The "Greenways" section is a highly confusing portion of the the draft Gateway Code. The Code should include this as guidelines for what will happen ("Greenways are required in the approximate locations shown in Figure 2-56."). But what is shown in the Code is clearly 100% overkill -- and some of it is absolutely impossible. The Gateway Code needs to be revised.

In the Gateway code, tenant bicycle parking does not have to be indoors. It doesn't even have to be behind a fence. In discussing this with the Planning Commissioners at their April 23, 2024, meeting, the director repeatedly referred to this as inside parking -- within the building. There is nothing in the Gateway Code that says that the secure bicycle storage space has to be inside the building -- or even inside at all.

Brandolini's law, also known as the B.S. Asymmetry Principle, is an internet adage that emphasizes the effort of debunking misinformation, in comparison to the relative ease of creating it in the first place.  It states that the amount of energy needed to refute B.S. is an order of magnitude larger (that is, ten times larger) than is needed to produce it. -------- The Gish Gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person attempts to overwhelm their opponents by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.

The General Plan 2045 draft Environmental Impact Report was released to the public on January 29, 2024. The public comment period runs until March 18, 2024, 5 p.m. At 1,990 pages, this draft EIR is another example of the Gish Gallop -- lots of information, but not easy to find what is pertinent.

"You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of imagination. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition. You've just crossed over into... The Twilight Zone." Or crossed over to -- The Gateway Zone.

Margaret Chase Smith served in U.S. Congress for 33 years, from 1940 to 1973, both in the House and as a Senator. She was the first woman to run for the presidential nomination of a major political party. She was a strong supporter of the space program, increased educational funding, civil rights, and Medicare. Her words on TRUST may be useful while we are looking at the Gateway Area Plan and Arcata's General Plan.

Everyone knows the Iceberg Theory. What you see is only 10% of the iceberg. The rest of it is hidden underwater. That would be 90% that's unknown. The same is true of the Gateway Area Plan. How can anyone make a decision if 90% of what's necessary to make that decision is unknown? The answer is: You can't.

The agenda packet for the December 12, 2023, Planning Commission meeting involves numerous seeming violations of the Brown Act. This is a letter to the City Attorney asking for his opinions. Estimated reading time: 9 minutes; can easily be skimmed.

Reading time: 3 to 6 minutes -- Many Arcatans today worry that our city is losing its identity. Yet the core of that identity is not based on who among us owns a home and which of us may never own a home, or our background or our ethnicity. It is the ideals we share, the good we hold in common. -- From an essay by Robert Reich.

Reading time: 6 minutes -- Arcata's attempt at inclusion with the General Plan Update produced a report based on exactly 13 non-white people. This is shameful -- and doubly shameful that it is seen as acceptable. What in the world kind of "inclusion" is this? Couldn't there be additional outreach here?

Reading time: 12-15 minutes. The Brown Act requires our public officials to tell the whole story. Not part of the story -- the whole story. They are required to include all the facts, and not just that portion of the facts that they want to be brought to the open. The David Loya "Proposed Circulation" video contains misrepresentations, omissions of fact, misstatements, and downright falsehoods. As such, it is a blatant violation of California's Brown Act.

The "Other Considerations" table supposedly consists of a list of recommendations for changes to the draft Gateway Plan that were in conflict with the draft. The first table came out four months after the 2nd Gateway draft arrived, and contains only a small fraction of the comments from the City's Committees, from the public, and even from the Planning Commissioners that "do not comport" with the official viewpoints.

The City planners consider walking distance as an "as the crow flies" distance -- NOT a real-life walking distance. This a entire “10 minute walk” map is very misleading. It is a computer-drawn map with no regard to actually walking along a street. Yes, the Gateway area is close to town, and, yes, it is walking distance to many locations. But it is not true that “the Arcata sports complex is just within a 10-minute walk.” A person has to cross Highway 101 on 7th Street to get to the Sports Complex.

What happened at the April 11, 2023, Planning Commission meeting? The Chair first announced that there would be just a single period for public comment. Then, after a one-minute private discussion with David Loya, the Chair relented and allowed additional public comment at the conclusion of the main topic of the night. Video and transcription.

We don’t have to go far to uncover transparency issues. We can look right here at Arcata’s Gateway Plan. Crucial letters from the public about this plan have been hidden. They aren’t seen until after the meeting the letter was written for has passed. Do Arcatans want to see L Street — right next to the Creamery, where we come for festivals and fun — turned into a truck route? I don’t think so. Nor does Arcata’s Transportation Safety Committee. But that committee’s voice likewise has been ignored. --- California’s Brown Act: “The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.”

Based on what we've seen, our Community Development Department has an aversion to providing Executive Summaries and actually presenting fact-based conclusions for Arcata's decision-makers. Staff also seems to have an aversion to completing or finalizing ANYTHING. Both the "Strategic Infill Redevelopment Program:  Community Engagement Report (Draft)" -- submitted to the public on June 17, 2022 -- and the "City of Arcata Sea Level Rise Risk Assessment" report from April, 2018, are MISSING entirely their Executive Summaries -- even though those summaries are promoted as being part of the documents.

The Draft Gateway Plan pretends that there will be an increase in on-street parking in the Gateway area. In actuality, there will be 50% or so of current parking spaces. In some blocks, there will be less than 25% of what is there now.

If the Gateway Plan is not going to provide truly affordable housing for the people who need it, then what’s the point? --- If working people can’t buy a home and they can’t afford the rent, then we need to think this through more.

The joint City Council / Planning Commission study session introduced big problems when an elated City Council considered the Transportation Safety Committee's strong recommendation for an L Street Pathway and Linear Park and tossed it out the window -- well, sent it back to the TransSafetyComm for them to review. This presentation was the cause. Is it filled with misleading and possibly false information? Read it, and you decide.

A major component of the December 2021 draft Gateway Plan involves splitting the vehicle traffic on K Street and making a new L Street for the southbound traffic. Does the City have the rights-of-way to do this? Who knows?

It seems that the public is not receiving the information that is our right to receive, under the law. Why the public is not receiving this information is anyone's guess. And why a citizen feels the need to read the opening lines of the Brown Act Law indicates that much is wrong.

The "couplet" created by making K Street and L Street be one-way, one-lane streets seems unlikely to happen. And if it were to take place, the joyful humanity of the current L Street Pathway would be destroyed. Why does it seem that the City is not being forthcoming on this? Why aren't we presented with alternatives?

We've been promised to see Traffic Studies for getting close to a year. Do they exist? Have they been started? Can we see them? What is going on?

Arcata's Village project was stalled in public comment for almost 2 years. A year after it was eventually approved, the developers withdrew. What went wrong?