Last night, the Eureka City Council narrowly passed a Vacant Building Ordinance that will allow the city to collect hefty fines from property owners with long-standing vacancies in residential and commercial buildings. 

The intent of the ordinance is to fix Eureka’s blight problem, not to punish landlords who can’t seem to find an interested renter. Given that goal, exceptions to the penalty are written into the ordinance. Owners looking to rent, sell or lease their property “in good faith” are exempt from the fine, as well as those with a permit to renovate or demolish the building. People with extenuating circumstances may also seek an exemption. 

Otherwise, folks who let properties sit empty for 90 days or more will be subject to a fine of $1,000 per month. After a year, the fine jumps to $5,000 per month.

“The fine is intended to be punitive,” City Attorney Autumn Luna clarified during last night’s meeting. “Fines are intended to be an amount that is enough to discourage people from violating the law.”

The ordinance also includes a monitoring and maintenance element that aims to keep empty buildings in good shape pending occupation. Property owners of vacant buildings will need to submit a “vacant building plan” explaining how long their building will be vacant and why. Under the ordinance, owners are required to upkeep buildings’ landscaping and exterior appearance and clear away trash and graffiti. The city will monitor vacant buildings quarterly and collect  monitoring fees. Those fees, which will be set at a later meeting, will be lower than the fines and aren’t punitive; they’re meant to cover the city’s monitoring expenses.

After tweaking the ordinance during a couple of meetings last month, the council passed it without new changes last night. That said, the council was divided. While some members voiced satisfaction with the ordinance, others worried about its punitive nature and wondered whether it will effectively tackle Eureka’s blight issue. The ordinance will replace the city’s existing Vacant and/or Boarded Building Ordinance in the municipal code.

The council agreed that blight is an issue across the Eureka’s neighborhoods and commercial districts, tarnishing neighborhood pride and disincentivizing visitors from exploring local businesses.

Business owners are frustrated, Councilmember Leslie Castellano said, because vacant buildings along the 101 corridor near Old Town signal to visitors that there aren’t open businesses nearby. 

“In the spirit of trying something out and learning from what we try, I completely support this,” Castellano said.

Councilmember Scott Bauer said he continues to wonder why so many buildings are vacant, and expressed uncertainty in prescribing a solution when the cause isn’t fully understood. 

“I think it’s an interesting concept, but being someone that craves data – as a scientist, I think data is important – I did a lot of research, and I and talked with people who I consider experts, and nobody could give me a good reason, a tax reason, to keep a building vacant,” he said. “I couldn’t find it.” 

Bauer asked staff for opinions on whether the ordinance will accomplish its intent. 

Director of Public Works Brian Gerving said his department of four staff coordinate between 600 and 800 code enforcement efforts per year, and adding more to the load is “a bit of a concern for me.” 

“However, if it’s going to achieve something meaningful, that’s great,” Gerving said. “I don’t know that these new provisions would get at the root causes of those vacancies. I don’t know that this is the best tool for that, but if it’s what council is asking staff to do, then we’ll certainly do it.”

Councilmember Renee Contreras-DeLoach asked whether there is a better tool.

“That’s the harder question to answer, and I I don’t know that there is a better tool,” Gerving said. “I don’t know that this is the right one, but I can’t offer up an alternative at this point, because […] I don’t know that we have the right data on what the root causes of all these vacancies are.”

Councilmember Contreras-DeLoach listed several hangups with details in the ordinance.

The monitoring plan will require property owners to submit a timeline for occupying the building, which Contreras-DeLoach said is difficult, if not impossible, to predict. 

She also worried that maintenance requirements spelled out in the ordinance – which aim to prevent trespassing by replacing broken windows, for instance – are too heavy-handed. 

“I think this sounds good on the surface, but it’s almost like we don’t know or are cognizant of what property owners are facing in Eureka, which is a high level of property crime and windows being busted out,” said Contreras-DeLoach. Windows are expensive and replacing them can take time, Contreras-DeLoach said, adding that she herself has been robbed three times. 

She also listed some concerns about the monitoring element of the ordinance, which requires property owners to implement security at vacant properties. Some options are open-ended, allowing the city to decide what security is sufficient on a case-by-case basis.

“I’m uncomfortable passing anything where we’re not being very specific about what powers we’re giving ourselves and what we’re asking of code enforcement,” she said. 

Overall, Contreras-DeLoach said she finds it problematic that the ordinance aims to address both residential and commercial buildings at once, because different types of buildings sit vacant for different reasons.

During public comment, one person appeared in support of the new rules and two firmly against them. 

“I don’t know that you can tell someone what they must do with their property,” said one public commenter. “That’s like saying I must drive my car or I must ride my bicycle. I don’t think that it is productive to demand that real estate be returned to use when there is so much lack of interest in the space being utilized.”

Meanwhile, community member Raelina Krikston called the ordinance “a proactive and essential measure for our community’s development […] one tool in a toolbox that addresses some of the most egregious issues that our current ordinances have been ineffective in improving.” 

Krikston suggested directing funds from the fines toward the local housing trust fund or other similar initiatives, an idea that council members G. Mario Fernandez and Castellano later supported during discussion.

Before making a motion, Councilmember Kati Moulton reiterated the harmful impacts of blighted buildings on neighborhood health and business success. 

“If someone is simply leaving their property fallow, not to be used, that is a disservice to the community as a whole,” Moulton said. The timeline for satisfying the rules – paired with exceptions for those making an effort to sell, rent, renovate or demolish their property – add up to a fair ordinance, she said. 

“I want our code enforcement to have this – the potential for an ordinance with some teeth at the far end of this process. It’s not a short process. There’s many steps to get through before the teeth come into play,” Moulton said. 

The motion passed 3-2, with Bauer and Contreras-DeLoach dissenting. 

Cal Poly Humboldt issued the following message to the campus community on Tuesday. The arrestee, Joshua Adam Flowers, has a long history of prior arrests on a variety of charges, most frequently public intoxication.

Joshua Adam Flowers

On Tuesday, September 3, 2024, at approximately 7:32 a.m., it was reported to the University Police Department that an unknown male subject attempted to forcibly take a backpack from a Cal Poly Humboldt employee while they were walking through the Jolly Giant Commons (JGC) parking lot. The victim was able to summon for assistance as the male subject fled the area. The reporting party provided an excellent description of the suspect, which enabled officers to swiftly take action.

Utilizing the detailed witness description and conducting a thorough review of campus CCTV footage, UPD, with the assistance of the Arcata Police Department, successfully located the suspect in the 1600 block of G Street. After further investigation, 45-year-old Joshua Adam Flowers was arrested for Attempted Robbery and transported to the Humboldt County Correctional Facility where his bail was set at $25,000. Based on this incident, Flowers is banned from the Cal Poly

Campus for the next 7 calendar days. If you see Flowers on campus, please alert UPD immediately at 707-826-5555. 

The University Police Department would like to thank the witness for their prompt and accurate report, as well as the Arcata Police Department for their cooperation and support in bringing this case to a swift resolution.

We take the safety and security of our campus community very seriously and encourage anyone who witnesses or experiences suspicious activity to report it immediately. If you have any additional information regarding this case, please contact the University Police Department at 707-826-5555.

In response to this incident, which is being classified as an attempted robbery, UPD and the Clery Compliance Office are providing the following prevention and awareness tips to all members of our campus community:

Campus Safety Crime Tips

• Avoid putting music headphones in both ears so that you can be more aware of your surroundings, especially if you are walking alone. Knowing where you are and who is around you may help you find a way to get out of a bad situation. Notify law enforcement immediately to report suspicious behavior: 9-1-1.
• Consider sharing your location or social plans with friends or loved ones, either through the Rave Guardian App or other means.
• If walking feels unsafe, consider calling some friends or UPD Dispatch for a safety escort at 707-826-5555.
• Make sure you can grab your cell phone easily and that it is fully charged.
• Park or walk in lighted areas when possible. If you notice lights are out or unlighted areas around campus, please share this information with Facilities Management at 707-826-4475.
• Trust your instincts. If a situation or location feels unsafe or uncomfortable, consider leaving the area if you can.
• Try not to load yourself down with packages or bags as this can make you appear more vulnerable.
• Walk with purpose. Even if you don’t know where you are going, act like you do.

Campus & Community Resources

We recognize this announcement may affect the emotional well-being of our campus community. The  identified resources below are available should a member of our campus community need them:

• Campus Advocate Team (staffed by the North Coast Rape Crisis Team, for students and employees): 24/7, free, 707-445-2881
• CARE Services (for students)
• Counseling & Psychological Services (for students): 707-826-3236
• TimelyCare (available 24/7, for students)
• Employee Assistance Program (for employees)

Additional Ways to Report Information

• UPD: 707-826-5555 (5555 from any campus landline) or 9-1-1 (emergencies)
• Rave Guardian app
• Emergency blue light phones around the main campus
• Title IX Report Form for situations involving sexual misconduct

Nearly four years after California voters approved better wages and health benefits for ride-hailing drivers and delivery workers, no one is actually ensuring they are provided, according to state agencies, interviews with workers and a review of wage claims filed with the state.

Voters mandated the benefits in November 2020 when they approved Proposition 22. The ballot initiative was backed by gig-work companies that wanted to keep their workers classified as independent contractors and were resisting a 2019 state law that would have considered them employees. Prop. 22 stipulated that gig workers would remain independent contractors but be treated better.

The state Industrial Relations Department, which handles wage claims, now tells CalMatters it does not have jurisdiction to resolve those related to Prop. 22, citing a July 25 California Supreme Court ruling that upheld the law and therefore maintains that gig workers are not employees. That effectively passes enforcement responsibility on to the state attorney general, whose office was noncommittal when asked about its plans, saying that it does not adjudicate individual claims but does prosecute companies that systematically violate the law.

The lack of enforcement leaves in limbo workers who in many cases have already been waiting for months or years for the state to resolve their complaints. Workers have filed 54 claims related to Prop. 22 since it went into effect in December 2020. At least 32 of them are unresolved, state records obtained by CalMatters show, although at least two of those are due to workers not following through.

Of the unresolved claims, one goes back to 2021, several are from 2022 and 2023, and about half are from this year, through May.

Emails included with the claims show that the Industrial Relations Department told one worker it was severely understaffed, and seven others, starting in 2022, that it did not have jurisdiction to help them since they were independent contractors rather than employees.

Although the number of claims filed with the state represent just a fraction of the more than 1 million gig workers in California, they give a glimpse into what happens when workers turn to the state for help instead of the companies that backed Prop. 22.

Workers say in the claims, and in interviews with CalMatters, that companies such as Uber, Lyft and Instacart failed to provide higher wages and health care stipends under the law, and that the companies’ representatives sometimes act confused or take a long time to handle their requests for Prop. 22 benefits. The gig companies have touted the law as something that has boosted pay and benefits, and have said it has helped gig workers hang on to work they can do whenever they want.

Laura Robinson is among the workers who have had to aggressively pursue what they believe they’re owed under the law. For the past year, she has filed claims with the state and fought two different gig-work companies for different benefits promised under Prop. 22.

She was making a delivery for Instacart a year ago, she said, when a driver making a U-turn hit her, totaling her car. Now, she said, she has lingering back pain, and has only been able to make a total of a few deliveries over the past several months.

Robinson, who lives in Irvine, tried to get Instacart to retroactively provide her with occupational accident insurance as required under Prop. 22.

Laura Robinson in her home in Irvine on May 20, 2024. Robinson, who was in a car accident last year while working for Instacart, was recently informed she will receive occupational accident insurance after months of effort. Photo by Zaydee Sanchez for CalMatters

When she first contacted Instacart about the collision, “four or five different (representatives) told me on chat ‘we don’t provide insurance,’ but I told them this is California,” Robinson said. “Finally someone said ‘oh yeah, I know what you’re talking about.’ ” Robinson had some difficulties documenting the accident, because, she said, the responding Torrance Police Department officer rode away on his motorcycle without writing a report. But after about seven months, she finally heard back from Zurich, Instacart’s insurance provider. She received a lump sum, and monthly payments for the time that she has been largely unable to work, according to bank statements and emails from Zurich to her, which she shared with CalMatters.

Instacart spokesperson Charlotte Healow said all the company’s shopper support agents should know about “shopper injury protection” and that there is information in the app about how to go about filing claims. But Robinson showed CalMatters several screenshots of her chats with support agents who either thought she was asking about health insurance or who told her someone would email her back about her situation — which eventually happened, though it took a few tries.

Robinson said she had also struggled to get a smaller gig platform, food delivery app Curri, to comply with the law. Under Prop. 22, ride-hailing and delivery gig companies are supposed to pay her 120% of minimum wage for the time she spends driving, making up for any shortfall in the pay she receives, but Curri had not done so, she said. Not knowing where to turn, she asked a few different state agencies for help, including the attorney general’s office. She even lodged a complaint with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s National Consumer Complaint Database. After several months, the Industrial Relations Department scheduled a hearing for her case for Aug. 29. Last week, the department told her the company decided to settle and pay her what it owed, according to emails and a release she signed that she shared with CalMatters. Curri’s marketing director referred CalMatters to the company’s legal department, which did not return three emailed requests for comment.

Robinson saw the upside of Prop. 22 after it passed. She liked being able to continue setting her own hours and saw a bump in her earnings delivering for Grubhub due to the law. But she is now frustrated about how tough it was to figure out who’s supposed to be upholding it.

“It’s not helpful if it’s not enforced or applied,” she said.

Robinson said the deputy labor commissioner she was in touch with throughout the process of pursuing her claim against Curri told her last week that because Prop. 22 was upheld by the state Supreme Court — effectively ensuring gig workers cannot be considered employees — the department would no longer be handling similar cases because it does not have jurisdiction over independent contractors.

What gig workers are complaining about

The Prop. 22-related wage claims reviewed by CalMatters were part of a larger set of nearly 200 claims that gig workers filed with the Industrial Relations Department since the law took effect in December 2020. Citing the California Public Records Act, CalMatters sought all wage claims in that timeframe involving gig companies, but the state did not provide any claims against DoorDash, which is one of the biggest of the app-based gig companies. A department spokesperson could not explain why.

Most of the claimants sought delayed or unpaid wages, including adjustments owed under Prop. 22. Others sought health care stipends required under the gig-work law, and one driver said he sought occupational accident insurance but did not receive it.

The claims also shed light on the mechanics of how app companies are allegedly withholding wages. In them, some gig workers claimed that they were deactivated — kicked off or fired by the app — before receiving all their wages.

The records also indicate the state had trouble holding app companies to account in a timely fashion. In emails about the claims, some workers frequently asked for updates about their cases and complained about limited communications from the state. This prompted one supervisor in the Industrial Relations Department’s San Francisco office to respond by email on May 30, 2024, seemingly noting that gig workers’ complaints were just a fraction of the array of worker complaints the state fields: “I am working with 40% staff shortage. There are over 3,000 cases, most of which are older than yours, and only seven people (total) to handle them.” The department did not respond to requests for comment on whether this shortfall persists.

Monetary wage claims ranged from about $2 to nearly $420,000. Most — 54% — were against ride-hailing and delivery giant Uber and 25% were against its rides competitor Lyft. There were 17 claims against grocery-delivery app maker Instacart, seven against food-delivery platform Grubhub, four against Target-owned delivery service Shipt and three against UPS-owned delivery service Roadie.

The Industrial Relations Department has long tried to resolve gig workers’ wage disputes. The labor commissioner, who heads the department’s Labor Standards Enforcement Division, still has pending wage-theft lawsuits against Uber and Lyft that it filed in 2020 on behalf of about 5,000 workers with wage claims going back to 2017.

Those cases predate Prop. 22, originating during a period when gig workers were misclassified and should have been considered employees under California law, the labor commissioner argues in the wage-theft suits. After Prop. 22 passed, opponents challenged it and the case ended up before the California Supreme Court, which upheld the law in July, effectively affirming that drivers are independent contractors, not employees. A department spokesperson, Peter Melton, said the ruling means the department can no longer handle claims about missing wage adjustments under the earnings guarantee, unpaid health care stipends or other aspects of the law.

Department representatives made similar statements to workers even before Prop. 22 was upheld, the claims records show. An email response, dated March 26, 2024, from the department to an Uber driver stated: “The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement enforces employment law. We cannot enforce Prop 22 earnings because they aren’t ‘wages’ earned by ‘employees’.”

This echoes the position lawyers for Uber and Lyft took in some of the records when responding to wage claims. They asked the state to dismiss such claims, writing in one email: “As of December 16, 2020, drivers using Lyft’s platform are considered independent contractors by statute and, thus, cannot seek relief under the Labor Code.”

“Although the Attorney General does not represent individual workers or adjudicate individual complaints…(he) brings lawsuits to hold accountable companies that systematically break the law.”
— California Attorney General’s Office

Now that the department has disavowed responsibility for Prop. 22 claims, the question remains: Who will enforce the law?

Scott Kronland, the attorney for Service Employees International Union California who unsuccessfully argued before the state Supreme Court that it should throw out Prop. 22, told CalMatters: “I’ve also heard from drivers that they’re not getting the things they’re promised by Prop. 22.”

Kronland said their recourse, after the ruling, is to press local prosecutors or the attorney general, who have the ability to hold companies liable for unlawful business practices under the state’s Unfair Competition Law. Still, he said “enforcement is something the Legislature could clarify.”

In an unsigned email response to CalMatters’ questions after the state Supreme Court decision, including whether it planned to pursue Prop.-22-related cases against gig-work companies, the attorney general’s office said gig workers can submit complaints at oag.ca.gov/report. The email added: “Although the Attorney General does not represent individual workers or adjudicate individual complaints by holding administrative hearings like (the Department of Industrial Relations), DOJ brings lawsuits to hold accountable companies that systematically break the law, for example through widespread violations of wage and hour standards. Reports or complaints of employer misconduct are an important part of our work.”

When CalMatters previously asked the attorney general’s office for copies of any wage complaints it had received from gig workers thus far, a spokesperson responded that the office was representing the state in its effort to defend Prop. 22 before the California Supreme Court — and referred CalMatters back to the Industrial Relations Department.

What gig companies share about Prop. 22’s impact

Gig companies have said that, due in part to the initiative’s earnings guarantee, workers now make more than $30 an hour. But a May study by the UC Berkeley Labor Center found that, for California ride-hailing drivers, average earnings after expenses, not including tips, is about $7.12 an hour, and for delivery workers, $5.93. With tips, drivers’ average hourly earnings are $9.09 an hour, and $13.62 for delivery workers, the study found.

To better understand the impact of Prop. 22, CalMatters asked each of the four largest gig companies — Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart — the following:

• How much they have spent on delivering on each of Prop. 22’s four main promises:
  • 120% of minimum wage earnings guarantee
  • Health care stipends
  • Occupational accident insurance
  • Accidental death insurance
• How many gig workers have received each of the promised benefits.
• Whether they have passed on costs to consumers, and if so, where they account for those customer fees in their public financial filings.
• How they handle complaints or issues related to their promises.

Lyft said 85% of California Lyft drivers who have driven for the company since Prop. 22 went into effect have received at least one wage “top up” — the additional money drivers receive under the earnings guarantee — through the end of the fourth quarter of 2023, though spokesperson Shadawn Reddick-Smith would not provide specific numbers of Lyft drivers in the state. None of the other companies would give any information on their delivery of the wage guarantee.

Instacart spokesperson Healow said the company has paid out about $40 million in health care subsidies to its delivery workers, which she said number in the tens of thousands in the state. She also said about 11% of California shoppers have become eligible for a health care stipend since Prop. 22 took effect, and that 28% of those eligible shoppers have redeemed their subsidy.

To qualify for the health care stipends, workers must work at least 15 hours a week each quarter, and be enrolled in health insurance that is not provided by an employer or the government. Because the gig companies won’t share how many workers have received the stipends, CalMatters asked the state health insurance exchange, Covered California, if it had data that might help shed some light. Seven percent of the 1.6 million people who used Covered California reported doing gig work in a 2023 survey, said a spokesperson for the exchange, Jagdip Dhillon.

DoorDash spokesperson Parker Dorrough said that just 11% of eligible couriers used the health care stipend in the fourth quarter of 2023 but that 80% of DoorDash’s delivery workers had health care coverage through another source, such as their full-time job or spouse.

None of the other companies would give any information on their delivery of the stipend. Lyft’s Reddick-Smith said 80% of California Lyft drivers already have health care coverage, including 13% who bought their own coverage (this second group is the set of drivers who qualified for the stipend).

None of the four companies provided the numbers of workers who have used occupational accident or accidental death insurance.

None of the companies would disclose how they account for the fees they charge customers for Prop. 22 expenses, nor are the fees included in their publicly available financial filings. Instacart said it does not charge customers for expenses associated with Prop. 22. Lyft said its per-ride service fee includes a 75-cent “California Driver Benefits Fee.” Uber charges customers a “CA Driver Benefits” fee for each ride and delivery in the state and spokesperson Zahid Arab said the company has “invested more than we collected in fees.”

Uber published a blog post after CalMatters’ questions, saying it has “invested” more than $1 billion in Prop. 22 benefits. Arab would not break down these benefits further.

As for complaints related to the promises, each of the companies said workers should contact support agents, whom they can usually get in touch with in the app; an Instacart spokesperson said workers can make some claims directly in the company’s app.

Seeing little from Prop. 22

Ride-hailing driver Sergio Avedian last year helped raise public awareness of the lack of Prop. 22 enforcement. Specifically, he homed in on one narrow issue: Under the law, gig-work companies were supposed to adjust for inflation each year the reimbursement they pay to drivers for mileage. Avedian said no such adjustment had taken place for two consecutive years. And as a podcaster and contributor to the Rideshare Guy, a popular gig-work blog, he had a high profile. Avedian and a fellow eagle-eyed driver started pestering the state’s treasurer’s office, which had not published the adjusted rates as stipulated under Prop 22. The office eventually did so and, the Los Angeles Times reported, put the state’s gig workers on track to get back pay for the mileage expenses — pay potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Now, a year later, Avedian is curious about gig-company math again. He has asked Uber some of the same questions CalMatters did — including how the company accounts for the driver-benefits fee it adds on to each ride or delivery. The company’s response to him was similar — it provided few specifics.

Besides his concern about the issue as a driver, Avedian said “as a consumer who is paying into the Prop. 22 fund on every trip or delivery, I would like to know the accounting of where my money is going.”

“We’re not completely independent contractors. We’re not employees. We’re sort of a hybrid model of theirs. We’re pretty much nobody.”
— Yasha Timenovich, ride-hailing driver

When the gig companies were campaigning for Prop. 22, they implored voters to “help create a better path forward for drivers.”

But Avedian and other gig workers in California say their paths have not changed much. Many still complain about low wages, little transparency from the companies and lack of worker protections.

Yasha Timenovich said he has worked as a ride-hailing driver for a decade, first with Uber, now with Lyft.

“I work 12, 13, 14 hours a day,” said Timenovich, who drives in the Los Angeles area. “But the time I sit and wait at LAX is not accounted for.” He said he has to work long hours to try to make sure he has enough earnings. “We’re not completely independent contractors. We’re not employees. We’re sort of a hybrid model of theirs. We’re pretty much nobody.”

He also said he must obtain health insurance through Medi-Cal, California’s health care coverage for low-income residents — which in turn means he doesn’t qualify for the health care stipend. He said every driver he knows “is on Medi-Cal because they can’t afford health insurance. I don’t know anyone who has (the stipend).”

Many drivers voted for Prop. 22, he said. But “what we were told was a lie.”

###

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

Life well lived with exuberance, enthusiasm, and dedication … just a few of the descriptions that come to mind when thinking of Jackee. On January 6, 1937 Helen and Marvin Stalcup welcomed their girl, Jacqueline Jo in Julesburg, Colorado. The Stalcups moved from Julesburg to Worland, Wyoming, where Jackee attended elementary school and Washakie High School. During the school year and summer Jackee spent many hours at her Dad’s store, known as Marvin’s Men’s Store, where she gladly met townspeople and became adept at meeting people of all ages. Job’s Daughters was part of Jackee’s high school life and she became Wyoming state Honored Queen in 1954. Also while in high school and prior to graduating in 1955, Jackee was initiated into P.E.O., Chapter AA, Wyoming. (P.E.O. was a lifelong endeavor as Jackee in 1965 became a charter member of Chapter RN, Arcata, California.)

With her P.E.O. affiliation Jackee was introduced to Cottey College, which is owned by the P.E.O. Sisterhood. In the fall of 1955 Jackee began her first two years of college at Cottey in Nevada, Missouri, quite the switch from the Wyoming wild west. Jackee found lifelong friends at Cottey. She readily admitted that being an only child prompted her to hold fast good friends, especially Mary Sharpnack and Nan Barrett. With the achievement of an Associate in Arts degree from Cottey, Jackee enrolled at Colorado State University (CSU), Fort Collins in the fall of 1957. Jackee had handily absorbed Cottey’s slight focus on social graces which assisted in her becoming a Pi Beta Phi sorority girl at CSU. As her first year at CSU continued, it was customary for the Greek system to hold dance-mixers. As “chance would have it,” Jackee met one Larry Ford, an ATO (Alpha Tau Omega) fraternity fellow. Life began to move pretty fast. Larry graduated June 1958 and immediately went to Newport, Rhode Island to become an Ensign, USNR. It was 1958 when Jackee finished her third year in college the same year Larry introduced her to the Ford family during Thanksgiving. (She was a good sport tolerating Pam and John, Larry’s younger siblings.)

Jacqueline Jo Stalcup added Ford to her name on August 23, 1959 during their beautiful ceremony in Worland followed by a rousing reception in the Stalcup’s backyard. Not long after they were married, Jackee and Larry enjoyed dream duty stations in Hawaii and Seattle where Jackee was an active participant in officers’ wives’ groups.

Where to live after active duty ended in 1963? Jackee and Larry chose to live on Baldwin Street in Arcata. Between arriving and settling in Arcata, Jackee graduated from Humboldt State University with a Bachelor of Science degree in 1964. From Baldwin Street they moved “across town” to Sunny Brae — Charles Avenue — in March of 1965.

From the mid 1960s onward, Jackee continued to see life as a wonderful celebration involving family, friends, varied interests and her community. Merritt, born in 1965, and Merrill, born in 1974, gave focus to the future. Merritt and Merrill with their activities of 4-H, Cub Scouts, basketball, FFA, baseball, high School Rodeo, and the fairs provided highlights the entire year. When the boys showed their animals at the local fairs, Jackee was on deck with other parents (Peg and Doc Douglas and Ken and Marilyn Hardie) to provide safe keeping for the kids at the “Purple Circle” enclave. Many people may remember the joy filled Santa Claus parties Jackee and Larry held for a number of years…so festive and fun filled. Though perhaps not recognized as “fun,” Jackee served on the Humboldt County Grand Jury in 1973-74. She was also recognized as a Paul Harris Fellow by Rotary Foundation.

Jackee’s involvement with agriculture was extensive for many years, accompanying Larry to the ram sales, Cloverdale in particular, State President of California Wool Growers Auxiliary, serving in the local auxiliary, Bo-Peeps, and Humboldt County Cattlemen’s Association auxiliary, CowBelles. Jackee was instrumental in making the annual Make-It-Yourself-With-Wool contest a success. Soon after Larry became General Manager of the Redwood Acres Fair & Rodeo, Jackee would be seen in the office lending her support. In 2015 the Humboldt County Farm Bureau honored Jackee and Larry as Agriculturists of the Year, noting their many years of service to Humboldt County Agriculture.

Jackee’s and Larry’s family grew in 1990 when Merritt and Mary Dawn McKenzie were married and when Merrill and Liz Hinckley married in 2007. Always with a focus on family, grandchildren’s activities allowed Jackee and Larry to enthusiastically cheer for granddaughters McKenzie and McKenna at McKinleyville home basketball games, and a few years later to avidly watch grandsons JW and Jack show their 4-H project animals at the Redwood Acres Fair in June.

Brief illness prompted a drastic change for Jackee and Larry by recently moving from their Sunny Brae home to Timber Ridge in McKinleyville. Though vastly different than their accustomed surroundings, Jackee and Larry both commented how helpful and accommodating they found their present situation. Jackee received Hospice palliative care until she died the morning of August 2.

Jackee was fun. When you came into a room filled with people and Jackee was there, you could find her by listening for the distinctive pitch of her voice. When Jackee asked me to write her obituary, I asked her what she would like me to tell people when they asked about her. She answered, “ Tell them I’ve had a good life, I was cared for by a really good man, and I want to go home.”

Jackee’s family greatly thanks Jan and Kevin Bates for their extended friendship and years of thoughtful care and Timber Ridge and Hospice of Humboldt for conscientous care.

Jackee leaves behind Larry, her dear husband and partner of nearly 65 years; son Merritt and daughter-in-law Mary Dawn and grandchildren McKenzie and McKenna; son Merrill and daughter-in-law Liz and grandchildren JW (Jon Waylon) and Jack; sisters-in-law, sons-in-law, numerous nieces and nephews; Cousins Linda Sue Josslyn and Stewart Josslyn of Houston; George Sheaff of Worland, Wyoming, and a multitude of friends.

Jackee was preceded in death by her beloved parents Helen and Marvin Stalcup and cherished in laws Katherine and Art Ford.

A celebration of Jackee’s life will be held at a later date.

###

Norma Sue Lewis
Beloved Wife, Mother, Grandmother, Sister and Friend
September 26, 1931 - August 31, 2024

Norma Sue Lewis passed away peacefully on the morning of August 31 surrounded by her family. She is now reunited with her departed husband and life-long soulmate Nathan “Nate” Lewis, whom she missed every day since his passing in 2010. Upon his passing, they had been married for 57 years.

The matriarch of the family and loved by everyone who knew her, Norma was born in Texas and lived a full life in California surrounded by her family. Norma was a hardworking wife and homemaker who raised nine children whilst supporting her husband in his logging career. Nate and Norma were married in 1954. They each brought two children to the marriage and then welcomed five more together over the years. She managed a hair salon in Garberville for many years where she made many good friends while also participating in the upbringing of her grandchildren. After her grandchildren were born, they started calling her “Momo,” a name that stuck and one which she would be known by many. Norma’s biggest accomplishment was her large family that she created with Nate.

Norma is preceded in death by her husband Nathan Lewis Sr, brothers Ray and Joe Bishop, sons Rolland and Raymond, granddaughter Tammy, and a great-grandbaby.

She is survived in life by her daughters Linda, Susan, Sibyl, Diane, and Joyce; sons Nathan Jr and Norman; sister Vera Madsen; twenty-three grandchildren, forty-nine great-grandchildren, and nineteen great-great-grandchildren.

Momo’s greatest times were spent with her family up on the hill. Nothing made her happier than a house and yard full of kids and family.

Upon her request, there will be no services observed. The family would like to thank the staff at St. Joseph’s Hospital, Jerold Phelps Assisted Living Facility, and Redwood Memorial Hospital.

Written with love by Kasey Detrick and Charity Marcelli, with contributions by Missy Gallaway.

###

Good news for those who see parking as the lifeblood of a thriving downtown: The City of Eureka will soon have a brand new parking lot with 42 spaces conveniently located along the boardwalk in Old Town. 

The asphalt-and-concrete lot is being built on a vacant 20,000-square-foot parcel north of First Street, just east of Bayfront Restaurant and vacation rentals. Maine-based property development firm Bay Front Company was granted a Coastal Development Permit way back in 2000 to build a three-story, 34-room lodging facility next to the Bayfront building, but it has yet to be constructed.

According to the latest plans on file with the city, Bay Front Company (a subsidiary of Atlantic National Trust) plans to further develop this property somewhere down the line. The paid parking lot will provide some economic return to the owners while preserving the parcel for future development.

“Various types and configurations of mixed-use projects that would benefit the Eureka waterfront have been considered,” says a 2022 report from SHN Consulting Engineers. “Unfortunately, construction costs and economic conditions have been such that none of those projects have been found to be economically viable … .”

The temporary parking lot will include two ADA-accessible spaces, six bicycle spaces and one motorcycle space. The site, which looks across the bay to Woodley Island Marina, was historically home to a lumber mill (in the late 1800s) and a ferry boat business (from 1945-1972), and for many years it was neighbored by a soil-polluting scrap metal operation.

In addition to offering paid parking for tourists and locals, the new lot will function as an impermeable “cap” encasing the toxic soils left behind by the scrap metal facility. Operations at G&R Metals Eureka, Inc., which remained in business until 1989, included disassembly, incineration and crushing of automobiles as well as storage of metals, batteries, radiators and miscellaneous refuse — right there along the Humboldt Bay.

G&R Metals performed remediation by removing contaminated soils in 1996 and 2017, but some contaminants in the ground (including lead, petroleum hydrocarbons and zinc) still exceed acceptable levels per the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. The asphalt-concrete “cap” will block exposure pathways, according to a report prepared by local engineering firm GHD.

“It will also provide a public benefit by providing convenient access to the eastern end of the Eureka Boardwalk and additional parking for nearby commercial uses and events,” the SHN report says. “The intent is to sell parking passes to local businesses for use during the day and for guests and visitors after business hours. The public will also have access to the lot for hourly fee parking.”

This parking lot development arrives in the midst of a heated local political season in Eureka as the controversial Measure F pits the preservation of downtown parking spaces against the city’s plans for affordable housing developments. (Read more about Measure F via these links.)

Press release from Calfire:

What:Professionally controlled prescribed burn planned for the consumption of grass and timber understory on 50 acres of state land.

When: The prescribed burn will take place as conditions allow, Thursday, September 5th, 2024.

Where: Redway, California (Eel River Conservation Camp)

Why: These burns are part of the prescribed fire program for vegetative management and hazardous fuels reduction. The treatment will help to enhance the health of the native plant communities, aid in the control of non-native plant species, protect and enhance grass habitat for animal species, aid in the reduction of hazardous fire fuels and mitigation of uncontrolled wildfire.

Who: CAL FIRE and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

During these prescribed fire operations, residents may see an increase in fire suppression resource traffic, smoke will be visible and traffic control may be in place. Please be cautious for your safety as well as those working on prescribed burns.

Learn more how you can prepare for wildfire by visiting: www.ReadyForWildfire.org.

For more information, please contact the CAL FIRE Humboldt – Del Norte Unit Public Information Officer line at: (707) 726-1285.