Bill Richard Diffin, aged 49, passed away peacefully on January 23, 2024, in Fortuna. Born on September 16, 1974, in Modesto to Clara Diffin and the late William Richard Diffin, Billy, as he was affectionately known, was a beacon of joy and generosity throughout his life.

A proud alumnus of Fortuna High School, Billy was wholeheartedly devoted to his family, prioritizing their care and welfare above all else. He was a familiar face and a friend to many, known for his unwavering willingness to lend a helping hand and a smile that could brighten anyone’s day. Beyond his dedication to his loved ones, Billy and Clara were members of the Rio Dell Baptist Church community.

Billy’s passion for life was evident in his personal interests. An avid storyteller, he enjoyed recounting life’s moments while indulging in his favorite shows. His playful spirit came alive through his love for food, especially his fondness for beef jerky and Subway sandwiches, often sharing this delight with his nephew Charlie. Billy’s sense of humor and jovial disposition will be remembered by all who had the pleasure of knowing him.

Left to honor Billy’s memory are his mother, Clara Diffin; his son, Dakota Diffin; his cherished grandchildren, Connor and CW; his ex-wife and best friend, Patricia Diffin; sister, Amanda Johnson; brother-in-law, Charles Persinger; nephews, Dillon Moore and Charlie Persinger; great nephew, Tanner Moore; cousins, Larry Hall, Doris Hurdle, and Stan Calkins; sister-in-law, Cindy Jones; brother-in-law, Kent Jones; and nephew, Garrett Jones. Billy is also preceded in death by his daughter, Kelsey Lee Diffin.

Billy will be cremated as per his wishes. A celebration of his life will be announced and held at a later date. The family welcomes donations in Billy’s memory to a GoFundMe page, the details of which will be provided shortly.

The Diffin family has entrusted Gobles Mortuary with the arrangements. Billy’s absence will be deeply felt, but his spirit and the memories shared will continue to live on in the hearts of those who loved him.

###

###

At a special, single-topic meeting that lasted more than six hours on Friday, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors denied an appeal aimed at blocking a McKinleyville subdivision and housing development project, instead approving a modified, slightly downsized version of the project. 

The original proposal, which was approved by the Planning Commission back in November, calls for a 2.47-acre property near the future Town Center to be subdivided into 19 parcels and developed with 62 new housing units, some multi-family, others single-family, built in two-story townhome style.

McKinleyville resident Laura Peterson speaking on behalf of the appellants, dubbed the Coalition for Responsible Housing.

The appellants, a group of neighboring residents going by the name the Coalition for Responsible Housing, raised a number of objections to the project, including its density, height (and resulting shadows), potential fire and flooding hazards and the fact that it never went through an official design review process, as required by statute.

In presenting the facts, history and regulatory context of the project, Planning and Building Director John Ford highlighted the county’s profound need for housing and the increasing difficulty of getting it built in California – and Humboldt County, in particular.

Regarding the design review requirement, Ford said that absent an official committee, the board itself could serve that function during today’s hearing. He also noted that larger and denser housing development is principally permitted on the site.

The public comment period was dominated by neighbors of the project, who insisted that they are not NIMBYs and not against housing generally but feel this particular project is inappropriate for the area.

“[W]e are more than willing to provide our fair share of housing,” said Laura Peterson, a member of the neighborhood coalition. “We just want it to be beautiful housing that fits with the character of our neighborhood, and we don’t think the goal of housing and the goal of beauty are mutually exclusive.”

Developer Dane Valadao addresses county supervisors.

Developer and applicant Dane Valadao, who lives near the project site with his family, said he purchased the property in 2019 because it was already zoned for multi-family housing and seemed perfect for development.

“We liked this property because it’s the definition of infill and well located for walkability purposes,” he said. Later he added, “We are invested socially, financially and professionally in our community. We live in this neighborhood, about two blocks up the streets, with no plans to move. We’re very involved locally and want this to be a successful development as much as anybody.”

During the deliberation process among the board, Supervisor Steve Madrone, who represents the McKinleyville-inclusive Fifth District, advocated largely on behalf of the appellants’ concerns, and he suggested a series of potential modifications to the project, including reducing one row of townhomes to a single story. However, the motion he wound up making failed for lack of a second.

After further deliberations, county staff met in a closed room with both the appellants and the applicant. The opposing sides emerged having arrived at “an uncomfortable consensus” regarding a compromised version of the project.

The revised plan reduced the number of lots from 19 to 17 and the total number of units from 62 to 56. The spacing of lots on the western property line will be expanded to increase green space, and among other conditions, Valadao agreed to attempt to form a Permanent Road Division that would fund road maintenance. Speed bumps and a crosswalk will be added to the design and must be approved by the Department of Public Works.

Furthermore, four of the planned “half-plexes” will be reduced to two single-story, single-family residences, and hydrological studies will be conducted.

The board unanimously denied the appeal and approved the revised project.

PREVIOUSLY: Environmental Review Period Begins for California Offshore Wind Lease Areas

###

The environmental review process for the development of the Humboldt Offshore Wind Lease Area has begun, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) wants to hear from you!

Last month, BOEM released a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) that will analyze the potential impacts of offshore wind development in the five offshore wind lease areas off the California coast, two of which are located about 20 miles off Humboldt Bay. The release of the NOI initiated a 60-day public comment period that will inform the scope and alternatives of the PEIS.

“Based on a preliminary evaluation of these resources, BOEM estimates that potential impacts may occur on certain marine life from underwater noise caused by construction and on marine mammals from collisions with project-related vessel traffic,” according to BOEM. “Structures installed by the projects could permanently change benthic and fish habitats. Commercial fisheries (including Tribal fisheries) and recreational fishing could be impacted. Project structures may also pose an allision hazard to vessels.”

This environmental review period is one of the first steps in a years-long regulatory process that could culminate in the first commercial-scale floating offshore wind development in the United States, bringing the federal government one step closer to its goal of deploying 30 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind energy by 2030, and 15 GW of floating offshore wind energy by 2035.

The public comment period for the PEIS will end on Feb. 20. Those interested can share their comments online at this link. Snail mail must be labeled “California OSW PEIS” and sent to the Chief, Environmental Assessment Section, Office of Environment, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 760 Paseo Camarillo, Suite 102, Camarillo, Calif. 93010.

The virtual public scoping meetings will be held on Tuesday, Feb. 6 at 10 a.m. and Thursday, Feb. 8 at 5 p.m. More information, including the registration link, can be found below.

###

Press release from BOEM:

On December 19, 2023, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) announced a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), which will analyze potential impacts of Federal offshore wind energy development activities on the five offshore wind lease areas off California’s central and northern coast. The NOI also initiated a 60-day comment period to solicit public feedback on the scope of the PEIS, including potential alternatives and draft mitigation measures. 

BOEM will host two virtual scoping meetings where the public can learn about the environmental review process and provide comments on the scope of the draft PEIS. The virtual scoping meetings will be held on:

Tuesday, February 6, 2024
10:00 am PT
Registration Link

Thursday, February 8, 2024
5:00 pm PT
Registration Link
 
Additional information on the California Offshore Wind PEIS can be found on the CA Offshore Wind PEIS page.

###

DOCUMENT: Notice of Intent to file a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Thousands of volunteers fanned out across California this week, peering down alleyways, into parked cars and along creek beds in a mass effort to count the state’s homeless population.

The federally mandated census, done every two years and dubbed the point-in-time count, serves as the main framework Californians use to understand their state’s homelessness crisis. The data it produces influence everything from allocations of state funding, to local policy decisions, to the way politicians talk about homelessness in campaign speeches.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which requires the counts every other year, compiles the data from across the country into an annual report submitted to Congress. Last year, the department tallied 181,399 unhoused Californians — 28% of the nation’s total homeless population. That’s up nearly 40% from five years ago.

But the counts, despite being mandated by federal law and serving as the basis for any number of decisions on California housing and homelessness policy, rely on unpaid volunteers and are far from an exact science. Different counties in California tally their numbers differently. Some attempt to talk to each person they count, while others use algorithms to estimate how many people live inside each tent and RV. Experts agree the real number is higher than the count.

“It is not a finite count,” said Tamera Kohler, CEO of the Regional Task Force on Homelessness in San Diego County. “It is at a minimum, you know you have this many people. …You’re going to miss some folks. You’re just not going to be able to get in every little area in that period of time.”

Several counties tested out new methods this year in an attempt to improve accuracy. In the last count, Alameda County volunteers were instructed to tally tents and RVs without bothering the people inside. This year, volunteers instead tried to talk to everyone inside those tents and RVs, and get them to answer a 15-minute survey.

Surveying the homeless

The sun hadn’t yet risen Thursday morning when Andrea Zeppa, homeless services regional coordinator at Alameda County Healthcare for the Homeless, led her team down a row of RVs parked along the side of a street in Berkeley. Each volunteer was equipped with a map speckled with red dots that signified known encampments. Bundled up against the early morning chill, they picked around piles of trash as a fluffy cat with a bell on its collar darted back and forth between the vehicles.

“Hello, hello,” Zeppa called softly. “I’m here for the homeless count. Anybody awake?” A generator powering one of the RVs droned in the background.

Across the street, 61-year-old volunteer Deidra Perry met a young woman in a long peasant skirt. She was living in a silver SUV adorned with a “Zombie outbreak response team” sticker in the rear window. As Perry asked her a series of increasingly personal questions about everything from her mental health to her HIV status, the woman revealed a glimpse into her life, and how she ended up on the street. She survived domestic violence in 2012, she said, and her post-traumatic stress disorder makes it impossible for her to sleep in a crowded homeless shelter. She sleeps on the streets when she isn’t working as a live-in nanny or house-sitting. At one point she’d had a tent, but it was stolen before she even had a chance to set it up.

As the sky began to lighten and birds started chirping, Perry typed the woman’s answers into an app on her phone. At the end of the interview, Perry handed her a $10 Safeway gift card. The woman thanked her, and Perry moved on.

“They’re tough questions to ask,” Perry said afterward. It was her first time participating in a point-in-time count. “It feels very intrusive.”

Most of the vehicles they approached remained dark and silent. Starting the count before dawn helps ensure people aren’t moving around town and at risk of being counted twice, but it means many people are still sleeping.

Even so, by mid-morning Zeppa said the surveys were going “really well.” The people who were awake were receptive to sharing their stories — which Zeppa hopes leads to more accurate information about the region’s homeless population, and helps agencies like hers plan better programming and spend their money more effectively.

Busting myths

After the last census, there were concerns that Black and indigenous unhoused people were undercounted in Alameda County, said Sharon Cornu, executive director of St. Mary’s Center, which provides housing and support services for homeless seniors in Oakland.

“We are hopeful this year that the count will provide us better data that helps us design and run a stronger system to bring people home,” Cornu said.

St. Mary’s Center uses the point-in-time count data in its applications for funding, Cornu said. The data also helps them learn about the people falling through the cracks in the area’s net of social services.

“It really busts a lot of the myths,” Cornu said. For example, the 2022 count showed that 65% of people surveyed had lived in Alameda County for 10 or more years, compared to just 8% who had lived there a year or less — contrary to speculation that unhoused people are traveling there from out of the area to take advantage of social services.

But lingering impacts from the COVID pandemic have complicated efforts to paint a statewide picture of the homelessness crisis. Counts that were supposed to happen in 2021 were delayed until the following year over fears that they could put unhoused people and volunteers at risk of catching the virus.

The counts went ahead in 2022. But then things got messy. Some counties, such as Santa Clara, opted to count again in 2023 — reasoning counts in the past had happened in odd-numbered years. Others, including the rest of the Bay Area and Sacramento, chose to count this year instead.

As a result, parts of the state are out of sync. Even the federal government doesn’t know which counties are counting when.

“It is not easy to predict which (continuums of care) will conduct a count every year,” Andra Higgs and Andrew Ten said in an emailed statement on behalf of the housing department. “COVID-19 complicated the regularity of counts. Most of Southern California has historically counted every single year. However, the Inland Empire upwards to Northern California follow less-clear patterns.”

In Los Angeles County, about 6,000 volunteers spent three nights counting.

The “coolest feature” of this year’s count was new geo-fencing technology on volunteers’ smartphones that alerted them if they strayed outside of their assigned area, said Ahmad Chapman, communications director for the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority. It also alerted count organizers if streets were skipped, so they could go back and count them later.

Volunteers in Los Angeles County don’t try to survey every unhoused person they meet. Instead, they tally the number of people, tents and vehicles they see. That data then goes to researchers at USC, who use it to estimate how many people are living in each tent and vehicle.

The result isn’t a precise count, said Ben Henwood, project lead for the homeless count at USC. But the estimate can pinpoint trends, such as places where the population is going up or down.

And the count has other benefits, Henwood said.

“This is a mass civic engagement project that gets people out of their house and involved in thinking about homelessness,” he said, “which serves its own purposes.

###

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

Weldon Kennedy and his wife make it their business to keep up with California’s fast-changing clean energy landscape. So when the climate-conscious couple began planning to add a solar system to the roof of their Oakland home, they took their time to talk to installers and shop around for the best deal.

But then, last spring, he heard that a neighbor had decided to accelerate their solar project. Other homeowners in the area were rushing to get in line, too.

“I don’t think I fully understood the scope of it, but I had people telling me, ‘You better get going, get your solar now,’ ” Kennedy said. “It seemed like a bunch of tomfoolery was coming down.”

Kennedy’s neighbors and other consumers were reacting to a profound policy shift in California: The state Public Utilities Commission in late 2022 slashed by about 75% the rate that utilities pay homeowners with new solar panels when they sell surplus power to the grid. The rate structure went into effect for solar applicants beginning last April.

The state’s decision has caused consumer demand for residential solar to plummet since the new rate took effect. Solar companies say they’ve been shoved to the edge of a cliff, forcing them to lay off workers or even shut down.

Experts worry that the steep decline could stall the state’s battle against climate change. Solar power is critical to meeting California’s ambitious requirement to switch to 90% carbon-free electricity in 2035 and 100% in 2045. Large-scale and rooftop solar is projected to provide more than half of the grid’s power by 2045.

The imminent change in payments to customers drove a three-month surge in homeowners applying for solar connections leading up to the deadline. But then came a 90% decline last May compared to May of 2022, according to state data for areas served by Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric.

In all, about 82% fewer customers applied for solar connections from May through November of last year compared to a year earlier. Fewer than 4,000 customers applied in November, the last month with available data.

“The market is in the gutter. It should be no surprise to anybody. If you are a business and your market took a 80% nosedive, with great pain you have to lay off.’
— Bernadette Del Chiaro, California Solar & Storage Association

Now California’s utilities and solar companies have to wait to see if these delines are short-term or permanent.

Deepak Rajagopal, an energy economist at UCLA’s Institute of Environment and Sustainability, said it’s no surprise that consumers balked at going solar after the reimbursement rate changed from what he called the “generous” system. He said the higher payments were a burden on people who don’t have solar.

“It is a given, demand is going to slow down. The overall effect will be a slowdown in the rate that people will demand rooftop solar. Over time it may come back up, but it’s hard to tell,” he said.

Questions about the impacts remain: How will California meet its climate change goals without a healthy and growing residential solar market?

And can Gov. Gavin Newsom’s vision of making clean energy affordable to disadvantaged communities become a reality with fewer companies and lower reimbursements?

“The state is betting so strongly on power from rooftop solar. They will have to recalibrate,” Rajagopal said.

Rajagopal intended to install a solar system at his newly purchased house. But like many Californians, he missed the April deadline to get in on the higher payments.

“I just had very few months to decide, and now I’m cursing myself that I didn’t find the time to quickly sign up,” he said, adding that he will wait to see what happens before installing solar.

The new rule’s impact on the solar industry has been immediate. As many as 17,000 solar workers in California might have lost their jobs by the end of last year, according to industry estimates. 

“The market is in the gutter,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, executive director of the California Solar & Storage Association, an industry group. “It should be no surprise to anybody. If you are a business and your market took a 80% nosedive, with great pain you have to lay off. Some companies shut their doors.

“We are talking about the largest solar market in the country,” she said. “This was the most impactful energy decision, easily, for this century so far.”

The utility commission rule was hotly debated and ultimately passed by unanimous vote. Part of the agency’s rationale was about equity: Because solar customers, largely middle class or wealthy, are being paid near-retail prices for their excess power, they are not paying their fair share of fixed costs to maintain the state’s grid, saddling other ratepayers with higher bills. That burden, regulators said, disproportionately falls on low-income households that can’t afford solar panels. 

The utilities commission said the high rates paid to solar customers amounted to a subsidy, and that state incentive programs for installing battery storage systems alongside rooftop solar would provide better, longer-term value for ratepayers.

The new rates only apply to new solar installations and only for the customers of PG&E, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric.

It’s not just homes: The utilities commission in November voted to expand the lower payment rates to commercial businesses and multi-family homes that install solar panels.

A spokesperson for the Public Utilities Commission did not answer CalMatters’ questions about the impact of the recent steep declines in solar projects or the job losses in the industry, and declined to make anyone available for an interview. 

Instead, in a statement, the agency said residential solar installations have increased 16% a year over the last five years, and that 2022 saw an increase because solar customers and companies were rushing to beat the changes in rates.

More than 255,000 applications for new residential solar projects were reported in PG&E, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric areas last year.

“California leads the nation in supporting the solar industry, and has provided billions in rebates and incentives since 2006,” the commission said in its statement.

PG&E, the state’s largest utility, said in an email response to CalMatters’ questions that it received a record number of solar connection applications in 2023, a 20% increase from the previous year and “unprecedented volume” in the four months before the rate change. The company spokesperson did not answer questions about the downturn.

‘This is 100% a job killer’

Solar industry executives say California’s rate changes are affecting low and middle income homeowners, where rooftop solar had begun to gain inroads. The Berkeley Lab reported that in 2022 about 45% of solar adopters nationwide were below a threshold used to define low and moderate income. In California, household incomes between $50,000 and 100,000 are the largest segment of solar customers, the report found.

As the solar market has matured, costs have come down, allowing homeowners of modest means to adopt solar systems and lower their utility bills. 

“Rooftop solar is not just the wealthy homeowners anymore,” said State Sen. Josh Becker, a San Mateo Democrat.  “Central Valley people are suffering from extreme heat. The industry has been making great strides in low-income communities. This (utilities commission decision) makes it harder.”

The utilities commission has $280 million in an “equity fund” to assist low-income consumers. None of the money has been spent yet; the agency said it would soon release a plan for operating the program.

Solar can still make financial sense for homeowners who can afford the upfront costs and wait out the return on their investment. Federal tax credits can cover 30% of the installation cost. And as their use of power from the grid declines and they get paid for excess power, customers generally expect to have their new solar system paid off in six to eight years, according to the utilities commission. It’s faster for installations that include battery storage.

Some solar company owners said the new rules extend the payback period to 10 years or more. One installer said some of his customers would go from being paid 30 cents a watt for selling excess power to 4 or 5 cents a watt.

The job losses are being acutely felt in the small communities where careers in clean energy are a pathway into good-paying jobs for women and people of color. The average salary for a solar installer in California is $70,000, Del Chiaro said.

“These jobs have been a foot in the door for people who have been in the justice system, their lives have changed,” said Adewale OgunBadejo, vice president of workforce development for the Oakland-based non-profit Grid Alternatives, which focuses on underserved communities for clean energy projects. 

“This is 100% a job killer.”

Solar energy gave Ken Wells a second chance. Wells was raised amid gangs and few options in South Los Angeles. When his friend was killed by a rival gang, the 15-year-old Wells got a gun, carjacked a vehicle and led authorities on a high-speed chase. He was tried as an adult, found guilty and served six years in prison.

Carrying the indelible tag of a felon, Wells worked his way through bootstrapping programs to gain training in something that might help disadvantaged communities: bringing clean energy and low utility bills to his neighbors.

By 2017, Wells started his own company, O&M Solar Services. He was making a great living and created jobs for 20 employees. They are now all laid off.

“We need to transform our communities not just with clean energy but with these jobs,” said Wells, 35. “When I hear the policies coming out of Sacramento, I am floored. Why? We are talking from both sides of our mouth?

“On the one hand we want to promote clean energy and on the other hand we are shutting it down. We cannot afford years of setting back the solar industry, just cutting it off at the knees with these policies. These policymakers got it wrong.”

Other factors also are at work to stall an industry that had just recovered from COVID-19 shutdowns. Interest rates have made it difficult for small companies to grow and for homeowners to borrow money to pay for systems that can start at $30,000. The extension through 2030 of a federal tax credit, which had been scheduled to be phased out this year, may have removed the urgency for some consumers.

For small companies like Wells’, even small blows land hard. So far his customers are waiting to see if things change.

“I don’t know what the future holds,” he said. “Here in South Central, it’s a solar desert. You are not getting the community excited, looking to transition to clean energy. It’s going to get worse.”

Carlos Beccar, marketing manager for Energy Concepts in Fresno, said the company, which has been in business for 30 years, has recently laid off half of its workforce. Beccar said 60% of the firm’s installations in the last five years have been in ZIP codes where the median household income is lower than the market average.

His service area covers neighborhoods that experience extreme heat, where it’s common to see utility bills averaging $800 in the summer months, he said. “This policy was a bat to the knee, not a soft punch to the gut,” he said.

Susan Stephenson, executive director of California Interfaith Power & Light, an Oakland-based organization that advocates for clean-energy adoption in houses of worship, said the new policy “made it difficult (for some churches) to pencil out,” she said.

“Solar can be a solution that eventually pays for itself. Now with this change, they have to look harder and longer.”

Not all congregations can afford the upfront costs or wait years to recoup their investments, Stephenson said. Until recently, tax-exempt religious organizations couldn’t take advantage of federal solar tax credits, making the state’s reduced payments a real blow, she said. That policy has changed, but many nonprofit organizations have yet to navigate the new rules and even the 30% direct payment may not make up for the reduced reimbursements.

“Ironically, it’s going to make solar less equitable and less accessible,” Stephenson said. “There are good people who work at the PUC who want to do the right thing. It’s unfortunate they made this decision based on information from utilities that perhaps did not give the full picture. We could see the very equity goals they were trying to achieve being harmed. I hope they will reconsider.”

Becker, the state senator, said “where’s the just transition for the laid off solar workers?” noting efforts to create a fund to assist workers in the state’s oil industry who lose their jobs.

Ross Williams has owned HES Solar in San Diego since 2013. After the pricing decision, sales “fell off a cliff,” he said. “We sold 600 deals in the first quarter of the year and in the month of May we made one deal. That’s how dramatic it was, the disruption was so insane.”

Like many other solar installers, his company now does roofing jobs and is considering expanding into Nevada and Arizona in search of customers.

“We are a small company and we don’t have massive cash reserves we can stand on for years,” said Williams, 41. “I used  to think we could weather this, that demand will come back. So far nothing I thought was going to happen has happened. My crystal ball is way off.”

Asked what his message is for policymakers, Williams said, “Was that your intent for me, to be a roofer and move to Arizona? Thanks, California.”

###

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

###

Security National Properties Holding Company, LLC, one branch of the sprawling corporate tree founded by occasional Eureka resident Robin P. Arkley, II, has dumped nearly a quarter of a million dollars into the parking-lot-preservation measure dubbed “The Eureka Housing for All and Downtown Vitality Initiative,” according to a campaign finance disclosure form submitted to the City of Eureka.

Arkley in 2014.

From late July through September of last year the company contributed $200,000 in chunks of $25,000 and $50,000, plus another $36,000 worth of non-monetary contributions.

Where has that money gone? Out of the area, mostly. 

Those non-monetary donations to the Housing for All committee included a $16,000 payment from Security National Properties Holding Company to Regional Strategies Group, a San Diego-based communications consultancy, and a $20,000 payment from SN Servicing Corporation (part of the same corporate family) to La Jolla Group Consulting, Inc., also based in San Diego, as a retainer for signature gathering.

Meanwhile, more than $54,000 was paid to Gail Rymer Strategic Communications, based in Knoxville, Tenn. Rymer works as a spokesperson for Security National. During this election campaigns season she is also serving as the spokesperson for the Housing for All initiative as well as Citizens for a Better Eureka, a nonprofit coalition of business and property owners that has filed five lawsuits against the City of Eureka. 

Four of those suits are CEQA-related efforts aimed at stopping the city’s plans to convert under-used municipal parking lots into housing developments. The fifth argues that the city should have put the “Housing for All” initiative on the March primary ballot, even though the city’s next regular election is the November Presidential Election.

The Housing for All committee also paid La Jolla Group more than $116,000 for petition circulation. It paid SoCal digital marketing firm The Primacy Group more than $21,000 for consulting work. And it paid about $1,700 to River City Business Services, a Sacramento-based accounting and political reporting firm, for professional services.

The campaign also spent more than $5,200 in postage, mailing glossy fliers to Eureka residents, and nearly $10,000 on radio advertisements. 

Oh, and it spent $29,653.32 on lodging for the people who came to town for the petition effort. Eureka Assistant City Manager Pam Powell tells the Outpost that she noticed none of the hotels were in Eureka, so the city earned no Transient Occupancy Tax revenue. Most of the guests were housed at the Hampton Inn & Suites in Arcata, with other rooms rented at the Arcata Ramada and Motel 6. 

Again, this disclosure form covers barely two months of the campaign thus far – from late July, when Security National first started spending money on the campaign, through the September 31, the end of the reporting period. The next reporting deadline arrives on Wednesday of next week, Jan. 31. That report will cover the period from Oct. 1 through the end of 2023.

While Arkley has sought to distance himself from the “Housing for All” initiative, Security National’s fingerprints are all over it. Not only is Gail Rymer the spokesperson for both, as noted above, but Security National provided the startup funding for Citizens for a Better Eureka, according to the group’s website.

Furthermore, as Thadeus Greenson recently reported in the North Coast Journal, the attorney who filed all those Citizens for a Better Eureka lawsuits against the city, Brad Johnson, also signed the property exchange agreement between Eureka City Schools and a mystery developer called AMG Communities – Jabobs, LLC, a newly formed company that has agreed to purchase the former Jacobs Middle School campus for reasons it has yet to disclose. Citizens for a Better Eureka and the Housing for All campaign have presented that property as a preferable location for housing development.

In fact, glossy mailers recently mailed to Eureka residents by the Housing for All campaign lay out the plan, albeit in grammatically awkward phraseology:

Once the Initiative is passed and the Jacobs site is rezoned, it is envisioned a process whereby the community and the new owner work together to build housing well-integrated with the surrounding neighborhood, making it a crown jewel in the Eureka community.

The full name of the recipient committee for the Housing for All campaign is, “A Committee in Support of the Housing for All and Downtown Vitality Initiative, Sponsored by Security National Properties Holding Company, LLC” [emphasis added].

Earlier today the Outpost sent an email to AMG Communities – Jacobs, LLC, asking who is behind the company and what they intend to do with the Jacobs campus. We received a response from an unidentified “Community Coordinator” who thanked us for the questions and said, “We are working on it.”

Rymer, meanwhile, has taken pains to keep Arkley separate from these convoluted dealings. In October she replied to an email we’d sent Arkley asking about the latest lawsuits filed by Citizens for a Better Eureka against the City of Eureka:

As Rob is not a majority owner of Security National Properties Servicing Company, LLC, it is inappropriate for him to respond. Rob is not a Citizens for a Better Eureka member and does not participate in meetings or discussions.

Today, however, in response to more questions about the Arkley family’s involvement, she sent a reply acknowledging a connection:

As I’m sure you are aware, the Arkley Family and Security National have a long history in supporting Eureka, both philanthropically and through their business — such as the 5th Street Plaza, Arkley Center for the Performing Arts, North Coast Co-op, the Sequoia Park Zoo,  Cal Poly Humboldt, Eureka waterfront revitalization, Eureka High School, and North Coast Dance, to name just a few.

The support of the initiative to provide needed housing in Eureka and concern for the continued vitality of downtown and the businesses that keep Eureka vibrant is another way they are giving back to their community. 

When viewed together, the actions of these interrelated groups and companies – Security National, Citizens for a Better Eureka and AMG Communities – seem to be executing a plan articulated by Arkley more than two and a half years ago. 

Appearing on KINS Radio’s “Talk Shop” program on Memorial Day 2021, Arkley fumed about the city of Eureka’s “crazy” initiative to convert city-owned parking lots into housing and vowed to take political and legal action, telling host Brian Papstein, “Now we’re organized, there’s going to be litigation and I think we can almost bet … I think we can probably put a ballot initiative on the ballot to prevent it.”

Press release from the Humboldt County Drug Task Force:

On January 24th, 2024, Humboldt County Drug Task Force Agents, assisted by the Fortuna Police Department (FoPD) and the Rio Dell Police Department, served a search warrant at the residence of Adam SMITH (43 years old from Rio Dell) located in the 100 block of Painter Street in Rio Dell. 

Adam Smith.

Upon arrival at the residence, Agents located and detained Adam SMITH and his son, Noah SMITH (26 years old from Rio Dell) without incident. Once the scene was secure, Agents and Officers searched the residence and located 16 firearms, one flare launcher, 25 grams of cocaine, multiple digital scales, packaging materials, and indicia of drug sales. Two of the firearms were non-serialized AR-15’s (ghost guns), and three of the firearms were illegally possessed assault weapons. FoPD K9 Cain assisted in this search warrant and positively alerted to the narcotics that were located. 

Noah Smith.

Adam SMITH was transported to the Humboldt County Correctional Facility where he was booked on the following charges:

• HS11370.1(A)- Possession of a Controlled Substance while Armed
• HS11351- Possession of Controlled Substance for Sales 
• PC30605- Possession of an Assault Weapon
• PC33215- Possession of a Short-Barreled Rifle 
• PC29180(G)- Manufacturing or Assembling a Firearm

Noah SMITH was transported to the Humboldt County Correctional Facility where he was booked on the following charges:

• HS11370.1(A)- Possession of a Controlled Substance while Armed
• PC30605- Possession of an Assault Weapon
• HS11350- Possession of a Controlled Substance 

Anyone with information related to this investigation or other narcotics related crimes is encouraged to call the Humboldt County Drug Task Force at 707-267-9976.