###

Hundreds of people rallied in front of the Humboldt County Courthouse in Eureka today for the People’s March, a nationwide “day of joyful resistance” to protest the incoming Trump Administration. Many demonstrators waved handmade signs at passersby as the crowd chanted “Power to the people!” and “Immigrants’ rights are human rights!” 

The People’s March is a sequel, of sorts, to the original Women’s March of 2017, which took place the day after Donald Trump was sworn in for his first term as president. The rebranded march has expanded beyond women’s reproductive rights to include more people and a wider range of issues, including LBTQ+ rights, immigration, climate and democracy. 

“We’re thanking and supporting the people that have been protesting for generations,” local event organizer Cheryl Furman told the Outpost as she led the crowd of roughly 300 sign-wielding demonstrators down Fourth Street and into Old Town. “It’s also about recruiting more people because it looks like we might be doing this for quite a while.”

Many demonstrators carried signs with choice words for Trump, while others called for kindness and unity. Eureka resident Teri Dulaney held a sign that read “Make America Kind Again.”

“Hate is overtaking our country and our citizens and it doesn’t feel good,” she told the Outpost. “It’s not good to hate. We used to be a kind, benevolent country and that seems to have gone away. … I think that the government needs to know we’re paying attention and that we’d be more than willing to work with them, but they can’t tread on us.”

Keep scrolling for more pictures of today’s rally.

###

Jimmy Carter: Peanut farmer. Humanitarian. President. Environmentalist?

On this week’s EcoNews Report, we catalogue the environmental legacy of President Carter with Rich McIntyre, friend and fishing partner of the President. Locally, President Carter signed into law the expansion of Redwood National Park (against the protest of loggers).

President Carter was also responsible for doubling the amount of acreage protected by the National Parks Service and conserving over 100 million acres of land in Alaska through the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. An energy crisis drove President Carter to promote renewable energy, even putting solar panels on the White House (which were later removed by President Reagan.)

PREVIOUSLY:

• HUMBOLDT HISTORY: The Treacherous Entrance to Humboldt Bay Harbor Wrecked Ships Left and Right. Was There Any Possible Solution?

###

One of the first to call for extensive improvements to facilitate shipping across Humboldt Bay Bar was William Ayres, editor of the Democratic Standard. He began his campaign through editorials in 1877.

He proposed that a jetty system, such as the one built at the mouth of the Mississippi River, could result in a safer and deeper entrance channel. His recommendations were rather revolutionary for the reason that jetties were only recently tried and many were skeptical about the results.

There, at the South Pass channel of the Mississippi River mouth, civil engineer James B. Eads, funded by the federal government, had been able to. with jetty construction, increase the depth of the channel at the river mouth from eight feet to 24 feet. With the completion of the jetties at the South Pass in 1877, the “oceangoing ships of the largest size were regularly entering the Mississippi by the smallest of the major passes.”

It is no wonder that Ayres was impressed with the possibilities and potential of jetties to improve the entrance to Humboldt Bay. The conditions at the mouth of the Mississippi were similar to those at the entrance to Humboldt. Trade along the Mississippi was hampered by the large sandbar of the delta, and only ships of shallow draught could make it over the bar. The wave and storm action was less violent then at Humboldt, but Ayres was confident that the problems presented by the stormy North Coast could be overcome, especially by an engineer of Eads’ abilities.

In January of 1879 Ayres had sent Eads a description of Humboldt Bay, and the conditions of the Bar, with a plea for his opinion on the feasibility of improving the entrance. Eads’ response was very positive. After examining the maps sent to him by Ayres and looking at the United States Coast and Geodetic survey maps, Eads was of the opinion that jetties could satisfactorily improve the entrance. In fact, Eads was confident that “the channel through the bar obstructing the entrance into the bay can be permanently deepened by the aid of jetties.” Eads was also willing to travel to California, and examine Humboldt Bay if Ayres or the community would pay Eads $3,000. Eads commented that he was asking for such a modest sum because he was interested in the project and was aware that it would be necessary for a few public-minded citizens to raise the money.

Eads also wrote that he was influenced in making the proposition “more from the desire to aid … in inaugurating and consummating an interesting and important public work.” It must be noted that Eads was a very polished and skillful politician, but it is possible that he was genuinely interested in the improvement of Humboldt Bay.

With the publishing of Eads’ letter, Ayres became very active in trying to raise the money required by Eads. Ayres was particularly hopeful that Eads could examine Humboldt Bay for several reasons. Recognizing Eads’ political clout, Ayres was convinced that a “favorable report from Captain Eads on this proposed work, a memorial to Congress, would be almost sure of gaining the required appropriation.” It was with this goal in mind that Ayres called for a public meeting to “discuss the subject of improving Humboldt Harbor.” The meeting was held on March 19, 1879, and was supported by many of the influential members of the community. Such lumbermen as John Vance, William Carson, and John Dolbeer offered their support to the meeting as did politicians and businessmen C.S. Ricks, E.H. Howard, and Joseph Russ. Despite the support and interest in Eads’ proposal, Ayres was unable to raise the necessary funds.

The interest sparked by the Eads’ correspondence did result in an increase in the awareness of the problems to trade caused by the bar and its shifting channel. Eads, without traveling to Eureka, was able to draw the attention of some congressmen to the condition of the harbor. A few weeks after the meeting to raise money for Eads to travel to Humboldt County, Ayres received a letter from Congressman J.K. Luttrell. Luttrell had been in correspondence with Eads and was very supportive of the proposal to have Eads visit Humboldt Bay.

Luttrell was an influential Democrat to have on the side of the supporters of the improvement of Humboldt Bay. He had recently introduced bills in Congress calling for “appropriations for the improvement of our harbors along the coast between San Francisco and Puget Sound.” Beyond these general bills, Luttrell had also helped to pass an appropriation bill of $250,000 to be used to develop a harbor of refuge on the Pacific Coast north of San Francisco. The specific site was to be chosen by the Army Corps of Engineers. The need for improvements on Humboldt Bay had finally been brought to the attention of Congress.

With the congressional interest came the assignment of the San Francisco District of the Army Corps of Engineers to the problem of improving Humboldt Bay. The San Francisco district was not unfamiliar with the bay, the bay having been examined both in 1871 and 1877 by a Board of Engineers. The Board was seeking to find a bay or harbor along the Pacific Coast that would be suitable to develop as a harbor of refuge. The coast line between San Francisco and the mouth ofthe Columbia River was devoid of a safe harbor for ships in danger and none of the few natural bays or river mouths were of sufficient depth to allow the large naval ships to enter. Humboldt Bay was a logical choice for the Board of Engineers to examine, because of its location almost halfway between San Francisco Bay and the mouth of the Columbia. Humboldt Bay was considered as a possibility for being improved to be used as the harbor of refuge, but was passed over for several reasons.

In 1871, with the encouragement of district Congressman James A. Johnson, the Corps of Engineers made its first examination of Humboldt Bay. The members of the examining board returned a negative response on the feasibility of improving the bay. This finding was made despite the Board’s opinion that once vessels had entered the bay “it is the best harbor on the Pacific Coast between San Francisco Bay and the mouth of the Columbia River.” The problem with the bay was the uncertainty of the entrance. R.S. Williamson, a Major in the Corps of Engineers, in a report to Chief of Engineers Brigadier General Humphreys, described the bar and the obstacles it presented:

The bar, like nearly all ocean bars on the Pacific Coast of the United States is constantly changing. Every severe storm changes the channel; sometimes there are two channels, and sometimes there is but one. In rare cases the channel is so closed that the steamers cannot go out.

Williamson goes on to relate that he himself had been “bar-bound” in December of 1865 for a fortnight. A storm had arisen shortly after his arrival, and destroyed the old channel. It took two weeks for a new channel to open sufficiently to let out the passenger steamer. Williamson adds that no vessel “enters or leaves the bay without a pilot.” Ultimately, it was Williamson’s opinion that such a bar as the one at Humboldt Bay “can never be improved.”

Of the members of the Board of Engineers, Williamson was the only one who had actually been to Humboldt Bay. The Board’s report “on the practicability of improving entrance to Humboldt Bay and Humboldt Harbor, California,” was made without a personal examination. Instead, the report was based primarily on the coast survey chart, “the well-known shifting sands forming the bar and the concurrent testimony of all persons acquainted with…[the bar].

The Board, in spite of the lack of first-hand knowledge, presented two possibilities for the improvement of the bay. Both plans included jetties and both ended in a supposition of disaster. Moreover, neither plan proposed by the Board was considered very practical. The Board believed that the cost of construction would far exceed any possible benefits, which they deemed would be short-lived.

The 1871 report illustrated the skepticism with which jetties were viewed at the time, and the lack of knowledge of what the jetties could or could not accomplish. The two jetty systems proposed by the Board revealed the prevalent attitudes on jetties held by the army engineers. The first example presented by the Board was two jetties or pierres perdues, to use the French term, of stone or masonry. These jetties would confine the channel and secure the depths necessary to allow heavily loaded ships to easily enter and leave the bay. The Board believed that these jetties would easily be destroyed, and leave “the stones or the disjointed masonry…scattered over the bar as so many dangerous obstructions.” Similarly, the Board thought that jetties built of “sufficiently powerful construction to withstand the force of the sea, properly located, and carried out to, say 10 fathoms of water, with their foundations laid so deep so as not to be undermined, we have no doubt but their effect would be to improve the entrance to the harbor, till such time as the resulting currents should accumulate another bar outside of the supposed entrance between such structures.”

This official opinion about the infeasibility of improving the entrance to Humboldt Bay was to mark the Corps’ attitude for the next ten years.

In 1877 the Corps was again directed by Congress to attempt to locate and improve a harbor of refuge as none had been found suitable in the 1871 report.

Specifically, Congress directed the Corps to examine, in addition to the harbor of Humboldt Bay, the harbors of Mendocino, Trinidad and Crescent City. The Corps was to examine each bay, with the aim of finding one that could be made suitable as a harbor of refuge with the construction of a breakwater, and an estimate of cost. It was the final criteria that caused a negative response for Humboldt Bay. The Board believed that two parallel jetties, built out 500 yards apart from the sandy entrance heads could result in a safer entrance to the bay but was convinced that “such construction would be attended with immense difficulties and enormous expense.” One of the reasons for the great expense was the lack of close quarries for the rock to construct the jetties. The Board was also unsure if jetties could be constructed on the sandy heads without collapsing. The Board itself was divided on whether or not the “the construction would be physically possible.” The three-member panel had been unable to closely examine the bay entrance due to the rough condition of the bar, and so were unsure of the results that could be obtained by jetties.

They were impressed with the dangers of the entrance, and the need to improve the bay, however. When they arrived off the bay, aboard the coast steamer Hassler, the pilot had refused to guide the steamer over the bar, even though the weather was moderate, mid-August weather. Further, at the time there was a depth of 20 feet over the bar, and the Hassler drew only 12 feet. The pilot was adamant in his position, stating that he could not bring the Hassler into Humboldt Bay “without running the risk of the vessel striking bottom and her possible loss in the breakers.”

The engineers were forced to accept the pilot’s assessment of the situation. Perhaps in light of the uncertain and often violent condition of the ocean near the entrance to Humboldt Bay, the Board deemed it “highly improbable that a breakwater or jetties would be attempted here at the present time.” The estimation of the Board was accurate, as it was not until 1889 that construction was first begun on the Humboldt jetties.

Despite the two negative reports by the Corps of Engineers, the influence of Ayres and Eads resulted in yet a third examination of Humboldt Bay by the Corps. In 1881 Lt. Colonel George H. Mendall, the San Francisco District Engineer, submitted a favorable report on Humboldt Bay development. This decision marked the first Corps work done on the bay and the first congressional appropriation for the bay improvement. The project consisted of dredging the bay, “mainly in front of the town of Eureka, where the channel has been shoaled in late years. It is proposed to give 10 feet at low water.”

Congress approved $40,000 for this first project. In addition to the dredging, which would be done by W.B. English, the Corps was also to examine the entrance closely, seeking a better understanding of the conditions of the bar. The Corps was well aware of the general situation, as they succinctly stated the general characteristics of the bay entrance in their annual report. The bay entrance “is over a bar, unstable both as to direction and depth, and exposed to an extremely heavy sea in southerly weather.” With an engineer assigned to the bay, it was hoped that he could determine the best way to obtain some degree of control over the entrance channel. It was just a few years later, in 1889, that the hoped-for bar improvements began to materialize with the start of jetty construction.

###

The story above is excerpted from the March-April 1989 issue of the Humboldt Historian, a journal of the Humboldt County Historical Society. It is reprinted here with permission. The Humboldt County Historical Society is a nonprofit organization devoted to archiving, preserving and sharing Humboldt County’s rich history. You can become a member and receive a year’s worth of new issues of The Humboldt Historian at this link.

###

PREVIOUSLY

• Senator Mike McGuire Announces $10 Million Investment for Humboldt’s Future Health Care Education Hub

###

A new state-of-the-art health care educational hub for both Cal Poly Humboldt and College of the Redwoods, announced in 2022 alongside news of $10 million in state funding, is still in the works, though its planned location has been moved.

When state Senator Mike McGuire first announced the project, on Nov. 1, 2022, he did so from inside the 30,000-square-foot warehouse on Samoa Boulevard, southeast of downtown Arcata and more than a mile and a half from the Cal Poly Humboldt campus.

In an update provided to the Outpost earlier this week, Cal Poly Humboldt Communications Specialist Melissa Hutsell explained that, as a result of the dramatic recent increase in construction costs, the Healthcare Education Hub’s location has been shifted to the Stewart Building, at 1125 16th Street.

Built as a school exactly 100 years ago,  the Stewart Building will be cheaper to renovate in part due to lower structural and fire protection system costs compared to the Samoa site, Hutsell said via email. Located across the street from Arcata High, it’s also closer to Cal Poly Humboldt’s main campus, the Foster Road parking facility and community amenities. And there will be opportunities to collaborate with local high school programs.

Once up and running, the educational facility will be used to train health care professionals such as nurses, psychiatric technicians, EMTs, scrub technicians, respiratory therapists, radiology technicians and more. In announcing it two years ago, McGuire said it will be “the most modern health care learning lab between the Golden Gate Bridge and the Oregon border.”

Hutsell said the project remains a priority for Cal Poly Humboldt, College of the Redwoods and other community partners.

“Since embarking on the project, we’ve continued to build partnerships in our local healthcare system, learn more about innovation and modern healthcare, and work through the design of a new facility with Smithgroup Architects,” she said.

We asked the university communications office for a timeline of construction and completion but did not hear back by the time of this post’s publication. We’ll update when we do.

PREVIOUSLY: False Reports of ICE Raids in Eureka Spread Across Social Media; Human Rights Commission to Discuss Sanctuary Ordinance Thursday

###

At a public meeting last night, Humboldt County law enforcement officials vowed to uphold local and state sanctuary policies aimed at protecting undocumented people from deportation.

“I will be very, very clear here. I will follow our state law, our state ordinances [and] our county ordinance to the T,” said Humboldt County Sheriff William Honsal. “That’s my job … and I just want to reaffirm that we have been following [the Humboldt County Sanctuary Ordinance] since it’s been in place.”

Members of the Sanctuary Standing Committee of the Humboldt County Human Rights Commission convened a public meeting on Thursday to discuss the status of the local sanctuary ordinance, which prohibits local law enforcement agencies from cooperating with federal immigration officials, and what protections it may offer undocumented people once President-elect Donald J. Trump takes office. 

The incoming administration’s mass deportation plans have triggered anxiety among immigrant communities, prompting rampant misinformation on social media and false reports of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sweeps in dozens of California cities, including Eureka. 

Speaking at last night’s meeting, Humboldt District Attorney Stacey Eads said the county sanctuary ordinance and state sanctuary laws “remain in place,” emphasizing that local law enforcement does not communicate with or assist federal immigration officers. “I hope that can somehow address the real fears that I suspect folks have regarding potential changes within the federal government,” she said. “We will continue to do what we’ve been doing.”

However, there are exceptions for people who have been convicted of serious and violent crimes. In such cases, “some level of communication” with federal immigration officials can occur, Eads said.

One meeting attendee asked if the federal government could pressure local law enforcement “into complying with their objectives” through a lawsuit. Eads acknowledged that “all sorts of lawsuits can be filed” but said there’s no way to tell whether they would be successful. 

“That’s a whole other question, and that’s really not what guides me as your district attorney,” she said. “My job is to enforce the laws and uphold the Constitution of both the United States and the State of California, and to ensure that I do everything I can to enhance public safety here in the County of Humboldt. I intend to follow the law, and as the law now states, there are limitations in terms of what sort of interaction or assistance that law enforcement can engage in … with federal immigration officers and officials.”

Honsal took a similar stance, emphasizing that his “primary job” as sheriff is to enforce local and state laws, not federal law. “I have no jurisdiction over federal law enforcement here,” he said. “I cannot enforce federal law. That’s not my job. … [The federal government] can’t necessarily put any pressure on me because they can’t force me to do anything that’s outside of my ability to do.”

Another person in attendance asked if local law enforcement has the ability to verify whether or not ICE is conducting a local sweep. Honsal reiterated that federal immigration officials do not tell local law enforcement when they’re coming to town, which can make it difficult to dispel rumors.

“Before the sanctuary ordinance was in place … we had open dialogue with ICE,” he continued. “Every time they came into town, I was able to call them up, talk to their local agents and they were able to tell me what’s going on. They actually told me when they were coming into town and it was very helpful. … If they do plan on coming here, I would still hope that they would call us but I don’t have any guarantees that they would.”

In years past, a call from ICE was usually triggered by a recent arrest, Honsal said. When a person is booked and fingerprinted at the local jail, their information is transmitted to federal law enforcement and immigration authorities. If the person in custody is wanted for an immigration violation, the feds will ask for them to be held on a detainer. 

“We do not [currently] honor that hold,” Honsal said. “We do not hold anyone beyond what their stated charges are keeping them in custody for.” The only time the sheriff’s office will release an individual to ICE is if they have been previously convicted of a serious or violent crime, he added.

Responding to a question about potential ICE sweeps at local schools, Honsal emphasized that federal immigration officials are prohibited from conducting enforcement operations in certain areas, including schools, healthcare facilities and places of worship. (A full list of protected areas can be found at this link.) 

“I can tell you right now that students are safe,” he said. “I don’t think there should be any concern that ICE is going to show up and randomly start asking people who they are and whether or not they’re in the country legally. I know it’s hard to offer reassurance to people when it’s something that I have no control over. … I don’t want people to unnecessarily stress or be in fear. We want people to feel comfortable living here and being in Humboldt County, knowing that law enforcement and our government is there to support everyone here.”

After about two hours of discussion, the committee unanimously voted to send a letter to the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors “urging cautious compliance.” (It wasn’t exactly specified what the committee will urge the board to comply with, or what it should be cautious about.) The board will discuss the letter and the county’s sanctuary ordinance at an upcoming meeting on Feb. 4.

Click “play” on the video above to listen to the full discussion.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Now They’re Selling KIEM-TV to An All-Western Cable Channel That Used to Be Jim and Tammy Faye’s ‘PTL Television Network’

###

Remember just a couple of years back, when a company named Imagicomm came in and bought local television stations KIEM and KVIQ — those stations that air the locally produced “Redwood News” programs and are otherwise affiliated to the NBC and CBS networks, respectively?

Those folks were most famous for their cable channel, INSP, which features almost total Cowboy programming and used to belong to Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker.

Well, here comes news that these Imagicomm pardners have decided to mosey on down the road after only a couple of years, selling our stations — and another couple in Medford — to a different media conglomeration called Marquee Broadcasting.

Now, this Marque Broadcasting thing projects a very different corporate vibe! Their (trademarked) slogan, as you can see in the accompanying graphic, is “Because Local Matters.”

Here’s an excerpt from their mission statement, which you can find at the website linked above:

Marquee Broadcasting is a family-owned, woman-led, group of television and radio stations intended to serve local communities.  Since 2013, Patricia and Brian Lane have assembled a team and group of stations that have won prestigious awards, both nationally and locally, for their television and news production.

…

Our focus is on the smaller markets, where our community involvement can mean the most, and make the biggest difference.  Our trademark motto is “because local matters.”  In a world of divisive national media, we believe the need for trusted, neutral news has never been greater.

Pretty cool, as far as corporate mission statements go!

Reached this afternoon, KIEM/KVIQ general manager Jenny Olszewski told the Outpost that she hadn’t yet had the opportunity to meet with the new ownership, but she liked the fact that the conglomerate mostly operates in small markets. 

“We’re excited about the new ownership opportunities,” Olszweksi said.

Interested in the ins and outs of this deal? Well, no dollar figures were announced but you may find very slightly more info in this article at the TV News Check industry publication.

New apartments, roundabouts, trails and buildings all over Arcata are coming in the following years, said speakers at the Arcata City Council meeting on Wednesday and yesterday’s State of the City Address. 

Several of the most significant include the Sunset Avenue Interchange Project, which will turn three intersections along Sunset Avenue into two roundabouts. City manager Merritt Perry said Arcata received a $15 million RAISE Grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation last week to build it. Construction starts in 2026.

The Annie and Mary Trail, a 3.5 mile path built on an old railroad bed traveling from West End road through downtown Arcata and into the marsh, will begin construction this year and finish in 2026. It’s a project that’s been decades in the making, Perry said, and involved reading original land deeds from the 1800s written in longhand cursive. 

“This is going to be incredible,” Perry said. “To bring the Mad River, and ultimately Blue Lake and Arcata, taking all of their pieces all the way to the extent and beyond city limits, both on the Bay Trail and here.”

The graph the Community Development Department shared at the city council meeting.

Cal Poly Interim President Michael Spagna (left) and VP Michael Fisher (right) address the crowd. By Dezmond Remington.

At Wednesday’s city council meeting, officials from the Community Development Department said that their efforts to build affordable housing were going well, having met their goals for building “very low” and “moderate” income housing and coming five units short of meeting their goal for “low” income housing. However, only 48% of new units for “above moderate” income housing had been built. 

Cal Poly Humboldt’s behemoth Craftsman’s Mall project is also projected to open this fall semester three months ahead of schedule, said associated vice president Michael Fisher. It will house over 900 students. Fisher emphasized their efforts to connect the project to the rest of Arcata and said the Annie and Mary Trail would be a big part of that.

There’s also hope it’ll open up some more single-family homes in Arcata. 

“This is a project that will be exclusively housing students, but as we all know there’s a lot of single-family homes that are tied up in the rental market right now,” said Community Development Department director David Loya at the council meeting. “It’s possible that this project could have an effect on loosening some of that up for single-family ownership.”

The project also being renamed the “Hinarr Hu Moulik” (pronounced hi-NAD HU ma-LEEK), which according to Fisher is the Wiyot name for the project. 

Another new building in the works on campus is the Housing, Dining, and Health project, which will have dining options and freshman-only housing. It has a budget of $180 million, and will open in Fall of 2029. 

Fisher also said that the Campus Apartments dorms are slated to be destroyed this summer. The dorms are famously moldy and unpopular, and their demise has been on the docket for several years. 

“[They’re coming down], I’m happy to report,” Fisher said. “That usually gets a lot more applause on campus. But it’s a big deal for us, making sure that we can replace our older housing stock with more safe, new, and comfortable housing for our campus.”