Press release from the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office:
On March 24, 2023, at about 5:14 a.m., the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office was contacted regarding a domestic disturbance at a McKinleyville residence. The incident involved an off-duty Lieutenant who is reported to have brandished a firearm and made threats to his estranged wife and her boyfriend inside the home. When deputies arrived at the residence, the parties were separated, and one involved person had left the scene. No one was reported to be injured during this incident.
Humboldt County Sheriff’s deputies conducted a thorough investigation into this case in conjunction with the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office. The investigation was then forwarded to the District Attorney for review and prosecution decision. The District Attorney filed charges and an arrest warrant was issued. Today, the employee, 46-year-old Samuel David Williams, turned himself in to the Humboldt County Correctional Facility where he was booked on charges of brandishing a firearm (PC 417(a)(2)) and criminal threats (PC 422). Williams has been on paid administrative leave since this incident and a Sheriff’s Administrative Investigation is also underway. Williams was hired on April 30, 2001.
“The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office will not tolerate criminal behavior in its ranks and will hold employees accountable for their actions,” Sheriff William Honsal said. “We are committed to holding our employees to a high ethical standard. Acts such as this do not reflect our values, principles or commitment to our communities. We take these obligations seriously and strive to be a trusted law enforcement organization.”
Proponents of the Humboldt Cannabis Reform Initiative released a letter this morning calling out “numerous inaccuracies” and “inflammatory statements” made by the Board of Supervisors and various county officials in relation to a ballot measure that seeks to reshape the county’s cannabis industry.
If passed, the measure would restrict the size and number of new cannabis-growing operations across the county and impose a host of stringent rules that would forbid farms larger than 10,000 square feet, ban mixed-light and indoor grows, and limit cultivation permits to one per person/corporation per parcel.
Though county government had hoped to reach an accord with proponents that would forestall the initiative, one of those proponents — Betsy Watson — told the Outpost recently that they fully intend to put it before voters on the March 2024 ballot.
Proponents of the initiative argue that the “flawed conclusions” outlined in a recent analysis of the ballot measure “create a strong impression that the analysis was not intended to provide neutral, balanced factual information to the public, but rather to influence public opinion on a ballot measure” and could potentially violate the Political Reform Act.
“The county’s analysis is packed with factual errors, untruths, and distortions,” Mark Thurmond, one of the initiative’s authors, said in a prepared statement. “We’ve been talking with the Board’s ad hoc committee about the unfounded assertions and false statements in an effort to correct these misunderstandings of the Initiative, but it’s time to let the Board of Supervisors and the public know how wrong the county’s analysis is about the Initiative.”
The analysis, prepared by Planning and Building Department staff and presented to the board at its March 7 meeting, maintained that the county’s existing cannabis regulations “encourage a well-regulated cannabis industry,” whereas the initiative “could have the opposite effect by making compliance so difficult that the legal market is rendered not viable in Humboldt County.” While the initiative is “well intended,” staff’s analysis asserts that the measure, if passed, “will have dire consequences to the cannabis industry in Humboldt County.”
Many local cannabis farmers fear the ballot initiative would decimate their livelihoods and destroy what is left of Humboldt County’s storied cannabis industry. Others feel increased regulation would force cultivators back into the black market and have the opposite effect of the initiative’s stated intent.
“We know our community is hurting economically, but a lot of the headwinds facing the industry are beyond local control,” Watson wrote in a prepared statement. “Our initiative simply restores some environmental balance and removes the burden on watersheds from the county’s plan to triple the current number of permits, while protecting small farms and their vested legal rights.”
The letter touches on each issue identified in staff’s analysis of the initiative, ranging from permit renewal to the definition of “large-scale” cannabis operations to existing enforcement practices outlined in the county’s Commercial Cannabis Land Use Ordinance.
“The initiative is very, very, very clear in four different places that it does not mess with vested rights,” Watson told the Outpost in a recent phone interview. “If you’ve got a 20,000-square-foot grow on a crummy road – you’re fine. … The other thing is multiple permits. … [The initiative] does not affect any permit other than cultivation. … If you want to put in solar, you want to put in more water storage, it just doesn’t affect these things.”
On top of that, Watson pointed to a specific section in the initiative that grants the Board of Supervisors “as much flexibility as possible.”
According to Section 7. F. of the initiative, “The Board of Supervisors is authorized, after a duly noticed public hearing, to adopt implementing ordinances, guidelines, rules, and/or regulations, as necessary, to further the purposes of this Initiative.”
Proponents of the initiative have requested that the county “either withdraw the analysis or promptly correct the errors therein and refrain from using any public resources to further disseminate its inaccurate conclusions.”
Proponents of the Humboldt Cannabis Reform Initiative today released a letter from their legal counsel to the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors and County Planning Director John Ford. The letter details numerous inaccuracies and mischaracterizations in the County’s “Analysis and Recommendations” regarding the Initiative, which Planning Department staff presented at the Board’s March 7, 2023 meeting.
“The County’s analysis is packed with factual errors, untruths, and distortions,” said Initiative proponent Mark Thurmond. “We’ve been talking with the Board’s ad hoc committee about the unfounded assertions and false statements in an effort to correct these misunderstandings of the Initiative, but it’s time to let the Board of Supervisors and the public know how wrong the County’s analysis is about the Initiative.”
The letter refutes many of the County’s inaccurate claims that have been echoed by cannabis industry groups and the local press. For example, the letter rejects the County’s extreme interpretation of the Initiative as precluding environmental improvements on existing cultivation sites. The letter also explains that the Initiative will not require existing cultivators to upgrade their roads or prevent growers from obtaining tourism, dispensary, or bed-and-breakfast permits. Indeed, as the letter demonstrates, the Initiative will provide legal support for several uncodified practices the County claims it’s already following, such as phasing out generators, analyzing effects of new irrigation wells on streams and neighbors, and holding public hearings.
“We know our community is hurting economically, but a lot of the headwinds facing the industry are beyond local control,” said Initiative proponent Betsy Watson. “Our Initiative simply restores some environmental balance and removes the burden on watersheds from the County’s plan to triple the current number of permits, while protecting small farms and their vested legal rights.”
The letter also points out that further efforts to disseminate the County’s argumentative and inflammatory statements may run afoul of the California Political Reform Act, which prohibits public agencies like the County from spending public money to influence ballot campaigns.
“The County can’t use our tax dollars to take sides in this fight,” concluded Thurmond. “They have to be thorough, accurate, and fair—and that’s why the Board needs to retract its analysis of our Initiative. The seven thousand people who signed our petition deserve to be represented too.”
The Arcata City Council (from left) Stacy Atkins-Salazar, Meredith Matthews, Alex Stillman, Kimberly White (Sarah Schaefer was absent) | Screenshot from meeting video
###
The Arcata Police Department will now offer a $50,000 bonus for officers transferring from another California police department, after the Arcata City Council unanimously improved the large bonus increase during its Wednesday night meeting.
The APD has been struggling to hire and retain staff for a few years and the department has tried to increase its recruitment efforts and has already been offering a $15,000 transfer bonus for trained officers. But the department has continued to see a decrease in staffing and is currently down to 19 officers from 29 in the beginning of 2020.
Danette Demello, Arcata’s assistant city manager, told the council that there is one confirmed hire who is entering into the law enforcement academy, and there are two more potential hires who are currently going through background checks. But even with three new hires, APD will still be understaffed. Plus it will take at least three or four months for the new hires to be on patrol, Demello said.
This is why the department is pushing for lateral transfers – trained officers moving over from another police department, who can be in the field much sooner. Many other cities across the state have recently increased their bonuses to address short staffing, and Arcata Police Chief Brain Ahearn said that Arcata needed to increase their bonus significantly to remain competitive in the market.
The $50,000 bonus will be offered to police officers who are currently employed in the state of California, have successfully completed law enforcement academy and are “performing satisfactorily” in their current employment. The bonus will be spread out over two and a half years, with $10,000 paid on the first paycheck.
In addition to the increased transfer bonus, the council also approved a temporary $7,500 retention bonus to be paid to officers currently employed by APD once a year for the next three years, and $60,000 for the department to make improvements to its facilities. Some of the expenses will be covered by the revenue the department has saved since being understaffed and the rest will come out of the city’s general fund.
A few community members spoke during public comment, most of them praising our local police force and speaking in favor of granting the department’s requests.
“I do think we need to have more police on duty in our town,” Joanne McGarry, an Arcata resident and frequent city council meeting commenter, said to the council. “But I also think one of the things we need to do is not rely on the police so much for things that could be prevented.”
One commenter, Leslie Johnson, was not in support of more funding to the police department. Referencing a recent Times-Standard article about reports of roofies in Arcata, in which Chief Ahearn said he was not aware there was a problem with roofies, Johnson said that Arcata’s police are not doing their job effectively.
“Police are obsolete,” Johnson said during the meeting. “You are the army of the rich… cops have lost the privilege of protecting us. The entire police force is wasteful, ineffective and abusive.”
But the four councilmembers present (Arcata Mayor Sarah Schaefer was absent) all agreed that the police department was in dire need of additional staffing and felt that providing the funding for these recruitment efforts was absolutely necessary.
“APD is working incredibly hard and is stretched dangerously thin,” Councilmember Stacy Atkins-Salazar said during the meeting. “I believe it is our responsibility to keep not only our community supported and safe, but to do the same for APD.”
On April 19, 2023, at approximately 1112 hours, CHP Humboldt Communications Center received a report of a vehicle off the roadway, and down a steep embankment into a creek bed, on Price Creek Road west of Blue Slide Road. Emergency personnel responded to the scene and located a 2006 Ford Escape down a steep embankment, and on its roof. The reporting party, who was on scene and is a family member of the driver, stated she had located the driver deceased inside of the vehicle prior to the arrival of emergency personnel.
The driver, 60 year old Gene Stuart of Fortuna, had unfortunately sustained fatal injuries as a result of the crash and appears to have been the only occupant of the vehicle at the time of the crash. At this time, it is unknown exactly when this crash occurred, though family reports they had not had contact with him for several days and were actively searching for him at the time they located his vehicle.
The California Highway Patrol extends its sincere condolences to the family and thanks all responding agencies, to include the Ferndale Police Department, Rio Dell Police Department, Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department and Clyde’s Towing, for their assistance in managing the scene. The CHP Humboldt Area office is continuing its investigation and asks anyone who may have additional information to contact the California Highway Patrol at 707-822-5981.
Illustration by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters; iStock
If you want to visit the Great Wolf Lodge in Manteca, there’s the price you’ll see when you first search for a room — and then there are add-ons and fees you’ll discover as you click through the booking process.
When Leslie Harvey took her kids to the hotel and water park last November, she paid a “resort fee” of $39.99 per day on top of the rate for the room. That fee doesn’t cover water park passes, which are included in the cost of the room, according to the Great Wolf Lodge’s website; it covers “amenities” including life jackets, towels, Wi-Fi, and the coffee makers and mini fridges in rooms.
The fee “provides for amenities and services that enhance the guest experience, and are very much in line with guests’ expectations when visiting a family resort destination,” wrote Jason Lasecki, vice president of corporate communications for Great Wolf Resorts. “Great Wolf Lodge fully discloses room rates and any fees to our guests throughout the booking process… and in the final estimate before customers complete their reservations,” and it requires third parties to inform customers about mandatory fees. When CalMatters went through the booking process for the Great Wolf Lodge in Manteca, the resort fee only became apparent after selecting dates, choosing a room, making a decision about late check out, and clicking through options to add activities and dining credits.
The fee didn’t take Harvey, who lives in the Bay Area, by surprise. She’s savvier than most — she’s been writing about travel on her blog, Trips with Tykes, for more than a decade. But, she said, she hears often from friends and readers who start planning their vacation, searching online, talking with their family about it, and “then they actually go through the booking screen, and they’re like, ‘Oh, gosh, this is going to be 20% more than we were budgeting.’”
Resort fees are increasing, Harvey said, and she’s now seeing fees at hotels that don’t have many amenities, including city hotels that are adding “urban destination fees.”
“They don’t do enough to justify that fee. I think it’s a ripoff.” — Brian Teeter, Sacramento Kings fan
It’s not just hotels. Fees and surcharges pop up at the end of all sorts of purchases. When a federal government agency said it was considering a rule to crack down on “junk fees,” Californians wrote in complaining about everything from fees at Pizza Hut to a $5,000 “paint protection” charge tacked on to a car purchase.
Figuring out the full price of a rental car or hotel can feel like a journey with unexpected twists and turns. A group of California state lawmakers have proposed a raft of bills that would require companies in several industries — including live events and apartment rentals — to be more transparent about total prices. Research mostly shows that people spend more when fees are tacked on to the end of a purchase compared with when all inclusive prices are listed up front.
When Brian Teeter bought tickets for the April 15 NBA playoff game between the Sacramento Kings and Golden State Warriors on Ticketmaster, each $749 ticket came with a $172 service fee. The tickets were expensive in part because it was the first time since 2006 that the Kings made it to the playoffs. Teeter, Sacramento resident and Kings fan, said he’s bought sports tickets before on other platforms, but he didn’t remember the fees being “that outrageous,” he said. “They don’t do enough to justify that fee,” he said. “I think it’s a ripoff.” He wishes the total price was clear on the front end, he said. Once you get far enough into the booking process to see the fees, most people, he said, are already committed to going.
Last-minute fees lead to splurging
When economist Stephen Tadelis worked for eBay in the early 2010s, executives were talking about switching ticket sales on Stubhub, a ticketing platform owned by the company, from a strategy known as “drip pricing,” where taxes and fees were revealed later, to displaying an all-inclusive price, Tadelis said in an interview with CalMatters. Executives hoped that the switch, which was made in 2014, would make customers more loyal and help Stubhub gain market share, Tadelis said. That’s not what happened. “Turns out that customers were not flocking to Stubhub” because it had all-inclusive pricing, said Tadelis, currently a professor at UC Berkeley.
Before executives switched back in 2015, Tadelis and some colleagues got permission to run an experiment, revealing fees at checkout for half of Stubhub customers while maintaining all-in pricing for the rest. They found customers who only saw the fees at final purchase wound up spending 21% more, and were 14% more likely to make a purchase than customers who saw the total price up front.
Other studies have found similar results. For a 2009 study, economists at UC Berkeley and the Federal Reserve Board added, in one supermarket, price tags to deodorants, hair accessories, and cosmetics that included the price after the 7.4% sales tax was applied. They found that sales of those items fell by about 8% compared to two control groups of products. In a 2006 study, researchers at Hong Kong University and UC Berkeley auctioned off CDs and Xbox games. They found that when a product was offered at an opening bid of one cent with a shipping cost of $3.99, it attracted more bidders and brought in more revenue compared to when they set the opening bid at $4 and the shipping fee at $0.
But not every study has the same finding. For example, in 2019, researchers at German universities manipulated how a three euro surcharge for 3D movies was presented online to customers of a large German multiplex cinema. For some customers, the fee was incorporated into the ticket price; others saw a note about a fee, but didn’t see the amount until later. They found that customers with the note were more likely to put a ticket in their online cart, but they also dropped out more often once the total price was revealed.
In general, though, the finding that people spend less when they’re presented with an all-inclusive price is “very consistent,” Tadelis wrote in an email.
The fees can pad out businesses’ bottom line. When Marriott was sued over its alleged “deceptive pricing tactics,” unsealed court documents showed that the hotel company had brought in more than $220 million from resort fees between 2012 and 2019.
Lawmakers in DC, CA fight fees
After years of proliferating fees, we may have entered the backlash. President Joe Biden has called on federal agencies and states to focus on the issue and discussed it in his State of the Union address. The Federal Trade Commission is exploring regulations that would crack down on “junk” fees; and Congress is considering bills on the subject.
Efforts by California lawmakers include:
Twobills aimed at the ticketing industry which, among other provisions, would require ticket sellers to disclose the total cost before the event is selected for purchase;
Twobills aimed at greater transparency in advertised rates for hotels, short-term rentals, and more;
A bill that would require rental car companies to only advertise rates that include mandatory taxes and fees;
A bill that would require landlords that advertise or provide quotes to include any mandatory fees.
And an overarching bill that would make it unlawful to advertise or display a price for a good or service that doesn’t include mandatory fees, besides taxes.
“Whether it’s ticketing of concerts, sporting events, whether it’s renting a car, whether it’s booking a room or staying at an Airbnb…the people who lose are consumers,“ said Robert Herrell, executive director of Consumer Federation of California, which coordinated a handful of the bills. “And disproportionately the people who pay the brunt of this are low- and moderate-income consumers, and consumers and communities of color,”
It’s still early in the legislative process — some of the bills haven’t yet gotten a first hearing — but groups are already lining up in opposition and support.
Consumer groups and Ticketmaster come down on different sides of the two bills aimed at the ticketing industry. Live Nation Entertainment, which owns Ticketmaster, opposes one bill not because of the price transparency provision, but because it would “regrettably steer more tickets to secondary markets where resellers and brokers get fans’ money instead of the artists and venues putting on the show,” wrote Jonathan Lamy, the company’s senior vice president of public affairs and policy, in a letter opposing the bill. Artist groups, including SAG-AFTRA and Music Artists Coalition, also oppose the bill.
The Consumer Federation of California, CalPIRG, and other consumer groups support that bill. The federation opposes another proposal, which is supported by LiveNation Entertainment and the same music industry groups. The consumer group says it doesn’t give consumers ownership over their tickets, giving them limited options if they need to resell their tickets, and defines “ticket sellers” in a way that “fails to get at the heart of the issue, which is the control exercised over consumers by those marketplace participants such as the monopolistic Ticketmaster/Live Nation that control the industry.” Stubhub and Vivid Seats, two ticket resale companies, also oppose the bill in its current form.
The California Chamber of Commerce, which lobbies on behalf of businesses, opposes a couple of the bills, including the two requiring greater price transparency for hotels and short-term rentals. Robert Moutrie, an advocate for the group, said the Chamber didn’t take issue with requiring companies to be up front about mandatory fees that businesses themselves add. But, he said, including government-imposed taxes in the initial price could put California at a disadvantage when travelers are weighing a trip to California versus Washington or Nevada. He’s working with the bill authors, he said, and has shared proposed amendments with them.
“They’re not going to move to all-in pricing until these bills start passing.” — Lauren Wolfe, counsel, Travelers United
Alyssa Stinson, regional government affairs manager for Expedia Group, which owns VRBO, a vacation rental site, wrote that Expedia will “work collaboratively” with lawmakers on the bills.
Airbnb did not comment on the short-term rental bills, but a spokesperson shared that in December the company began rolling out the option to display a total price in countries without existing requirements. Hosts set room rates and cleaning fees and Airbnb sets the service fee, which is “under 14.2% of the booking subtotal” for “most stays,” according to the company’s website.
One of the reasons that Airbnb might have started offering all-inclusive pricing is because Airbnb doesn’t really have major competitors, said Lauren Wolfe, counsel at Travelers United, a consumer protection nonprofit. Hilton, Hyatt, and other hotel chains that compete against each other won’t decide on their own to add fees into their room prices, making them look comparatively expensive.
“They’re not going to move to all-in pricing,” she said, “until these bills start passing.”
###
CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.
Mary
Ann Flanagan was a light. Her impish smile of interest and
friendship, the almost wink she shared - letting you know that you
and she were in this together.
Mary
Ann lived upstairs in Old Town, Eureka, where she loved being in the
thick of things. Each day she dressed all color coordinated, with a
warm sweater, gloves, scarf, and jaunty hat… rain or shine. She
made an almost daily trek to the co-op for coffee and an atomic bran
muffin. She then stopped at her favorite bookstores, the herb shop,
and all the thrift stores, finally feeding the birds down at the bay.
Bussing
and walking all over town, Mary Ann attended the Catholic, Episcopal,
Presbyterian, and Orthodox churches, tai chi in the courtyard,
meditation group and retreats, along with visits to the library, and
the historical society among other destinations. Her favorite was
visiting her son John at his home, a couple of miles away.
Mary
Ann walked with determination, a goal in mind - the downtown post
office to send off her many correspondences that she wrote in her
beautiful script, the copy shop, so she could include important
political, and spiritual commentary - always progressive, always
personally reflective.
Mary
Ann wrote to local politicians to call them out and encourage them to
do right by the people. She also had numerous strongly worded letters
to the editor published in the local papers. Mary Ann wrote to the
Catholic Bishop imploring him and the Church to get with the times.
(He answered.) While sure to get her point across, Mary Ann was
eloquent and gracious, careful to write, speak and act from the
heart.
Mary
Ann loved to listen to opera on Saturday mornings while sitting in
her chair looking down on the happenings of Clark Plaza. Spiritual,
healing, and old time radio CDs filled her evenings. She was
intrigued by late-night talk radio from varied political views (“You
have to listen to the other guys to see what they are thinking!”)
Mary Ann was thrilled by the community pride and inspiration of the
Sara Bareilles concert at the bay in 2022. She never wanted to miss
out on a happening!
Before
her final chapter here in Humboldt, she lived many different lives.
Her story began on May 6, 1930, when she was born in Los Angeles to
her parents John Juenemann and Elsie (Zielski) Juenemann. Her father
and his siblings continued the family business of Juenemann Pickles,
Kraut and Relish Corp. while her mother worked as a nurse at the
hospital where Mary Ann was born.
When
she was four years old her siblings Bob, George, Joan and Jeanne
joined the family in rapid succession. Mary Ann quickly became their
second mother, nurturing, teaching, comforting, and encouraging each
one. She put the girls’ hair up in ringlets, taught them all to
play the piano, sewed pinafores and outfits for them, and was sure to
make all birthdays and holidays special. Mary Ann and her siblings
were a clan unto themselves, and she was forever proud of each of
them throughout their lives.
In
1944, Mary Ann received an academic scholarship to Flintridge Sacred
Heart Academy, where she boarded for four years, graduating with
honors in 1948. She continued to correspond with many of her
classmates over the decades.
Mary
Ann always worked hard, spending much of her wage-earning time as a
night auditor in fancy hotels like the Ambassador Hotel in Los
Angeles and the Fontainebleau in Miami Beach. While at the
Fontainebleau, Mary Ann saw a man getting roughed up by Frank
Sinatra’s associates. Mary Ann yelled, “Boo Sinatra!”, which
made Sinatra very annoyed. She was quickly driven home by her boss,
with instructions to lay low for a couple of days. That was Mary Ann,
fearless - fiercely independent, and ready to call it like she saw
it.
In
1960, Mary Ann and her sister Joan traveled to Germany to witness the
every ten years’ performance of the Oberammergau Passion Play. They
made their way there as the only passengers on a freighter out of New
York City. While in Europe, they left their tour group to search out
their own adventures. Of course, they brought home many a story!
In
the mid 1960’s, on a whim, Mary Ann and a friend moved to Hawai’i
where they worked and had fun living the island life. After a few
years, Mary Ann returned to Los Angeles, then soon moved to Florida
where, her son John Vincent Flanagan was born in 1967. Mary Ann
reveled in the joys of mothering her boy. Her father John joined them
in Florida, and the three of them lived there until they moved back
to Pasadena in 1977.
While
John grew through his teen years, he and Mary Ann lived in the Los
Angeles area, where Mary Ann always worked hard to support her son.
Good times and hard times were had during this period.
In
2005, after John had discovered and moved to Humboldt County with his
partner Sharon, Mary Ann followed the one true romantic love of her
life, Weston Fisher, to Mississippi. She and Weston had ten very
happy years together. Mary Ann volunteered with Head Start, managed
an antique store, and made many good friends in Mississippi. In 2016,
Mary Ann’s son John had become ill, and he asked her to come to
Eureka. Although sad to leave Weston, Mary Ann’s devotion to John
made her quickly decide to move. She was glad to have had these last
years with John, until he passed away in 2021.
On
February 18, 2023, Mary Ann visited her son’s grave to speak of
their mother -son love and how much she missed him. She told him that
she was so proud to have him as her son and that she was looking
forward to being with him again. Soon after, while with a dear
friend, Mary Ann had a stroke that took away her ability to speak out
loud. Her sister Jeanne traveled to be with her at the hospital in
Davis where they held hands and sang songs of faith and childhood.
Mary
Ann was moved from the hospital to rehabilitation in Santa Rosa to
concentrate on regaining her speech. On April 1, 2023, a close friend
was visiting, reading aloud cards that Mary Ann had received, holding
her close and speaking of her family and God’s love. That night,
Mary Ann was tucked in and kissed goodnight. On the morning of April
2, 2023, Mary Ann passed away.
Mary
Ann Flanagan was preceded in death by her parents John and Elsie,
sister Jeanne’s husband Pat (2018), her brother George (2020), her
sister Joan (2021), her son John (2021), her brother Bob (2022), and
her life partner Weston (2023).
Mary
Ann is survived by her sister Jeanne, her son’s life partner
Sharon, and many, many friends that loved her so very much.
A
celebration of life memorial will be held for Mary Ann in the
ballroom at the Inn at Second and C (Eagle House) on Friday, April 21,
2023, from 1-4 p.m. All of Mary Ann’s friends and neighbors are
welcome to come by and join in a joyful remembrance of a truly
remarkable woman.
Graveside
services will be held on Saturday April 22, 2023 at 11 a.m. at
Oceanside Cemetery. Mary Ann will be laid to rest next to her son
John, as was her final wish.
Mary
Ann had hope and faith in all of us. As we walk among our world
neighbors, be that bright and shining light!
###
The obituary above was submitted on behalf of Mary Ann Flanagan’s loved ones. The Lost Coast Outpost runs obituaries of Humboldt County residents at no charge. See guidelines here. Email news@lostcoastoutpost.com.
HUMBOLDT TODAY: We have a full rundown of the wild police chase and subsequent shootout in Eureka yesterday; the City of Arcata is struggling to find officers; plus, a local 8th grader scores a fun science award! Those stories and more in today’s online newscast with John Kennedy O’Connor.
