An independent police oversight group has found that the Eureka Police Department, despite dealing with a high number of complaints and large amounts of multitasking, is completing internal reviews of officer misconduct quickly and correctly.

That information comes from documents released ahead of the OIR Group’s quarterly  Community Oversight Police Practices meeting, which will be held Oct. 22 at 3:30 p.m. in Eureka City Council chambers and is open to the public. 

The OIR Group is a Los Angeles-based independent police auditor that reviews internal investigations about officer misconduct for cities across the country. The group praised EPD’s internal review system. 

“EPD’s command staff clearly remains committed to internal accountability: as exemplified by two cases involving supervisors, EPD is willing to formally hold all employees, regardless of rank or tenure, formally accountable for their actions,” reads the OIR Group’s quarterly report. “This commitment is not to be taken lightly in an agency of EPD’s size. Unlike larger agencies that have dedicated Internal Affairs staffing, EPD’s command staff and supervisors are tasked with a myriad of responsibilities yet take the requisite time to investigate complaints of possible misconduct with rigor.”

One of the incidents the OIR Group investigated was the Nov. 26, 2023 shooting of 31-year-old Cutten man Matthew Williams by EPD officers Jeremy Sollom and Nick Jones. The OIR Group criticized EPD for not interviewing Sollom and Jones the day of the shooting (EPD said it was difficult to do same-day interviews because their legal team is based in the Bay Area). They did commend them for having the EPD supervisor in charge of the investigation observe the interviews later. 

Overall, the OIR Group didn’t find too much to criticize EPD for this quarter, unlike last quarter when the OIR Group made several different suggestions on how the department handled the Cal Poly Humboldt occupation.

Some of the internal investigations the OIR Group looked at:

• A man parked in a place where camping isn’t allowed accused EPD officers of harassing and antagonizing him after they asked him to move. EPD decided the officers acted fairly after reviewing body cam footage.
• An EPD employee claimed their boss was often hostile and was creating a toxic work environment. Employee interviews showed that was true. EPD decided the supervisor had violated their code of conduct, but they did not create a toxic work environment.
• An officer called out sick, but another EPD employee saw them out walking their dog on a trail a while away from their residence later that day. The officer said he was sick, but had to exercise his dog away from people for their safety. He did say he understood that it wasn’t a good look. EPD decided the allegations were baseless.
• Two EPD officers arrested someone trespassing on private property and found some drugs on them. The arrestee later complained that they were treated poorly by the officers and also said they were forging documents. The EPD couldn’t find any evidence of either charge, nor could they find the complainer.

“This quarter’s review demonstrates that the Department continues to uphold its commitment to thoroughness, fairness, and accountability in its investigative processes,” the quarterly report reads. “The Department has actively sought our feedback and incorporated recommendations, a testament to its openness to external review and its continuous effort to refine internal practices.” 

Larue.

Press release from the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office:

On Tuesday, October 15 at about 4 p.m., Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) deputies responded to the report of a domestic disturbance with possible shots fired at an apartment complex on Orchard Lane in Redway.

Deputies responded to the location and located a significant amount of blood and other physical evidence which indicated a disturbance had occurred inside one of the apartment units, but it appeared the individuals involved were no longer at the location. The Sheriff’s Office received numerous phone calls from additional reporting parties indicating the involved individuals had fled the location and had been seen traveling southbound on Redwood Drive in a white Toyota Tacoma pickup truck.

Deputies and law enforcement personnel from numerous agencies canvassed the area and ultimately located the vehicle parked at a residence on Mill Road in Redway. Immediately upon law enforcements arrival, numerous subjects fled on foot into the wooded area south of that location towards Evergreen Road. Law enforcement established a perimeter in the area and began investigative efforts to determine what had conspired.

One of the involved subjects that fled from law enforcement was identified as Joseph Larue, age 38, of Redway. Initial reports identified Larue as the primary aggressor in the initial domestic violence incident, and indicated Larue had been injured during the incident after sustaining a gunshot wound to the face/head. Larue was described as having face/neck tattoos and wearing a dark t-shirt and black or blue jeans during the time of the incident. Larue was also believed to be seen concealing a firearm in his waistband prior to fleeing from law enforcement on foot. A Humboldt Alert was issued to residents in the area indicating the reason for the increased law enforcement presence in the area and instructing them to remain inside their homes.

The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office SWAT Team, Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office Major Crimes Division and California Highway Patrol were requested to assist with the search/apprehension of Larue. CHP fixed wing and helicopter aerial assets, along with Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV’s), were utilized to assist SWAT and K9 personnel during the ground search. After an extensive search, in which all available resources were exhausted, law enforcement personnel were unable to locate Larue.

Joseph Larue is described as a white male adult with dark hair, brown eyes, face and neck tattoos, approximately 6’ tall and weighing approximately 185 lbs. He is believed to be armed with a firearm and was last seen wearing a dark t-shirt and black or blue jeans.

As a result of this incident, arrest warrants will be submitted to the District Attorney’s Office for Larue for felony domestic violence, resisting arrest, possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and possession of ammunition by a prohibited person. Larue is also currently a wanted fugitive associated with felony animal cruelty charges out of Oregon stemming from a January 2024 investigation.

If anyone has information about this crime or Larue’s whereabouts, they should contact the HCSO. Anyone who sees Larue is urged to refrain from approaching him and call 911 immediately.

This case is still under investigation.

Anyone with information about this case or related criminal activity is encouraged to call the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office at (707) 445-7251 or the Sheriff’s Office Crime Tip line at (707) 268-2539.

There was another threat investigation and another lockdown at a Eureka City Schools campus yesterday evening — this time at Winship Middle School, in Cutten.

Details about the threat are hard to come by at the moment. The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office, which handled the case, did not return email seeking information on the incident.

But Micalyn Harris, executive assistant in the Eureka City Schools’ Superintendent’s Office, told the Outpost that the district became aware of the threat at around 5 p.m. and instituted a “soft lockdown” that lasted about an hour.

Since school was already out, Harris said, the lockdown only affected an afterschool program on the campus and a football program unaffiliated with the school, which was using the campus’s field.

Eureka High School — another of Eureka City Schools’ campuses — has been dealing with a spate of bomb threats or shooting threats over the last couple of weeks, with at least three received in October so far.

The following message went out to Winship families from Principal Kristi Puzz last night:

Dear Families,

This evening, we became aware of a potential threat made toward our campus. Out of an abundance of caution, students in our after-school program were immediately placed in a soft lockdown, and families were contacted to pick up their children.

The Sheriff’s Department was promptly notified and conducted a thorough investigation. Following their review, they determined that the threat was not credible.

School will resume as normal tomorrow, with an added presence of sheriff’s deputies on campus for everyone’s continued safety and reassurance. Additionally, staff will be addressing this incident with students tomorrow, discussing the seriousness of making any kind of threat, to ensure that all students understand the importance of maintaining a safe and respectful school environment.

Thank you for your cooperation and understanding.

Respectfully,

Kristi Puzz

###

Yesterday afternoon, the richest person in the world reposted a video of Mike Wilson, Humboldt County’s own Third District Supervisor and (more to the point, here) a member of the California Coastal Commission.

SpaceX — the space exploration company founded by Elon Musk — is suing the state commission in federal court over a decision it made last week concerning its increasingly frequent rocket launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base in Santa Barbara County.

The suit alleges that commissioners showed political bias in rejecting SpaceX’s plans to increase the number of rocket launches up to 50 per year. Musk seems to view Wilson’s comments as evidence of this bias, even though Wilson wound up voting to approve the SpaceX plans. 

The central question before the commission was whether or not these blasts into space should be considered federal activity — since SpaceX is a contractor for the U.S. military — regardless of whether the rockets’ payloads are for the government or for Musk’s private satellite internet company, Starlink.

With a 6-4 vote, the commission rejected SpaceX’s plans, despite assurances from military officials that they would increase efforts to monitor the impacts of rocket launches on nearby wildlife and mitigate the reach of sonic booms. The majority objected to categorizing all SpaceX launches as military activity, saying the the activity is not consistent with California’s coastal management plan and the company should be required to apply for its own coastal development permits.

Musk believes the decision was based on a disapproval of his political views, which were very much a topic of discussion during Thursday’s hearing. In the course of deliberating, several commissioners — including Wilson — voiced concerns about Musk’s behavior, including his recent activity on the Trump campaign trail, his companies’ workplace safety and labor relations record, and his “bigoted beliefs” about transgender people.

See the annotated video below that Musk reposted on the social media platform he owns, X (formerly known as Twitter):

The Coastal Commission has one job – take care of the California coast.

It is illegal for them to make decisions based on what they (mostly wrongly) think are my politics.

For example, I have done more to advance sustainable energy & help the environment than maybe anyone… https://t.co/x5CF2WkVdA

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 15, 2024

Wilson, who declined to comment for this story, was arguing that there are legitimate reasons to be concerned.

“This company is owned by the richest person in the world with direct control over what could be the most extensive global communication system on the planet,” Wilson said, referring to Starlink. “And just last week, that person was speaking about political retribution on a national stage. And it was very glib and but yet he was standing next to a person [Donald Trump], a candidate that openly promotes and is working to normalize that language, right?”

Fellow Commissioner Gretchen Newsom (an alternate and no relation to Gov. Gavin Newsom) was even more pointed in her criticism of Musk. Reading from a prepared statement, she described “a pattern of disregard for employee welfare and regulatory compliance” at Musk’s various companies, citing a Reuters story documenting 600 previously unreported workplace injuries at SpaceX.

“Right now, Elon Musk is hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods and attacking FEMA while claiming his desire to help the hurricane victims with free access to the internet,” said Newsom, a labor organizer. “But this claim itself … is a falsehood, because one must first purchase the Starlink startup kit for several hundred dollars and then face a monthly fee of $120 after 30 days of free internet, a sick ploy to gain customers that are facing tremendous burden and dire straits.”

Newsom also objected to the fact that federal agencies were requesting permits that would profitably benefit SpaceX.

“It appears that rather than prioritizing the welfare of SpaceX employees and the environment, the focus has been on profit maximization, often at the expense of the public and our communities,” she said. 

Wilson’s comments have predictably caught the attention of right-wing media pundits, including Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld:

Wilson is named as a defendant in SpaceX’s lawsuit, along with all of his fellow commissioners. Curiously, though, the complaint incorrectly lists Wilson as being among those who voted to reject the company’s plans:

That’s wrong. Despite his concerns about Musk’s political and business activities, Wilson was among the four commissioners who voted to approve the consistency determination. So was Commissioner Justin Cummings, who’s also incorrectly identified as a “no” voter.

“As much as we might not like the company that the federal government has agreed to conduct these launches with, we really have to stay focused on the fact that our role is making sure that they’re not damaging the environment,” Cummings said during Thursday’s hearing.

Wilson, meanwhile, commended the Air Force and Space Force for working hard to address environmental concerns, and he argued that voting to approve the consistency determination would allow the Coastal Commission to retain its seat at the table during ongoing negotiations.

Military officials say they will again ask for another increase in annual rocket launches — for up to 100 annually — by early next year.

###

When Kenny Carswell launched his campaign for the Ward 2 seat on the Eureka City Council, many were suspicious.

As a project manager for Security National Properties Holding Company, Carswell maintains close ties with the company’s founder and president, Rob Arkley, the semi-local tycoon who has poured millions into both the “Yes on F” campaign and a series of lawsuits aimed at thwarting the City of Eureka’s plans to convert downtown parking lots into apartment buildings. Carswell’s critics fear, if elected, he would use his position on the city council to advocate for Arkley’s interests.

Another point of contention: Carswell closed escrow on a house in Ward 2 just one week before he filed his candidate paperwork to run for the Eureka City Council. Before that, Carswell lived just outside of city limits, which means he was not eligible to vote in Eureka’s municipal elections, let alone run for a seat on the city council. 

In a recent sit-down interview, Carswell told the Outpost that he’s wanted to represent Eureka’s Second Ward – the neighborhood he grew up in – on the city council for “over a decade.”

“Honestly, this is something that I’ve wanted to do for a long time,” he said. “With having multiple jobs in the past, my schedule didn’t really allow for it. … I’ve always wanted to be civic[ally] engaged and take an interest in our local politics because it seems to be the place where I can actually have the most impact.”

The Outpost caught up with Carswell over a cup of coffee on Tuesday morning to talk about his first-ever campaign and the various hot-button issues swirling around the upcoming election. Our conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

###

LoCO: Thank you for taking the time to chat this morning. Can you start off by introducing yourself to our readers?

Carswell: My name is Kenny Carswell, I’m a lifelong resident of Eureka, California. My family has actually lived in Ward 2 since the ‘60s and continues to live there. I’ve spent 27 of my 32 years living in Ward 2, or very close to [it], but always in the City of Eureka. 

Photo via Carswell.

I love Eureka and I see this [election] as my opportunity to give back to a city that’s given so much to me. This is where I plan to retire. I’ve got deep roots here. I’ve got a very diverse network of friends here. I’ve spent almost half of my life working in retail. … I’ve had my current role [with Security National] for about seven years. I’m a project manager – I also put on many hats – and I deal with leasing, project development, land acquisition [and] disposition. I have a pretty good depth of knowledge of dealing with local state agencies, along with public and private agencies as well. I have a good group of connections where I can help connect people to the right person if I don’t have that answer for them myself. I’m excited to have this opportunity to do something and give back to the city.

LoCO: You’ve lived in Eureka for most of your life –

Carswell: All of my life. 

LoCO: All of your life. Can you tell me how [the city] has changed over the years?

Carswell: In the time that I’ve been in Eureka, I think that our homeless issue and mental health crisis have definitely gotten worse. I don’t think that that’s any fault of Eureka specifically, I think it’s a problem that we’re dealing with here in California. 

I do appreciate all of the services that we offer here in Humboldt County and in Eureka specifically. I’m a huge supporter of Betty Chinn and what she does. Her story is super inspirational, and for her to have so much compassion and empathy for people [who are] struggling, I think that’s something that everyone needs to pay attention to and support. 

… I think safety – maybe due to some of these mental health issues – has become more of a concern. I don’t know if I would be allowing my child to hop on a bicycle and ride it all over town [like I did as a kid], and [that was] before the days of cell phones when I was doing that. I just think that it’s gotten a little more dire, partially due to our police force being understaffed. I think that they need some more support, [though] I do think that their recent raise is a good step in the right direction to get them to comparable [law enforcement agency] salaries. In conversations with them and during ride-alongs that sentiment was mirrored. I think that they’re happy with the direction [this city] is going, but [they] still need some support moving forward.

LoCO: As I understand, you currently serve on the Humboldt County Workforce Development Board and the Rotary Club of Old Town. What encouraged or inspired you to run for the Eureka City Council?

Carswell: Honestly, this is something that I’ve wanted to do for a long time. With having multiple jobs in the past, my schedule didn’t really allow for it. I’ve been working towards being in a position to be able to do this for, I’d say, over a decade. I’ve always wanted to be civic[ally] engaged and take an interest in our local politics because it seems to be the place where I can actually have the most impact. 

I have a lot of friends and family here. My friends are all having kids now, and it’s making me think more about the future. I want a community that’s safe for our children and a great place to have them grow up and maybe not want to leave. … I don’t know who said this but I thought it was a very interesting quote: “Our greatest export in Humboldt County is our children.” I would like to change that. I think [Eureka] is a beautiful place with a ton of potential and I would like to work with the people of Eureka – and more specifically Ward 2 – to make it a better place for people that want to stick around.

LoCO: Before we get into the finer points of your campaign platform, I’d like to ask you about your recent move to Ward 2. As I understand, you were living at an address just outside Eureka city limits up until a few months ago. Can you tell me why you decided to relocate to Ward 2?

Carswell: Yeah. So, prior to the pandemic, I had actually purchased that home – which is just a couple blocks outside of Ward 2 – and I was hoping to get in and flip it and move into something else. Then, obviously, the pandemic happened. I ended up staying there for a little while longer and I’m just finishing up construction on that house. I’ve actually put in offers on homes for about the last year and a half or two years – four different homes – and the offers weren’t accepted. So, yes, I did just get an offer accepted on a house and it did happen to be in Ward 2 before the [campaign filing] deadline but I thought, “You know what? I’m going to throw my hat in the ring and do this.” I do wish that I would have had a little bit more of a runway before [the deadline] because it was a bit of a scramble getting all the paperwork and finer details together, but I’m excited to have the opportunity to represent Ward 2. 

LoCO: You also changed your political preference from “Republican” to “No Party Preference” when you changed your address. Can you speak to that as well?

Carswell: So, when I moved, I obviously re-registered to vote. Politics right now are so polarizing, and at the time I registered as a Republican, the political scene was very different. Now, looking at the [two] party system, I can’t say that I wholeheartedly agree with either party. I way more identify with a No Party Preference. I think there are pros to both sides, but I’m definitely, very much so a moderate. So it just made sense [to change it].

LoCO: Let’s talk about your campaign platform. What are your top priorities for Ward 2 and for Eureka as a whole, and how do you plan to address them if elected?

Carswell: I’d like to start with the community. In my door-knocking and talking to a lot of people, I don’t feel that people are feeling represented by our current city council. I think that their voices are falling on deaf ears. In the past few years, I’ve attended quite a few city council meetings where I’ve watched people basically line up to speak in opposition to something, only to have it unanimously pass without further consideration [from the council] – myself being one of those speakers a couple of times – and that kind of frustrated me. I felt like we weren’t being represented properly. I want to bring that back.

Also, community-wise, I want safety for our children. Touching on what we spoke about a little earlier with law enforcement … we need to help them retain officers. It’s [the same thing] for the firefighters – they’re understaffed and they’re very overworked. These are the people that respond to, you know, anything outside of a police response or 9-1-1 call. You want them on their A-game when they show up. I’ve had the privilege of doing several ride-alongs with them and had some great conversations. In fact, the Humboldt Bay Firefighters Local 652 endorsed me. … I think it’s important to support them, and I think it’s the foundation of a healthy community. …

Homelessness and the housing epidemic is another issue. We have a problem with housing. I think that we need to be looking into the long-term future of Eureka before we place this housing. I do think it is a huge need, and I do think that it affects the retention of law enforcement, firefighters, health care workers and professors at the colleges. If we have housing for them, it will make people want to stay here. I’m a big supporter of housing projects. 

Another thing I’d like to touch on is just [the importance of] being very communicative. I want people to be able to get in touch with me, sit down and have a cup of coffee like we are right now, you know, give me a phone call or an email. I’m already getting emails from people in [Ward 2] and I’m connecting them with resources that I know of to help them with problems. That’s a part of this that I enjoy. I’m very social. I like having conversations with people and connecting with them, and I just want to let everyone know that I have an open-door policy. 

LoCO: Expanding on what you just said about housing … What specific policies would you propose, if elected, to address housing affordability and homelessness in Eureka?

Carswell: I think that we need to continue to work with programs that we already have working for us, for one. I think we need to look outside of the city to see what’s working well in other areas as well. I did have the opportunity to talk with both Councilmember [Kati] Moulton and Councilmember [Scott] Bauer last night about them going to the League of California Cities [conference]. … I think that collaboration of ideas is huge. Like I said earlier, these are problems that face not just Eureka, they face the entire state and, honestly, the nation. It’s good to get out and see what’s working for who. I know that the City of Eureka actually won the Helen Putnam Award in regard to dealing with these things. It’s good to be at the forefront of a city that’s actually making a difference. I support any ideas. Let’s bring things to the table, let’s sit down, let’s talk about it and let’s continue to support programs like Betty Chinn.

LoCO: You’re a project manager with Security National, a local real estate servicing firm owned by Rob Arkley, who has bankrolled Measure F, the “Housing for All and Downtown Vitality” initiative. I want to talk to you about your stance on Measure F in a moment, but first, can you tell me what obligation you feel, if any, to advocate for Security National’s wants on the city council if elected?

Carswell: So, for one, it would be a conflict of interest for me to do so. I’ve had nothing to do with the Measure F campaign … . Anything that’s going to be voted on that has anything to do with SN I would have to recuse myself from and would do so willingly. Like I said earlier, this is something I’ve wanted to do for a long time. That’s my employer. I definitely have learned a skillset working there that will help me in this role and dealing with problem-solving, but I don’t feel any obligation beyond that. 

LoCO: And what is your stance on Measure F?

Carswell: I’ve had the wonderful opportunity to talk to a ton of residents in Ward 2 and … in the conversations that I’ve had with them … the consensus is currently that they’re wanting the California Highway Patrol headquarters, which I fully support. 

As far as Measure F goes, whether or not that passes, the [CHP] can go to that site. Now, shifting to how [Measure F would] affect downtown, I do believe that there should be parking and housing, not either or. Like I said, I support housing but I also support our downtown area and the businesses thriving. I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but back in 2022, our own Eureka Main Street wrote a letter to the council talking about how it would be detrimental for us to lose the parking downtown for our already struggling businesses.

Another thing I’d like to touch on is just accessibility. We have a lot of wonderful events in Old Town that I personally love going to, you know, Friday Night Market, Arts Alive, the Fourth of July Fair and many, many more. We have an elderly community here that likes to attend those events, and if they can’t get there due to mobility issues then they’re cut out of that, which I think is a loss. 

Just to support our tourism industry here locally, I think we need parking for people who are passing through on Highway 101. Our businesses tax revenue and our tourism industry tax revenue – specifically with transit and occupancy tax (TOT) –  that’s what helps bolster our [city’s] tax revenue. [The city] is in a $1.1 million budget deficit right now and we need to be addressing that. 

So, I support Measure F. And as far as the Old Town parking and housing goes, I think we can have the best of both worlds. As far as the Jacobs site goes, I’m completely on board with the majority of [Ward 2] wanting the CHP there, and I’ll work to make sure that that happens to the best of my ability. … Whether Measure F  [passes] or not, this is going to the ballot at the same time I am. I’m glad it’s going to the people, and I’m willing to work on either side of this [issue] to do whatever I can for the people of Ward 2 … .

LoCO: City officials, including Ward 2 incumbent Kati Moulton, have expressed concern that the state would sue the city if Measure F is passed because it would contradict state housing laws. Can you speak to that?

Carswell: … [T]he California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) recently wrote a letter that was actually talking about how these are possible [issues], not guaranteed. I think looking [at] the future of Eureka and long-term planning, we’re going to be really kicking ourselves down the road when these projects are built and it puts the nail in the coffin for Old Town businesses. 

[NOTE: The letter he’s referring to – linked here – goes over the procedures the city would have to follow if Measure F were to pass. The city would have to amend the housing element of its General Plan to ensure compliance with state-mandated housing goals. If the HCD determines that the city is out of compliance, it could “revoke its finding that the city’s housing element is in compliance with Housing Element Law.” The state could also remove the city’s “pro-housing” designation. You can learn more at this link.]

LoCO: During my recent conversation with Councilmember Moulton, she expressed concern that Measure F would make the city’s planned housing projects virtually impossible to construct because the additional parking would cost so much money. Perhaps this is a question for a developer, but can you speak to that? Would the price tag make these projects infeasible?

Carswell: I am in development just enough to know some basics. When I last looked at these units – as is, without the parking – they were very expensive already. We’re talking over half a million dollars a unit. … From the penciling that I have done about these buildings that [would be built on] parking lots, it could add about five to eight percent to the project costs. … You know, we’re talking tens of millions of dollars to build these things, so adding five to eight percent is a chunk but when we’re looking at the future of Eureka and the vitality of Old Town, our business district and our tourist areas, I think that’s an investment worth making. I’ve also been looking into grants that can help fund this additional cost to maybe bridge that gap. 

LoCO: I want to go back to the Jacobs site for a moment. Eureka City Schools is in active negotiations with CHP, and if that property acquisition goes through, there is no guarantee that housing could be built on the Jacobs Campus. You’ve expressed support for CHP building a headquarters there if that’s what the community wants. Can you talk more about that?

Carswell: The typical footprint for a CHP office is much less than eight acres. Being a state agency, they’re going to have somewhat of a fiduciary duty to do something with that other acreage there. I have a pretty good gut feeling that that’s going to open that up for housing development. … In that part of town it really does make sense to do some housing there, but, you know, we’ll see what the CHP does on that. I can’t really speak to that.

LoCO: You’ve also talked about the importance of boosting the economy in some of your recent interviews. Tell me more about that. 

Carswell: One of my functions [at Security National] is to court retailers. I do work with economic development, both here in the county and in other places around the country. … That being said, these are not my projects but I have heard some pretty solid rumors of some larger national retailers moving into both the Sears building at the Bayshore Mall and the Kmart building on the south end of Highway 101. I think that’s great and I would fully support these things. …

Economic development snowballs. It’ll start small and it will gradually start picking up … [other businesses] that will follow larger tenants to markets. So when they’re green-lighting markets, they’re actually looking to see if these key retailers are in the market. If so, they’ll usually follow because they know that the demographics match up just from doing it across the country. … I really just want to help court businesses here and also really support the businesses that exist now. I really want to support more small local businesses.

Something I touched on at last night’s candidate forum was Measure O. … If passed, Measure O is going to raise our sales tax in the city of Eureka to over 10 percent – that’s like Bay Area sales tax numbers in the small city of Eureka with a 30,000 population. That is crazy. … If I were a small business looking to establish here in a small community, I’d probably be looking outside of Eureka if there was an over 10 percent sales tax. …

I do understand the need for road repair. We are hundreds of millions of dollars behind in road repair. I would like to kind of see a little more accountability on past ballot measures. The auditing and accounting of the county has been tumultuous at best. I think we need to go back to the drawing board [and assess] what we’ve already voted in as far as ballot measures before we look to vote in another one.

LoCO: Well, I think we’ve covered all of my questions. Are there any other issues you’d like to talk about? Closing thoughts?

Carswell: I think that we do need to shine a spotlight on health care here. People are having a hard time finding doctors, and I think that goes back to the issue of retention, housing and quality of life.

Something fun I’d like to talk about … I’d like to really praise city staff and what they’re doing for our parks right now. I enjoyed the parks a ton growing up as a kid and I think they were a little newer then, obviously 20-25 years ago. They’ve been in need of some love and they’re getting that love. It is phased and it’s taking a little bit of time, but on the other end of that is something that really increases our quality of life here and I’m really excited about that. …

If you haven’t met me, please reach out. … I just want to continue to have conversations with people, let them know that their voices are heard and work to make Eureka better for everyone. 

###

You can find more information about Carswell’s campaign on Facebook, Instagram and his website. If you want to get in touch, email him at ward2kenny@gmail.com.

Election Day is Nov. 5.

###

PREVIOUS INTERVIEWS WITH THIS YEAR’S CANDIDATES:

• LoCO INTERVIEW: Eureka City Council Candidate Thavisak ‘Lucky’ Syphanthong Talks About His Journey From Laos to America, Tells Us Why He Decided to Run, and Takes a Stand on Measure F
• LoCO INTERVIEW: Scott Bauer, Eureka’s Fourth Ward City Council Rep, on His Reelection Campaign and the Importance of Community Resilience
• LoCO INTERVIEW: Kati Moulton, Eureka’s Second Ward City Council Rep, on Her Reelection Campaign, the False Promises of Measure F, the Importance of Police Transparency, and More!

Proposition 36, the tough-on-crime ballot measure that would increase punishment for certain drug and theft offenses, appears likely to pass with polls showing voter support by large margins.

Its momentum has behavioral health leaders across California trying to figure out how they’d actually implement a part of the measure that pledges “a new era of mass treatment for those who need it the most.”

As far as they can tell, California counties don’t have the resources to provide what Prop. 36 envisions: behavioral health treatment for people convicted for a third-time drug offense.

“We simply don’t have enough capacity right now to take on a whole new population of folks that are getting mandated into treatment,” said Dr. Ryan Quist, behavioral health director of Sacramento County.

Their concerns center on an element of Prop. 36 that would create a new kind of felony, also known as a treatment-mandated felony. It would allow prosecutors to charge a person arrested for possession of certain drugs, such as fentanyl or heroin, and who have two or more previous convictions for certain drug crimes with the new felony.

After pleading guilty or no contest, they’d be able to choose: undergo substance use disorder or mental health treatment, or serve up to three years in jail or prison.

“By requiring treatment for those with a pattern of repeat drug convictions, we can save lives and help bring everyone indoors,” say proponents on the campaign website. “Prop. 36 represents a tool to help us address the crisis of homelessness because people who receive treatment have a much greater chance of staying housed.”

There’s one big catch: Most counties don’t have nearly enough behavioral health treatment facilities, services or workforce to accomplish what the measure aims to achieve, according to a wide range of behavioral health experts and studies on the state’s behavioral health workforce.

A guard tower at the California Health Care Facility prison in Stockton on March 2, 2022. Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters

Seven experts told CalMatters that counties will have the hardest time supporting a new population of people needing residential treatment, which provides live-in care.

Finding outpatient care, such as individual or group therapy, would also be challenging depending upon where a person lives.

“I think it’s irresponsible to tell voters that people will get treatment when you know they will not, because there is no treatment available,” said Cristine Soto DeBerry, executive director of the Prosecutors Alliance of California, a nonprofit organization opposed to Prop. 36. “They’ve wrapped the pill in baloney. The only way to get voters to vote for their prison initiative is to tell them it’s about treatment.”

California doesn’t have enough treatment beds to meet the existing demand for supply, according to a RAND study from earlier this year. Researchers found that substance use disorder treatment facilities, in particular, “did not accept patients with prior involvement in the criminal justice system, those with co-occurring health issues, and those enrolled in Medicaid.”

If treatment is not available, opponents say, there would be no choice. The only option would be incarceration. Supporters of Prop. 36 said that won’t be the case.

Prop. 36 would partially reverse a different initiative voters approved a decade ago, which reduced penalties for certain lower-level drug and petty theft offenses from felonies to misdemeanors. The measure, Proposition 47, was intended to develop new public safety strategies and reduce incarceration after the state’s prison population exploded due to tough-on-crime policies dating back to the 1980s.

San José Mayor Matt Mahan, a prominent Prop. 36 supporter, has acknowledged the lack of treatment options available in his own community, Santa Clara County.

“It’s why I think Prop. 36 ultimately will be a great forcing function for the state and all of our counties to invest in inpatient treatment systems at scale, which is something we’ve desperately needed for years,” Mahan said.

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan speaks during a press conference at Cal Expo in Sacramento on March 16, 2023. He is one of the leading proponents of Prop. 36, a 2024 ballot measure that would lengthen criminal sentences for certain drug crimes. Photo by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters

The measure’s critics, such as Contra Costa County Chief Public Defender Ellen McDonnell, said Prop. 36 would criminalize poverty and increase the existing over-incarceration of Black and brown people.

McDonnell called the mandated treatment a “fantasy” given the lack of resources currently available in her county, where people have had to spend months in jail waiting for a treatment bed.

“Saddling individuals who are suffering from a behavioral health disorder with a felony is going to result in really poor outcomes where their ability to find and obtain housing, education and employment cannot be understated,” McDonnell said. “We need to look at substance use disorders as public health issues and not as criminal issues.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom tried to keep Prop. 36 off of the fall ballot and for a time considered putting a competing crime measure before voters. He hasn’t put any money into fighting Prop. 36, but he has referred to the initiative as an “unfunded mandate” that would take California back to the War on Drugs.

What is a treatment-mandated felony?

Under the proposed treatment-mandated felony, someone convicted of a qualifying crime who opts for treatment would be assigned “a detailed treatment program developed by a drug addiction expert and approved by the court.” Alongside treatment, people “would be offered shelter, job training, and other services designed to break the cycle of addiction and homelessness.”

Those who finish treatment would have their charges dismissed.

According to the measure, a treatment program could entail drug treatment, mental health treatment, job training, “and any other conditions related to treatment or a successful outcome for the defendant that the court finds appropriate.”

Prop. 36 supporters, such as Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, say that the treatment-mandated felony is intended to “reactivate the drug court path” and give leverage back to judges.

“If (people) don’t go, there’s a stick hanging over them,” Reisig said. “None of that exists right now. We don’t have a stick and there’s no core compulsion, which is why these beds are empty and why the drug courts are gone. It’s not rocket science.”

It’s true that drug court participation decreased after Prop. 47 passed, according to a 2020 report by the Center for Court Innovation, a nonprofit organization.

According to the report, drug courts have historically focused on felony cases. After the sentencing reforms of Prop. 47, many of the felony offenses that once led people to drug courts were reclassified to misdemeanors.

In its review of drug court participation, the report stated, “One way for drug courts to continue serving defendants in need of treatment is to begin accepting these lower-level charges…a variety of changes can help courts to rethink their eligibility criteria and incentivize lower-level defendants to participate.”

Notably, the report found that participation increased among the drug courts that expanded eligibility criteria after Prop. 47.

When asked whether counties will be able to keep their promise of effectively implementing what’s outlined in the measure, Reisig said “the language in the initiative doesn’t say ‘promise’ and it doesn’t say ‘this is a guarantee.’”

According to Reisig, there’s “no risk” a person will sit in jail because treatment is unavailable.

For Mahan, treatment under a treatment-mandated felony starts with counseling and building trust.

“There’s healthy practices like meditation and yoga and diet and a lot of things you can do to try to help people create healthier habits, which is nearly impossible to do if you’re living on the streets,” he said. “Much easier to do if you’re in an inpatient setting of some sort – you have some kind of housing that’s stable. And then, look – for some folks, it’s medication.”

Above all, Mahan said that residential treatment is the “greatest need” and would have the “greatest positive impact” since a high percentage of people who end up in drug court need a place to live.

“I don’t think the primary goal should be to lock people up,” Mahan said. “I don’t think that’s a great solution. But I do think the reality is, if you are deep in the throes of an addiction to the point where you’ve been arrested multiple times, there may be other co-occurring crimes committed and you are unwilling to engage in treatment, we then have a choice.”

‘They’re scrambling’

California’s shortage of treatment beds is well documented. A 2022 report by California’s Department of Health Care Services found that 70% of the state’s 58 counties reported “urgently needing” residential addiction treatment services. Nearly two dozen counties reported having no residential treatment at all.

One of those counties is Plumas County, where the nearest residential treatment facility is roughly two hours outside of the county.

Plumas County Undersheriff Chad Hermann is supporting Prop. 36 but acknowledged that there will be major challenges in its implementation for his small Northern California community.

“When you’re looking at small counties such as mine, we could have a person that needs mental health treatment or it’s court-ordered to get treatment, you can’t find a bed for them for weeks,” said Hermann. “So it’s very problematic. You’re just kind of manifesting the problem rather than addressing it.”

Larger counties have also expressed concern over capacity for treatment. Quist of Sacramento County, said he “wishes it was easy to set up” treatment beds.

According to Quist, creating beds can take two years or longer.

“It takes a significant amount of organizational complexity and staffing in order to get to the point where (residential homes) can offer additional beds,” Quist said. “Currently, they’re scrambling in order to staff their existing beds and maintain their existing capacity.”

California faces historic constraints in its mental health and substance use disorder workforce across the state, according to the Healthforce Center at the University of California San Francisco. A 2023 report found Californians’ needs for behavioral health providers are rapidly outpacing its workforce.

“You can mandate all you want, but if you don’t have the people, then the folks who the courts have directed to get mandated treatment may not get it or they may have to wait a long time,” said Janet Coffman, Professor of Health Policy at UCSF, who co-authored the report. “I don’t see where there really is much in the way of excess capacity for outpatient treatment to absorb additional people.”

Roughly 30% of the state’s 58 counties reported the need for additional outpatient mental health treatment services and substance use disorder providers, according to the Department of Health Care Services.

“Without actually having a workforce big enough to treat and really take on this new population, how effective will it be?” said Kevin O’Connell, a criminal justice and behavioral health researcher who has not taken a stance on Prop 36. “If there isn’t capacity, then you risk jail being where people go back to.”

No new funds through Prop. 36

Sentencing reforms under Prop. 47 helped to significantly reduce the population in extremely overcrowded state prisons and jails. The incarceration rate has dropped by 30%, according to the Public Policy Institute of California, and Newsom has moved to close four state prisons.

The initiative freed up roughly $800 million of savings for the state to reinvest into mental health and substance use disorder treatment, crime prevention programs and victim services, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. If passed, Prop. 36 is likely to reduce funding from those programs “in the low tens of millions of dollars annually,” according to an estimate from the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

The measure would “increase local criminal justice costs, likely by tens of millions of dollars annually” and “increase state criminal justice costs, likely ranging from several tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars each year,” according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Supporters of Prop. 36, including Reisig, have said the state has ample revenue to expand capacity with $6.4 billion from the mental health bond voters approved in March and settlements from opioid lawsuits, as well as revenue from Medicaid, Medi-Cal and grants administered by an agency that oversees California jails. Newsom said that the mental health bond “was not designed” for Prop. 36.

Reisig said, “If the money’s there, it’s not impossible to get treatment on demand pretty much anywhere in California. That’s the part that many people are simply overlooking – as if creating a treatment bed is some complex project. It’s not.”

Soto DeBerry said that if money was available for treatment, counties would already be using it. Californians, she said, deserve real solutions to their concerns.

“We spent decades obsessed with using jails and prisons to solve problems that they weren’t well-situated to solve,” she said. “So we’ve spent the last 10 years moving money away from building prisons and paying prison guards, and toward investing in community-based treatment and residential treatment that work at much higher rates and are much more cost effective.”

###

Cayla Mihalovich is a California Local News fellow.

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

On Monday, September 30, 2024,  Steven Paul Cannata passed away after a valiant fight with cancer.  Born on February 21, 1954 to Carl and Olivia Cannata, Steve grew up primarily  in Northridge, California, alongside siblings, Michael and Kristi.

From an early age, Steve charted his own course in life. His passion for the ocean blossomed during his childhood adventures near his grandparents’ home, where he developed a deep love for marine life. This passion shaped his future as both a protector and advocate for the sea and its creatures. His career began humbly, working as a deckhand for a friend’s family. Before long, he was a full-time commercial fisherman, dedicated not only to the work but to safeguarding the fish he so deeply admired.

Steve’s desire to make a broader impact led him back to school, where he earned a degree in Biology from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. He went on to work for PG&E, conducting fish studies, counting salmon populations, and advocating for the protection of local watersheds and wildlife. His keen expertise in salmonids made him an invaluable resource. His extensive studies on the Eel River Estuary remain crucial references for both current and future researchers. Steve eventually transitioned to a role with the California Department of Fish and Game, where he believed he could make an even greater difference. He retired from the department in 2016.

Beyond his professional life, Steve’s connection to nature was deeply personal. He longed for a home where he could cultivate his own food and live in harmony with the world around him.  He often remarked, “I don’t need a vacation; I don’t need to go anywhere,” while gesturing toward the mountains outside his front porch. He found solace under the shade of a huge bay laurel tree in his yard, which he called his “cathedral,” spending many peaceful hours in quiet reflection.

Steve’s love extended beyond nature to the people around him. He invested his time in his friends and neighbors, forging meaningful connections wherever he went. In 2018, he met Saundi Phillips, the love of his life. Their shared love of the outdoors and quest for a tranquil life made their bond undeniable. Though their time together was brief—just six years—it was filled with love and joy, a lifetime of memories to be cherished.

Steve’s love of life was matched only by his love of music. As a teen, he carried his guitar with him on his hitchhiking adventures,  playing around campfires, always inviting others to join in. He performed in bands, jammed with friends, and could spend hours lost in the melody of his guitar.

Steve is predeceased by his mother, Olivia Cannata; father, Carl Cannata;, and brother, Michael Cannata.  He is survived by his loving sister, Kristi, and brother-in-law, Murad, as well as his cherished nieces, Karina, Rachel and Kayla,, and their children.

A celebration of Steve’s life will be held at The Old Steeple, in Ferndale, on November 10, 2024, at 4 p.m. In Steve’s memory, friends and family will gather not in sorrow, but in celebration—with a meal, music, stories, and a jam session, just as Steve would have wanted. His legacy of love, music, and connection will live on in the hearts of all who knew him.

###

The obituary above was submitted on behalf of Steve Cannata’s loved ones. The Lost Coast Outpost runs obituaries of Humboldt County residents at no charge. See guidelines here. Email news@lostcoastoutpost.com.