Press release from the City of Arcata:

Through a unanimous vote (with one member absent), the Arcata City Council directed staff to adhere to the Superior Court of California’s ruling that flying the Earth Flag at the top of City flag poles is against the state law and to reorder the flags to place the national flag at the top, followed by the state flag.

On Nov. 8, 2022 by a vote of 3,051 to 2,781, the voters of Arcata passed a ballot measure that read:

It shall be the official policy and practice of the City of Arcata to fly the Earth flag at the top of all city-owned flagpoles, above the flag of the United States of America and the California flag, and any other flags that the city may choose to display.

On Dec. 14, 2022 the Council certified the election results and unanimously passed the following motion:

“As decided by the will of the people, the City Council will uphold Measure M and concurrently seek judicial resolution to determine if the Measure violates State or Federal Law.”

To place the motion in context then-Mayor Schaefer shared:

We wanted to honor the important ballot initiative process and the will of our voters. To that end, staff rearranged the flags this morning. Simultaneously we recognized that the vote had a very small margin, many people including the City Attorney’s independent analysis concluded that the measure was incongruent with State Code. Many residents have expressed their concerns over the potential cost to defend the measure from an outside lawsuit. To address these concerns the City Council has initiated a court action to efficiently review the ballot initiative and to assist the City in resolving the questions of its legality in relation to state flag code.

The council chose to seek a judicial ruling for several reasons that include:

1. The City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis which outlined in part:

The City of Arcata is a “general law” city, organized as provided in the California Government Code. As a general law city, Arcata is subject to all constraints imposed by California law. At least two California statutes govern the manner in which a general law city is required to fly multiple flags when a city chooses to fly them together on a single flagpole. These laws require a general law city to always fly the United States flag at the top of the flagpole with no other flag above it.

2. The City had received inquiries from local and out of area individuals and groups who indicated they were looking into legal remedies to “overturn” the City’s ballot measure. To attempt to keep the proceedings amicable and focused on the analysis of the law the Council took the initiative to minimize costs and maintain a straightforward review of the law.

The court process was by design cordial, but the courts may only take up a matter that is in conflict. There must be 2 sides for the court to consider. Both “sides” agreed to seek the most efficient process for the court’s consideration whereby each “side” presented briefings for the court to consider. As stated in the court documents there were no pertinent facts in dispute. This was simply a request to the courts to offer clarity as to whether the City is prohibited from or allowed/obligated to comply with Measure M based on the fact of law.

On April 3, the Superior Court of California issued its decision in the case the City filed regarding Measure M, the Arcata Ballot Initiative that directed the City to fly the earth flag at the top of each City owned pole. The court determined that Measure M is not enforceable because it conflicts with state law. In reaching this conclusion, the court considered three questions:

1. Whether state law requires general law cities like Arcata to fly the national flag above all other flags, when flown on a single flag pole.

2. Whether voters in a general law city like Arcata can exempt the City from complying with mandatory state law; and

3. Whether Measure M is an expression of the collective speech of the City’s voters such that they have a free speech right which cannot be abridged by state law.

In answering the first question, the court found that Government Code section 436 mandates that no other flag can be flown higher than the national flag on a City-owned flagpole, if only one flagpole is used. The court determined that the phrase “position of first honor” means at the highest location on the flagpole.

Second, the court found that the initiative power did not empower the voters of Arcata to exempt the City from mandatory state law. While in many instances the voters of the City can amend, revoke or enact municipal ordinances, they cannot alter state law, nor can they excuse the City from complying with state law.

Third, the court found that because Measure M compelled the City to “speak” by displaying the Earth Flag on the City’s flag poles, it constitutes government speech which is outside the purview of the First Amendment. The court noted that the City speaking is different from the rights of individuals to speak.

After considering each of the above questions, the court issued the following orders:

“The City has a duty as a general law city to comply with Government Code section 436 and Military and Veterans Code section 617, by flying the national flag at the top of its flag poles, followed by the state flag;”

“Measure M violates Government Code section 436 and Military and Veterans Code section 617 and hence is not enforceable …”

Based on this decision, and as the court expressly notes, state law requires the City to remove the Earth Flag from the top of its flag poles and place the national flag at the top, followed by the state flag. Measure M is not enforceable because it is contrary to state law and the City will be out of compliance with state law if it continues to fly the Earth Flag at the top of its flag poles.

The City of Arcata thanks all the interested parties for their patience and contributions on this matter. For questions, please contact the City Manager’s Office at (707) 822-5953.

The U.S. Supreme Court is about to hear the biggest case about homelessness in decades, and it seems like everyone in California has an opinion.

At issue: whether and under what conditions cities can fine or arrest people for camping in public spaces. The ruling will have nationwide implications for how local leaders manage homeless encampments.

Where does Gov. Gavin Newsom stand on that issue? What about the leaders of California’s major cities? Our law enforcement agencies? Homelessness experts? How about President Joe Biden’s administration?

Good questions! The good news is we can actually answer that. Many people and organizations have filed amicus briefs to the Supreme Court for the case, which means they’ve written out their opinion and submitted it in writing to the Justices for them to consider.

Read on to find out where many of the most important stakeholders in the homelessness crisis stand on homeless encampments.

What’s at stake in these Supreme Court arguments

The case, Johnson v. Grants Pass, stems from a 2018 lawsuit challenging an ordinance approved by the small city in Southern Oregon that essentially made it illegal for homeless residents to camp on all public property throughout the city.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case Monday, to determine if the ordinance violates the 8th Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment to penalize someone for camping if they have nowhere else to go.

“This is the most important Supreme Court case about homelessness in at least 40 years, and the results will be tremendous,” Jesse Rabinowitz, communications and campaign director of the National Homelessness Law Center, said during a media call.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals already has ruled in the Grants Pass case, and in a prior case (Martin v. Boise) that cities cannot punish someone for camping if that person has no other shelter. Grants Pass has asked the Supreme Court to overturn both prior rulings.

Since the Ninth Circuit first weighed in, numerous California cities have been sued over their efforts to remove homeless camps. Judges have delayed or halted efforts in several places, including San Francisco, Sacramento, Chico and San Rafael. On Tuesday, California Democrats voted to kill a bill that would have prohibited encampments near schools and other areas statewide.

More than three dozen elected officials and organizations have weighed in on the Grants Pass case.

“This is the most important Supreme Court case about homelessness in at least 40 years, and the results will be tremendous.”
— Jesse Rabinowitz, communications and campaign director, National Homelessness Law Center

Taking the pro-enforcement side

Those on this side argue that by restricting the enforcement of anti-camping ordinances, the courts have made it impossible for cities to lessen the harm encampments do to neighborhoods. They also argue the prior rulings — which they want overturned — are confusing and too hard to follow.

• California State Sheriffs’ Association and California Police Chiefs Association: Local governments now have little or no power to enforce rules when it comes to homeless residents, “leading to an explosion of encampments throughout the state of California.”
• California State Association of Counties and League of California Cities: The courts have become “micromanagers” of homelessness policy. Those decisions instead should be left up to cities and counties.
• California Republican Reps. Kevin Kiley of Rocklin, Doug LaMalfa of Yuba City, Tom McClintock of El Dorado Hills, Jay Obernolte of Hesperla and Darrell Issa of Temecula: “Statistics demonstrate that homeless encampments and crime go hand-in-hand,” and therefore the Ninth Circuit rulings have made it practically impossible for cities to combat crime.
• Venice Stakeholders Association: The rulings have created an “extreme imbalance between the rights of the homeless and those of Venice’s residents and business owners” who have to deal with encampments near their homes and businesses.
• Office of the San Diego County District Attorney: San Diego recently passed an ordinance banning homeless encampments near schools, shelters and transit hubs and in parks, and, if shelter is available, on public sidewalks. The recent Ninth Circuit rulings “create uncertainty about the validity of the ordinance as a whole.”
• California Chamber of Commerce: Employers have trouble hiring and keeping employees, and attracting customers, when their business is near a homeless encampment.
• Cicero Institute: The Cicero Institute, a public policy organization, drafted model anti-camping legislation that has been adopted in states including Texas and Utah. “Several jurisdictions have made great progress by enforcing public camping bans.”

Siding with homeless residents: Banning camping is inhumane

These groups and individuals support court rulings that limit enforcement of anti-camping ordinances. They argue punishing someone for camping when there isn’t enough shelter available — as is the case in most California cities — is wrong.

• California Democratic Reps. Ro Khanna of Fremont, Barbara Lee of Oakland and Linda Sanchez of Whittier: “Punishing human beings for existing when they have nowhere safe to rest is not only unconstitutional, it is also the least effective and most costly response a city can choose.”
• American Psychiatric Association and the National Alliance on Mental Illness: For unhoused people with severe mental illness, being approached by police for violating a camping ban could turn into a deadly altercation. People with untreated mental illness are 16 times more likely to be killed by law enforcement than those without a mental illness.
• National Homelessness Law Center: The Grants Pass ordinance is just as morally and legally wrong as Jim Crow Laws and “anti-Okie” laws that discriminated against refugees migrating into California during the Dust Bowl.
• 57 social scientists who have published research on homelessness: Research shows that punishing people for camping negatively impacts their physical and mental health, exacerbates the spread of disease and prolongs homelessness by making it harder for them to get out of debt, find jobs and access housing and other services.
• American Civil Liberties Union: The Grants Pass ordinance punishes people for “unavoidable, life-sustaining, and fundamentally human acts.”
• National Coalition of Men: The court should consider whether Grants Pass is discriminating against a protected class by targeting unsheltered homeless people in its anti-camping ordinance.

Taking neither side: A middle-of-the-road approach

Homelessness policy is a hyper-emotional, intensely polarizing issue, and by siding with neither party in the Grants Pass case, those in this group are attempting to occupy the political middle-ground. They don’t want to be seen as supporters of “criminalizing homelessness.” But they also don’t want to be seen as too soft on enforcement.

They say it’s wrong to prohibit camping everywhere in a city if a person has nowhere else to sleep. But they also want cities to have more freedom to clear camps and enforce camping bans.

• Gov. Gavin Newsom: Local courts are blocking “common-sense” efforts to clear encampments. “There is no compassion in stepping over people in the streets, and there is no dignity in allowing people to die in dangerous, fire-prone encampments. Hindering cities’ efforts to help their unhoused populations is as inhumane as it is unworkable.”
• City of Los Angeles: “The city does not support efforts to criminalize people who are experiencing involuntary homelessness. However, the City does have a paramount interest in its ability to protect public health and safety.”
• City of San Francisco and Mayor London Breed: The Supreme Court should not allow cities to ban camping everywhere, at all times, in all public spaces. “Doing so could not only be cruel and unusual, but it would also create perverse incentives to force unhoused individuals to migrate to jurisdictions like San Francisco that do not do so.” San Francisco is currently under a court order that prevents the city from enforcing its anti-camping ordinances.
• President Joe Biden’s administration: A person should not be criminalized because they are homeless. But “broad and burdensome” injunctions issued by some district courts limit cities’ abilities to respond to encampments.

###

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

Calvin “Bubby” Lavern Sand, Jr. passed away April 14, 2024 at St. Joseph Hospital in Eureka at the age of 73. Calvin was born September 2, 1950 at St. Joseph Hospital in Eureka to Calvin Lavern Sand Sr. and Lucy Vitta Wilkinson Sand Walker.

He lived in Humboldt County all of his life with the exception of when he served in the United States Army for a tour in Viet Nam from 1968 to 1971 at which time he was honorably discharged. Bubby joined and served in the National Guard in Eureka from 1972 to 1975.

Bubby started his 33 year career in the lumber industry in 1972. During his career he worked at Arcata Redwood Company. He attained the highest standards of grading redwood and fir lumber and throughout his career maintained the highest standards of grading.

At a young age Bubby started playing little league baseball and continued through high school playing a sport he loved. He was a lifelong New York Yankees fan. After high school and in his adult years Bubby played fast and slow pitch softball. Bubby was a great hitter, in fact, when he was up at bat you always heard the other team say “Back up, Bubby’s at bat”. He was a double threat, as well as hitting the ball the distance, he was fast around the bases. He was always in friendly competition with his younger brother Billy “Pee Wee” Sand to see who could hit the furthest and run the fastest. The Sand boys liked to compete.

Bubby was a very kindhearted and loving man. Always helping family members in need and never judging anyone or their situation. Everyone that got the pleasure of knowing him understands the great man that he was.

He loved his sons Corey and Casey with all his heart. Bubby was heartbroken when he lost his youngest Casey in 2003. He was the absolute best grandpa to many grandchildren. He was such a proud grandpa and loved going to all his grand children’s sporting events, graduations, and weddings. The friends of his grandchildren often called him Grandpa Bubby.

In 2022 Bubby helped support his best little buddy Izaiah Couch-Sand (Nephew) by entering a guardianship. Bubby loved being able to help support Izaiah by taking him to school, shopping, Tribal Events, and anything else Izaiah needed.

Bubby was an enrolled member of the Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria. He loved being part of the Tribe and went to as many gatherings and tribal functions as he could. Although Bubby had many nieces and nephews everyone regardless of relation called him “Uncle Bubby.”

To Bubby family was everything. He was known to call family members every day to check in and see how things were going and let you know how he was doing. He was the best brother, dad, grandpa, great grandpa, and uncle a family could ask for. We are all blessed to have had him in our lives and he will be missed by all of those that knew and loved him.

He is preceded in death by Calvin Lavern Sand, Sr. (Father), Lucy Vitta Wilkinson Sand Walker (Mother), William “Billy” Sand (Brother), Sheila Alcantar (Sister), Casey Sand (Son), Tony Sand (Nephew), and many aunts and uncles.

He is survived by his son Calvin “Corey” Lavern Sand III, his six grandchildren Maryah Greer (Morgan), Makenzie Sand, Mason Sand, Hunter Sand (Gina), Hayden Sand, Hallie Sand, his great-grandchildren Elizabeth and Sophia Sand and two more on the way this year, his sisters Shay Freeman (Wendell), Marlena Barrow (Russ), and brother Dennis Sand (Norma) and many nieces, nephews, and cousins.

There will be a family and friend viewing at Sanders Funeral Home 1835 E Street, Eureka CA, 95501 from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. on Friday April 19, 2024. The family invites all that knew and loved Bubby to swing by and say your farewells.

The family will be having a celebration of life later in the year.

###

At last night’s regular meeting, the Eureka City Council received a progress report on city’s Homeless Action Plan and staff’s ongoing efforts to address one of the community’s most pressing issues.

The plan includes eight goals to reduce homelessness in Eureka by increasing access to affordable housing and expanding the city’s homeless prevention program. The plan also seeks to increase engagement with people experiencing homelessness through partnerships and collaborations with service providers and local organizations.

What has been accomplished so far? According to city staff: Quite a bit, actually! Jeff Davis, project manager for the Community Access Project for Eureka (CAPE) and UPLIFT Eureka, said his team has helped rehouse 56 individuals through UPLIFT’s Rapid Rehousing program since the Homeless Action Plan was approved in 2022.

Davis | Screenshot

“Fifty-six is a lot because these folks are the ones that have the highest needs [and] are the most vulnerable,” Davis said. “It’s not just securing housing and helping folks move in –  it’s providing those supportive services [to] ensure that they’re able to stabilize [and get] connected with services and keep that housing permanently. We are continuing to reach out to landlords and trying to house as many folks as possible.”

UPLIFT has rehoused over 200 people since it launched its Rapid Rehousing program in 2019, he added.

At the beginning of this year, Eureka received a “prohousing” designation from Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Office, paving the way for more funding opportunities for future housing projects. Davis said the city is working with private developers to build “over 300 deed-restricted affordable housing units” across several city-owned properties by 2028.

Staff has made significant progress with the Crowley property, Davis continued, referring to a transitional housing project on Hilfiker Lane, near the Hikshari Trail at the south end of town. 

“We are moving forward with the assembling transitional housing units …  and we’re making progress every week,” he said. The city will receive the final shipment of “wet units,” including bathrooms, showers and laundry facilities, next month. “If we continue this progress, there’ll be a potential moving date of July or August of this year. And that’s enough [space] for up to 40 individuals that are currently living in camps along the Waterfront Trail here in Eureka.” 

Shifting to engagement and outreach goals, Davis said UPLIFT and the city’s Community Safety Engagement Team (CSET) have been working with local service providers and the county to survey people experiencing homelessness. The biennial Point-In-Time (PIT) Count was conducted at the beginning of this year but the data has yet to be finalized, Davis said. 

“Those numbers should be available pretty soon,” he said. “We analyze and apply that data to our outreach and our different programs.”

In just a few months, the city will open a resource center on the E Street side of the Eureka Municipal Auditorium. Davis said the resource center should be up and running in early July. “It’ll be a wonderful place for folks to go and community members come and [get] connected with resources and services,” he said. “Progress is being made every day.”

The city has also “stepped up” its low-barrier, overnight shelter options, Davis said. In partnership with faith-based organizations, the city expanded its extreme weather overnight warming center, providing “low- to no-barrier” shelter for people needing a place to sleep. “We activated [the shelter] last year multiple times and it was a great success,” he said.

Following Davis’ presentation, Councilmember Scott Bauer asked if there was a waiting list for homeless folks seeking housing. There are over 900 people in the county’s “coordinated entry system,” which is more of an eligibility list than a waiting list, Davis said.

“Just so we’re clear, when we say ‘900’ that’s by the McKinney-Vento definition of homeless,” City Manager Miles Slattery added. “[They’re] not necessarily unsheltered; [that] could be people living in hotels, people living on couches … .”

Councilmember Leslie Castellano asked if the staff had made any progress in establishing a sanctioned camping area in the city. Slattery said the city held a workshop last year to gauge interest in an authorized encampment. Staff connected with an individual interested in facilitating an encampment, but the conversation fizzled out.

Councilmember Renee Contreras-DeLoach thanked city staff for their dedication. “It’s inspiring,” she said. “I think it’s really impressive because some of the stuff that the city is doing is not [stuff] that the city has to do, but it’s stuff that is being done.”

Mayor Kim Bergel echoed Contreras-DeLoach’s sentiments and urged people to pay attention to the important work staff is doing. “A lot of good things are happening in our city, and you find what you look for.”

The council did not take any action on the report.

More Construction Along H and I Streets

The city council approved staff’s request to reduce traffic from one two lanes to two one lane on H and I Streets (both one-ways) between 1st and 2nd Streets in Old Town to make way for a buffered bike lane, plus a few more parking spaces, as seen in the graphic below.

The project follows the city’s Complete and Green Streets Policy, which aims to create a “comprehensive, connected multimodal transportation network that contributes directly to the safety, health, economic vitality and quality of life of all residents, especially the most vulnerable.” In this case, the city is hoping to create a corridor that safely connects Old Town to Henderson Center neighborhoods, said City Engineer Jesse Willor.

Councilmember Kati Moulton asked if the bike lane would stay on the same side of the street from Old Town all the way to Henderson Center. Willor said the bike lane would actually shift from one side of the road to the other between 2nd and 3rd Streets.

“We wouldn’t do it at the busiest intersections in town,” he said. “[There’s] much lower volume of traffic down there on 2nd and 3rd, and it would just be one crossing. … Because of the way the parking and everything’s configured down there, you have to move [the bike lane] or else you’d have to go down and reconfigure all the parking between 4th and 1st, or at least some of it, in order to make it work.”

Bauer asked if the realignment of parking spaces would result in a loss of parking. By shifting from diagonal to parallel parking, Willor said the project would actually add four spaces to Old Town. 

One public commenter asked if the staff would consider people towing trailers and boats while implementing the project, adding that he’s had a difficult time getting around the newly constructed bulb-outs without veering into oncoming traffic. “I just got ran off the road this morning by a Mercer-Fraser concrete truck, so just keep that in mind when you guys are planning, please,” he said.

Colin Fiske, executive director of the Coalition for Responsible Transportation Priorities, spoke in favor of the project, noting that it is “an important part of connecting the Waterfront Trail and facilities in that part of town with the rest of town.” 

After a bit of additional discussion, Moulton made a motion to approve the resolution, which was seconded by Councilmember G. Mario Fernandez. The motion was approved in a 4-1 vote, with Contreras-DeLoach dissenting.

###

Odds and ends from Tuesday’s meeting:

• Mayor Kim Bergel invited meeting attendees to the upcoming community health town hall – “Embracing Humanity” – featuring keynote speaker Joe Roberts aka the “Skidrow CEO.” The event will take place at Eureka City Hall on Saturday, May 4, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. “If we fill the room to capacity, Miles [Slattery] will buy me a car!” Bergel said. “So everybody please come and bring all your friends!” More information on the town hall can be found at this link.
• The city council unanimously approved the creation of the Eureka Housing Trust Fund to support various city-operated housing development programs, including the city’s accessory dwelling unit (ADU) program. Last year, the city earmarked $500,000 in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to start the trust. The city will contribute at least $100,000 in Vacation Dwelling Unit (VDU) Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues to the trust fund each year.
• Mayor Bergel also noted that the floral arrangements on either side of the speakers’ podium were made by students in the Eureka High School floral program. How nice!

###

A recording of the meeting can be found here.

Arcata Fire District press release:

On Tuesday, April 16 at 3:27 P.M., the Arcata Fire District was dispatched to a medical rescue in the McKinleyville Community Forest, with closest access to the patient on the 2000 block of First Road.

The first engine arrived on scene as well as Arcata/Mad River Ambulance’s team and a Chief officer with AFD’s off-road side-by-side to find that the patient was approximately one mile up the trail.
Due to a boulder and tree blocking access to the trail for the side-by-side, two engine companies and the paramedic team set out on foot to find a woman who had fallen off of her mountain bike while riding one of the trails.

She was put in a traction splint and Reach 5 helicopter team was called to the scene, responding from the Redding area. When the helicopter landed on scene, the patient was flown to Redding to assess her injuries.

Arcata Fire District would like to thank Arcata Ambulance and Reach 5 for their assistance today and would also like to provide a reminder to the community to wear a helmet, always have a phone on you or a person with you in case of an emergency in a remote area.

Sebastian Amaro, an eighth-grade student at NPA in Arcata, seems to be a pretty crack runner. Here’s a Mad River Union story that shows him placing third among all eighth graders at last fall’s Humboldt County Youth Cross Country Championships. Nice job!

But Sebastian is about more than just running. He’s also about making sure all the kids can run if they want to, and to that end he has made it his mission to raise awareness of the Six Rivers Running Club’s Shoe Fund, which buys running shoes for kids whose families might have trouble affording them.

Sebastian recently wrote the Outpost to see if we might partner with him to spread the word about the Shoe Fund, as the deadline for applications this year is coming up soon. The Outpost said that it would be honored to do so.

Take it away, Sebastian:

There is a local shoe fund in Humboldt County called the SRRC shoe fund.

This is primarily for young runners who are struggling to buy running shoes and whose families have lower incomes. The goal is so that these young runners can run for their school or running club, but only K-12th graders are eligible for this.

This application must be filled out by the coach of a running team/club, and they have to email maguro4u@gmail.com for the application, and you must send this in by April 30, but there is no guarantee that your school will get shoes.

If you have any questions about this you can visit the SRRC shoe fund pdf which has all the information.

###

Local residents this week are getting knocks on their front doors from clipboard-wielding representatives of a company called SFE Energy, a natural gas supplier whose salespeople often say they can lower your PG&E bills. 

SFE logo

While not quite an out-and-out scam (the company is licensed as a “Core Gas Aggregation Service,” i.e. a third-party supplier, with branches in numerous states across the country), SFE has an abysmal reputation. 

The Better Business Bureau has rescinded its accreditation of the company following a deluge of complaints. In fact, due to the extraordinary volume of reports, the BBB has published a portion of those complaints from people who were convinced to sign up, only to regret it later.

Last year, the Maryland Public Service Commission launched an “enforcement blitz” after receiving a record number of complaints about SFE, according to the Baltimore Sun. 

“The commission’s consumer affairs division had received dozens of complaints against SFE from Jan. 1, 2020, through Sept. 30, 2022, including allegations that SFE used deceptive marketing practices, failed to comply with contracting requirements and enrolled customers without their consent, a practice known as ‘slamming,’” the Sun says.

In January, SFE reached a settlement in the state, requiring it to pay a $150,000 civil penalty and refund $400,000 to certain customers.

SFE sent teams to Humboldt County in 2016 and again in 2018.

Be careful out there, folks, and if you have any elderly neighbors who aren’t online much, maybe warn them, too.