On
December 7, 2023, in Eureka, Angela Price unexpectedly passed away.
Angela was born November 16, 1981.
She
was a mother to three children — Heather, Tina and Kaden. She was a
loving sister to her brother Josh, a sister/best friend to Juanita
and a sweet friend to Kristen. She was a wonderful aunt to Nolan and
Peyton as well as to the many other nieces and nephews she shared.
She will be greatly missed by us and all of her extended family.
Angela
spent some of her years serving the Eureka Rescue Mission Thrift
Store and women’s shelter. She worked hard at the Recology Humboldt
and other local retail service stores. She was a gentle spirit with a
soul hard to forget.
Celebration
of life for Angela will be on February 28, 2024 from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
at the Eureka Rescue Mission Men’s chapel building — 100 Second
Street, Eureka.
Family
and friends are welcome to attend for a time of remembrance of
Angela. We will share stories and a meal. Dessert will be potluck
style.
The obituary above was submitted on behalf of Angela Price’s loved ones. The Lost Coast Outpost runs obituaries of Humboldt County residents at no charge. See guidelines here.
Press release issued Sunday by the office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta:
Bonta
California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed an amicus brief supporting the City of Eureka in a lawsuit challenging an amendment to its housing element, which would provide affordable, climate-friendly housing to an area experiencing a severe housing shortage. The housing element amendment identified nine city-owned sites for housing development in and around downtown. Housing in this area would place residents near their jobs, services, and retail, and allow residents to access public transportation.
A local opposition group, Citizens for a Better Eureka, sued the City under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), arguing that an addendum to the environmental impact report failed to analyze traffic impacts, and that providing affordable housing on these sites would replace City parking lots and result in congestion in the downtown area. However, Eureka concluded that the plan for housing would contribute to an overall decrease in vehicle miles traveled – thus reducing harmful emissions – and impacts to intersection levels of service would be similar to the original housing element. In three other separate actions, Citizens for a Better Eureka has challenged the City’s efforts to provide housing.
“I proudly support Eureka in opposing this cynical effort to hamper development projects that benefit low-income residents; I will not stand for it,” said Attorney General Bonta.“The housing crisis and climate crisis are among the largest, most urgent issues facing California and we need to act swiftly and fiercely. Eureka is doing exactly this and has my steadfast support.”
State law requires local governments to include housing elements in their general plans, which serve as a “blueprint” for how the city and/or county will grow and develop. A housing element must include, among other things, an assessment of housing needs, an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to meeting those needs, and a program to implement the policies, goals, and objectives of the housing element. Once the housing element is adopted, it is implemented through zoning ordinances and other actions that put its objectives into effect. The housing element is a crucial tool for building housing for moderate-, low-, and very low-income Californians and redressing historical redlining and disinvestment.
Eureka’s housing element implements the goals and purposes of state housing laws, and the Department of Housing and Community Development certified it as complying with the Housing Element Law. In challenging the City’s housing element, the petitioner, Citizens for a Better Eureka, attempts to obstruct the development of future housing.
Attorney General Bonta is steadfastly committed to enforcing California’s housing laws.
Earlier this month, Attorney General Bonta secured an appellate court order in the state’s favor compelling a prompt resolution of the enforcement case against Huntington Beach for its failure to adopt a housing plan compliant with state law. Also earlier this month, Attorney General Bonta, Governor Gavin Newsom, HCD Director Gustavo Velasquez, and the City of Fullerton announced an agreement requiring the city to adopt a plan to allow for the development of 13,209 housing units. In December 2023, Attorney General Bonta, Governor Newsom, and HCD announced filing a request to intervene in Cal. Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, to uphold California’s housing laws, and reverse the City of La Cañada Flintridge’s denial of a mixed-use affordable housing project that would bring 80 mixed-income residential dwelling units, 14 hotel units, and 7,791 square feet of office space to the community.
In May 2023, Attorney General Bonta, in collaboration with state leaders, filed a lawsuit against the City of Elk Grove, challenging the city’s denial of a proposed supportive housing project which would add 66 units of supportive housing for lower-income households at risk of homelessness. In 2023, Attorney General Bonta, in collaboration with state leaders, announced settlements with the City of Coronado and the City of San Bernadino, for violating the state’s Housing Element Law.
The identities of all involved parties have been confirmed and the families have been located and notified. The investigation into this crash is continuing and attempts to identify why Mr. Baker was driving the wrong way at the time of the crash are ongoing. Anyone with information that may aid in this investigation is asked to contact the California Highway Patrol at 707-822-5981.
I continue to be amazed at your publication’s lack of due diligence and objective reporting. You continue to spread untruths about the Housing for All and Downtown Vitality ballot initiative and Citizens for a Better Eureka.
First, I want to clarify that the CEQA lawsuits and the Housing for All Initiative are PRO HOUSING. Neither the CEQA lawsuits filed by Citizens for a Better Eureka nor the Housing for All and Downtown Vitality initiative prevent the building of housing units on downtown parking lots.
The lawsuits request that the City do what it is already legally required to do and comply with CEQA when approving projects. CEQA compliance ensures that environmental impacts, if any, are analyzed and, where necessary, mitigation measures are imposed to reduce those impacts. The ballot initiative says the developments must preserve the public parking spaces that our local downtown businesses rely on. None of our efforts stop the proposed developments.
Last month, Citizens for a Better Eureka filed requests for injunctions in the four CEQA cases that were filed against the City. We did this because the City should pause, reconsider its parking lots development plan, and allow the City voters to provide guidance on the issue. However, it seems the City is determined to push it through.
While we are doing everything we can to win the injunctions motions, we also know there is a strong chance the court will not rule in our favor. Whatever the outcome, it won’t hinder our efforts going forward to save downtown Eureka and its businesses while continuing to bring much-needed housing to the city of Eureka.
We believe there are better options for solving our housing crisis than harming our downtown businesses. For instance, the proposed residential zoning overlay for the former Jacobs Middle School site included in the initiative provides a pathway to increase the housing supply in Eureka, bringing down its cost and making it more affordable – especially for working- and middle-income families. We were pleased to see a developer’s plan to purchase the site and encouraged to see so many of our neighbors agree with us that it is a good site for housing at last month’s Town Hall meeting.
We are pro-housing, pro-business, and pro-citizens, using our voices to push back on ill-conceived plans that will harm our city.
Sincerely,
Mike Munson
Citizens for a Better Eureka Member
Eureka Housing for All and Downtown Vitality Initiative Co-Sponsor
###
Dear Mr. Munson:
As is all too common in letters like this one, you decline to specify the “untruths” that the Outpost is allegedly passing off, leaving it as an exercise for the reader to figure out what you could be talking about. You protest that the two groups you have made yourself the semi-public local face of — one of them fighting on the legal front, the other on the electoral — are “pro-housing” (or, rather, “PRO HOUSING”). This would kinda sorta lead one to conclude that the Outpost, somewhere, called these groups “ANTI HOUSING.” This is not the case. In the entire 13-year history of the Outpost, the phrase “anti-housing” has appeared exactly twice, both times quoting opponents of your endeavors. You can’t object to that, can you? We have quoted the “Housing for All Initiative” proponents calling themselves by that name far more times than two.
It could be that you are cheesed off by the fact that we have not full-throatedly adopted this branding, which, after careful and costly market research, you and your colleagues seem to have decided is your best chance of getting the public to vote your way. Since we do not scream from the rooftops that your group is “PRO HOUSING” at every opportunity, we are failing in our duty of “objective reporting.” Maybe you think that “objective reporting” implies a magical world in which everyone gets to be exactly what they claim to be, no questions asked. It would be a strangely hippieish, airy-fairy fancy coming from someone who, for my money, runs the best steak house in town, but it does seem just possible.
But the Outpost cannot call these efforts “pro-housing” for a pretty simple reason: Their aim is to stop approved, permitted and in some cases largely funded downtown housing developments. The fact that you wish to exchange this bird in the hand for a notional, speculative possibility of housing elsewhere someday — or on structures erected above the downtown parking lots, adding God knows what costs to development — can’t really alter the fact that you want to stop these housing developments now. The lawsuits, which you here come dangerously close to admitting to be a baseless stall tactic, are particularly unhelpful in this regard. So “pro-housing” is too far, alas, and no number of glossy mailers featuring stock photos of multiracial children cavorting on the streets of Anytown, U.S.A. is likely to change that.
Instead, the Outpost’s regular shorthand descriptors of your efforts are that they are “pro-parking” and that they “seek to stop downtown housing developments,” or some variation of that latter phrase. These have the benefit of being true, and they accurately describe the genesis and goals of these initiatives. More than that, they are defensible enough political positions by themselves. Why can’t you own them?
As for the “due diligence” of our reporting: We have been in frequent contact with the Tennessee-based Gail Rymer, your public relations consultant — or, rather, the public relations consultant that Security National employs on your behalf — and she has been invariably quick and candid and helpful in answering questions, to the degree that she is allowed to be. Money well spent. Indeed, it was she who sent us the letter above, even though you have my email address and still owe me a response to a question I had for you three months ago.
Patrick Messac, director of Oakland Undivided, leads a rally to raise awareness about statewide multi-billion dollar broadband projects outside the Covered California headquarters in Sacramento on Oct. 25, 2023. Photo by Rahul Lal for CalMatters
Time is running out to apply for an affordable internet subsidy. The Federal Communications Commission predicts the Affordable Connectivity Program, which gives people $30 to $75 a month for high-speed internet and a one-time $100 credit for a computer or tablet, will run out of money in April.
Barring Congressional action in the next few days, your last chance to apply for the program is Wednesday at 8:59 pm.
If Congress fails to allocate additional funding, nearly 23 million people nationwide and 2.9 million Californians, nearly one in seven residents, will lose affordable high-speed internet funding. In Los Angeles alone nearly 800,000 people currently receive the high-speed internet subsidy intended to narrow the digital divide.
An end to the federal program would also spell the end of a California pilot program to see whether state broadband funding will get more people connected to high-speed internet.
Here are some of the details if you are interested in applying: Those who apply for the federal program this week and are accepted get three months of coverage, after which the program is slated to end. You can check eligibility on this website, and apply online, over the phone, or mail an application. People in assistance programs such as reduced school lunch credits; the Women, Infant, and Children supplemental nutrition program; or college Pell Grants automatically qualify. Only those living on qualifying tribal lands can receive the $75 per month. You’ll need a paycheck stub or tax return to verify income and present proof of identity like a drivers license or a passport from any country.
First instituted as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act in 2021, the Affordable Connectivity Program replaces the Emergency Broadband Benefit program, which was created in response to the COVID-19 pandemic to deliver internet coverage to low income households.
For millions of Californians, the barrier to internet access is not infrastructure — the wires are there — but affordability.
Rep. Norma Torres, a Democrat from Ontario, joined in introducing a bill in Congress last month to extend the program with $7 billion — saying high-speed internet is essential for education, health care, and work.
“If funding runs out for this essential program, we risk letting millions of Americans — in both blue and red states — fall back into digital darkness,” Torres said in a statement.
Also at risk in California: the pilot program that allows service providers to bundle California LifeLine (a state program offering discounted landline and cell phone services), a federal LifeLine program and the Affordable Connectivity Program, making life easier and cheaper for consumers.
More concerning, says attorney Ashley Salas of the consumer advocacy group The Utility Reform Network, is that AT&T, the largest provider of LifeLine services in the state, wants to stop providing that service.
If the utilities commission approves AT&T’s pending proposal, the company would no longer be designated as a carrier of last resort designation nor obliged to provide services like LifeLine to low-income residents.The first in a series of hearings throughout the state to gather public comment about AT&T about how ending that designation can affect people begins Tuesday in Clovis, California. Two remote online meetings for all California residents to share their opinion will be held March 19 at 2 pm and 6 pm.
###
CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.
For
anyone who’s been following the saga of cryptocurrency, and
specifically the flagship token Bitcoin, you’ll know that the most
important quality you need if you want to get involved isn’t
obvious stuff—strong constitution, perseverance, tons of spare
cash — but the less touted one: a
sense of humor.
Bitcoin
has been a wild ride from Day One, that is, January 3, 2009, when
Satoshi Nakamoto “mined” the initial “genesis block.” For
years, the value of Bitcoin languished, a little known kinda-sorta
alternative to Real Money. (Nakamoto was and is similarly unknown.)
Slowly,
people cottoned on to the idea that cryptocurrency might actually be
a viable alternative to fiat currency, saddled by none of the
political restrictions or dangers inherent in actual money, which is
subject to the whim of the powers-that-be. (Fiat = paper money made
legal tender by government decree.) So a single Bitcoin went from
being worth a fraction of a cent to nearly $70,000 in 12 short
years — only to drop back to $18,000 a year later. Giving fresh
meaning to the often-used term beloved by financiers, “volatility.”
Graphic: FrankAndProust, via Wikimedia. Public domain.
Some
Bitcoin tid-bits:
#
The price of Bitcoin jumped by $5,000 in an hour in 2021 when Elon
Musk publicly endorsed it on his Twitter profile.
#
James Howells of Newport, Wales, would be worth nearly $400 million
today if, in 2013, he hadn’t mistakenly tossed a hard drive. The
drive contained the keys to the 8,000 Bitcoins he’d previously
mined. Since then, he’s been trying, unsuccessfully to date, to get
permission to try to recover it from the local landfill. (I’m not
sure how his sense of humor is holding up.)
#
Reported as good
news:
“The [crypto] industry lost $1.8 billion to fraud and hackers in
2023, down 51% from the $3.7 billion lost in 2022.” (“A billion
here, a billion there, soon you’re talking about real money.”)
#
What prompted this column was the government’s green light to 11
Bitcoin ETFs on January 10. (ETFs, or exchange-traded funds, allow
investors to gamble on the future of Bitcoin without actually owning
it.) In the months and weeks prior to the SEC approval, speculation
ran rampant, pushing the price of Bitcoin up from around $30K to
nearly 49K, with the general expectation that it would go through the
roof once approval actually happened. Instead, it promptly dropped
nearly 20% in value in the next few days!
#
The CEOs of two of the largest financial companies on the planet,
Blackrock’s Larry Fink and JP Morgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon, have
been decrying Bitcoin in no uncertain terms for years:
“worthless”…“hyped-up fraud”…“worse than tulip bulbs,”
etc. Following the legitimization of the ETFs, they’re now in
cahoots, having unashamedly teamed up to trade in Bitcoin, Fink now
saying, “I’m a big believer.”
Pyramid
scheme or the future of money? Fraud or democratic answer to
government control? Scam or opportunity? Don’t ask me, I’m as
befuddled as anyone.
But
I sure love Bitcoin for its entertainment value.
Press release from the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office:
Search and rescue teams have located Pamela Van Hoek, deceased, at approximately 1215 hours.
SAR personnel utilized a U.A.V. which located Pamela in the Eel River near Dean Creek. The
Southern Humboldt Technical Rescue Team was deployed to recover her body. This was a large-
scale SAR that involved multiple local agencies and agencies from outside the area.
The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office would like to thank all the agencies and jurisdictions
involved in locating Pamela Van Hoek.
Agencies involved:
Redway Fire
Southern Humboldt Technical Rescue
Garberville Fire
Briceland Fire
Humboldt County Sheriff’s SAR
The California Rescue Dog Association
The California Office of Emergency Service
US Coast Guard
The Sheriff’s Office would also like to thank the public for their overwhelming support during
this entire effort. We encourage all who would like to get involved in future searches to consider
applying for our Sheriff’s Search and Rescue Posse This is a volunteer posse that is deployed to
all of our local (and many out of the area) search and rescue operations.
