A permanent solution to a temporary problem. Lawsuits and further expenses exceeding rehab cost will be levied against Eureka... GL there removing, rather than managing the substandard housing critical to many in a city with a declared shelter crisis. It will be a minimum of 3 years before replacement housing is constructed. There maybe residual residential rights for former residents required, and litigation, leaving site vacant for a decade. Way to go Eureka!
How to respond to a housing crisis: http://www.squareonevillages.org
How to respond to a shelter crisis: http://www.nps.gov/prsf/learn/historycultu…
Under state and federal law, when a construction project is contemplated, relocation is required for anyone living there, at that time. This should apply here. As someone asked, why are we building recreational trails when we have not taken basic steps to house mentally ill and disabled families squatting there, at the direction of the city?
The tax was passed based on a financial analysis that showed it would produce revenue, no?... Not a loss. Seemed an expensive fix, given the CARE program was changed just before the tax was passed. The city did not generate $225,000... it lost $375,000. Were the grows that left Arcata legitimate 215 medical grows, or something illegal? Just as an independent observation, it looks like the grow business is a positive economic force in town, legal under 215... so it seems to be a self inflicted wound, not so much a victory over evil.... Myself, I would not give PG&E a dime to raise taxes on Arcata citizens, much less $600,000.....
I ignore comments by pen names... If you cannot identify yourself, keep your opinion, it has no standing. Don't be ashamed to debate openly... it starts getting un-civil if you hide your identity(s).
All Comments »
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Login to choose your subscriptions!
In Print This Week:
Mar 23, 2017
vol XXVIII issue 12
Young & Hungry
North Coast Journal
Website powered by Foundation