may not deserve the same very basic respect or dignity all the rest of us do.

    THC’s post and it’s comments is rife with partisanship from the first sentence to John’s “California, the government comedy channel, featuring top stars San Francisco and Arcata!”. Your contention that I am the one playing partisanship is now also a critical part of the conservative political shimmy to try to influence public opinion. John has been at it for years, below is a link which is a stand out example of his from 2011.

    http://www.times-standard.com/general-news/20110205/my-word-all-views-need-to-be-heard-for-change-to-happen

    At least now he is copping to being a conservative, see above. Congrats John. You know what, clarity in descriptive language is a type of progress I wish we could all agree on.

    And partisanship aside, here is stuff we should all agree on:

    a) We need to take traffic safety seriously on 101 in Eureka. Please do stop if you see a pedestrian trying to cross the street and you have enough stopping distance so the car behind you can stop as well.

    b) Broadway does not have enough access to cross streets for pedestrians. (Unlike 4th and 5th). This is probably where THC has his mental image of a person trying to cross the street. Lookit, I’ve done it myself trying to cross from the Co-Op to the delicious burrito stand across the street. Maybe we could start to discuss how we make this route safer for pedestrians.

    Like

  7. Just Watchin says:

    Jonboy…if you want a discussion on how to safely cross a street, why not start it on your OWN blog? As a matter of fact, consider that a challenge. Put your actions where your mouth is, as opposed to your run for council. You profess what an important issue…..put it on YOUR blog. If you can’t do that, then don’t bother people on other blogs with your sillyass liberal vs. Conservative bullshit.

    Like

    • Scroll down jw. I thought free speech and expression was a (rhetorical?) conservative principle.

      This isn’t how to safely cross a street, it’s about how to allow for a safe crossing of a street. There is a difference.

      Of course to THC it’s about neither. To him it’s about diminishing government.

      Which, btw, we are going to see the Republicans start in earnest in a couple of weeks. I can imagine you are pretty stoked.

      Like

      • Just Watchin says:

        So…on YOUR blog, start a discussion on how to allow for a safe crossing of a street. Let your actions match your mouth, just once. And a city government that encourages citizens to screw around crossing a street (and thereby encouraging children to do the same), has already diminished itself….

        Like

  8. John Chiv says:

    Actually Jon, we will be pretty stoked when one of two things happe.ns. California wakes up and turns pink, at the very least, and regains the title of fifth largest world economy and all the naysayers and regulators move OR all the sensible taxpaying citizens move, leaving just the drug addicts and regulators with no funds to leech.

    Like

  9. JW. Not if they use that sign. Having fun, when appropriate, is important. I get it, you and THC would love it if politicians were automatons because they’d be easier to hate. They are people, and government, to this day, remains made up of people too. These are all human institutions and there is no law that says our representatives, officials and civil servants cannot indicate that they too have good-natured fun and try to have those that wish too, share in the experience.

    We shouldn’t be wasting money or time on frivolous activities, but demonstrating a little humor I think will have added value economically and socially and is completely legitimate. Imho. And children, a probably smarter than you think they are. I think many of them will like to have a little fun too. Maybe it will be a chance for Dad and daughter to discuss how important it is to look both ways, AND, depending on the age, discuss things like context.

    Regarding crossing cross-walks. I have about 100 topics I’d like to have the time to produce a readable article on, but simply don’t have the time. I don’t know if cross-walks would even be 101. When THC provides the perfect opportunity to take a look at his opinion from another perspective, and I do it respectfully and sincerely, I’d hope that it would contribution to the discussion. People like you, John Chiv and Eddie respond, we get to share our opinions and THC gets more of the sweet, sweet intertube-traffic. What is wrong with this picture, other than you disagree?

    Like

    • Just Watchin says:

      jonboy….how is it you “don’t have the time”? You work for the government, which,if you calculate actual hours worked, is less than part time. And really….now you are “liking” your own posts? Smfh…..

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Wooo whooo! Time to play today’s Right Wing Lie or not lie? Today…

    You work for the government, which,if you calculate actual hours worked, is less than part time.

    As a public employee working full time I work 8 hours a day 52 weeks a year. I’m not sure off the top of my head how many holiday’s we get, but they are very generous, especially compared to my time working with City Cab as a driver/EMT. Adding the Friday between Thanksgiving and the weekend from a 2017 Federal Holiday Calendar, I count 11. Let’s round that off to an even 15 with a couple of sick days taken and maybe we have a generous MOU given the Supervisors were able to remove the “Me too” clause and were able to give themselves and their favored county employees a raise this year.

    That’s 3 work weeks off a year (15 days divided by 5 days/work week = 3 weeks). Let’s say we get 3 weeks of paid vacation (I probably get 2) – that now is a total of 6 weeks off per year out of 52. Not bad. I think we can do better for all workers in a not-too imaginary future, but I’ll take it.

    Now, what about part timers. First of all, let’s talk about the importance of part-time workers to job creators. They have fewer benefits to pay such as health care. We now know that those representing job creators, Republicans, are going to replace and repeal the ACA (aka Obamacare) so the painful part of the repeal part takes place just after the mid-term election. That is convenient because these part time workers will not have access to affordable health care insurance, meaning they are going to have to find full time work pronto.

    But that doesn’t matter to the job creators, that’s more freedom and another choice their workers get to make.

    So part-timers are a gold-mine to job creators as they pay minimal wages for the short-timers and don’t have to pay bennies. Granted, this has nothing to do with your statement other than a little context on why you might be comparing public (full time) employees to part time employees – cost to employer.

    All right then. I’m not certain that part time employees would get any paid holidays off, especially retail workers. In fact, these are often the days they are expected to work. So of the 52 weeks these workers have 52 weeks of work to do. I think the most you have to work is 34 hours before being considered full time, no?

    So 52 weeks x 34 hours part time/week = 1,768 hours at work paid with no paid holidays, no paid vacation, no paid sick time, no paid health care by the employer or aided by the government. HOORAY for the job creators!

    What about 52 weeks of work for the lazy government worker, or many private sector workers who work 40 hours and are thus protected by federal work laws to minimum benefit standards?

    52 weeks x 40 hours/week x 48/52 weeks worked per year = 1,920 hours per week.

    You work for the government, which,if you calculate actual hours worked, is less than part time.

    OK, are 1,920 annual hours worked by the decently compensated public employee less than 1,768 annual hours worked by a part time worker without any benefits? Well, it the Trump era it probably is to many people.

    But in reality it isn’t. Try again JW. You might get there if you assume a full time worker (private or public) has a child that gets sick a lot or takes off for maternity leave, but you should state that in your premise if that is the case.

    But you know what JW, that lie took one sentence, the snarky, elitist reply took a page and a half of typing. Whose information is likely to have more purchase in JW’s and Trump’s America?

    You job creators sure are smart. Congrats.

    Like

  11. 52-6 = 46 not 48. Total annual hours for a government worker = 52 weeks * 46week/(of 52)*40 hours/week = 1,840 annual hours worked not 1,920. Oops. Guess that’s why I can’t find a private company to hire me.

    But the bottom line holds true. Still a lie. A full time employee with labor protections (ie rules and regulations for paid time off etc), government or not, will work more hours than that part-time employee who the job creators would like to work without any regulations.

    Guess what direction Trump’s Labor Secretary will be taking us as the owner of Carl’s Jr. Maybe we can all have the benefit of reduced paid time off. Sounds like a great way to make America Great Again.

    http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/12/our-new-labor-overlord-thinks-workers-shouldnt-get-breaks

    Like

  12. Cousin Eddie says:

    LMOB, you forgot to deduct all the time standing around and doing nothing, unlike McDonald’s employees, who are expected to work their whole shift.

    Many times i have been in line at the DMV or various county offices while people are BS ing behind the counter while there is a line out the door.

    take the planning department lately for example, they were freaking out because of all the pot permits coming in and were all stressed out because they had SO MUCH WORK TO DO. give me a break, i bet half the work is a cut and paste just like they did with the general plan – which is still not finished.

    if you don’t get faster at processing the same paperwork over and over, it’s time to think about a new career choice. somehow we have self driving cars but nobody has figured out software to spit out a permit?

    What were they doing in the years when there was like 50 houses built? i don’t remember any layoffs when the housing boom ended.

    Like

  13. Alright then. Truth is there is something analysts in the know call the fuck off factor or FOF for short. These analysts understand this by frequent trips to the DMV and by their keen interest in public planning where staff have not been able to flip the 2,300 permit applications for weed with the same efficiency that a McDonald’s employee can flip a hamburger. The cool thing is, at the end of this conversation and to make your lies notlies we have a minimum FOF for government workers.

    This number can be found by dividing the annual hours of a full time part time worker with no bennies with a salaried government worker or 1,768 hours by 1,840 hours. This is 0.97, or put another way, a government worker, based on the innate knowledge of JW and Cousin’s Eddie’s visits to the DMV is 97 % of the worker, at BEST, of the McDonalds worker.

    And can you believe it? This is after all the gosh darn perks we as a society give them like vacation and sick leave. Ugh? Right.

    The truth is this has nothing to do with government workers and everything to do with something humans began to do, not coincidentally, right before the start of our Civil War, it’s called the industrialization of society and changed forever the United States and the rest of the world from an agrarian economy.

    Yup. It’s capital vs labor and it is still the ultimate basis of the differences between left and right. Right now, capital is so ridiculously in charge that it has placed an owner of a fast food chain as the Secretary of Labor. OMG!
    _______________________________

    More fun with math. Turns out Andrew Puzder, like his boss, has begun to erase or hide all public information related to his earnings. THC, of all people, knows the importance of salaries and income to affect public opinion with his frequent use transparency web sites to find the salaries of public employees to gripe about this or that.

    So let’s turn the tables a bit with the information we have. Andrew Puzder is apparently kindof a financial putz compared to the other billionaires in President Elect Trump’s cabinet. Having said that, from one piece of earning history which has yet to be scrubbed, Mr. Puzder earned $7.35 million* in 2009, or, since we’ve done the math, dividing by 1,840 annual hours, this equals a compensation of about $7,350,000/ 1,840 hrs or $3,995/hour. This is about 550 times that of a line worker at Carl’s Jr making federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr.

    And this guy doesn’t believe in even allowing a mandatory 15 minute break during the work day. From the link in the comment I made yesterday above. And this guy is Donald Trump’s choice as Secretary of Labor.

    “Have you ever been to a fast food restaurant and the employees are sitting and you’re wondering, ‘Why are they sitting?'” Puzder asked. “They are on what is called a mandatory break [emphasis his].” He shared a laugh with the interviewer, saying the so-called nanny state is why Carl’s Jr. doesn’t open up any new restaurants in California anymore.

    How did he do it? How did Trump pull the wool over the eyes of some many working American’s, especially those in what used to be the strength of the labor movement, the Mid West?

    Imho, in large part, thanks to people who believe like JW and you Cuz that as long as we tear down liberals or government workers, we’ll begin to cut out the fat of our society and be able to make America Great Again.

    Sadly, that ideas is about as valid, in reality, as the FOF.

    ___________________
    * http://executives.findthecompany.com/l/6397/Andrew-F-Puzder

    Like

  14. Just Watchin says:

    Only a bottom feeder would call someone who made 7.35 million in a year a “financial putz”. As for the “FOF”, I’m surprised it was a bottom feeding goverment worker that came up with it, but it does fit…

    Like

  15. Here is another acryonym, KBA: Knowledge By Anecdote. It will also tend to reinforce implicit or explicit biases.

    Here is what I’m talking about. Implicit biases are in the news because of discussions of bias by race in law enforcement.

    For a little background, after 2 min of research “implicit” means subconscious and “explicit” conscious bias and that distinction is itself important for communication between left and right.

    So let’s go down the list from this post and it’s comments, and I am going to use something that came up in this discussion to help us (or possibly only me) figure out a) if bias exists and b) if it is conscious.
    ____________________________________

    Someone addicted to drugs: Explicit bias. THC and his readers are probably explicitly biased against them right? How else can we take it if there is no push-back against the term “tweaker”?

    Government worker or government: Probably explicit, possibly implicit. Most of you THC readers would probably admit to explicit bias against government workers, unless you really believe in the FOF or that we can elucidate real information from anecdotal data.

    This, plain and simple, is a lie “You work for the government, which,if you calculate actual hours worked, is less than part time.” which is not supported by …math. I know JW and THC gets this (explicit bias), I’m pretty sure Cuz, you get this too, but from the way you write, sometimes it does seem this is an implicit bias.

    Class (economic): Now this is very dangerous to THC’s attempts at populist conservatism, but when JW calls out relatively low wage earners like myself ( approx $30K/year) as “bottom dwellers” you get a little insight into how many in the conservative movement REALLY feel about those struggling to survive economically. That is explicit bias that I’m beginning to believe AB THC shares. Why? All I need to know is THC came out against P because of the supposed big money backing it, but no once mentioned the money backing Measure V. Implicit bias at best, brownnosing to either customers or bosses at worst.

    BTW, yes, JW caught my explicit bias against those that would work for wages 550x greater than his employees. I could not do that job because of my own personal set of ethics. I’m not saying I’m a better person than the potential Secretary of Labor (really, you all, LABOR, are you OK with this?), it is because I’m different from Andrew Puzder.

    Ethnicity? So, what if we turn the virtual page now to yet another post on HAF and True North? We DO have members of our community who are under-served based on their ethnicity. This includes Native Americans and Hispanics which True North goes out of it’s way to help serve and represent. There is a growing pile of odoriferous evidence from THC’s ongoing interest in HAF that this is based not on some administrative problem he has with the way HAF runs under Patrick Cleary, but simply because True North serves a community he’d rather not be served with his parent’s money.

    Is that going to far? Take a look at the list of alternative organizations you endorsed. Not one would make a priority of serving that part of our community that True North is reaching, in effect excluding the work of True North. ( https://thclive.net/2016/11/24/great-ways-to-show-thanks-humboldt-organizations-worth-donating-to-that-arent-haf/)

    __________________________________

    In this new era of Trump’s America, I think it’s important to pay attention to our explicit and implicit biases IF the goal is to create a society with freedom and justice for all. Is that a goal we all share? We all need to be honest about our biases, implicit or explicit if we are to find out.

    One more thing…my explicit bias is its not “freedom and justice for all” for many or most Trump supporters. There is another either conscious or unconscious caveat similar to the FOF that would make this a more honest statement to many Trump supporters such as “freedom and justice for those who can prove to me they are making an effort”.

    Like

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s