<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Will Somebody PLEASE think of the Non-Profits&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thereporta.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=722" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thereporta.com/?p=722</link>
	<description>Redwood politics and culture, one story at a time</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:29:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reporta</title>
		<link>http://www.thereporta.com/?p=722&#038;cpage=1#comment-136</link>
		<dc:creator>Reporta</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:29:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thereporta.com/?p=722#comment-136</guid>
		<description>Simple: Creating a law that states you cannot engage in a constitutionally protected form of speech affects your right to free speech. Of course, that&#039;s general and there are exceptions as the courts of dictated. But other cities have tried to restrict panhandling to the degree Arcata is, and in many cases those laws were overturned for being unconstitutional. 

And yes, your vision of Arcata is enticing, but at what price? My strong opposition to this ordinance is not because I think there should be a free-for-all panhandling smorgasbord in town, but because it is too restrictive, will affect anyone asking for an object of value -- not just transients or the homeless -- and because the city essentially pushed this through despite many Arcatans either opposing it or being unaware of it. 

Much love bro</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Simple: Creating a law that states you cannot engage in a constitutionally protected form of speech affects your right to free speech. Of course, that&#8217;s general and there are exceptions as the courts of dictated. But other cities have tried to restrict panhandling to the degree Arcata is, and in many cases those laws were overturned for being unconstitutional. </p>
<p>And yes, your vision of Arcata is enticing, but at what price? My strong opposition to this ordinance is not because I think there should be a free-for-all panhandling smorgasbord in town, but because it is too restrictive, will affect anyone asking for an object of value &#8212; not just transients or the homeless &#8212; and because the city essentially pushed this through despite many Arcatans either opposing it or being unaware of it. </p>
<p>Much love bro</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Milo the Dissident</title>
		<link>http://www.thereporta.com/?p=722&#038;cpage=1#comment-133</link>
		<dc:creator>Milo the Dissident</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:14:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thereporta.com/?p=722#comment-133</guid>
		<description>Mr. Reporta,

What about this ordinance totally inhibits the first amendment of free speech or (as you pointed out) affects the majority of homeless people in our community?  As I read it, it only creates a more comfortable situation for legitimate commerce to commence.  Imagine an Arcata where where you don&#039;t get asked for your spare change every time you walk out of Arcata Liquor or CVS.  Dream of an Arcata when someone doesn&#039;t approach the girl you just took on a date for the leftovers she&#039;s carrying after a (till then) romantic evening at Jambalaya.  Or picture walking out of Toby and Jacks and actually not having someone hit you up for a cigarette that you paid hard earned money to enjoy the eventual health problems it will bring.  That&#039;s the Arcata I want to live, work, and play in.  I can see you have strong feelings against this motion, but I still don&#039;t really understand why, and I would very much like to.

Your Consummate Ally of Dissidence,

Mr. Anderson</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr. Reporta,</p>
<p>What about this ordinance totally inhibits the first amendment of free speech or (as you pointed out) affects the majority of homeless people in our community?  As I read it, it only creates a more comfortable situation for legitimate commerce to commence.  Imagine an Arcata where where you don&#8217;t get asked for your spare change every time you walk out of Arcata Liquor or CVS.  Dream of an Arcata when someone doesn&#8217;t approach the girl you just took on a date for the leftovers she&#8217;s carrying after a (till then) romantic evening at Jambalaya.  Or picture walking out of Toby and Jacks and actually not having someone hit you up for a cigarette that you paid hard earned money to enjoy the eventual health problems it will bring.  That&#8217;s the Arcata I want to live, work, and play in.  I can see you have strong feelings against this motion, but I still don&#8217;t really understand why, and I would very much like to.</p>
<p>Your Consummate Ally of Dissidence,</p>
<p>Mr. Anderson</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
