I think the idea aiding homeless people in any way publicly or privately divides those with property and their advocates. Do you remember when Rob Arkley diminished Betty Chin and her "ilk"?From a Republican perspective, this is not OK if there is to be any consistency in right wing talking points. The key to aiding the less fortunate from a right wing perspective is an essential helping hand from the private sector including religious groups but NOT government.So no, this makes perfect sense. This isn't fraud, it is a division within HumCPR, surely. This proposal makes total sense with Lee Ulansey at the helm (or heavily influencing it). Lee is one who fashions himself as either as apolitical or able to see both sides and with roots in both sides. But surely there are property owners, lead of course by those in close proximity of the Mercer Fraser site AND those who see any aid to those in need - private or public - as tantamount to encouraging bad behavior. Think of the latter group as the the inhuman product when the worst of capitalism (economic winners and losers) and some cousin to prosperity theology (the righteous will be blessed by God). Economic winners are winners because they work hard. Economic losers need to pull up their boot straps and when it really gets hard they will - or they will move on.So no, not fraud, HumCPR will not be a unified front on this. Of course we will never know, because like when John Fullerton worked accounting magic to hide $10,000 in individual donations to oppose Measure R, we are by design not to know anything about who are those behind HumCPR. If we don't know who they are, we won't know the politics of the different factions of the members.
Jon, are you defending and/or applauding Lee Ulansey?
Neither, I was describing and saying the fraud contention is aluminum-foil-hat ridiculous. What he and HumCPR was fill a necessary need. What they are doing only amplifies where we are today - and it's not good. This is part of a larger plan that started with the uprising initiated by Rob Arkley which lead directly to the closed meetings Rex and Virginia held Thursdays and finally made it's way to a sadly amenable Eureka City Council. There has always had a large law enforcement aspect from the beginning and in my opinion is the civilian equivalent of the clear and hold strategy that was part of Bush's surge in Iraq. Clear the homeless from Devil's Playground, hold it with a trail.This as always been about ending the (relatively) safe havens those without homes had found to rest because we ultimately want them out of our site. That is the bottom line. If some of them are able to find homes, great, but John, you and I both know that many or most will not be able to find a home and then find a way to pay for rent etc in the long run.Ulansey and HumCPR are playing a role that the cynic in me sees as good and necessary PR for those land owners with a conscience that are ultimately saying to us - "you can't pay the rent? Move along.""And what ever you do, don't ask for government assistance, we in the private sector have the will and means to help you out on your path off our streets."
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jon, you are of course free to think what you want but Rob Arkley's name being dragged into something he has nothing to do with is annoying. He is the letft's boogie man for everything. I will move on by saying, one I an not printing anti Arkley comments, especially when it is completely unrelated to the topic.I have avoided addressing this elephant in the room but these unwarranted attacks are ridiculous. All rich, all Republicans and demonizing them is a radical left pathetic tactic.There is also no comparison between Rob Arkley and Lee Ulansey. To clarify further, that is a compliment to Mr. Arkley and as for Lee, he makes Trump look humble. This is about HUMCPR. I do not buy this generous offer of HUMCPR. This smacks of a PR stunt. For anyone to have stability of a roof over their head, they need jobs and some supervision and encouragement so they stay successful.You and I agree on some things, we disagree on others.
I disagree, Arkley absolutely plays a key role in the homeless dialogue. His symposium set the tone for the anti-homeless faction.
They also need help managing their substance abuse. That's the real elephant in the room.
Bones, that is quite a claim. Any evidence to back that assertion?
Kendall, you can disagree all you want but your opinion does not make anything a fact. You prove my point because given your politics from what I have observed, you made up your opinion of Mr. Arkley without any knowing him long before any symposium. People have an issue with the "homeless" long before that gathering. Read any comment section, including LOCO and see who is in touch with how people feel. Like I told Jon, stick to the topic which is,HUMCPR. Unless you approve of their profiteering and why do they get a pass?