Shock and Awe Law

Updated Below - Update II

---

I picked up my Saturday, April 18, 2009, Times-Standard Newspaper this morning and was greeted with this brilliant piece of news: Eureka discussing implementation of citywide rental home inspection. "Citizen task force aims to target crime"

Where do they plan on targeting crime? "Rental home inspections" that's where! It seems some person by the name of Lisa Ollivier wants to ratchet up the police powers in Eureka. Donna Tam of the Times-Standard says about Ollivier:

After years of neighborhood watch, putting pressure on overcrowded houses riddled with drug abuse and cockroaches, and being a part of a citizens' task force to target slum housing and crime in their neighborhoods, Ollivier is looking forward to presenting an ordinance to the Eureka City Council on Tuesday that will help to address those problems one rental property at a time.

This is the commentary of some simple self-serving do-gooder's knee-jerk reaction to problems either not being taken care of by the Eureka Police Department and other responsible agencies or deliberately allowed to exist and fester so as to produce this response for a community that was too gutless to personally deal with their own problems.

First, it's extra judicial police roadblocks to check for drunk drivers, random stops and searches on the highways, then its random stops to check and identify people just walking down the street, now it's "overcrowded houses"! What's next? Our guns? One house at a time? Why not? Constitutional legal protection doesn't mean anything when problems are allowed to fester and grow until we need a "Shock and Awe" solution.

Ollivier says:

When Lisa Ollivier was pregnant with her son three years ago, the late-night activities of neighbors in her Clark District home kept her from getting much sleep.

"There were times when I would be on the living room floor because of gunfire going on," she said.

This it pure NONSENSE! This statement, if factual, is an indictment of the police. Which doesn't surprise me one bit. When my wife and I moved into our new home here in Eureka we had one outlaw neighbor that, when they refused to stop constantly harassing us, I was forced to call the Eureka Police Department for help. All we got for our effort was royally shined on. The police officer politely listened to us, could see we were really upset, but did nothing. All the police did was make the problem worse than before. The neighbor figured they had a green light now that the police couldn't even be bothered to speak to them. In the end I took the problem to the Police Chief to help descalate the situation, for all that was worth; a total waste of time. After exhausting considerable resources in life, health, time and money I was forced to deal with the matter personally. It was either that or move. Dealing with me and my solution was not something either the police nor the neighbor wanted, so the problem abated, but not after considerable unnecessary rancor and visceral anger at everyone involved.

Well, I didn't get this posted Saturday, and Sunday I was greeted with "Growing violence: Marijuana gardens are robbery targets throughout Humboldt County" - frontpage, Times-Standard:

Home-invasion robberies at houses with pot gardens occur with disconcerting regularity in Humboldt County, law enforcement officials say. And the potential for violence in any robbery is high. Within the past six months, at least three people have been shot during suspected grow house robberies in Humboldt County.

"I can't think of a home invasion robbery in the last two years in Humboldt County that hasn't had a drug connection to it," said Eureka Police Chief Garr Nielsen. In every case, "it's almost exclusively marijuana."

What do you expect when a major portion of society believes everyone should have the right to grow and sell marijuana regardless the law or harm and threat to their community? Criminals breed crime and crime breeds violence!

So, what's the solution? Punish (Nuke the innocent women and children.) the people that are the victims of both the criminals and the complicit community?

UPDATE :: Thursday, April 23, 2009
Glass pulls rental home ordinance off the agenda

"Glass said he believes in maximum public input, so he hopes to meet with the task force next week to decide what to do next. He thinks they may set up a public meeting in the future."

That "maximum public input" is the City of Eureka's new public representative, Lisa Ollivier (task force), speaking for the majority? Talk about a classic example of political whoring!

UPDATE II :: Friday, April 24, 2009

His latest bull run on law was published today Friday, April 24, 2009, Times-Standard

Eureka suspends cell tower construction, arranges Verizon hearing

Now Larry Glass has teamed-up with Linda Atkins to push their political "BS" agendas to circumvent the law when not politically expedient. Classic! Atkins says:

Councilwoman Linda Atkins reiterated her opinion that Verizon acted in bad faith when it started construction before obtaining all its permits.

”It's the city's conditional use permit,” she said, adding that the council has the jurisdiction to say whether the cell phone company violated it.

According to Atkins, Verizon acted on bad faith, but apparently the permits aren't worth the paper their written on when the city "council has the jurisdiction to say whether the cell phone company violated it" after the fact. As bad as that is, this statement tells the whole story about these two worthless representatives.

Atkins and Glass both stated that it is important for the council to represent its citizens and listen to their concerns, even if the matter goes to court.

Since when has the "council" listened to the concerns of the people they are supposed to represent? If they had there never would have been a problem to start with. I wouldn't want a cell tower near my home either, but at some point this slap-stick comedy needs some serious truth-telling. Property owner's deep pockets are finite and it's about time these ideological knot heads come to terms with that reality. Frank Jager, the lone dissenting councilman, who by the way received on a fraction of consideration in this lopsided report, was the only one to show some sense of propriety.

Councilman Frank Jager said that while he, too, wants to ensure that the council protects the residents of Henderson Center, he reminded them that in order to fight a lawsuit for them, the council would be putting the other residents of the city at risk.

”We're also required to protect all the residents in this city,” he said.

The concerned people of Henderson Center and others, like yours truly, were sold out, plain and simple. We can either get used to it or take those responsible to task. Maybe next time they'll think about the people they represent when dealing with the Planning Commission before trying to make all land and property owners pay for their sins.

[Source]

--Joe