Ruth Moon 
Member since Mar 15, 2014

Recent Comments

Re: “Transitional Housing Project Moves Forward, Grand Jury Report Underscores Need

Not all homeless are drug addicts.

4 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Ruth Moon on 07/09/2019 at 1:32 PM

Re: “Passive Resistance

The Guardian: Populist correctness: the new PC culture of Trump's America and Brexit Britain.

Posted by Ruth Moon on 02/19/2017 at 9:24 AM

Re: “Passive Resistance

Not sure how making a statement supporting human rights, respect, and decency is fluff or merely feel-good or how it detracts or prevents in any way from taking care of business of the city. Business is people. The city is people. We state that we support, protect, and help people. How is that a bad thing, exactly?

16 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Ruth Moon on 02/17/2017 at 2:00 PM

Re: “Eureka's Temporary Homeless Sleeping Areas Here to Stay

At least the city is trying some things, and the things it's trying are based on some evidence, not just opinions.

It's not that helpful to constantly criticize other people's efforts and not offer any constructive suggestions or ideas or even help out. Got a better idea? Pitch in with it. Problems are rarely solved by punitive and judgmental attitudes.

I agree that it would be helpful to see an accounting for what was spent and by whom.

I'd like to see some way to make it easier for homeowners to add units, like MIL or extra bedrooms, to existing houses. I'd like to see support for developers who want to build infill housing, near the bus lines, services, stores, schools.

The poor will always be with us. Obnoxious people are just as frequently rich as they are poor, the poor don't have a monopoly on being irresponsible, disgusting, whatever negative human characteristic you can think of. They just have less ability to cover it up or hide it or pay people off or move to another town.

3 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Ruth Moon on 10/24/2016 at 10:39 AM

Re: “You and Me and the Keys

"It's about all of us"

NO, it's not about all of us. It's about those of us who refuse to take responsibility for the risks they impose on themselves and on their loved ones and on complete strangers. Who, in this day and age, with all of the news and information, can continue to justify getting in their car and driving off after a "couple of glasses of chardonnay" or more? NOT ACCEPTABLE!

Who, in this day and age, with all of the news and information, can continue to justify or excuse allowing a friend, an acquaintance, or that stranger sitting next to you, to get into their car and drive off after a few? NOT ACCEPTABLE!

You have a responsibility to call the police and provide a license plate number and description of the vehicle and driver. You have the responsibility to ask the bar or restaurant or festival staff for help calling a taxi or sober friend. Oh, too hard? too complicated? too much effort? NOT ACCEPTABLE!

You have the responsibility to be prepared in advance if you are going to an event where drinks will be served and you plan to consume - some - any - oh, just one - well maybe two. Oh, just this once, I'll drive slowly. NOT ACCEPTABLE!

You all know, and we all know, that if you have been drinking alcohol or imbibing any kinds of mind altering substance, you should absolutely NOT DRIVE! No excuses, no exceptions. Seriously, who doesn't know that? Ironically, people who do drink and drive are often cogent enough to know that to run away is your best bet, at least, until the alcohol or other substance has worn off enough that you won't test the limit. NOT ACCEPTABLE!

If you know enough to run away to save your own sorry ass, you know enough to plan ahead for other transportation options.

Those of us who drink responsibly, who make plans in advance when partying hearty, are insulted by those who are irresponsible. People who drink and drive most likely do it fairly frequently. We all have a responsibility and an obligation to report this behavior and stop these people before the next innocent person gets killed or injured.

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Ruth Moon on 09/26/2016 at 1:01 PM

Re: “Mayor Jager Hears Realtors' Concerns, Vetoes Ordinance

I stand with the Mayor on this one. I recently sold my home and was told by the city that it did not have a legal lateral at all and so I'd have to install one prior to sale. The realtor double checked the city's documents and found conflicting information. So the agent arranged for a plumber to do a dye test and run a camera up the line. That cost a few. Sure enough, there was a perfectly good line, probably put in at the same time as everyone else in the neighborhood, that the city failed to record. I then had to pay for an engineer to certify and draw up easement documents and get all that agreed to and paid for. That cut into my budget for buying a new home and moving. Fortunately, I could afford that expense.

However, prior to finding out about that, plumbers quoted me $7-12K depending on what they'd find underground, to have the line put in. That would have made it impossible for me to sell my home. I needed the proceeds to buy another home. I would have been stuck. It's not just real estate agents that would be impacted, it's all the people they represent, the home buyers and sellers who want and need to get on with their lives. And, I would not have felt it fair to sell my house "as-is" and transfer that burden on to the buyer.

I don't see this as "taking orders" from realtors, more like taking advice from professionals who know their business and know what they're doing and what their customers need and want.

I am also surprised to hear about this ordinance and agree that more public noticing and community hearings should be implemented. Passing something on the DL is, to me, more questionable than heeding advice from business leaders.

4 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Ruth Moon on 04/17/2016 at 7:35 AM

Re: “I'm Still Worried

I had a real sinking feeling when I read the HumCPR insert. The article on page 6, "Your "path" is Still Included: Some Clarity on Trails" exposes their true concerns: that the goal is unfunded; and that it has the potential to harm property owners." The text charges Mark Lovelace with a "county wide media blitz" designed to "incite his base." I don't know Mark, and I'm not sure what his "base" is. I read the Times-Standard, the NCJ, I listen to local radio, watch local TV news, and if there was a media blitz, it did not get published in any of those venues. Where's the blitz?

Further, I found the article arrogant and condescending. Oh, don't worry, you still have your little "path." Having a goal of a county-wide trail system is very different from encouraging parks and trails and recreation. This is like telling your teenage son, "I encourage you to keep your room clean and orderly at all times" vs. "I am setting a goal for you to keep you room clean and orderly at all times. Here are the criteria and the steps toward that goal. Here are the rewards for completion. Here's what will happen if you don't' meet that goal."

Two points were raised in support of the language change that removed the goal.

The first reason, HumCPR claims to be aware of "several counties ... claiming eminent domain to build trails on private lands ... based on open space elements." Playing on fear, throwing out threats, invoking the "big bad government" which will take over your land and ruin your life. Who's inciting a base? A quick Google search shows one or two cases, maybe, both of which seemed way more complicated than the simple "government takeover" scenario implied by HumCPR. I also found many ads for lawyers, so it seems eminent domain is not something to take lightly, by either side. And I seem to recall a couple of local cases, both involving, not trails, but the highway.

The second reason, the goal is unfunded. Well duh. You don't fund a goal before you set it. You set goals first, then you plan the steps to implement. You break down your big goal into many little sub-goals, and you farm those out to various stakeholders and interest groups, or staff, or what! hey! LOCAL BUSINESSES THAT CREATE LOCAL JOBS!!

Sorry for the caps, I could not help myself. But, talk about shoot yourself in the foot. Destroy something that has the potential to improve the county, improve the quality of life for people, create jobs, encourage travelers and would-be residents, even relocating small businesses. Create community, get local participation, improve health, and many other benefits. For what? What could possible be gained that would be worth throwing all that away?

6 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Ruth Moon on 03/15/2014 at 10:34 AM

Extra Extra!

Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.

  • Weekly Update (Thursday)
  • Events This Weekend - Thursday Edition (Thursday)
  • Events This Weekend - Friday Edition (Friday)

Login to choose
your subscriptions!

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

© 2020 North Coast Journal

Website powered by Foundation