Fallout from the North Coast Journal debacle continues, with contributor Jennifer Savage bidding the formerly hip weekly a less-than-fond farewell.
In a NCJ letter, Jen notes that her popular column, Savage Money, “would’ve marked its second year in the Journal as of this issue, but given the recent editorial change, I regret my enthusiasm for writing it has waned.”
It would also have marked the second year of her being the hottest journalist in Humboldt County, and despite the recent editorial change, our enthusiasm for her has not waned.
In fact, we bugs are lined up at Mirror HQ now with our sad faces on just waiting for that little kiss goodbye…
Hugs, friend!!Photo credit Terrence McNally.
Straight faces, friends!
Richard Salzman, champion of most laws he hasn’t broken recently, is threatening legal action over the city of Arcata’s anti-panhandling ordinance.
Get some, Dicky! If you keep up the shameless self-promotion, one of these days someone out there might forget what a steaming pile of human waste you really are.
Out there, friend. Definitely not here.
February 14, 2011
Susan Ornelas, Mayor
Michael Winkler, Vice-Mayor
Shane Brinton, Council Member
Alexandra Stillman, Council Member
Mark Wheetley, Council Member
Randy Mendosa, City Manager
Nancy Diamond, Esq., City Attorney
City of Arcata
736 F Street
Arcata, CA 95521
Re: Unconstitutional Panhandling Ordinance enacted April 16, 2010, as Arcata Municipal Code [AMC] Sections 4280-4282.
Dear City Council, City Manager and City Attorney:
Please take notice that Mr. Richard Salzman, a resident of, and taxpayer within, the City of Arcata, has retained the undersigned to bring an action against the City of Arcata to declare its panhandling ordinance unconstitutional and to enjoin the City from any further enforcement of said ordinance. The purpose of this letter is to invite the City to amend its panhandling ordinance as set forth herein, and thereby avoid the expense, uncertainty and unpleasantness of contested litigation.
Specifically, Mr. Salzman contends that AMC Sections 4282B, 4282C, 4282D, 4282E, 4282F and 4282G are unconstitutional. The overall impact of these sections is to criminalize begging in most of the City where it would be fruitful to beg. Begging is a charitable solicitation. The First Amendment clearly protects charitable solicitations. No distinction of constitutional dimension exists between soliciting funds for oneself and for charity. The fact that a beggar keeps the money she receives does not strip the speech of First Amendment protection. A speaker’s rights are not lost merely because compensation is received; a speaker is no less a speaker because she is paid to speak.
To be lawful, the ordinance must serve a compelling interest that is narrowly drawn to achieve its end. The City’s compelling interest, if one exists, is well-served by the ordinance’s ban on aggressive panhandling, to which Mr. Salzman does not take exception. Mr. Salzman objects to the near-total ban on begging in public fora, the justification for which can be little more than avoiding “annoyance” to the public, hardly a compelling interest in First Amendment jurisprudence. Moreover, the ordinance’s ban on begging is not “narrowly tailored;” indeed, it is embarrassingly broad. To achieve the City’s goal of criminalizing the speech of a few beggars, the City has criminalized all solicitations for money. A girl scout cannot sell cookies on the City’s streets. Nor may any charity solicit money in most of the City. A beggar cannot even hold a sign up to ask for money; a more clearly content-based restriction on speech is difficult to imagine.
The City’s attempt to justify these draconian restrictions on speech under the so-called “captive audience rule” is unavailing. The City’s expansion of that concept to include almost all public space within the City perverts the intent of the rule and strikes at the very heart of discourse in a democratic society- the right to communicate with one’s fellow citizens on the public commons.
Other constitutional concerns are implicated in the City’s ordinance. The criminalization of solicitation implicates equal protection concerns, to wit, the ordinance targets the First Amendment rights of the City’s poorest and most downtrodden residents, while it remains legal to accost members of the public to ask the time of day, or to sign a petition. The complexity of the ordinance, with its crazy patch-work of places where it is illegal to beg, implicates notice and due process concerns. A reasonable citizen of the City lacks adequate notice as to where she may beg and where she may not beg. Likewise, the ordinance’s definition of “panhandling” leaves questions unanswered: Is a check or credit card transaction on the City’s streets illegal, or just a cash transaction? This renders the ordinance subject to challenge for vagueness.
Mr. Salzman would prefer to resolve this matter without litigation, and to that end, invites the City and its attorneys to meet with the undersigned to work toward resolution of the issues raised herein.
Peter E. Martin
Being a hero of the people is a thankless job.
Governor gives Lovelace new opportunity to be obsequious little prick, emphasis on “little” (and “prick”)
The land of second chances lived up to its reputation for one diminutive supervisor yesterday when Governor Brown reversed the recent appointment of Ken Zanzi to the California Coastal Commission.
All that remains to be seen now is how many people and processes Mark Lovelace will gleefully trample to get his own hyper-ambitious self appointed to fill the seat.
Let the games begin!
That appears the be the question Caltrans is asking with its latest project proposal, which would widen four bridges along the Avenue of the Giants to accommodate non-motorized traffic.
According to the Times-Standard report, Caltrans acknowledges the project could have a variety of environmental impacts. And they’re not kidding.
Construction of the bridges would occur in habitat for protected marbled murrelets and northern spotted owls, and would not be stopped during nesting season in order to complete construction during dry weather, the notice reads. The project would involve working in the root zone of redwoods, or placing paving over roots.
Additionally, Caltrans would divert four tributaries of the South Fork of the Eeel River “for one to two seasons,” with obvious impacts to habitat and salmon.
Now, we’re not ones to go teary-eyed at the thought of a tree or two getting its feelings hurt. Nor do we think for a minute that the disingenuous hoopla over the Richardson Grove project has shit to do with the environment. It is instead a transparent attempt to continue to obstruct business development in Humboldt County. Period. There’s more environmental damage right now on the Northcoast Environmental Center’s property in Arcata than the Richardson Grove project would ever cause.
But the Avenue bridges project sounds like it could have very real impacts, and we hope the review process is both thorough and transparent.
On that score, sadly, Caltrans may not be getting off to the best start. John Driscoll notes,
The initial study was not attached to the notice, and an e-mail to the project manager was not returned by deadline. Caltrans spokesman Phil Frisbee said that more information on the project will be made available on the Caltrans website on the day of the February meeting.
Yeah. Not cool, Caltrans. Get your story straight on this, or your bridges project won’t have a spotted owl’s chance in hell.
WordPress comes equipped with all sorts of helpful information as part of its blog hosting service. We especially like the list of search terms it provides that show which words and phrases people typed into their computer to land at the Humboldt Mirror. Really? Light testicle spanking?
The Redwood Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union pulled out all the stops recently when members presented our good friend Bonnie Neely with the annual Patriot Award, the chapter’s highest honor. It was given, according to a blurb in the Times-Standard, “in recognition of her contributions to civil liberties during her 24 years of public service.”
These contributions were so notable that none were mentioned. Maybe stopping just shy of waterboarding her staff is good enough to walk away with this one. Regardless, receiving this prestigious award and identifying just one business or organization she hasn’t screwed over in the past 24 years should be enough to land her a job.
One down, one to go, Bon Bon. Good luck with that.
A bunch of peace-loving activists picked a fight with the EPD yesterday while protesting the widening of Highway 101 through Richardson Grove.
Maybe it was the militaristic symbolism on their protest poster, pictured here, that caused the dust-up.
Oh well. Consider this just another example of our friends the “progressives” living their high-minded values.
Even we recognize that the humor curve on heroin addiction is a bit flat, but it’s worth noting anyway that the former Times-Standard web editor and newswriter is once again a newsmaker–and not in a good way.
James Faulk, 35, has reportedly been charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Who ever thought Chris Durant would end up looking like the successful half of that duo?
My Word: All views need to be heard for change to happen
When I moved to Humboldt, I was as politically involved as the average person on the street. I read the newspaper, I watched the news. However, like many others out there, I started to get sick and tired of the tactics employed by a few radicals in Humboldt County to stagnate our community; tired of the elite few claiming to be the voice of the people.
When the so-called “progressives” are against progress and the environmentalists are against cleaning up the environment, people like me take back our power, stand up and say, “enough!”
A year ago, I decided to volunteer for certain campaigns. I sat in on numerous public meetings. I began to understand more about campaign themes, messaging, budgets. I also got to see how “behind the scenes” players involved in Humboldt County politics operate. On Nov. 2, 2010, there was a change. The election is over and there are people, regardless of party affiliation and beliefs, that are ready to work together for the benefit of the community we all call home.There are others, a small vocal minority, that still don’t get that their vitriol and manipulation of the process is polarizing and divisive. They are still in denial that it is such negativity that turned off most voters. They still insist on the same behavior that is counterproductive to the interests of all in Humboldt County. Many of the former political heavyweights who thought they were untouchable are now politically irrelevant.
I am an independent. Extremes in either party are not worth my time. Despite my beliefs, I enjoy respectful discourse with people who have different views than me and I support dialogue that includes all voices. Locally, conservative and moderate voices are rarely heard.
Are the elite few among the “progressives” in touch with the average citizen and their concerns?
Local Solutions and Democracy Unlimited were once thought of as being powerful in local politics. In the 2010 election, Local Solutions provided campaign data and consulting to several candidates including Pat Higgins, Patrick Cleary, Bonnie Neely. Almost every candidate who hired Local Solutions lost their race.
Democracy Unlimited got Measure T on the ballot and passed before a judge threw it out as unconstitutional. When former Supervisor Bonnie Neely took $10,000 from an Orange County real estate developer’s corporation, did the bastions of “no corporate money from outside Humboldt County in local elections” publicly chastise the former supervisor? No — they endorsed her. If you talk the talk, you better walk the walk. It is this kind of double-speak that no longer works.
Someone once claimed that no candidate ever lost a local election with the endorsement of the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee (HCDCC). Peter LaVallee has lost three elections in 10 years. Ron Kuhnel has lost the last two elections in a row. Larry Glass, Patrick Cleary and Bonnie Neely lost.
Since Home Depot was rumored coming to Eureka, Bill Pierson stepped up his political donations to the radical “no growth” candidates, giving over $100,000 the past five years to far-left candidates. I don’t know about you, but I have to compete in my field. Competition makes us better. Despite all the money, the candidates that Bill Pierson supported lost.
Voters like me are turned off by the hate and disrespect among the local progressive elite. They are not open to moderate voices that can work with all factions of the community. During the elections, I attended endorsement meetings where these elite fawned over their chosen candidates and rebuffed others. Even after the elections, they chose to ignore the outreach by the newly-elected officials. When the agenda of radicals is defeated, they chose to name call and personally attack elected officials and their families and supporters. I still see these divisive tactics now at public meetings where leaders prey on the genuine causes of community activists in the name of the greater good. Claiming to represent the people, it is these extremist policies and support of far-left candidates that has contributed to unreasonable dependency on government in this area, worsened the struggle of the poor and the working class in this area, and continues to contribute to the crime and blight in this area.
Change in this community is not going to happen until people get involved and all views are heard. For that to happen, people need to feel welcome and safe to voice their varying political and personal beliefs in the media, in local political organizations and at public meetings.John Chiv resides in Eureka.
For fun, check out some of the comments from the Times-Standard online.
The twttersphere is abuzz with this tantalizing tale, but there has been no official confirmation as of yet.
This morning I was asked for my opinion of the NCJ drams, and said:
Hank’s deep-seated fear of being considered pro-Arkley hindered his objectivity, and I think at times he was unable to see past his own ideological biases. But for all of that, he was funny and obviously enormously intelligent, and he had a very broad sense of Humboldt County, if from a very narrow point of view.
Tom, on the other hand, appears to have spent much of the last few years cultivating a keen interest in Tom, and seems genuinely surprised that the rest of us don’t care about his brief stint here 30 years ago with his ex-wife and paid-for house, or the long list of all the things he knows, or his singing career or pirate impersonations or any of it.
Where Hank listened, Tom won’t shut up. Where Hank recognized and encouraged the intelligence of his staff, Tom participated–gleefully, by all accounts–in what was essentially a hostile takeover of the NCJ’s newsroom.
In Tom we have all of the same biases with none of Hank’s humanity. What I think, ultimately, is that Judy Hodgson just went to great lengths and considerable expense to shit down her own throat.
What’s your take?