Eureka Faces Legal and Financial Risks if Measure F Passes, Warns California Housing Defense Fund
The former Jacobs Middle School property, a key site in the debate over Measure F, is being considered for rezoning under the proposed ballot measure. According to CalHDF, the property’s availability for residential development is up for debate raising concerns about Eureka’s compliance with state housing laws. [Photo from Eureka City Schools]
CalHDF’s letter says that Measure F, if passed, would amend the city’s Housing Element by removing six city-owned parking lots currently designated for affordable housing development. These sites are slated for 80 very low-income units and 47 low-income units, contributing to the city’s efforts to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). According to CalHDF’s letter, the removal of these sites from the Housing Element would result in a shortfall of 66 very low-income units, rendering the city’s Housing Element non-compliant with state law.
CalHDF points out that Measure F proposes rezoning the former Jacobs Middle School site with an overlay allowing high-density residential use. However, the overlay does not guarantee the required minimum density of 20 units per acre for low-income housing as mandated by state law, making it unlikely to bring the city back into compliance.
Moreover, the letter notes concerns about the availability of the Jacobs site for residential development, given that it may not be realistically available within the current housing cycle, which ends on August 31, 2027. “Given that the school district is not committed to developing residential on the site, and
indeed the highest current bid seems to be from the California Highway Patrol, it is doubtful that the City could, in good faith, deem the site available for residential development,” CalHDF stated in the letter.
CalHDF claims that it takes no position on Measure F itself, stating that the letter was issued solely to inform the city of the potential consequences of the measure’s approval. “[W]e write only so that the City is fully informed as to potential consequences were it to be approved by the voters,” the letter concluded.
This warning by CalHDF places pressure on Eureka officials as well as voters as they consider voting for Measure F.
Below is the letter in full:
Eureka - Letter re Measure F - 29Aug2024
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
Yes on F.
No on F. No to Robins district 2 Muppet of a candidate.
No on F
I don’t care how much money Arkley poured into Biden attack ads, Eureka is not for sale. By the way Tom Daschle says “Hi”.
NO ON F
It’s interesting that a group calling itself Housing for All, actually seeks to ban the development of new housing projects.
The Jacobs site does need to be developed, though.
But it should all be high density and medium density housing.
Vote No on F.
Not true
Oh yeah there you go again telling people how they should vote! With your smug self-righteous pseudo- intellectual ” I’m so smart” attitude you just tell others what to do, you little fascisto. How about this- Stop telling others what to do? You are not as smart as you think you are. You have an opinion and you don’t even live in Eureka so you’re not even voting on this….classic fascist mentality to tell others what they need to do in THEIR own town….NOT your town
I know I’m changing the subject but was it you that gave me advice about Covid Vaccinations last week? If so, I took your advice and will be vaccinated later this month. Thank you…
Maybe. Certainly if you think it is best for you to get vaccinated than do so. The COVID remains among us. May you stay healthy and enjoy a long life…
What’s the opposition on f. Eureka needs super low income housing, or you have what it is now. In my out of town opinion.
that is just not ture. The Measure would put down some requirements to make Eureka better again. MEBA….
Yeah, it puts a requirement that parking lots not be converted into housing,
thereby preventing several housing projects the city has planned.
It would actually change the zoning downtown so that those lots could ONLY be developed as parking garages with apartments above. They wouldn’t be able to make the gravel lot on the waterfront into anything that would go with the boardwalk, no stores or restaurants, only parking garages and apartments.
Too bad that any proposition finds itself on a ballot because the Federal and State have determined what people want for themselves is in opposition to government wants them to have. Instead of government trying to function for the good of the most, it has become the vehicle that small but emotionally charged groups have co-opted to coerce the majority to have what they don’t want and pay taxes for the privilege of being coerced.
If the city chose to build low income housing on sites that were not on the bay ( bay sites that have both more value for commercial development and are of use to the general public in accessing both county AND commercial services), there likely would not have been any such proposal on the ballot. Instead, the Federal government dangled “free” money under the State’s nose for low income housing. The State responded by mandating local government create it or else, and, to put salt in the wounds of tax payer, the city decided to offer contractors land in the most useful commercial locations to build low income housing in places that most ordinary people in Humboldt Co could never afford live. What did they think? That no one would complain?
The city gave private property owners the opportunity to swap their developable properties, and only one actually did it.
And, most “ordinary people” in Humboldt ARE low income, because pay is low and housing costs are high.
And jobs per capital is dropping.
You might notice that a lot of former mill properties are being converted to housing. Better use for industrial land I suppose vs. tearing up new land or old farms for it, but some of that industrial land isn’t exactly the most clean of soils to be building on. Lots of heavy metals and things leeched for years on some of them. Also to remember is the state threatening about 10 years ago to withold sales tax money from cities if they didn’t increase low(er) income housing stock.
I’m trying, but I can’t think of any former mill properties in this area being converted to housing. Samoa? The one in Fortuna’s still deciding.
Where the hotels are at on 12th st fortuna that is a old mill site the river walk area. Used to be a plywood mill also I think.
you have not read the measure or just dont understand it
Well…D’Tucker does not live in Eureka so why should he? He will just repeat the social warrior lib line that his friends produce and demand you vote the way he says. That’s being “progressive” and is “democracy” in his small weird mind I guess?
Not true or accurate. Must be Kati using a false name. It makes them put parking under the apartments. This is how it was approved. The developer (out of town big corporation of course) cried too much money to make it like that — while they get grants to cover costs. Funny, parking under buildings is common everywhere else. Why is it too expensive to build here? I call b.s. Elevated preserves parking for businesses. Then build as high vertically as you wish. And quit the lying.
Almost every city and county in California is in violation of state housing law which mandates construction of low, moderate and very low income housing but without providing the funding to do so.
Paradoxically, the State makes it harder to meet housing goals by inflating construction costs by more than doubling the cost to build public entity housing vs. the cost to build private sector housing; which is already inflated because of special interest requirements built into the California housing codes.
And of course CEQA can be used to stop or delay any project further driving up the cost of construction.
All of which makes any City or county a sitting duck for the Ca Housing Defense Fund which operates by cherry picking and suing a limited number of the cities and counties that are out of compliance.
And of course the cost of defending or settling the lawsuit further adds to the cost of housing.
Welcome to the Hotel California!
Trouble finding the booking logs this morning?
Ah…I see mel deleted her off topic post…which makes it look like everyone who responded to her (including me) was responding to me…
Software bug. I’ll try not to wake it again.
Yes but there are more than 2 sides. Those who support a duopoly party are to blame. Both main parties are corporate garbage. Partisans who feel morally superior to the other cheek of the same ass are ddeluded. A “wasted” vote is the only vote that is not a vote.
Balderdash. The latest fad with some political social circles is government is not functional because it is not a parliamentary system or doesn’t have ranked voting or term limits or whatever they think would get them whatever power they think has been taken from them.
There is no mechanism that magically will replace what old fashioned statesmanship, compromise and respect for the country and the limits of government to affect social mores gave in the past. There are no quick fixes for a society that has lost its sense of civility. With that, any system works. Without it,no system works.
And then we get measures put into place by 51% of the people when only 30% of them bothered to vote.
“Politics is the entertainment division of the military/industrial complex”- Frank Zappa
” If you vote for the lesser of two evils you’re still voting for evil-“- Jerry Garcia
In Eureka’s case, the city has received $45 million in grant funding from the state to build these apartments. Becoming out-of-compliance would mean losing that $45 million.
Where does the money come from for that grant ??
Taxpayers in other counties, and fines levied against non-compliant cities 😉
In other words, us. Because our money goes equally to other justifications. Hello? There is no magic money tree growing in any government agency.
Yes, so for once we have the opportunity to get something for our tax dollars (grant funding for housing) instead of seeing that $45 million be given to some other county.
To bad cities and counties are allowed to pass and enforce laws while violating state and federal laws sort of equal to the prisoners having the keys and locking up the guards
then again pge is allowed to kill several hundred people and bot one single person ceo board member stock holder or employee was ever even arrested . Yet people make a mistake and are convicted of manslaughter on only one count they are serving 10 years without a doubt . Corporations have been given personhood under the law , it is time we started treating them like any other person , instead of permitting them to enjoy the benefits of personhood without having to be responsible as a person .
i wonder if it happens like this because officials are lining their pockets , or is it fear that a company as large as pge would just ignore them completely and really screw things up even more , or are they afraid that their illusion of power is so fragile that we will all learn what complete fools we have in charge
Got to love a non-profit reinventing itself. They used to by CaRLA – California Renters Legal Advocacy. Must be more notoriety to be had under the name Housing Defense Fund.
We dont need more tenement housing downtown.Yes on F.
I grew up greater New York City area. I saw the projects all over the East Coast. I saw lots of tenements. Places where the poorest people lived and places where the government gave away free housing to the very poor. It was….scary, dangerous and they became centers of criminal activity. People got to live somewhere and poor people need housing too. I’m not stupid or cruel. But …to put them downtown( and yes we are “putting them” where we say) will have severely unpleasant repercussions. I don’t like Rob Arkley and I don’t like the deceptive campaign that Measure F has done. But there is some reality in their message… Old folks housing, housing for handicapped are one thing. But generally just putting the homeless in publicly-funded housing downtown? I think y’all need to go see how that really works out in real towns … it’s a shitshow
It’s a lie from Arkley and company that these apartments are “homeless housing”. They’re affordable apartments for people who have incomes, and will have to pay 1/3 of their income in rent, whether it’s income from social security or from a low-wage job. Many downtown workers fall under the income limits for these apartments.
I would like to believe you. Unfortunately I suspect dishonesty and exaggeration from both sides… I’m not a Eureka voter or I’d dig deeper than comment sections…
Well, if you’re going to comment on it in comment sections, you should at least research enough to not be spreading Arkley’s lies for him. And, wherever you live in California, your city or county is also subject to RHNA, so you should learn about it anyways, as well as the differences between “homeless/transitional housing”, “supportive housing”, and “affordable housing”.
This is a good place to start:
https://www.eurekaca.gov/Faq.aspx?QID=241
Okay but I’ve seen lots of housing projects in other places. And that was the main point I was making- check them out. It’s not like we’re doing something brand new in Eureka. But many people just see it on paper and think they now know just how it will be. Ummm- go see actual results and then form your opinion!
But government workers will not be the recipients of much low income housing. And if they were, itbwould be malfeasance on the part of government.
And where will they park, two income families with two cars because public transportation here is a major farce? And while they are parked, at home in the evenings and weekends, where will people park for restaurants, music, events, etc?
Build the parking under the bloody apartments. And just for good measure, a couple of floors inside of it too.
Fine, cough up the millions of dollars it will take to construct those multi-story parking garage levels and I’m sure they’ll get right on it. It will look hideous and won’t fit the character of old town, and it will prevent businesses from being able to open on the ground floor of those nice new buildings, but who cares as long as you don’t have to walk two blocks?
Don’t forget, you’ll also have to pay an hourly fee to park in those garages, and it won’t be cheap.
Not exactly sure why Arkley and his gang are against housing on the parking lots, probably find poor people offensive and not deserving.
Zoning laws are being relaxed statewide, even nationwide maybe, to deal with the housing crisis, and Eureka is trying to do their share to create more housing, and are legally mandated to, I believe.
The politicians always say “the American voters are smart and…etc” which I don’t agree with, but in this case I think Eureka voters are, and won’t be snowed over by all the Yes on F ads…
Hmm… why not read the new laws ?
—
1) Taxpayers will pay for housing.
2) CONTRACTORS WILL TAKE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY.
—
Follow the money… it leads to the pockets of the politicians !!!!
He just told you why don’t put homeless people in the middle of down town eureka that comes with more violent crime trash and drug use but the no on f people can’t see that because they make all their decisions based on feelings and emotions not facts and reality
Affordable housing is not “homeless shelters” and the other lies Arkley is fear mongering about – he’s playing on your feelings and emotions.
The facts and reality is that these buildings are affordable housing for people who have incomes, and will have to pay 1/3 of their income in rent. A single person making $22 an hour or less qualifies as low income in Humboldt.
The other fact and reality is that homeless people are already in old town. They’re pretty much the only people there after 6pm. These buildings are an opportunity to have normal, working people live in old town so there are normal people around after the businesses close for the day – people who will look out their windows and call 911 when they see a crime happening.
Reply to No Joke: your comment is obtuse. Residents who see crime happening when looking out their windows don’t want to get involved with the police. Here’s why: a report is taken and for all the hassle, the perp us long gone and the damage is done. My vehicle was broken into twice in Okd Town probably by one of the tweeker homeless- you know the ones. They came into our apartment building to visit their tweeker friends- management worked hard to stop this. Got cops involved, restraining orders. Knives were pulled on residents living there, theft occurred. Guess what happened? Very little. The residents looked out their doors and out there windows and saw crime but became so fearful of vengeance from the insane druggies they quit reporting it. Who are you No Joke to ask people to do this 911 calling? You do it. Solution: Vote yes on F. Build in say, Garberville. Old Town will never be an “Arkleyville-” that’s just a bullshit excuse. Vote out the current City Council in November. Building in Old Town has got greedy folks drooling for their cut in the take. Save Old Town/Eureka from this heinous mistake. I’ve never met Arkley et al, but he’s right on this. Wake up people and get real. Yes on F!!
PS- the apartment building in Old Town of which I speak is low income housing. My auntie lived there for a long time. It was a nightmare- one third of the residents were fine but suffering from the two thirds who were placed there from off the streets, or some mentally ill folks misplaced there by Eureka Mental Health Services trying to off load their client count and prove that they could live on their own, but they couldn’t, and who were a danger to self and others. This very sick people were basically dumped there. A couple of them were turned over to a lock down facility after pulling knives on folks just trying to live there. The street people living there brought in heroin and meth, and their street friends. They really tore up the apartments, which were fixed at enormous cost, not to mention court costs for eviction. Usually the apartments were rented to the same crowd. Druggies and severe alcoholics died in their apartments a lot- 14 died while auntie was there. Management and cops tried to help- there’s only so much they can do when people are using and going bat shit crazy inside their apartments. They have rights you know, and don’t think for a moment they don’t know them, even as they break their leases and engage in disgusting and criminal activities. The low income folks living with this and respect the roof over their heads are to be pitied. What extensive background search can minimize the horrific behaviors of so many criminal resisidents? Reap the Whirlwind Old Town if you build those apartments there. Vote Yes on F !
Aside: People die in their homes in every neighborhood. Drugs and alcohol related deaths were the majority at this low income apartment- which is still in Old Town. Now there is fentanyl and I wonder how that is affecting the morbidity stats there. Currently.
Do you think it would have been better for those apartments to be there and your auntie to be homeless?
Uh, the city of Eureka *has to* develop a set number of affordable housing units within city limits. They can’t pawn it off on Garberville, just like Atherton or Santa Monica can’t pawn their affordable housing requirements off on us anymore. Every city and county has to do their part, or the state will fine the city and allow the builder’s remedy, meaning any developer can build anything they want here without regard to local zoning and codes.
The answer to crime in old down is not to make it even more deserted at night. Yeeesh.
The “housing crisis” is manufactured by government. Empty building abound in Eureka. Vacant sites left by California’s abysmal politics. What the city should do is buy and renovate (into housing if necessary) the large numbers of vacant buildings that have become blighted areas in Eureka. Places bought by speculators now should have been bought by the city. Thereby turning a place full of drug addicts and homeless camps into places most people would want to live and creating a city more people do not actually dread or even hate.
You see this as one rich man’s ploy to do harm to poor people when what the actual building proposal is is another rich man’s ploy to farm government mandates to make himself richer at everyone’s expense. Building low income housing on the bay is simply a tool to do more of what made him rich. There are no grocery stores, access to public welfare services or schools there. Nothing poor families need anyway.
Wake up and see if any of this passes the sniff test. The reality and not just the sales pitch.
The more aggressive cities, like Seattle for example, “solved” this problem with people unwilling to sell vacant properties (read: Arkley) by using eminent domain and saying a perfectly good house here and there were in their way or some sort of blight on the city. Always some developer was in on the scheme because the city loved that high-density housing tax dollars. When I lived there I sat in council meetings watching the slow process of an elderly couples century old home about to be torn down for apartments. Nothing wrong with the house other than someone with more money wanted it and the city likes the tax revenue. Not even a historical designation saved it. Maybe if some rock star like Curt Cobain or other celebrity lived and died in it it might be still around. Saw that over and over again there and other cities wanting to increase urban residential density. Mostly high dollar stuff, and the low income homes were usually recycled into new low income housing, replete with the same problems, just a generation or two later. The government giveth, than taketh away, then giveth again but with a new name. Nobody really wins except the developers and the cities getting the tax revenue. You and I stay right where we are.
In California, eminent domain doesn’t work like that. “In California, eminent domain gives the government the power to take your property, even if you don’t want to sell. But under the Fifth Amendment, eminent domain must be for a “public use,” which traditionally meant projects like roads or bridges. Meanwhile, the government must pay the owners “just compensation” for their property. ” just in case people wonder why high handed politicians haven’t done just that.
But it’s also not necessary. There are more than enough opportunities in Eureka for the city to buy what it needs. In fact there are plenty of places already in the public domain that could be used. It’s sort of the opposite direction here than Seattle where the contractors don’t want to build high density low income housing in those spots where the real future value is in the bay front properties the city owns. Only part of the proposed construction will be regulated low income apartments. The rest will be great rentals to charge a lot for the location.
And when the the authority to regulate low income parts expires, the whole thing becomes gravy TO WHO OWNS IT. But in the mean time even low income rents are profitable. Some of the demands the county requires for regular housing development, like parking or construction with prevailing wages or traffic limits , are dropped. Gravy, gravy, gravy. But all gravy trains reach the end of the line at some point and, if the government doesn’t own it then, they will find themselves addressing the same problem.
I agree with you on points. The city has places it can already use. I mean, how much rent is it paying for a bunch of properties around town? I’m aware that ED works differently in different states, but know that a drooling developer with a trained real estate team will find ways. In the Seattle example it wasn’t developers directly using ED. They don’t have that legal authority. What they did do was find favorable persons on planning commissions, city councils or boards and get government to OK their projects under whatever excuse they can sell them on. They can be very convincing. The only way to save any given property would be to get entire neighborhoods to create historical districts of some sort. A very definite form of NIMBY-ism but what else can a neighborhood do when up against a developer that has more money and resources than any individual has ever seen? Ferndale, is a tiny example. It has a very concrete plan to keep Main Street looking like it has for another hundred years. It has to. There’s been more than one threat over time to rip out a lot of those dairy pastures and even blocks of town, if it weren’t for the entire city being put on the state/national Historic Register. Other and much larger cities do the same. And then we have Arkley and his crew, doing exactly what I’ve seen happen in much larger cities, not just Seattle, which did this to much of the old lower-income/distressed Central District neighborhood in the 90s.( The same one that the rapper Sir Mix A Lot once rhymed about;) Gentrification. I’ve passed through numerous times over the last 30 years and the city is pretty built out now, right down to the water anywhere when it comes to dense urban residential. And you’ll pay a million + for that waterfront 600 sq. feet too. In that old home example what happened with it? An 8 floor complex went up. Another row of old homes were a legitimate use of ED: the 1998 earthquake caused half a dozen homes to slide and list so badly, they were about to cut off an off ramp from I-5. But that’s a legitimate use. The biggest gripe was that buying up the homes, the city was able to short change the owners to the tune of about 10 cents on the dollar, not full value of just the land.
People need homes. Ones that don’t requre a $50/hr job to pay for when those jobs are few for the number of people the city wants to pack into them. But planners and developers also need to have more situational awareness of what comes with all that, crime being one of them. Quit shoving shit in just to meet some mandate. Put some thought into it Mixed use is one solution (with ground level parking). Works fine in places. And access to everything without a 2- hour walk or bus ride in a town only 4 miles wide is another.
The city buying vacant housing and renovating it is a great idea, but with what money would they buy it, especially when the property owners would jack up the price knowing that the city was the buyer? Floyd Squires tried to do that when the city offered to buy one of his buildings.
Empty buildings won’t be abounding in Eureka for much longer now that ordinance was passed penalizing property owners for letting them sit and deteriorate.
BTW, the Grocery Outlet is about a 1/2 mile walk. Are school buses still a thing? I see them around. Which welfare services do you mean? Most people don’t live near welfare services. I’m not saying it’s the easiest thing to get around town by foot, bike, and bus, but it can be done; people are doing it every day.
Maybe but it’s likely that such an ordinance will not survive a Sumpreme Court ruling. I suspect it will be called an unfair taking.
And of course lots of people choose to live in inconvenient locations. The issue is should the government reward a builder with land it owns for building low income housing in such a place from the start?
They’re against losing parking because his employees are out of shape and can’t walk more than a block to work.
Fear mongering by city council and the egotistical ass of a city manager
Fear mongering by arkley and his pals.
Pots and kettles calling each other out. This is about greed- greed from the State and city over “free” money, the builders making themselves rich by using the city’s greed, the greed of the other land speculators over loss of value on their holdings and greed by the people, who having little, demand government make it up to them. There are no innocents in this. It’s all greed wanting the majority to pay for what gives them no advantage.
But the bottom line is that this is public land and the public should benefit from it more than they will.
This housing group is just like EPIC, a bunch of lawyers looking for a cash cow.
Better not walk up to them and hand them the cash cow, then!
Surrender now! It’s easier!
Government suing government at the taxpayers expense.
Is it ANY wonder our money is spent while nothing ever happens?
Well….they ARE getting paid well With OUR money! THAT is happening…
It’s a nonprofit, not a government agency.
I can assure you that non-profits administration costs are not zero. Presidents, regents, trustees, board members and such don’t work for free.
I didn’t say anything about that. “Sickofsocialists” commented about “government suing government”. The California Housing Defense Fund is not a government.
Non profits make money hand over fist. Raise your hand anyone that says differently…It’s OK, I’ll wait.
Why don’t we tear down arckly’s big ol house there in Eureka and put low income housing there? Should be able to fit several units there. There’s also a big ol house on G st pouring colored cement for their new driveway with a vacant lot right next door, lots of yes on f signs in their yard, tear that eyesore down, should meet the low income housing requirement with the two properties…..our is it once again not on my backyard???
Better idea is we tear down your house to. Just because you are jealous of what someone else has
My house’s are even bigger than arkleys. I’m not the one who’s advocating for no housing for the poor. He is. So STFU.
Let me guess you own more real estate than arkley to. Well why don’t you turn a couple of your giant houses into affordable housing units. Or better yet use your money to do a housing development
California has painted themselves in a corner with unrealistic ideas that can not be funded for decades now then people wonder why the state has problems and why the laws they pass can not me magically put into effect.
The city of Eureka has gotten $45 million in grant funding for these apartments. They’re funded and ready to build. Measure F would make the state take that money back.
$45 million? The grant was $30.1m. Considerably less. It wasn’t all for brand new construction either. Here’s the municipal-owned properties involved: https://talk.eurekaca.gov/affordable-housing-on-city-owned-lots
Almost a third, $9.1 million went to public transportation and improvmements such as better busses (natural gas, electric) admin costs like driver salaries or whatever they seem to think needs the money and all that repainting and reworking of H&I streets.
From a RHBB link: Partial construction costs for three affordable housing communities – $20,154,639 Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure (“STI”) – Pedestrian and Bicycle Amenities – $2,974,042 • Public Transportation Amenities – $4,705,410 Transportation-Related Amenities (“TRA”) – Bus Stop and Intersection Improvements – $1,575,750 • Programs – $756,600Partial construction. Some of it went to finish projects like the new housing on Myrtle and Sunny Sts and by the old Do It Best lumberyard. That doesn’t leave a whole lot left to build brand new, multistory housing. Or buy a lot off Arkley because God knows he won’t let a blade of grass go without getting top dollar for it.
They received another $15 million grant after that one.
The housing at Myrtle and Sunny hasn’t broken ground yet, but it is part of this grant. You’re thinking of somewhere else.
Nope. Same places. And others that may have received part of that pie, unless you have the spreadsheet with more detail.
Remember in November and vote Republican for a positive change.
Define change: Civil war ? More tax breaks for the wealthy ? Tariffs to raise prices on everything ? Totally unqualified Cabinet choices ? Dirty water ? Polluted air ? -it’s an endless list. Better idea –
VOTE BLUE !!
That’s what we have now…
Tariffs only raises prices on imported goods.
#BuyAmerican
And please don’t tell me you believe in climate change while you purchase cheap plastic produced in Asia …
Unqualified cabinet choices you must be talking about joe kommila
You’ve got to be putting me on!
I dont want low income housing, I want living wages for all workers.
Sure, but…
there will always be those who will be unable to hold down a full time job.
We need safe and secure free housing for those unable to work,
and high-quality low-income housing for those willing and able to work,
but who still cannot earn enough to make it fully on their own.
What about the majority that are able to work but unwilling to work…
Evidence does not suggest that is the majority.
However, even for those, give them a dormitory room.
It’s better than having them sleep on the street.
Always with the magical solutions that don’t work. It’s not the lack of a physical location that keeps most homeless on the streets, it’s the rules and limits on behavior.
It is possible to both provide housing and enforce rules & limits.
No. It’s not.
Then what disqualifies them? Having a job? Are you ready for a thousand applicants for 10 homes? You’re just creating another branch of the same social services. And what if people want to get high all night? That ok too? What about the people that want a safe place that also includes zero tolerance for that? Better figure that out. Time is running out for some of those folks.
If there are more applicants than available homes, build more homes.
That’s what the city is trying to do and what Measure F is tryin to prevent.
If someone is getting high all night and not disturbing anyone, that’s kind of their business. If they are causing problems, then mandatory rehab might be necessary.
Less than 10% of people in Humboldt who are “very low income” are unemployed “for no good reason” – many are retired seniors, many are employed in low-wage jobs like IHSS, some are disabled, some are full-time caregivers for family members, and a few are full-time students.
Why oh why do liberals cry that offering government health benefits to worker’s is “corporate welfare ” because employers should be giving them adequately health insurance but that the government subsidizing low income housing suddenly is not?
There are government programs aplenty for people who can not work. But why does current government prefer to make some builders rich by subsidizing housing they have mandated? Ìnstead of just building more for government to run?
Because paying government employees, able to negotiate with entities that can always go to the tax payer well for more, is expensive, makes the government look bad because the clientele of public housing are demanding and difficult and, frankly, requiring government supply what people want is inevitably a self generating perpetual expansion. So government has fallen into the habit of passing on the responsibility by creating laws that mandate what government won’t provide themselvesand auieting tge complaints by passung out grants. The real sad effect of this is it frees up government funds to screw up everyone’s lives in ways previously ventured. Government by grant is the filthiest idea to have gained traction in the last three decades.
Aren’t Liberals the ones advocating for Universal single-Payer healthcare?
We do fully acknowledge that this would alleviate a huge financial burden on American corporations- but I don’t think that really fits the true definition of corporate welfare.
And, wouldn’t a Liberal suggest that the Government should be responsible for building and maintaining free and low-income housing?
I know that’s my position.
Yes. Liberals do. But it’s the double speak that was mentioned. Depending on the spin, it’s corporate welfare when criticizing low wages. But not corporate welfare when demanding the government government some benefit.
And saying it “would alleviate a huge financial burden on American corporations” is even worse double speak because they also fully intend to tax the crap out of them to do it.
This two faced use of the word welfare is really a problem because liberals blithely ignore the problem of paying for what they want. And they want do much.
As long as housing is “market price”, the cost will go up whenever landlords feel like it, making last month’s living wage no longer enough.
I walked into the Wharfinger Building awhile back to talk to the Marina staff. There was a large group meeting there. I asked why, and was told it was a group of landlords.
I though huh? What collude a group of landlords be doing?
Talking aboutnyou…
Good point capitalism is evil. In that case Cuba might be more your style. Why are you living in a nation that built itself on capitalism? No one is keeping you here.
“Market price” is the limit to landlord raising rents. Not whims. It’s just that now the work that most people can do to earn a livelihood has not kept up with rents and other expenses, renters have, like the rest of the country, become less and less responsible and government in California has landed firmly on the side of the irresponsible.
The courts have become the arbiter and that’s hugely expensive. It only takes one time of a renter manipulating the courts to not pay rents, and most small time landlords, who used to be the most common, rent the house they vacated, a couple of apartments, boarding house sorts, decide not to rent to someone again. The market has become largely the province of those who have enough volume to absorb the expense and damage caused by those who use government regulations to avoid responsibility.
According to the CalHDF website, they recommend the following to make more housing available, being truly against single family zoning:
Limit local discretion
Guarantee buildable area for every lot
Create a permitting process that is clear, simple, and fast
Mandate only objective development standards
Don’t forget about all of the fees
Eliminate or limit parking requirements
Monitor and enforce local compliance
Don’t worry about who lives in the new housing
Yup- don’t worry… and limit local control.
And who do these people hate? Apparently surfers, beach towns, agriculture and universities… anyone seeking to preserve land and make it hard to build mass housing in these places. This is an interesting phrase from their site- “Litigation is in progress, but the jury is out on one thing: proximity to Stanford University does not make you more intelligent.”
So when they say there are risks of “litigation”, they mean they intend to do the litigating.
https://calhdf.org/a-guide-to-ending-single-family-zoning-lessons-learned-from-39-years-of-adu-legislation/
https://calhdf.org/horses-and-vineyards-and-beaches-oh-my/
If you want to preserve agricultural land, the way to do so is by building dense, taller, “mass” housing in town. Single-family zoning leads to sprawl reaching into agricultural land.
Perhaps, but you’ll never get to have much of a garden or a view on the 10th floor of anything that’s blocked by 20-floor buildings. Lots of folks don’t do well in cramped quarters like that. They thrive better with room to move and grow. This is why they move to the country or more rural areas. But yes, I can agree, SF zoning by design eats up agricultural areas. Or just entire forests. I lived in the East Bay in the early 70s when a lot of the “burbs” were just starting to get built out. Places like Walnut Creek were not much of a city in a valley of rolling, grassy hills and oak forests with walnut orchards. Now it’s just one million-dollar house after another, the ranch and orchard land is long gone.
The bay area is a fantastic example of how bad sprawl can be, that’s for sure.
Even in urban cores with high-rise buildings, room can be made for open spaces, parks, urban gardens/farms, even nature reserves in some cases. Rather than having three city lots taken up by three one-storey houses, you can build a three (or six) storey building and use the other two lots as parks, public squares, etc.
But no one was doing single family housing there anyaay.
Unfortunately , while it seems that might be true on the surface, what really happens is that urban places attract masses of people do not respect agriculture and who have unrealistic ideas of what it entails. They demand cheap and convenient food, no odors or water use and think livestock should be treated like pets, which leads to mono crop, inorganic corporate farming. They demand wild areas, that at best they will visit a week every couple of years, demanding it have precedence over farming. They then make their livelihood in that world and can’t wait to buy their little piece of their fantasy away from others just like themselves. And there goes the ag land.
You can build high density housing all you want but, unless you make a culture where that provides a good life for those who live there to go with it, they won’t stay there. The same ideas that create low income housing mandates, that everyone “deserves” a place just by existing, seem also to fuel the worst kind of entitlement to poor behavior making it a bad place to be.
We could- and should, ban the conversion of farmland and open spaces into housing.
All new housing should be developed within the footprint of existing communities.
And the way to do that is to build up.
Those are the sort of lawsuits CalHDF takes on. Those elitists with open spaces. Those are exactly the hated places.
But you have not addressed the issues of quality of life. Up is not the best for anyone. That gives a real Caves of Steel vibe. Or Hong Kong. Better to restrict massive immigration for that and many other reasons. Likely that boat has sailed already but people ought to be aware of the natural result of doing nothing.
Government, especially in California, is always banning something or another. And getting sued. This press release is one big threat and a cudgel to be used by the contractors and city government to get their way.
The best political sign of the year was at buhne and H in Eureka, where some “liberal” had a banner that read VOTE NO ON E and it looked like it said NOONE. Now it has been scribbled into NO ON F. Liberals. hahahahaha
This, too, shall pass…
I wonder, is the parking lot next to the courthouse up for grabs? That would be interesting, low and very low income housing next to the jail. Or the lot next to the city building where we pay our water bill and Dog license, behind the old Co-op. There is also the lot at 5th & F. That lot once housed businesses that were turn down to make way for Domino’s parking and now contains several city employee parking spots. I’ve heard people suggest the dirt lot on the waterfront next to the older old Co-op, now Dick/Taylor Chocolate, but c’mon, really, when was the last time affordable housing was on the water in California? I nominate the jailhouse lot.
The jail lot is county property, not city property.
The city actually was planning to build on BOTH parking lots at city hall, but the one at 5th and K was traded to Greg Pierson for a different parcel, who then sold it to Redwood Capital Bank, who then transferred it to Arkley/Security National – it is now fenced off.
The lot at 6th and L, behind city hall and the old co-op, is going to become affordable housing unless Measure F blocks it.
The lot at 5th and F is not owned by the city, but by “A & K Investments LLC” – I wonder if that stands for “Arkley and Kramer”???
Thank you for that. Does that mean the parking spots within the 5th & F lot are rented by the city? If so, when all the city lots have become homes, will the city rent what’s left of the A & K and other private lots for city employees leaving residents, business folk and tourists to circle for hours just to buy a donut, go to work, or buy a gift shirt?
“Arkley and Kramer Investments LLC”??? That would be like Gojira and Ghidorah merging together during a 2nd nuclear blast to become one entity. For good or evil? That is the bigger, monstrous question.
I think it’s actually the county that rents those spaces, they’re also renting office space upstairs from Domino’s. The county is having some discussions about whether or not it’s a good idea to keep renting so much space from different companies rather than owning their own offices, they’re spending millions on rent every month.
I don’t know why Arkley doesn’t just build his own parking garage on one of the many, many pieces of land he owns downtown, he has the money and he’d be able to get even richer doing it.
I looked it up, and it turns out the “A & K Investments” actually *does* stand for Arkley and Kramer, back before their relationship went sour.
Interesting. Thanks.
They built the low income housing in arcata….only to fill it with homeless people from other cities and states. They’re not housing local homeless….they’re just importing more homeless people in from other cities.
Yup. A state official has said (to affluent cities)… if you don’t have homeless and bums…
we will IMPORT them.
While they present themselves as some kind of government agency and, for some reason media sites don’t label their opinions as just that they are nothing but special interest groups… period.
How are they presenting themselves as a government agency? They’re not using the state seal, the state flag, the bear, or anything else like that.
CalFire? CalPoly? CalHFA? Medi-Cal? They used to be called CalRDF, California Renters Legal Advocacy and Defense Fund. Legal Advocate’s the name and suing is the game. Lawyers and contractors United together for tax free contributions…
I grew up prowling around old Town Eureka. I was super shocked when I returned recently and saw that the impossible had happened: old Town wasn’t a slum anymore! It was nice and bohemian and showed amazing future potential to me for further positive economic development. Now they want to seize the parking lots and reverse 40 years of progress pulling that s hole out of the cockroach infested, alcohol drenched pit that it’s been in since 1965! Please don’t go backwards Eureka, build your social housing somewhere else besides old Town, don’t shoot yourself in the foot, vote yes on F.
Old Town shows amazing future potential? Are you sure you’re in Eureka California?
Are you?
Old Town is quite nice.
And their Friday Night Markets, Arts Alive!, Fourth of July, etc. are a lot of fun.
They also have a lot of neat things planned, including these housing project Arkley is working to prevent, which could make it ever nicer and more lively.
Yeah like…
Usually, when I visit Old Town, I don’t spend much time outside St Vinnie’s.
Still, that picture shows why more housing is more important than more parking spaces.
So they need parking?
There’s plenty of parking already.
A functional public transportation system would be nice, though.
That would help more than anything to lessen the demand for parking spaces.
It depends on when you go. The further out, the more luck. I don’t go often anymore but when I do it during business hours. And most of the time requires circling five or six blocks repeatedly in ever widening circles. Until someone pulls out and I can pull in. That is not “plenty of parking.”
Try starting a few blocks away.
I’ve read how whiney some people can be about minor inconveniences. (Have you seen the absolute conniption fit people are having about pronouns on the article about the professor?)
It’s really not that big of a deal to walk a few blocks.
Unless you can’t walk those few blocks… or don’t want to risk parking in places you have to play hopscotch over piles human excrement and used syringes.
That was a remarkably petty and dismissive remark, even for a Progressive on this site. And yup, being inconvenienced does put a crimp in going shopping cute little specialty shops.
Most of the people who park in old town absolutely can walk a few blocks. Ironically, they are the ones making life more difficult for the people who actually can’t walk a few blocks, by hogging all the close parking that should be available for disabled people.
It sounds like you should be asking the city for more handicapped parking spaces.
Really? Somehow more taking away parking for handicapped parking would solve the problem of the city not having enough parking for everyone because someone got all judgy about how many blocks someone else should be willing to walk?
The grant funding for these apartments includes funding for public transit improvements.
Vote Yes on F. Old Town doesn’t need to completely implode with “Social Housing” there. The housing will turn to shit in no time by many of the potential residents who have no interest or ability to take care of it. They bring their doper habits and loser friends with them. They make life miserable and dangerous for the few who would want to make a go of it. The cops won’t be able to handle the massively increased crime there. Management won’t be able and finally not care to handle it. Nobody will want to shop, eat or visit Old Town. Maybe the dispensaries will have increased business. Hey Do Gooders, take some time and visit the low income housing that already exist. Many are shitholes by the time the morons and drug dealers who trash them get evicted. Don’t fuck up what’s left of Old Town. Build elsewhere.
I agree that those who wish to think they are liberal and compassionate by committing Old Town and downtown to a social experiment first go visit actual places that this has happened. See what became of those areas. Here’s some suggestions- Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark NJ, New Haven or many other projects across the country. It’s been done! Why not go look at what happened before having a string opinion? Oh yeah don’t forget Bridgeport CT- and keep your car doors locked!!
It’s not social housing, it’s low income; this means people who have jobs, but their jobs pay crap. Please, do tell your Target cashier, barista, Uber driver, school nurse, hospital orderly, and our many, many food service workers, that they don’t deserve a decent place to live because you think they’re bad people. Tell it to their faces.
So I wonder who made the call to them to garner a response? I like how the “available” is bolded, I assume to be direct reference to that the quasi-Arkley group doesn’t actually own the property, thereby legally not available, nor will be until August of 2027. Lets check back in 3 years and the next council election cycle who’s in the running for that ward.
I don’t think if Arkley’s group owned it it would be considered “available”, either, just like the balloon track isn’t “available”.
Yes on f. It will work creating many affordable single family houses plus low income. Don’t believe the fear tactics. Development Jacobs into a community not a state project.
All the campaign messaging I’ve seen says nothing about affordable housing (which has a legal definition), and there’s nothing in Measure F that “creates” housing – it rezones a few acres of Jacobs, and that’s all. If the CHP buys it, it won’t become housing. If a mysterious LLC buys it, they’re not required to build housing or anything else on it. It can sit there for 20 years like the balloon track has.
Because government has created the problem by not addressing local employment. We chugged along on illegal pot money for a couple of decades with ever increasing drug addiction and homelessness. Now the pot money has gone. The fishing has gone. The timber has gone. The two big industries left are government and welfare. And farming other locations where people work for tax money does not lead to an industrious and happy populace.
Okay? What do you expect the government to do about employment? Hire more people for government jobs? They can’t force employers to come here. Heck, most companies would look at how awful the rental market here is and say “nope, nowhere for our employees to live”.
I really believe it’s a big reason we can’t keep medical professionals.
Well not using prime commercial sites for low income housing would be a start. For someone who thinks government is the answer to housing, you sure do have not a lot of respect for its power. A lot of other downs do a good job of recruiting businesses or at least nurturing the ones they have. All Eureka seems to grow is fast food places.
We don’t need Measure F to be able to develop the Jacobs Campus.
But we do need to prevent Measure F from prohibiting development downtown.
More dribble from a communist organization. Eureka needs less people, not more government dependent people. It needs maximum open space and parking, not taxpayer subsidized tenement housing.
Less people? Sure, let’s get rid of all the boomers, that should free up a bunch of housing and make it faster to get a doctor’s appointment!
(This is sarcasm)
Thanks for staying on top of this, Kym.
what is pictured is NOT a good representation of what the site looks like now. It looks much better than that.