Sidney Dominitz (1941 - 2015)

With son Zach 1985

 At poker 2005

With my father at Sid's BD party 2012

Sidney Dominitz, a revered teacher, editor and environmentalist, died Sept. 12, 2015 of complications from a heart condition. He was 74.

A fixture on the North Coast for roughly 40 years, Sid is remembered as a man whose sharp wit and warm heart spilled through his editing pen as he improved the work of those around him. A born copy editor, he devoted nearly three decades of his life to editing the Northcoast Environmental Center’s EcoNews, using his mastery of the English language and wealth of newspaper experience to fight for the forests, waterways and wildlife he loved.

The second child born to Wolf and Blanca Dominitz in New York City, Sid arrived in Humboldt County in 1976 and became captured by its rugged coastal beauty and counter-culture spirit. He joined the NEC as one of its only paid staff members that year, and went on to found its coastal cleanup programs and take EcoNews from a nonprofit newsletter to a respected environmental advocacy newspaper with a circulation of 8,500. Sid also became one of NEC Executive Director Tim McKay’s most trusted advisors. While it was McKay’s voice that became one of Humboldt’s most influential, his message always benefitted from Sid’s input and editing.

In 1978, Sid began lecturing at Humboldt State University, where he shared the knowledge picked up in his 11 years working as a newspaper editor, including six spent as the chief copy editor for Reuters’ London bureau. In the classroom, he developed a reputation as tough, demanding teacher, prone to telling underperforming students to pursue careers in the food service industry instead of journalism. The gruff classroom persona was never inherently mean or narcissistic; Sid just loved journalism too much and saw it as too important to be done poorly or ceded to people irreverent of its power. To students serious about mastering the craft, Sid gave his time generously, often continuing to do so long after they’d left his charge.

Those close to him will remember Sid for the passion that ran through every aspect of his life, whether it was editing pen in hand, on the basketball court, in the classroom, at the poker table or in his friendships; and for his rare mix of realism soaked in anti-corporate, anti-capitalist, anti-bureaucratic sentiment. But as long as you didn’t catch him at the lectern or his editing table, Sid exuded warmth and kindness, especially with children, with whom he had a gift for fostering special and quick connections. 

Sid is survived by his son, Zachary, whom he cherished, his older brother, Henry, and his ex-wife, Sydelle Lapidus. A ceremony honoring his life will be held at 2 p.m. on Sept. 19 at the Trinidad Cemetery. In lieu of flowers, the family asks those who feel compelled to make a donation to the NEC or plant a tree in his honor.

--

 (Special thanks to Sid's former student Thad Greenson for crafting this obituary)

A video of Sid's memorial and the celebration of his life that followed, by documentary filmmaker Eileen McGee is available online: archive.org/details/SidDominitzMemorial

Read more here: northcoastjournal.com/NewsBlog/archives/2015/09/17/sidney-dominitz-1941-2015

and RE Tim McKay, here:  northcoastjournal.com/080306/cover0803.html

and RE John Ross here: sfgate.com/bayarea/article/John-Ross-author-poet-journalist-dies-2461837.php

...back together again.

----

By Jerry Martien.

(Read as eulogy at his memorial service)

--
Nature’s Editor

— for Sid 

a misplaced comma
a hastily chosen word
there goes your favorite beach

it matters that much

I used to refer to him as Sid the Knife. Not that he needed a knife, or even the red pen. He did it with words. Added words. Revised words. Deleted words. Now you hear it. Now you understand it. Like a magician, an editor shows you the cards you were holding.

the news flows from wild nature
the morning edition at your doorstep with the sun
in the evening you read it on the beach 
it rarely gets into print

He and John Ross got into huge arguments about articles John submitted to Econews. John would go through hell for a byline, and sometimes that became the story. He was a jazz poet and a pamphleteer, and like many of us he learned at the Econews to be a reporter. Your editor is your dear friend.

accuracy is learned from nature
every word exactly where it’s supposed to go
every sharp tooth, every eye
looking out for strays

When my five-year-old granddaughter was visiting I introduced her to Sid. She was still talking baby talk, not ready to give up infancy. The family was letting her grow out of it. But he mercilessly made fun of her r’s that sounded like w’s, mimicked her till she had to laugh. Next time I saw her she was talking like the rest of us. Your editor is the crazy uncle who can say things no one else will tell you.


an unreported wolf or mountain
is a dead wolf, a treeless mountain
in the Econews
they at least had half a chance

it matters that much

He and John were the last prophets, wandering in the land of the lumberjacks. They had an editorial comment for every rock and tree and bird. Sid’s jokes were often puns, some real groaners. When he heard a juice bar had opened in Arcata, “At last,” he said, “a place of our own.” An editor knows the absurdity of language. It’s all made up. Every word gets deleted. Every day is a rewrite.

in a wilderness not of our devising
we live by compassion and wit and accurate reporting

One September afternoon I followed the obits from the Trinidad cemetery along Stagecoach Road and down to the beach. From there I floated out to the downstream end of the world, where they say the news is always good. Food and card games and dancing. I was long past deadline and way over on my word count. Sid was already there. Your editor is the first person you meet in heaven.




Jerry Martien

July 2, 3, 4th, 2016

photos   map   invite

KMUD news covers Arcata Free Speech Lawsuit

Invitation to Pamplin Grove 2013 is honored on SnapFame.com

I was honored on snapfame.com, a blog by Jan Carpenter Tucker a friend and client of 30 years, for the diversity displayed in the invitation to my "10th Annual Community Gathering at Pamplin Grove".  Artist Oli Winward deserves the bulk of the credit for how he chose to depict diversity in the people represented in his wonderful cover illustration.

2012 ACLU Patriot of the Year Award

It was my great honor to receive the 2012 Patriot of the Year  Award from the Redwood Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union 

ACLU Board Member Peter Martin  awarding the certificate and a beautiful glass award

I accepted the award in memory of my father Paul, a life long card-carrying-member of the ACLU

This photo was entered into evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit One over the objections of the City's legal counsel.  I think he feared it would too simply state our case and the absurdity of the City's broadly over reaching, and as we proved, cleary unconstitutional law.

Since winning our case, the city can no longer outlaw the holding of a sign based solely on the content of the message.

National Public Radio's MARKETPLACE: Law against panhandling ruled too harsh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 MARKETPLACE for Friday, September 28, 2012

by Krissy Clark
   
[listen to audio version here]

Depending on where you live and or work, you've probably been stopped by a stranger on the street at some point -- maybe many -- and been asked whether you've got any change you can spare. Everyone's got different reactions. In a growing number of cities, though, the police answer with a ticket. Anti-panhandling laws are becoming more common across
 the country, but this week a judge in Northern California ruled that one ordinance went too far.

How do you feel when someone asks you for money?

“It saddens me,” says Linda Gray, an office worker who had just been approached for money on the streets of downtown LA.  She will give a little money sometimes, she says, but “I just wish there was more we could do.” For others, being asked for money is an annoyance “maybe like a pigeon that poops on your head,” says Art Lopez, who was recently approached for money on his way to work.

A lawyer named Gordon Ownby says he usually politely declines to give money, but that there have been times where things have gotten aggressive -- which "obviously makes [him] very angry."

Some of the worries Ownby, Lopez and Gray expressed were at the root of a law passed a few years ago, hundreds of miles away in the town of Arcata, Calif. It banned people from asking for money -- aggressively or non-aggressively, either verbally or with a sign-- within 20 feet of certain locations like stores, intersections and bus stops. 

Arcata is college town known for pot farms, redwood trees and lots of itinerant panhandlers. So many panhandlers, says Mayor Michael Winkler, that locals felt like when they were approached “it was difficult for them to say no.”  He says he spoke to many older women and children who especially “felt very intimidated.”

Richard Salzman, an Arcata citizen who filed a lawsuit against the panhandling ban, agrees that the number of panhandlers in his city can be annoying. But he says to ban “a person passively holding a sign on the corner” struck him as a violation of free speech.

He staged a one-man protest, where he stood on the corner next to a restaurant employee holding a sign advertising five dollar pizzas -- a form of speech that perfectly legal in Arcata. Salzman held up a sign next to him: "Please buy me a pizza before I'm arrested for holding this sign."

Salzman also filed a lawsuit against portions of the panhandling ban and this week Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Dale A. Reinholtsen came down in his favor, ruling that it was unconstitutional for Arcata to “restrict solicitation merely because it makes people uncomfortable.” He ruled that the town can only enforce the ban near ATMs and on public transit.

Back on the streets of LA, I asked a young man in a dirty sweatshirt what he thought about the ruling -- after he asked me for fifty cents.

He didn't want to give his name, but he said, “I never thought I'd have to ask anyone for money. I guess you do what you got to do.”

---

[ My attorney Peter Martin and I did a one hour interview on The Jefferson Exchange which aired on Jefferson Public Radio (JPR) October 17th, 2012. You can listen to the podcast here. ]

--

[Coverage of this story on Free Speech Radio NEWS can be heard here.  Jump to the 5:00 mark.]

L.A. TIMES takes editorial position in support of Free Speech Lawsuit against City of Arcata

L.A. TIMES EDITORIAL
Arcata vs. panhandlers
The city's frustration with beggars is understandable, but its remedy is too broad and too punitive.

August 8, 2012

The city of Arcata, just north of Eureka in Humboldt County, has long been a mecca for homeless and transient young people who gather in its public square, often soliciting food or money. But after years of allowing their public begging, the city passed an ordinance in 2010 that forbids not only "aggressive panhandling" — touching or blocking a person, repeatedly asking for money, using abusive language, approaching an occupied vehicle — but all soliciting within 20 feet of ATMs, supermarkets, retail stores, restaurants, bus shelters and stops, and any intersection. It also prohibits soliciting on a bus, inside public parking lots and on pedestrian foot bridges. The city defines panhandling as asking for money or goods or even holding up a sign requesting a handout. The result is effectively a ban on begging in the commercial area of Arcata.

The city's frustration is understandable, but its remedy is too broad and too punitive, emblematic of the excesses that many municipalities succumb to in confronting the unsightly but all too human problems associated with panhandling.

A lawsuit filed last year— which is expected to be ruled on soon — argues that the ordinance violates 1st Amendment rights because it is "constitutionally overbroad." It is so vague that it prohibits displaying a sign asking for money, and so broad that Girl Scouts couldn't set up a table outside a supermarket to sell cookies.

Aggressive panhandling is another matter. When asking for money becomes intimidating, speech drifts into conduct, and governments have the right to rein it in. The lawsuit takes no issue with that portion of the ordinance.

The city is also, arguably, acting in the interest of protecting public safety when it forbids panhandling within 20 feet of an ATM or in semi-confined spaces such as a pedestrian bridge or a parking structure. In these cases, there is a possibility that those who are hit up for money will feel trapped or vulnerable. People should not be forced to walk a gantlet of panhandlers when they must use a bridge. Although this part of the Arcata ordinance may not pass the so-called captive audience rule (courts have recognized that public transit vehicles are not free-speech forums), it seems reasonable.

The ordinance goes too far when it forbids panhandling of any kind outside of restaurants, stores and eateries. The court should strike down these provisions. Yes, it can be irritating to be confronted by poverty while exiting a store, but the tender sensibilities of shoppers cannot be allowed to outweigh the rights of Americans to express themselves, even if it’s to ask for money.

www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-arcata-panhandling-law-20120808,0,7704489.story

---
-------
Newspapers have long defended freedom of the press so while it is flattering, it's not that surprising that a prominent national paper like the LA Times would be willing to take a position in support of a 1st Amendment issue.  It is however disappointing that not one of the seven newspapers here in Humboldt County, or any of the other Northern California newspapers have shown the testicular fortitude to also take a position in support of the free speech rights of all Americans.
-Richard

Panhandling in Arcata tests the city's tolerance - L.A Times Aug 6, 2012

Arcata traditionally has welcomed the downtrodden. But balancing the comfort of the haves with tolerance for the have-nots has come down to a question of just who is worthy of help.

By Lee Romney, Los Angeles Times (photo by Brian van der Brug)
August 6, 2012

ARCATA, Calif. — Over the years, Patrick Steff has installed vinyl siding, repaired Volkswagens and worked in a pizza parlor. On a recent day, the homeless father of two sat disheveled in this North Coast town's central plaza, citations spread around him.
He has been ticketed for camping in the park and smoking on the square. That morning, a police officer caught him on a downtown sidewalk holding a sign that read: "I could use a little help today."

That's illegal here too if you're within 20 feet of a retail store, intersection, bus stop or bank machine.

PHOTOS: Panhandling in Arcata

"It's like an everyday thing," Steff, 37, said of the reprimands.

Long known as the "Berkeley of the North," Arcata traditionally has welcomed the downtrodden, embraced the leftist fringe and fostered a live-and-let-live ethos. But these days, the square is strangely mainstream.

While one quadrant is still dotted with homeless nappers, the immaculate lawn is populated by families with toddlers and its benches have become a prime lunch spot for working folks.

Behind the transformation is a host of factors that send itinerants a new message: Don't come here.

In addition to the anti-panhandling measure — which is facing a constitutional challenge — a sales tax hike paid for two rangers whose job is to roust campers from the city's parks and forestland, as well as enforce behavior on the plaza: No smoking. No skateboarding. No drinking. No dogs.

A homeless resource center that had provided daily meals was closed, along with the recycling center that for many was a source of income. And Arcata cracked down on the unofficial stoner holiday of April 20, closing off its Redwood Park to dissuade the stream of pilgrims who in past years celebrated there.

"We're changing our image," Councilwoman Alexandra Stillman said.

But balancing the comfort of the haves with tolerance for the have-nots has come down to a complex question of just who is worthy of help: The chronic homeless or the recently down-and-out? What about the in-your-face drifters who take handouts with little gratitude?

"How do you make a judgment of the deserving poor?" asked Michael Twombly of the Humboldt All Faith Partnership, which operates a shelter here and last month opened a lunch truck to fill the gap in services.

The New England-style plaza is the heart of Arcata, a town of 17,000 that is dotted with Victorian homes and surrounded by redwood forests.

Mixed in among families who have lived here for decades are Humboldt State University students, environmentalists, marijuana proponents and Grateful Dead devotees, who flocked here in 1995 after band leader Jerry Garcia died.

It was about that time, said Kevin Hoover, editor and publisher of the weekly Arcata Eye, that getting panhandled multiple times during the course of a block-long walk became "the new normal."

Ordinances followed.

Aimed at bongo drumming on the plaza, one 1996 measure prohibited sounds that were "boisterous, penetrating, repetitive [or] of unusual rhythmic or tonal character." Another outlawed glass containers. Bans on smoking, dogs and skateboarding came soon after.
But in 1999, when the city leased a building one block from the plaza to the homeless resource center, matters intensified.

"You could watch the change," Stillman said. Word got out to young adults traveling a circuit from Santa Barbara to Eugene, Ore. "It became a magnet," the councilwoman said. "They served lunch every day. You didn't have to do anything — just come eat."
By 2001, the city took aim at the whole downtown district, making it illegal to sit or lie on the sidewalk.

But five years later, city workers still were cleaning up dirty syringes, rotten food and human feces, according to a report. The bus station's ventilation system "seemed to suck in the outside cigarette and marijuana smoke." Restaurant take-out orders dried up at dusk because customers dreaded being hit up for food.

By 2009, then-Mayor Mark Wheetley was pondering an ordinance that would ban aggressive solicitation and place broad geographic restrictions on all panhandling. Although some residents welcomed the idea, most called it a blow to the vulnerable.
Wheetley, Stillman and current Mayor Michael Winkler embraced the measure when it came to a vote in March 2010. Councilman Shane Brinton opposed, calling the restriction on non-aggressive behavior a likely infringement on constitutionally protected speech.

Councilwoman Susan Ornelas reflected the community's torn conscience: "While we're a progressive town and we're very open-hearted," she said, "we have limits on our tolerance." In the end, she was swayed to vote against the measure by Nicole Barchilon Frank, an observant Jew who practices tzedakah, the spiritual obligation of giving.
Standing before the council, Barchilon Frank recounted the day she and her son approached a stop sign and saw a panhandler: She gave the man $2. As they drove off, 9-year-old Ethan said it didn't seem like enough. He suggested "at least $6." They returned, and when she explained that her son "felt you needed a bit more," the man burst into tears.

When the act of charity is removed from the streets by law, she continued, "you are impacting more than just our civic reality.... This ordinance [is] ... a violation of my spiritual teachings, my morals and my child's right to learn from compassion and understanding. "

A report last fall by the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty found that slightly more than half of 234 cities surveyed had bans on aggressive panhandling, the same proportion had outlawed it in specific areas, and one-fourth forbade begging citywide.

Tom Chapman, Arcata's police chief, said that officers responding to complaints have issued just two panhandling citations. Mostly they give out warnings. Public feedback, he added, has been "nothing but positive."

That is, if you don't include Richard Salzman, who carries a pocket version of the Constitution in his tweed sport coat. Last year he filed a challenge to the law in Humboldt County Superior Court.

Salzman has no complaint over restrictions on aggressive begging, but he was outraged by the ban on "the most passive form of panhandling."

To stress his point, he had a friend snap a photo of a man at an intersection holding a sign advertising a $5 pizza special, while Salzman stood next to him with his own message: "Please buy me a pizza before I am arrested for holding this sign!"

Panhandling measures have had mixed results in court, as restrictions on speech cannot be content-based and must narrowly address a government interest. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness also has questioned ordinances that criminalize sleeping, sitting and lying on sidewalks — noting in an April report that such laws "further marginalize men and women who are experiencing homelessness, fuel inflammatory attitudes, and may even unduly restrict constitutionally protected liberties."

The attorney representing Arcata emphasizes that panhandling is still permitted in some parts of town. A judge heard arguments in the case in May and is expected to rule this month. But even with the panhandling ordinance removed from the equation, life for the homeless here has been harsh, some said.

"Arcata acts like they're the only town that has homeless people. They harass 'em," said Big Al, a burly 58-year-old with fading blond curls who arrived from Austin, Texas, a dozen years ago.

Big Al received one of the panhandling citations after a gas station owner was unable to run him off with sprinklers. He has since modified his sign — it simply reads "Have a nice day" — and settled with his dog, Sophia, into a spot under a pedestrian bridge. But state workers recently cleared the branches protecting his sleeping alcove, leaving him exposed.

"If you're poor or on food stamps, the message is, 'Go to Eureka or McKinleyville,'" he said.

As for the plaza, said Tom Clapp, whose Rookery Books has fronted it for 14 years, conditions were "vastly improved" now that Arcata was "coming around to not being tolerant to a fault."

Others fear the approach has taken a toll.

"I have noticed a marked difference, and I'm not sure I like that," said Humboldt State student Roger Tuan, 28. "It feels morally wrong."

Ornelas said she has come to believe the ordinance was fair, but is pressing to restore some generosity to the mix.

The city is moving forward on opening a public bathroom, an idea once vigorously opposed by some council members. One design proposal includes a plant wall that will resist defacing.

"It will be prickly and beautiful," Ornelas said. "I do try to work on middle ground."

lee.romney@latimes.com

Free Speech Now! (And Eat at McDonald’s)

MEDIA MAVEN / BY MARCY BURSTINER
NORTH COAST JOURNAL

Free Speech Now! (And Eat at McDonald’s)

(JUNE 7, 2012)  In the movie Norma Rae, Sally Field plays a textile worker who tries to organize a union at her mill. In the movie’s climax, thugs try to throw her out of the factory. She scribbles the word “union,” climbs up on a table and holds it up. For a moment everyone in the factory stares at her. Then, one by one, the workers shut off their machines. These days it seems that people who try to fight a good fight get that kind of support only in the movies.

On May 24, Fortuna resident Janelle Egger filed suit against the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors challenging the constitutionality of Urgency Ordinance 2477, which bans camping, animals and defecation outside the courthouse and also bans the hanging of signs. In my April 5 column, I questioned the constitutionality of a law in which the only new prohibition was the hanging of signs and the gathering for peaceful protest. Existing laws covered all other activities the ordinance specified.

Police arrested Egger April 7 in front of the courthouse as she participated in a candlelight vigil held to support free speech. This is a woman who sued the city of Fortuna in 2009 under the California Public Records Act because it had refused to turn over documents about a proposal for a new water tank. The courts agreed with her on that one and ordered the city to pay for her attorney fees.

This time, she filed her 24-page brief, with another 48 pages of exhibits, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  She doesn’t have a lawyer; she’s doing it herself.

This is one of two ongoing First Amendment suits involving local laws. This month, Superior Court Judge Dale Reinholtsen will rule on the constitutionality of an Arcata ordinance passed to curb aggressive panhandling. Attorney Peter Martin filed that suit on behalf of Arcata resident Richard Salzman.

The Arcata law has multiple parts. Part A specifically bans aggressive panhandling. But parts B through G ban all panhandling in specific areas, such as near ATM machines or supermarket entrances. If aggressive panhandling is the problem, why not stop with A? Why include the rest?

This is what I find most troubling: The ease with which local governments pass speech infringement laws, how little effort they spend trying to keep them as narrow as possible and how few people these laws seem to bother.

Perhaps more troubling is that certain types of speech seem to be more vulnerable to government infringement than others.

In this paper in March, Editor Carrie Peyton Dahlberg wrote about how difficult it is to ban ugly billboards that line our highway. In 2008, a federal appeals court upheld a ban on electronic billboards only if it were content-neutral — a community would have to ban all electronic billboards. In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court approved an anti-sign law in Los Angeles, but that’s because it banned all signs on utility poles. Back in 1981, the Supreme Court rejected a San Diego law banning billboards that created exceptions for specific categories of speech, such as political campaign signs and religious signs. “With respect to noncommercial speech, the city may not choose the appropriate subjects for public discourse,” the court said in Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego. Because the court has insisted on blanket bans, local governments think twice about passing these laws. Commercial signs produce money.

In 2010, in its infamous Citizens United decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Congress can’t limit the money an organization or even a corporation spends on donations to committees not directly affiliated with a political candidate, because that would prevent these committees from buying television time or creating expensive brochures or commercials. That would abridge their freedom of speech.

Here is the pattern I see. L.A. could ban ALL signs on utility poles. But what corporations advertise on utility poles? Few communities act to ban all electronic signs or billboards, because they generate money. If you, or your kid, or a homeless guy on the street, holds up a cardboard sign, it generates no money.  The handwritten signs tacked onto the courthouse fence generate no permit fees. The Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that the government can’t limit the money used to create documentaries or buy air time.

Twice this year I explained how paid speech has more power than “free” speech. Now I see that speech you buy is more protected than speech that is free. It is as if the First Amendment now says: Congress shall make no law abridging the payment for speech or press.

Thank goodness that in this community we have troublemakers like Eggers and Salzman who take it upon themselves to fight for the free speech rights we all share. We’ll see which way the courts swing on these issues.

But for their efforts, Egger and Salzman seem to get more grief than support in the communities where they live. Maybe we are all just too inundated with advertising these days. I find ads in paperback books I pick up at the book shop, on the back of my grocery store receipts, on the back of a T-shirt I must stare at when on line for some event. So we find offensive handwritten signs that don’t try to push products on us, that simply assert someone’s rights as a citizen or that ask for money because someone is hungry and doesn’t have a roof over his head.

Here is an idea. Homeless people should trade signs. Instead of standing on a corner and asking for money for themselves or their family, they can ask for money for a guy on the next corner. He in turn would advertise the plight of the next guy and so on. That way they aren’t panhandling. They are advertising. And that is something governments and the courts seem to protect.  And Janelle, get yourself a corporate sponsor. Maybe Pepsi Free?

Marcy Burstiner is a professor of journalism and mass communication at Humboldt State University.

---

COMMENT / BY RICHARD SALZMAN /

Thank you, Marcy Burstiner, for covering my Free Speech lawsuit against the City of Arcata for its (ironically named) Aggressive Panhandling Ordinance. I don’t see how Arcata can suggest that the simple act of holding up a sign, which is the most passive form of panhandling, can qualify as aggressive; and I object to restrictions on speech based on content (as Ms. Burstiner pointed out, you can hold up a sign to advertise or sell something but not one asking for a handout).

I think it’s important for people to consider that if you believe in the protection of free speech and in defending our Bill of Rights, then you need to be willing to defend the rights of people you don’t agree with, or find annoying. Or, in the case of the ACLU defending the Nazis’ right to march in the predominantly Jewish town of Skokie, Illinois, even people you find repulsive.

As Voltaire stated, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Both my lawsuit and Janelle Egger’s lawsuit against Humboldt County for its ordinance restricting protests on Courthouse property are being supported in part by the Humboldt Civil Liberties Defense Fund, of which I am a member. We welcome your support and I encourage anyone wishing to contribute to help fund these cases, and our overall efforts to defend civil liberties in Humboldt County, to visit us online at HCLDF.org.

---

ADD YOUR COMMENT HERE: northcoastjournal.com/
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/news/2012/06/07/free-speech-now-and-eat-mcdonalds/

Judge to make decision on Arcata panhandling law; ordinance remains a rift in city politics

Grant Scott-Goforth/The Times-Standard
05/28/2012

A Humboldt County Superior Court judge will rule on the constitutionality of Arcata's panhandling ordinance, which limits the locations where people are allowed to panhandle and carries penalties for aggressive panhandling.

The ordinance was the subject of a lawsuit by Richard Salzman that went to trial last week.
Salzman's Attorney Peter Martin has until June 4 to submit a supplemental brief, at which point the judge will have 90 days to issue a decision on the case.

Martin said Salzman wants the law to be struck down as unconstitutional, any convictions under the law set aside and any fines levied against violators returned.

”I think the city of Arcata went too far, and I hope the judge will see it that way,” Martin said.
Salzman said he had no objection to the parts of the ordinance that ban aggressive panhandling such as touching someone, following them or blocking their way.

”I'm very sensitive to how inappropriate behavior is offensive,” Salzman said.

He said the ordinance goes too far with restricting the language allowed on signs.

”As a layperson, my feeling about it is they're trying to restrict what the signs say,” Salzman said, adding that political protest signs and advertisements don't face similar limitations.

”Somehow a sign that says 'hey buddy can you spare a dime?' offends sensibilities?”

Salzman said the aggressive panhandling that most agree is unacceptable should not be lumped in with holding signs.

”That's the most passive form of panhandling,” Salzman said.

Arcata City Councilman Mark Wheetley, who voted for the ordinance, said it was developed based on research and surveys of municipal panhandling ordinances throughout the country.
”It didn't come without a lot of careful review and consideration,” Wheetley said.

Wheetley still supports the ordinance but could not speak specifically about the litigation the city is engaged in with Salzman.

”It wasn't done in a vacuum,” Wheetley said. “I have received lots of positive feedback since it went into place.”

Vice Mayor Shane Brinton voted against the ordinance when it was enacted in 2010.

“I've continued to maintain the position that the ordinance may be unconstitutional,” Brinton said. “At the very least, it violates the spirit of the First Amendment.”

Brinton did think there was a legal precedent for the prohibition on aggressive panhandling.

Brinton said he couldn't comment on the merits of the Salzman case or its arguments, but added he would rather have seen the ordinance never enacted to save the city from having to defend it.
”I'm not really enthusiastic about any of this,” Brinton said.

Arcata City Manager Randy Mendosa said that as of Thursday, the city had spent $4,988 defending the ordinance, though that figure would rise as the trial hours had not yet been billed.
Mendosa said the ordinance has been successful for the city, cutting down on the “bad behavior factor.”

”Anecdotally, people seem fine with it,” Mendosa said. “I haven't heard any other complaints.”
Arcata Police Department Lt. Ryan Peterson said enforcement of the law mostly comes in the form of education. Police officers' first response is to inform people where they can and can't panhandle, and Peterson said most are compliant.

”The number of citations issued for panhandling is extremely low,” Peterson said. “What this gives the community is the ability to notify the police if there is an aggressive panhandler. It's certainly not designed to eradicate panhandling.”

Peterson said enforcement of the ordinance is complaint-driven, meaning officers only respond to public calls regarding panhandling. He said the majority -- more than 90 percent -- of calls are related to aggressive panhandling.

”Those are the kind of calls that really are frustrating,” Peterson said.

Salzman said that he will appeal if the judge rules against him. He says it's the first time he's been involved in a court proceeding but that it was his only recourse when the city council rejected his request to change the language of the ordinance.

”If they overstep their bounds of authority, I'm going to go to the judicial branch to rectify that incursion on our constitutional civil liberties,” Salzman said. “I feel I'm being a patriot.”

Grant Scott-Goforth can be reached at 441-0514 or gscott-goforth@times-standard.com

http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_20726853/judge-make-decision-arcata-panhandling-law-ordinance-remains

Arcata's Law Unconstitutional

Contending that Arcata’s panhandling ordinance is unconstitutional, resident Richard Salzman informed the City Council that he intends to file a lawsuit unless the ordinance is amended.

As written, the ordinance makes it a crime to merely hold up a sign asking for money. 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 noted that the section of the ordinance against “aggressive panhandling,” including blocking one’s path, any physical contact or yelling, would be left unchallenged by this legal action.

--

February 14, 2011

Susan Ornelas, Mayor
Michael Winkler, Vice-Mayor
Shane Brinton, Council Member
Alexandra Stillman, Council Member
Mark Wheetley, Council Member
Randy Mendosa, City Manager
Nancy Diamond, Esq., City Attorney

City of Arcata
736 F Street
Arcata, CA 95521

Re: Unconstitutional Panhandling Ordinance enacted April 16, 2010, as Arcata Municipal Code [AMC] Sections 4280-4282.

Dear City Council, City Manager and City Attorney:

Please take notice that Mr. Richard Salzman, a resident of, and taxpayer within, the City of Arcata, has retained the undersigned to bring an action against the City of Arcata to declare its panhandling ordinance unconstitutional and to enjoin the City from any further enforcement of said ordinance. The purpose of this letter is to invite the City to amend its panhandling ordinance as set forth herein, and thereby avoid the expense, uncertainty and unpleasantness of contested litigation.

Specifically, Mr. Salzman contends that AMC Sections 4282B, 4282C, 4282D, 4282E, 4282F and 4282G are unconstitutional. The overall impact of these sections is to criminalize begging in most of the City where it would be fruitful to beg. Begging is a charitable solicitation. The First Amendment clearly protects charitable solicitations. No distinction of constitutional dimension exists between soliciting funds for oneself and for charity. The fact that a beggar keeps the money she receives does not strip the speech of First Amendment protection. A speaker’s rights are not lost merely because compensation is received; a speaker is no less a speaker because she is paid to speak.

To be lawful, the ordinance must serve a compelling interest that is narrowly drawn to achieve its end. The City’s compelling interest, if one exists, is well-served by the ordinance’s ban on aggressive panhandling, to which Mr. Salzman does not take exception. Mr. Salzman objects to the near-total ban on begging in public fora, the justification for which can be little more than avoiding “annoyance” to the public, hardly a compelling interest in First Amendment jurisprudence. Moreover, the ordinance’s ban on begging is not “narrowly tailored;” indeed, it is embarrassingly broad. To achieve the City’s goal of criminalizing the speech of a few beggars, the City has criminalized all solicitations for money. A girl scout cannot sell cookies on the City’s streets. Nor may any charity solicit money in most of the City. A beggar cannot even hold a sign up to ask for money; a more clearly content-based restriction on speech is difficult to imagine.

The City’s attempt to justify these draconian restrictions on speech under the so-called “captive audience rule” is unavailing. The City’s expansion of that concept to include almost all public space within the City perverts the intent of the rule and strikes at the very heart of discourse in a democratic society- the right to communicate with one’s fellow citizens on the public commons.

Other constitutional concerns are implicated in the City’s ordinance. The criminalization of solicitation implicates equal protection concerns, to wit, the ordinance targets the First Amendment rights of the City’s poorest and most downtrodden residents, while it remains legal to accost members of the public to ask the time of day, or to sign a petition. The complexity of the ordinance, with its crazy patch-work of places where it is illegal to beg, implicates notice and due process concerns. A reasonable citizen of the City lacks adequate notice as to where she may beg and where she may not beg. Likewise, the ordinance’s definition of “panhandling” leaves questions unanswered: Is a check or credit card transaction on the City’s streets illegal, or just a cash transaction? This renders the ordinance subject to challenge for vagueness.

Mr. Salzman would prefer to resolve this matter without litigation, and to that end, invites the City and its attorneys to meet with the undersigned to work toward resolution of the issues raised herein.

Respectfully,

Peter E. Martin

--

Read article in Arcata Eye
and post on Humboldt Herald.
Link to JPR radio show on subject (starts at 30:min mark):
http://podcastdownload.npr.org/anon.npr-podcasts/podcast/172/510073/134265248/JPR_134265248.mp3?_kip_ipx=898705313-1299267811