Lawsuit Targets Arcata Panhandling Law
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
by Daniel Mintz - Eye Correspondent
ARCATA – Having declined to strike aspects of its panhandling ordinance, the City of Arcata will have to defend itself against a lawsuit from a well-known political consultant.
Arcata resident Richard Salzman, who has helped coordinate the campaigns of District Attorney Paul Gallegos and several other liberal candidates, announced his filing of the lawsuit on May 19. It attacks the ordinance’s prohibitions against spoken and written requests for handouts, arguing that they’re unconstitutional.
The complaint, filed by Salzman’s attorney, Peter Martin, states that the ordinance’s ban on panhandling signage and comments “places an impermissible burden on the free speech rights of citizens in a public forum” and “presents an unacceptable risk of chilling and/or suppressing protected speech.”
Salzman is asking the court for an injunction on enforcing the ordinance, a declaration that it’s unconstitutional and recovery of costs involved with filing the lawsuit.
The ordinance’s prohibition of aggressive panhandling isn’t being challenged in the lawsuit.
In a press release, Salzman alleged that the City is violating basic civil rights and targeting the poor. “If first they silence the poor and the homeless, and I say nothing, who will speak up when they try to silence me?” he asked.
The City Council approved the ordinance last year but Arcata Mayor Susan Ornelas and Councilmember Shane Brinton voted against it. The council recently voted not to amend the ordinance, with Brinton casting a lone dissent vote.
In addition to banning aggressive panhandling and solicitations, the ordinance prohibits begging within 20 feet of businesses, parking lots, banks with automatic teller machines, bus stops, foot bridges and intersections.
Its findings section states that other city laws have failed to have an effect on a situation that has “generated an enhanced sense of fear, intimidation and disorder, and has caused many retail customers to avoid shopping or dining within the City.”
In an interview last February, when Salzman notified the City of his intent to sue, City Attorney Nancy Diamond said the ordinance is modeled after what’s been done elsewhere in the state and country, and what’s been tested in court.
“We are not the first community to look at panhandling ordinances,” she said. “This is very widespread and there is a fair amount of judicial law we were able to look at … we weren’t acting in a vacuum.”
http://www.arcataeye.com/2011/05/lawsuit-targets-arcata-panhandling-law-–-may-25-2011/comment-page-1/#comment-31373
Friday, May 20, 2011
Arcata Panhandling Ordinance lawsuit filed 5.19.11
Arcata, CA – On Thursday May 19th Richard Salzman filed a lawsuit in Superior Court of California against the City of Arcata claiming that their Panhandling Ordinance is unconstitutional.
In March the City of Arcata declined Salzman’s request to amend its panhandling ordinance. ”I requested that they amend their ordinance so as to comply with our guaranteed protection of free speech as outlined in the United States Constitution. Since they declined to do so I felt compelled to file a complaint yesterday in the Superior Court of California against the city” said Salzman.
Salzman has stated that he is a proud lifelong member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and staunch defender of the Constitution of the United States and the First Amendment right to free speech.
As written, the ordinance makes it a crime to merely hold up a sign asking for a hand out. By denying citizens constitutional right of free speech, Salzman contends the City Council overstepped its authority.
“If first they silence the poor and the homeless, and I say nothing, who will speak up when they try to silence me?” Salzman asked. He notes that the section of the ordinance against “aggressive panhandling,” including blocking one’s path, any physical contact or shouting, was left unchallenged by this legal action.
read lawsuit here: http://humboldtherald.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/salzman-complaint.pdf
Read article in: The Arcata Eye
Read article in: The Times Standard
Friday, May 15, 2009
Protect the Humboldt brand (TS My Word)
Protect the Humboldt brand
Richard Salzman/For the Times-Standard
05/15/2009
Governor Schwarzenegger said he is open to hearing the debate on legalizing marijuana for adults, and Assemblyman Tom Ammiano has a bill (AB 390) pending before the California Legislature to do just that.
There will certainly be much debate here in Humboldt around this issue, particularly on its effects on our local economy. If and when legalization comes, the best-case economic scenario for local growers and our local economy may be a model similar to that of the wine industry, where there is a market for small-scale operations to compete with larger commercial growers, based on vintage and variety.
Knowing that such a market is even a possibility should motivate our elected officials to act now to protect the Humboldt name or brand, in the way that the name Champagne is protected, and not to let the name fall into the public domain or to take on a generic meaning. In Europe and elsewhere, for a product to be called Champagne, the wine must come from that region of France -- and this distinction is protected by international laws and treaties going back as far the 1891. There is also the “Protected Designation of Origin” (PDO), as defined in European Union law and recognized in other countries, to protect the names of regional foods. That law from 1992 ensures that only products genuinely originating in a region are allowed in commerce as such.
A more recent example, but without the legal teeth, is Napa's “Declaration on Place,” which
is essentially an agreement among winegrowers internationally, similar in scope to the PDO.
I hope our county supervisors and state and federal representatives will explore our options to protect the Humboldt name -- as others are already planning to profit, by having trademarked variation on the name Humboldt, and we should limit its use to products actually produced in Humboldt County.
Richard Salzman
Arcata, CA.
http://www.times-standard.com/othervoices/ci_12376676
Richard Salzman/For the Times-Standard
05/15/2009
Governor Schwarzenegger said he is open to hearing the debate on legalizing marijuana for adults, and Assemblyman Tom Ammiano has a bill (AB 390) pending before the California Legislature to do just that.
There will certainly be much debate here in Humboldt around this issue, particularly on its effects on our local economy. If and when legalization comes, the best-case economic scenario for local growers and our local economy may be a model similar to that of the wine industry, where there is a market for small-scale operations to compete with larger commercial growers, based on vintage and variety.
Knowing that such a market is even a possibility should motivate our elected officials to act now to protect the Humboldt name or brand, in the way that the name Champagne is protected, and not to let the name fall into the public domain or to take on a generic meaning. In Europe and elsewhere, for a product to be called Champagne, the wine must come from that region of France -- and this distinction is protected by international laws and treaties going back as far the 1891. There is also the “Protected Designation of Origin” (PDO), as defined in European Union law and recognized in other countries, to protect the names of regional foods. That law from 1992 ensures that only products genuinely originating in a region are allowed in commerce as such.
A more recent example, but without the legal teeth, is Napa's “Declaration on Place,” which
is essentially an agreement among winegrowers internationally, similar in scope to the PDO.
I hope our county supervisors and state and federal representatives will explore our options to protect the Humboldt name -- as others are already planning to profit, by having trademarked variation on the name Humboldt, and we should limit its use to products actually produced in Humboldt County.
Richard Salzman
Arcata, CA.
http://www.times-standard.com/othervoices/ci_12376676
Thursday, April 13, 2006
HELP is of no help to Humboldt [TS My Word]
HELP is of no help to Humboldt
4/13/2006
My Word by Richard Salzman
Eureka Times Standard
In response to Kay Backer's My Word of March 22, Getting Humboldt leaders to lead: Kay Backer is a paid professional spin doctor from Sacramento. Hired by local developers, she is paid to badger county government and bamboozle the public. She feigns concern for our families by shedding crocodile tears about so-called affordable housing here in Humboldt County.
It's ridiculous that Kay Backer is even treated as a legitimate voice in our local affairs just because Rob Arkley and HELP summon her to town for a meeting, or to send off an e-mail full of accusations and threats to the media. She represents nothing other than a handful of developers. Are there even five people who will admit to being a member of HELP?
It's absurd that those who pay her (they call themselves HELP but really should be called HELP-Yourself) are implying that the reason they want to build more houses is because they want to see home values drop. When has any developer ever wanted to see any housing prices drop? Do you want to see the value of your home decline?
In the Sacramento area, where Ms. Backer lives, homes are being built at an astounding rate. Strangely enough, housing prices there are still shooting up and now routinely cost about half a million dollars. Is that what Ms. Backer's backers have in mind as affordable housing?
Now Rob Arkley is threatening to use his money to sue the county unless planning officials buy into HELP's fabricated projections of housing needs. Isn't that called blackmail?
I have no objection to developers making money off constructing houses. But it's an outrage to be told that the reason they want permission to build more -- and forever change the essentially rural character of Humboldt County -- has anything to do with stopping people from moving out of town, lowering home prices or anything other than their search for higher profits.
Where will Kay Backer's concern for our community be the day after her paychecks stop coming in? Will she still be shouting HELP or just go on to her next lucrative public relations campaign?
4/13/2006
My Word by Richard Salzman
Eureka Times Standard
In response to Kay Backer's My Word of March 22, Getting Humboldt leaders to lead: Kay Backer is a paid professional spin doctor from Sacramento. Hired by local developers, she is paid to badger county government and bamboozle the public. She feigns concern for our families by shedding crocodile tears about so-called affordable housing here in Humboldt County.
It's ridiculous that Kay Backer is even treated as a legitimate voice in our local affairs just because Rob Arkley and HELP summon her to town for a meeting, or to send off an e-mail full of accusations and threats to the media. She represents nothing other than a handful of developers. Are there even five people who will admit to being a member of HELP?
It's absurd that those who pay her (they call themselves HELP but really should be called HELP-Yourself) are implying that the reason they want to build more houses is because they want to see home values drop. When has any developer ever wanted to see any housing prices drop? Do you want to see the value of your home decline?
In the Sacramento area, where Ms. Backer lives, homes are being built at an astounding rate. Strangely enough, housing prices there are still shooting up and now routinely cost about half a million dollars. Is that what Ms. Backer's backers have in mind as affordable housing?
Now Rob Arkley is threatening to use his money to sue the county unless planning officials buy into HELP's fabricated projections of housing needs. Isn't that called blackmail?
I have no objection to developers making money off constructing houses. But it's an outrage to be told that the reason they want permission to build more -- and forever change the essentially rural character of Humboldt County -- has anything to do with stopping people from moving out of town, lowering home prices or anything other than their search for higher profits.
Where will Kay Backer's concern for our community be the day after her paychecks stop coming in? Will she still be shouting HELP or just go on to her next lucrative public relations campaign?
Thursday, January 19, 2006
The big box vs. local entrepreneurs [TS My Word]
The big box vs. local entrepreneurs
My Word by Richard Salzman
Eureka Times Standard
I want to thank my friend Cletus Isbell for furthering the discussion on big-box stores in his My Word of Dec. 23. I do, however, want to respectfully disagree with three points he makes.
First, I disagree that those consumers now comfortably buying items off the Internet (and getting them home-delivered) will switch to the big boxes. Instead, the big box's customers will mainly be those of us who now frequent locally owned and operated brick-and-mortar stores.
The second and third reasons have to do with the intertwined subjects of jobs and taxes, and can perhaps be best illustrated with the example of Home Depot, a timely subject coming before the Eureka City Council in the form of a zoning change request for the Balloon Track. A Home Depot would have a devastating effect on everyone who sells everything from appliances to flooring, hardware to cabinets, lumber to home heating. The list goes on and on (and a Best Buy -- another possibility -- would include everyone in music and home electronics). Since Home Depot now also does installation, work would be snatched from all sorts of contractors and tradespeople, too.
Yes, some driven out of business will be able to get jobs at the Home Depot, but the ripple effect on our community will be devastating. The key difference is that Home Depot spends most of its money with out-of-the-area suppliers -- and sends all of its profits back to corporate headquarters.
Whatever short-term gains there may be in the tax base would pale in comparison to the money drained from our local community. Because whenever a dollar is spent at a locally owned company, it recirculates several times through the local economy. The county has already acknowledged this economic fact of life in a comprehensive study called Prosperity -- The North Coast Strategy? (available at www.northcoastprosperity.com), which the city of Eureka signed onto.
I urge readers to just do a Google search on big box impact? and read any of the myriad studies detailing the disastrous effect these stores can have on the economy of areas with a limited population like ours. Our locally owned and operated small businesses are the lifeblood of what has proved to be a vibrant and resilient local economy, but there are limits to how much more impact we can sustain.
The loss of extraction-industry jobs already has been hard on us, and small businesses are the best hope for living-wage jobs. Yet even those businesses which might survive the initial impact and aren't forced to close down will have to cut back: Cut back on their workforce and downsize their American dream. There is simply not enough business in such a small community to support both the big box and the local entrepreneur.
I don't know that the government could or should stop a big box from coming to town, but business owners, tradespeople and all their customers and neighbors alike ought to tell their elected officials, starting with the Eureka City Council, not to facilitate the process through zoning changes or the rejection of study grants.
My Word by Richard Salzman
Eureka Times Standard
I want to thank my friend Cletus Isbell for furthering the discussion on big-box stores in his My Word of Dec. 23. I do, however, want to respectfully disagree with three points he makes.
First, I disagree that those consumers now comfortably buying items off the Internet (and getting them home-delivered) will switch to the big boxes. Instead, the big box's customers will mainly be those of us who now frequent locally owned and operated brick-and-mortar stores.
The second and third reasons have to do with the intertwined subjects of jobs and taxes, and can perhaps be best illustrated with the example of Home Depot, a timely subject coming before the Eureka City Council in the form of a zoning change request for the Balloon Track. A Home Depot would have a devastating effect on everyone who sells everything from appliances to flooring, hardware to cabinets, lumber to home heating. The list goes on and on (and a Best Buy -- another possibility -- would include everyone in music and home electronics). Since Home Depot now also does installation, work would be snatched from all sorts of contractors and tradespeople, too.
Yes, some driven out of business will be able to get jobs at the Home Depot, but the ripple effect on our community will be devastating. The key difference is that Home Depot spends most of its money with out-of-the-area suppliers -- and sends all of its profits back to corporate headquarters.
Whatever short-term gains there may be in the tax base would pale in comparison to the money drained from our local community. Because whenever a dollar is spent at a locally owned company, it recirculates several times through the local economy. The county has already acknowledged this economic fact of life in a comprehensive study called Prosperity -- The North Coast Strategy? (available at www.northcoastprosperity.com), which the city of Eureka signed onto.
I urge readers to just do a Google search on big box impact? and read any of the myriad studies detailing the disastrous effect these stores can have on the economy of areas with a limited population like ours. Our locally owned and operated small businesses are the lifeblood of what has proved to be a vibrant and resilient local economy, but there are limits to how much more impact we can sustain.
The loss of extraction-industry jobs already has been hard on us, and small businesses are the best hope for living-wage jobs. Yet even those businesses which might survive the initial impact and aren't forced to close down will have to cut back: Cut back on their workforce and downsize their American dream. There is simply not enough business in such a small community to support both the big box and the local entrepreneur.
I don't know that the government could or should stop a big box from coming to town, but business owners, tradespeople and all their customers and neighbors alike ought to tell their elected officials, starting with the Eureka City Council, not to facilitate the process through zoning changes or the rejection of study grants.
Sunday, November 7, 2004
Statements Reflect Number Of People Supporting Gallegos [Eureka Reporter]
Statements Reflect Number Of People Supporting Gallegos [Eureka Reporter]
by Christine Bensen, The Eureka Reporter
January 27, 2004
On Friday, Friends of Paul Gallegos turned in its Jan. 1-17 campaign disclosure statements to the County Elections Office. The Committee to Recall Paul Gallegos missed the deadline, but turned in its information in by Monday afternoon.
In the past 17 days, the recall committee has received no donations; between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31, the committee received $30,973 in monetary contributions and $43,347 in nonmonetary contributions.
Of the $30,973 in monetary contributions, $3,000 came from Steve Wills Truck & Logging and $26,000 from The Pacific Lumber Co. The nonmonetary contributions came entirely from PALCO, with $40,770 going to pay petition signature-gatherers.
Recall committee member Rick Brazeau said he did not know why no donations had been made between Jan. 1-17.
“I just went and picked it up from the account", he said.
Brazeau said the committee is not concerned about the lack of donations during that time.
In the past 17 days, FOPG has received $22,727 monetary contributions and $3,230 in nonmonetary contributions. Of the monetary donations, 40 have been $100 or more and 255 from people donating less than $100.
Between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31, FOPG received $44,617 in monetary contributions and $19,179 in nonmonetary contributions.
“We're just so pleased at people's incredible generosity", said Richard Salzman FOPG campaign manager.
He said people are giving donations ranging from $5 to thousands of dollars and many contributors have contributed at least twice.
Salzman said “it really speaks volumes about how people in the community feel about this attack on democracy."
Although many contributors are Gallegos supporters, he said others are not sure if they support Gallegos, but “sure as hell don't support the recall."
Salzman said he hopes to raise $50,000 in the next week to pay for advertising. He said so far $10,000 has been raised.
He said although comparisons have been made between the amount of contributions FOPG and the recall committee have received, it is difficult to compare the two.
Salzman said all the recall committee has to do is make a call and they can get a check for thousands that day. He said running a "grass-roots campaign" such as FOPG comes with a lot of overhead cost such as installing phone lines and paying utilities at the headquarters.
by Christine Bensen, The Eureka Reporter
January 27, 2004
On Friday, Friends of Paul Gallegos turned in its Jan. 1-17 campaign disclosure statements to the County Elections Office. The Committee to Recall Paul Gallegos missed the deadline, but turned in its information in by Monday afternoon.
In the past 17 days, the recall committee has received no donations; between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31, the committee received $30,973 in monetary contributions and $43,347 in nonmonetary contributions.
Of the $30,973 in monetary contributions, $3,000 came from Steve Wills Truck & Logging and $26,000 from The Pacific Lumber Co. The nonmonetary contributions came entirely from PALCO, with $40,770 going to pay petition signature-gatherers.
Recall committee member Rick Brazeau said he did not know why no donations had been made between Jan. 1-17.
“I just went and picked it up from the account", he said.
Brazeau said the committee is not concerned about the lack of donations during that time.
In the past 17 days, FOPG has received $22,727 monetary contributions and $3,230 in nonmonetary contributions. Of the monetary donations, 40 have been $100 or more and 255 from people donating less than $100.
Between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31, FOPG received $44,617 in monetary contributions and $19,179 in nonmonetary contributions.
“We're just so pleased at people's incredible generosity", said Richard Salzman FOPG campaign manager.
He said people are giving donations ranging from $5 to thousands of dollars and many contributors have contributed at least twice.
Salzman said “it really speaks volumes about how people in the community feel about this attack on democracy."
Although many contributors are Gallegos supporters, he said others are not sure if they support Gallegos, but “sure as hell don't support the recall."
Salzman said he hopes to raise $50,000 in the next week to pay for advertising. He said so far $10,000 has been raised.
He said although comparisons have been made between the amount of contributions FOPG and the recall committee have received, it is difficult to compare the two.
Salzman said all the recall committee has to do is make a call and they can get a check for thousands that day. He said running a "grass-roots campaign" such as FOPG comes with a lot of overhead cost such as installing phone lines and paying utilities at the headquarters.
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Affordable Housing, or Starter Castles [TS My Word]
Affordable Housing, or Starter Castles
Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - Eureka Times-Standard
My Word
by Richard Salzman
As the county updates its General Plan, a small vocal group of developers (HELP) say their Plan H would make housing more affordable in Humboldt. While all proposals deserve careful consideration, the Alliance for Ethical Business finds HELP's claim overly optimistic at best -- and perhaps outright dishonest.
These developers and Realtors want the county to assume a 2 percent annual population growth as an antidote to rising housing costs. Plan H calls this a "conservative" rate of growth -- even though it would quadruple the current county target. What's more, it neglects to mention that all of California has a projected growth rate of only 1.19 percent.
When we look at what 2 percent annual growth would really mean to Humboldt County, can we imagine another 80,000 new residents, stuffed mostly between Rio Dell and Trinidad?
In fact, only 18 of California's 58 counties aim for a growth rate of 2 percent or greater. According to HELP's friends at the California Association of Realtors ( www.car.org these high-growth counties, such as Fresno, Kern and Riverside, also have the fastest-rising housing prices, from 24 to 30 percent in the last year. Meanwhile, slow-growing Marin's home prices increased only 9.4 percent.
Developers in once-rural Sonoma have actively encouraged growth and urban sprawl. The results, aside from notorious traffic congestion? Average home prices now exceed $514,000, up $70,000 in the last year. Greater growth does not automatically lead to affordable housing.
Most authorities agree the California housing market is due to cool off. Mortgage rates are bound to rise as the Fed bumps up the prime-lending rate. Northern California foreclosure rates jumped as much as 26 percent in some counties. And that same California Association of Realtors reports that the statewide Housing Affordability Index dropped to 19 percent in May, its lowest level since 1989. So, depending on your point of view, Humboldt County has reached the top (or bottom) of the housing market crisis.
To grow Humboldt County at anything approaching the rate urged in Plan H, developers would have to keep stoking outside investment -- creating an overheated local housing market. This would cost taxpayers like you and me millions in subsidized infrastructure, while primarily benefiting developers.
Although claiming to be "anti-sprawl," HELP also is demanding that the county set aside more than 40 square miles of what is now prime agricultural or timber production land for housing in the next 20 years. That's an average of almost a full acre per unit for over 18,000 units. What HELP means by affordable housing isn't what the average Humboldter means by affordable -- HELP is more interested in "starter castles" costing a million or more.
Besides, no amount of regulatory reshuffling can alter Humboldt County's geographic isolation or flatten our rugged, earthquake-prone topography to accommodate uncontrolled growth that HELP advocates.
AEB (Alliance for Ethical Business) finds it self-serving, unethical -- and perhaps dishonest -- for HELP to seek an unrealistic, unacceptable level of population growth based on the false claim that it will alleviate Humboldt's current housing crisis. Do we need higher housing costs, increased taxpayer obligations and unwelcome urban sprawl just to fatten the wallets of developers? That's not HELP, that's "help yourself."
Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - Eureka Times-Standard
My Word
by Richard Salzman
As the county updates its General Plan, a small vocal group of developers (HELP) say their Plan H would make housing more affordable in Humboldt. While all proposals deserve careful consideration, the Alliance for Ethical Business finds HELP's claim overly optimistic at best -- and perhaps outright dishonest.
These developers and Realtors want the county to assume a 2 percent annual population growth as an antidote to rising housing costs. Plan H calls this a "conservative" rate of growth -- even though it would quadruple the current county target. What's more, it neglects to mention that all of California has a projected growth rate of only 1.19 percent.
When we look at what 2 percent annual growth would really mean to Humboldt County, can we imagine another 80,000 new residents, stuffed mostly between Rio Dell and Trinidad?
In fact, only 18 of California's 58 counties aim for a growth rate of 2 percent or greater. According to HELP's friends at the California Association of Realtors ( www.car.org these high-growth counties, such as Fresno, Kern and Riverside, also have the fastest-rising housing prices, from 24 to 30 percent in the last year. Meanwhile, slow-growing Marin's home prices increased only 9.4 percent.
Developers in once-rural Sonoma have actively encouraged growth and urban sprawl. The results, aside from notorious traffic congestion? Average home prices now exceed $514,000, up $70,000 in the last year. Greater growth does not automatically lead to affordable housing.
Most authorities agree the California housing market is due to cool off. Mortgage rates are bound to rise as the Fed bumps up the prime-lending rate. Northern California foreclosure rates jumped as much as 26 percent in some counties. And that same California Association of Realtors reports that the statewide Housing Affordability Index dropped to 19 percent in May, its lowest level since 1989. So, depending on your point of view, Humboldt County has reached the top (or bottom) of the housing market crisis.
To grow Humboldt County at anything approaching the rate urged in Plan H, developers would have to keep stoking outside investment -- creating an overheated local housing market. This would cost taxpayers like you and me millions in subsidized infrastructure, while primarily benefiting developers.
Although claiming to be "anti-sprawl," HELP also is demanding that the county set aside more than 40 square miles of what is now prime agricultural or timber production land for housing in the next 20 years. That's an average of almost a full acre per unit for over 18,000 units. What HELP means by affordable housing isn't what the average Humboldter means by affordable -- HELP is more interested in "starter castles" costing a million or more.
Besides, no amount of regulatory reshuffling can alter Humboldt County's geographic isolation or flatten our rugged, earthquake-prone topography to accommodate uncontrolled growth that HELP advocates.
AEB (Alliance for Ethical Business) finds it self-serving, unethical -- and perhaps dishonest -- for HELP to seek an unrealistic, unacceptable level of population growth based on the false claim that it will alleviate Humboldt's current housing crisis. Do we need higher housing costs, increased taxpayer obligations and unwelcome urban sprawl just to fatten the wallets of developers? That's not HELP, that's "help yourself."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)