A security guard with the private firm American Guard Services strikes a pose by the Fourth Street entrance to the Humboldt County Courthouse. | Photo by Ryan Burns.
The Humboldt County Courthouse won’t go unguarded after all — at least, not for the next year and a half or so.
After informing the county last June that it could no longer afford to pay its share of the bill for public security screening at the courthouse’s two public entrances, the Humboldt County Superior Court this week managed to secure stopgap funding through the county’s Community Corrections Partnership (CCP), a probation advisory body financed primarily through through the state.
Sheriff William Honsal informed the Outpost this afternoon that this temporary solution had been found. It comes two weeks after the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors voted to pull the county’s share of funding for security screening, citing budget constraints.
On Tuesday, Honsal told the Outpost via email that he and County Administrative Officer Elishia Hayes met last week with Presiding Judge Kelly Neel and Court Executive Officer Meara Hattan to continue the courthouse security discussion.
Given the county’s budget woes, the Sheriff’s Office had developed a plan with the county’s ADA Compliance Office to move security screening to the second floor, where all the courtrooms are located.
“Although it is not ideal, we had to work within budget constraints to ensure security needs are met,” Honsal said. “We all agreed that keeping security screening at the [first and ground floor] entrances would be the best case scenario.”
To that end, the officials present at last week’s meeting discussed appealing to the state for additional court security funding. On Tuesday, Honsal said, “The courts are preparing a funding request, and we believe there is a good possibility the funding will be approved, allowing screening to be funded for the remainder of this fiscal year and next fiscal year.”
Today, he confirmed that the request had been granted.
“CCP voted on Wednesday to accept the Superior Court’s proposal for stopgap funding for Courthouse entry screening,” he said via email. The partnership granted $400,000 to cover security through next fiscal year (June 2027).
“This will provide time for the Superior Court and the County to work together to request more state funding for court security and court security screening,” Honsal said.
For many years now, the two main public entrances to the courthouse — one on Fourth Street and the other on Fifth — have maintained security screening for everyone coming into the building, complete with private security guards, body scanners and X-ray machines to check for weapons.
Since 2012, the cost of these services has been split between the Sheriff’s Office (17 percent) and Humboldt County Superior Court (83 percent). But last June, the court told the county that it could no longer pay its share of the bill (about $17,790 per month), and despite months of back-and-forth negotiations, no solution was found.
At the January 7 board meeting, County Administrative Officer Elishia Hayes said she and Honsal recommended ceasing all courthouse security screening services as soon as feasible. The supervisors agreed, though they directed Honsal to develop an alternative plan.
The impulse to maintain some level of security screening makes a lot of sense when you consider what people have tried to bring into the courthouse over the years. The Sheriff’s Office used to proudly announce what-all had been confiscated and/or rejected by security screeners. Way back in 2011, for example, the HCSO released an 18-month inventory that included three guns, more than 2,000 knives, hundreds and hundreds of other sharp objects, 52 bullets and much more.
In 2015, the office issued a more comprehensive tally that included two dozen guns, 28,400 knives, 1,102 metal forks, 687 can openers, 33 pairs of handcuffs and more than 1,000 handcuff keys.
Two years later, a local attorney “forgot” he was carrying a loaded handgun in his briefcase when he tried to enter through security, according to the Sheriff’s Office. Four years later, a Eureka resident was arrested after allegedly trying to get through with a loaded gun in his backpack.
The Sheriff’s Office hasn’t released a security screening tally in years. On Jan. 7, the Outpost filed a Public Records Act request, asking for a comprehensive list of the items confiscated at the courthouse last year. The Sheriff’s Office responded 13 days later, saying, “There were no illegal weapons or drugs confiscated in 2025.” Our bad, for using the word “confiscated.”
The Sheriff’s Office explained that prohibited items are not confiscated; rather, those who try to bring them in are simply asked to remove them from the building before entering.
We wrote back, saying we what we were after was a list of those things — the prohibited items people tried to bring in over the course of last year — and we reminded Sheriff Honsal that his department used to publicize such lists in press releases.
Earlier this week, Honsal said his office would work on that refined request. Thanks to the stopgap funding, though, the results will be more of a curiosity than a warning of what the public might encounter inside the courthouse in the near future.
From the California Department of Fish and Wildlife:
The
Director has declared that
the last closed area of the commercial Dungeness crab fishery in
Humboldt County [southern boundary of the Reading Rock State Marine
Protected Areas (41o 17.6’
N. latitude) to Cape Mendocino (40° 10.0’ N. latitude)] will open
at 12:01 a.m., Jan. 30 to be preceded by a 64-hour gear setting
period beginning at 8:01 a.m. on Jan. 27 under a 15%
gear reduction.
State health agencies determined that Dungeness crab no longer poses
a significant human health risk due to domoic acid
and recommended lifting the
delay in the area. With this announcement, all areas of the
commercial Dungeness crab fishery are open.
The Fair
Start Provision is
triggered when there are commercial season delays along the West
Coast for Dungeness crab. This provision prohibits vessels that
fished in another area prior to the opening of a delayed area from
fishing, landing and transiting in the newly opened area for a period
of 30 days. This will apply to the fishing area that is scheduled to
open Jan. 30 and vessels subject to Fair Start may not begin fishing
in this area until Mar. 1.
For
more information, please see the Frequently
Asked Questions for
the current 2025-26 commercial Dungeness crab season.
The
latest information on current fishing season closures related to
domoic acid will be updated on CDFW’s fishery
closure information and health advisories website
or by calling CDFW’s Domoic
Acid Fishery Closure Information Line at
(831) 649-2883.
The
latest domoic acid test results for Dungeness crab are posted on
the CDPH’s
Domoic Acid website
(subsection Analytical Data – Crabs).
For
the latest consumption warnings, please check for any Dungeness
crab health advisory information on the CDPH’s
shellfish advisories page or
by calling the CDPH’s
Biotoxin Information Line at
(510) 412-4643 or toll-free at (800) 553-4133.
CORRECTION: The headline to this post initially misidentified the fire in question, referring to a more recent and less devastating warehouse fire in Arcata. The Outpost regrets the error.
Joint press release from the Arcata Police Department and Arcata Fire District:
The Arcata Fire District, in coordination with the Arcata Police Department, has completed a joint investigation into the origin and cause of the Fire on the Square incident involving properties near 10th and H Streets.
Based on the investigation, there is no evidence that the fire was intentionally set, and no foul play has been identified. Investigators identified several possible ignition sources within the area of origin; however, none could be conclusively confirmed. As a result, the fire has been classified as “Undetermined” in accordance with nationally accepted fire investigation standards. The case will remain open, and the affected properties will be released back to the property owners.
An “Undetermined” classification means that the available information does not clearly indicate a single cause. It reflects the responsibility of investigators to avoid speculation when evidence does not support a definitive conclusion.
The Arcata Fire District conducted the fire origin and cause investigation, which included examining fire damage, reviewing scene conditions, and evaluating potential ignition sources.
The Arcata Police Department assisted the investigation by conducting witness interviews and reviewing available video footage to help establish a timeline of events.
If new credible information becomes available, it will be reviewed using established investigative practices.
The Arcata Fire District and Arcata Police Department remain committed to public safety, fire prevention, and providing accurate information to the community.
UPDATE, MONDAY: They’ve put together a GoFundMe for Agnes Johnson Charter School, which can be found here.
Seems like an uphill battle. The organizers are looking to raise $700,000 in the next two and a half weeks. They’ve raised $1,000 so far.
###
Press release from Mary Halstead, executive director of Agnes J. Johnson Charter School in Weott:
Earlier this week, I shared with staff and families of Agnes J. Johnson Charter School the painful
reality that the school is facing a financial crisis with no clear path forward. That communication
was sent ahead of last night’s Board meeting so families would hear the truth directly and with
care.
At the Board meeting held last night, no formal action was taken to close the school. However,
the Board did approve moving forward with the creation of a plan to wind down operations.
Barring any substantial, unexpected financial relief, the Board expects to consider and potentially
adopt a closure resolution at its next regular meeting on February 12, 2026. Based on the
school’s current financial position, February 28, 2026 has been identified as an anticipated
closure date, with February 27 expected to be the last day of instruction for students, should
closure be approved.
Since 2020, Agnes J. Johnson Charter School has experienced a 35% decline in enrollment due
to families moving out of the area, with the most significant losses occurring during the current
school year. Because charter schools are funded on attendance and subject to midyear
recalculation, the resulting revenue loss is severe and cannot be absorbed. Despite exhausting
every available option, there is no fiscal path that allows the school to continue through the end
of the academic year.
Agnes J. Johnson School has served this community for more than 73 years. In 2019, a small
group of parents came together to prevent its closure by converting it to a charter school. That
effort was rooted in a belief that rural families deserved choice, stability, and a school that
reflected their community. Over the past five years, even amid a pandemic, natural disasters, and
ongoing economic hardship, we honored that belief.
We built something real and meaningful here. We provided small class sizes, individualized
instruction, enriching programs, and a school culture centered on belonging, responsibility, and
care for the whole child. We did the work. We kept our promises. We served children with
integrity and love.
If a closure resolution is ultimately adopted, we will walk alongside families through that
transition. We will ensure student records are transferred promptly, assist families in identifying
next placements, and work closely with the District and neighboring schools to support our
students.
This loss is profound. It is felt deeply by students, families, staff, founders, Board members, and
the wider community. While we cannot save this school again, the legacy of what was built here,
and the children who were shaped by it, will not disappear.
Press release from the Humboldt & Del Norte Labor Council:
The Humboldt & Del Norte Central Labor Council affirms our
solidarity with working people and families of Minneapolis and across
Minnesota who are standing together to defend their communities.
Labor Unions throughout Minnesota
have united to endorse January 23 as a Day of Truth and Freedom —
No Work, No School, No Shopping. This action, led by the Minneapolis
Regional Labor Federation alongside regional councils across the
state, is a response to the violent ICE occupation of their cities
and the direct harm it has caused to union members, workplaces, and
families.
While this call to action comes from
Minnesota labor, I believe it is important for us, here in Humboldt,
to practice solidarity in our own communities — to talk with our
members, to educate, to support one another, and to stand firmly
against attacks on working people, regardless of immigration status.
An injury to one is an injury to
all. What is happening in Minneapolis affects all of us, and labor’s
strength has always come from our willingness to stand together
across geography, trade, and background.
Press release from Big Brothers Big Sisters of the North Coast:
Big Brothers Big Sisters of the North Coast (BBBSNC) announces, with deep gratitude and heavy
hearts, that following careful deliberation, the Board of Directors has voted to permanently close the
organization after 57 years of service to youth, families, volunteers, and the greater Humboldt
County community.
This decision follows the loss of primary operational funding that sustained the organization’s core
services. Despite extensive efforts to secure replacement funding and reduce expenses, the Board
determined there was no viable or responsible path forward that would allow BBBSNC to continue
providing mentoring services at the level of quality, safety, and support that youth deserve.
As a result of the closure, this year’s Bowl For Kids’ Sake fundraiser has been canceled. Any
contributions already received for this year’s event will be fully refunded. This event has long been a
beloved community tradition and a critical source of support for the agency for the last 42 years.
BBBSNC extends heartfelt gratitude to the thousands of supporters, donors, businesses, volunteers,
and families who have helped ignite the potential of local youth for nearly six decades. We are
profoundly grateful for every Big, every Little, every donor, and every partner who made this mission
possible.
The organization is committed to an orderly and responsible wind-down. Staff is focused on
concluding existing matches with care and compassion. While this was a difficult decision, the
BBBSNC board is proud of the fact that the lives of thousands of families in this community have
been positively impacted over nearly six decades of work. BBBSNC recognizes the impact of this
closure on the community and appreciates the understanding and support shown during this
challenging time.
Andy Vo unplugs his Nissan Leaf at a rapid charge station at the Emeryville Public Market on July 5, 2019. Photo by Anne Wernikoff for CalMatters
###
This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
###
California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s $200 million plan to revive the state’s stalling electric-car market faces several fundamental problems: It isn’t enough money, it may not reach consumers quickly enough and the state hasn’t decided whether to subsidize – or exclude – wealthier buyers.
The Newsom administration’s budget proposal — rolled out after President Donald Trump dismantled federal electric vehicle incentives and blocked California’s clean-vehicle mandate — would cover rebates for only about 20% of last year’s EV sales. That CalMatters estimate assumes the state follows the model of the Clean Vehicle Rebate Program, which offered rebates of up to $7,500 toward some electric and hybrid cars before the California Air Resources Board ended it in 2023.
So far the administration has released few details about the proposal, leaving experts and lawmakers circling a basic question: Who should get the money?
“It is better than nothing, which is what a lot of things are getting right now,” said Mars Wu, a senior program manager with the Greenlining Institute, which advocates for investments in communities of color. “How far that $200 million goes really depends on how the program is going to be structured.”
A small incentive in a huge market
California’s electric car market is one the governor celebrates on the world stage. While at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland earlier this week, Newsom highlighted that California has surpassed 2.5 million clean car sales, saying the achievement came after the state “invested in this future when others said it was impossible.” He framed the number against a modest goal to get 1.5 million clean cars on the road, set more than a decade ago.
California officials remain confident the state’s policies will succeed in pushing the transition to electric cars. Even as sales have slipped, EVs will drive future electricity demand, according to a long-term forecast approved Wednesday by the California Energy Commission.
But the limits of the governor’s $200 million EV proposal become clear in the numbers. A CalMatters analysis found the incentive would cover only one out of every five EV sales, assuming similar sales to last year, and the same average rebate level as the state’s last mass-market rebate program.
Advocates are also raising concerns about how quickly the money can get to consumers. Christopher Chavez, deputy policy director at the Coalition for Clean Air, a California-focused advocacy group, warned that the proposed rebates may not reach consumers until 2027, given how long it takes to approve the budget and to set up a new program. If the funding only lasts a year, the program would leave out buyers who need time to plan or save, he added.
“It’s not going to be enough — just to be blunt about it,” Chavez said. “Two-hundred million for a mass-market program will go very quickly.”
The proposal comes as the latest sales numbers show an electric car market slump. Nationally, the loss of the uncapped, popular federal tax credit has accelerated manufacturer write-downs and sales declines as automakers adjusted to a tougher EV market.
In California, the slowdown has pushed the state further off course from its climate goals: even before Congress and President Trump blocked its vehicle mandate last year, California was struggling to hit a requirement that 35% of new cars sold in 2026 be zero-emission. Last year electric and other zero emission cars made up about 23% of new car sales in 2025, down from roughly 25% the year prior, California Energy Commission data shows.
Sales slowed down dramatically at the end of the year, when EVs and other clean cars accounted for just under 19% of new car sales in the fourth quarter of 2025 — the lowest quarterly share since mid-2022.
The Newsom administration will likely lay out the details of its proposal in a draft bill tied to the state budget. The Clean Vehicle Rebate Program would be “the foundation we’d be building from,” wrote Lindsey Buckley, an air board spokesperson, in an email, adding that the goal would be to deploy the $200 million “as soon as possible to support the market.”
Buckley said it is “speculative” to predict the impact of a new EV incentive or how quickly the money would reach consumers.
An environmental activist places signage calling for increased electric vehicle use outside the California Environmental Protection Agency building in Sacramento on June 9, 2022. Environmental activists urged the California Air Resources Board to push for a transition toward 100% electric vehicle consumer use. Photo by Rahul Lal, CalMatters
With limited funding, advocates say the question of who qualifies for the rebates becomes critical.
“What we really don’t want to see is that money going towards higher-income folks for whom it would just be kind of like a bonus coupon,” said Wu, of the Greenlining Institute.
Fast or targeted: lawmakers face a choice
How the Newsom administration and lawmakers design the state’s next EV incentive will determine how quickly the air board can deliver rebates — and whether the program avoids recreating past inequities. California ended its last, broad EV rebate program in 2023 over concerns it benefited higher-income buyers. Targeting lower-income drivers delivers the greatest benefits because they tend to drive the most, and switching to EVs saves them money on fuel and maintenance, said Ethan Elkind, a climate law expert at UC Berkeley.
But income-based “means testing” can slow programs down, requiring income verification and layers of bureaucracy that eat up funding and discourage participation.
That’s a critique of one California program aimed at low-income buyers, Clean Cars 4 All, which offers grants to help drivers trade in older, more polluting vehicles for cleaner alternatives. As the state moved from budget surplus to deficit, the Newsom administration and lawmakers never adequately funded it, advocates say.
Lawmakers provided no new funding in the 2024–25 budget year, and in the current budget cycle, the state provided only about $45 million through a combination of funds and one-time budget actions, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. That falls well short of a sustained, long-term commitment, said Chavez, of the Coalition for Clean Air.
“It’s become — especially as the budget has become more difficult — more of a secondary priority, which is unfortunate,” he said.
Competing ideas, no clear consensus
California’s EV problem has no shortage of potential solutions — only disagreement over which one to choose.
Some policy analysts argue the state should focus on first-time adoption. A recent brief from Atlas Public Policy found that incentives are most cost-effective when they bring a household’s first electric vehicle into the garage — because once a family owns one EV, it is far more likely to buy another.
Elkind, of UC Berkeley, said a simpler approach — a point-of-sale rebate tied to lower-priced vehicles — would be easier for the air board to administer while avoiding subsidies for high-income buyers.
“If it’s just tied to the price of the vehicle, that’s pretty straightforward,” Elkind said.
Some lawmakers told CalMatters the air board should tightly target the rebates to communities most affected by pollution and transportation costs. State Senator Ben Allen, a Democrat from El Segundo, said incentives should focus on communities that suffer the most from air pollution, “so as to increase the bang for air quality buck.”
Senator Josh Becker, a Democrat from Menlo Park, said new incentives should go to the people “who are most burdened by transportation costs and drive the most.”
Fewer easy EV buyers in California
California needs to design its next rebate program well because its most eager EV buyers are gone and the state now faces a harder, more price-sensitive market, experts said.
“California is one of the first states to sort of get into that mainstream market: and it’s a harder market to convert,” said Loren McDonald, a Danville-based EV analyst. Potential buyers now expect seamless charging and balk at waiting 30 to 40 minutes. They also are not keen to install home chargers or pay more upfront. Many, he says, stick with traditional gasoline-powered vehicles.
“We burned through the innovators and the early adopters — those people who want to save the planet, those people who make good money,” McDonald said.
###
Staff writer Erica Yee contributed to this report.
