Can we please stop referring to the ordinances as responses to Occupy Eureka’s camping?
The response to the camp was using no-camping laws to send officers to remove tents and everything and everybody. Each Supervisor received an email about no-camping signs and then an email about the “movement against the Occupy Eureka camp.” The first public discussion took place two months later.
The lawn was fenced 4 months before the first ordinance passed in March 2012. Pushed to the plaza area, there were three attempts to provide a shelter for information tables. Everyone was handcuffed and detained while one was removed. The last attempt was taken at 11:30 pm on Dec 17 by a group of armed people in uniforms who didn’t feel the need to explain their actions.
Occupy Eureka had maintained a 24-hour vigil with nothing more than umbrellas for shelter for three months when the first ordinance passed. On stormy nights, I took refuge next to the Fifth Street entrance. The citations and arrests for camping at that point involved the homeless sleeping on the breezway. One night an officer told me nothing would happen if they would just "go down there with the protest."
Instead of getting a restraining order, or using the County abatement procedure, the County used the no-camping laws to clear not only the tents but everyone and everything. In 2011 there was an existing Supreme Court case that hinted camping might be a form of expressive speech. At the appellate level it has since been decided that a camping display is expressive speech, but being in the tents is not. With that line drawn, only those in the tents would have been subject to arrest and the taking of unoccupied tents and signs would have been unconstitutional.
A joint committee performing a task?
From the CA Attorney General's Brown Act pamphlet:
When a legislative body designates less than a quorum of its members that does not constitute a standing committee to meet with representatives of another legislative body to exchange information and report back to their respective bodies, a meeting between the representatives would be exempt from the Act. ...However, if a legislative body designates less than a quorum of its members to meet with representatives of another legislative body to perform a task, such as the making of a recommendation, an advisory committee consisting of the representatives from both bodies would be created. Such a committee would be subject to the open meeting and notice provisions of the Act. (Joiner v. City of Sebastopol (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 799, 805.)
last paragraph, page 5 at http://ag.ca.gov/publications/2003_Main_Br…
(FYI--pamphlet is in places, Table of contents and intro at http://ag.ca.gov/publications/2003_Intro_B…
“There are some people hoping that it will be the hot button issue that catapults them into power…”
When all else fails, ignore what is said and attack the speaker.
"Any termination - for cause, at will, or reduction in force, is subject to confidentiality..."
Yes, the Brown Act allows confidentiality for disciplinary actions , but it does not require it and this was not a disciplinary action.
The City Manager is hired by the City Council, who are elected by the citizens. "Voters can only be suspicious of management decisions that no one will defend publicly." And if that is too difficult, Scott Brown gave them a perfectly reasonable alternative. Well said.
--that better fits the water storage needs and the required redundancy (or excess water needs - in your opinion) that is required in case of fire or other emergency.
Tammy, if you had looked at the Table you would know what the identified need was, in the north and in the south.
As for emergencies; the new tank will have the 1/2 million gallons of fire reserve recommended. The Staff Report pointed out that the down town area has wooden structures build close together and the Fire Chief, based on a fire in Old Town Eureka said that 1 million gallons would be needed to fight a fire in down town. Right now there is 1 million gallons when the tanks are full, as the day goes on the risk of not having the water to fight a fire down town increases.
A pipe down Christian Ridge Road would make the 5 million gallons in Vancil available to fight a fire. I repeat, the new tank will have 1/2 million gallons of fire reserve storage.
“Where is the current need? What are the projected future needs citywide, for Zones 1-5, and Zones 6-8?” Those questions were at the bottom of the chart so and are answered by the chart.
Did you get that DeBoice email that describes the improvements needed to use Vancil? Meet me for lunch and I'll give you a copy.
Well hello Tammy, what have you been doing with yourself?
Did you ever look at the information I referred you to the last time? Was it the information on water storage needs in Table 1 in the Preliminary Design Report?
Try this one: Go to City Hall, ask to see the May 12, 2008 email, Subject: FW: Water System Operation, from Dr. DeBoise (Ph.D. P E). He wrote: "Attached is a writeup that describes how I think the system would operate if Vancil were used instead of Stewart Street for the lower zone storage."
That attachment is written in plain English. Come on, Tammy, you can do it. Then come back and we'll talk about some other facts.
I am not questioning the water storage needs, I am simply sharing information you may not be aware of. Fortuna has storage in the north, we need it elsewhere.
BTW, are you journalist, an expert in the field of journalism? What is the difference between you questioning the need for a jet's tail fin and questioning what will be published by the NCJ?
Answer to question posed - Nothing, everybody knows that a jet needs a tail fin and that freedom of the press is a hallmark of our country. Well, I thought everyone knew.
Speaking of knowing, you never told us how you knew who my son, with a different last name, was. One great difference between us is that you can take potshots at me here and maybe you are not even using your own name. Come out of the shadows, Tammy, tells us a little about yourself. You may not be an expert in aerodynamics, but I neither am I. Hey, we have something in common!
...except the improvements only reached the fence line. Still needed, a couple pumps and pipeline to downtown.
and Heidi, thanks for posting this. BTW, one of the Water Revenue Bond projects was the Vancil Modification project. So that old Vancil has been relined, replumbed and is ready to go...
All Comments »
In Print This Week:
Jul 3, 2014
vol XXV issue 27
Faces of Humboldt
The North Coast Journal Weekly
Website powered by Foundation