Today in irony

King Richard assumes his rightful throne.

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

24 Responses

  1. Nothing new here. People who refuse to work have rights. People who provide jobs are demonized as evil corporations and told that they do not. Is anyone still wondering why HumCo is in the condition it’s in?

  2. Hey Richard, why don’t you shut the hell up or face the expense, uncertainty and unpleasantness of sucking my crank?

    Just a thought.

  3. Oh. He sent it on Valentine’s Day. How sweet. It’s like a love letter for the self-involved.

  4. Bugs, I think we have a winner.

  5. ”Mr. Salzman objects to the near-total ban on begging in public fora…”

    ”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,”

    Who wrote that slobber?

    Oh, yeah. Sara (the dog) Salzman.

  6. Peter Martin?????? He’ll do anything for anyone…but for Salzman?????
    Peter, you have sunk to a new low…

  7. Lets not forget that Salzman was Gags manager for his election. Also a founder of local solutions and about 500 other whack job groups. Good friend of Jennifer Kalts and all the other lefty nut jobs.

    He is what is wrong with Humboldt. A major fucking asshole and parasite. Now of all things he is going to mess with the peoples republic of Arcata. This will be some show.

  8. Since Heraldo has half the county on comment moderation, please allow me to post this here:

    Where is it again that Mitch [Trachtenberg, ally and business party of the afforementioned Dicky Salzman] carpetbagged in from? I just want to say what a privilege it is to hear all of his brilliant ideas about how to improve a place he’s lived in for about five minutes now.

  9. Yes, Mitch is a very smart man. Just ask him………

  10. “Mr. Salzman would prefer to resolve this matter without litigation”……well, no shortage of hubris here.

    Ms. Blowe would prefer to resolve this matter by drowning Mr. Salzman in a tub of the shit that he is responsible for stirring. Ms. Blowe would prefer to have his great ‘good friend’, Mr. Gallegos in attendance for this ritual.

    Is this completely moronic asshat so hard up for something to do? Why can’t he go down and hang over the 101 from a tree in the Grove? With any luck a truck will smash him to bits and there will be oxgyen avaliable for a viable human being!

  11. The left is so easily understood with child psychology. Mr. Salzman has been feeling left out lately so he sent this letter to the City of Arcata to get back to being the center of attention. See not so hard. The problem is how to deal with the man-child’s tantrums.

  12. Nah, he’ll never go down and hang out in the trees, or get pepper spray applied to his eyes, or get arrested – that’s for the dupes, the ones he manages to trick into thinking they’re part of something bigger. He uses them and then discards them.

    Him’n his buddy, Ken.

  13. Good point about the Hblogshit. Many people are on permanent moderation. So Mitch the bitch, NaN the puss, and Jane Doe reincarnated get to run there mouths with shit. Also many posts are Salzman herself. Oh and lets not forget tra, reasonable my ass. Just a whole bunch of actors in a prog play. The realy funny part is when they talk about input, they do not believe in any way but their way.

    Fact is they never walk the talk, just fucking mouth runners. Ever see any of them actually contribute to anything positive in our community. Not ever. Parasites all.

  14. I WANNA marry Josephine. That broad is funnier than all hell. Hey Jo B. Tell your husband he is a lucky sob gal. You are witty and on the mark about drowning tricky Dick in a tub of the shit he stirs up.

    Mr. Martin and dick. Fuck you for valentines day too.

  15. Richard Salzaman is my friend. But you don’t have to like Richard to appreciate that what he is doing is protecting your civil rights, the right of everyone here to practice protected speech. I get as annoyed as anyone here by panhandlers and constantly getting hit up for spare change (which I always refuse, as politely as I can, which sometimes is not very polite). But I recognize the street bums have the same right under the First Amendment to wear a sign asking for money as Round Table Pizza has to have somebody wear one of their signs standing on a street corner asking people to patronize their business. I believe a little annoyance is worth putting up with to protect our civil rights. After giving it some thought, I’ll bet some of you here, maybe a lot of you, might agree.

  16. Bird if salzman is your friend then you are fucked up. He is a lying gutless freak. You like him, let’s meet over a beer to let me share my opinion you gutless turd. Give my best to Wes. FUck Marks over again. You are gutless and weenie-less.


  17. Wow. So much for substantive debate.

  18. Wow, bird is such a sweetheart. Sorry bird. FUCK richard. He is a pissant piece of shit parasite. He only does things for himself/money/personal glory. If you believe anything else you need to be 5150ed into the bin.

    The big problem I have is that you are the mouthpiece for Wes, John, Berg’s fill-in , and all the progy pieces of shit. How you fucking live with yourself is beyond me. How you come out and defend the shit makes you look like a weak tool. Seems like you not only lack testes but also a spine and ethic’s.

  19. Damn CTD’s you kiss your mother with that mouth?

  20. One needs to be very careful who one calls friend.

  21. Or pissant piece of shit parasite.

  22. Or pissant piece of shit lying parasite. And one who kicks his dog too.

  23. Maybe you should be asking the more relevant question — Eureka and Fortuna are run by conservatives, but they don’t pass retarded ordinances like these ones dumbfuck fake liberals in Arcata keep churning out.

  24. Hey Chode, instead of asking Richard to blow you, why not ask Josephine? Her last name suggests you might just get lucky.

    Whatever you do, don’t proposition Toothey. Not exactally the happy ending you’re expecting-

What say you?

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