Should Mayor Alex Stillman recuse herself?
Today is D-Day for the Panhandling Ordinance (Ordinance 1399). Either the Arcata City Council will defy logic and reason by enacting this ordinance, punishing the impoverished and fundraiser alike and surely wasting our tax dollars in a lawsuit that is sure to manifest from this, or the members will choose wisely by not rejecting the idea of tackling disrespectful and at times aggressive panhandling, but rejecting this ordinance which would do nothing to actually alleviate the problem.
All the arguments for and against this ordinance are out in the open, but one issue remains unclear, and ultimately, unspoken for: should Mayor Alex Stillman recuse herself from the vote due to potential conflict of interest?
Let’s look at what is known. According to the Humboldt County Assessor’s records, Alex Stillman owns, or co-owns, essentially one quarter of the Plaza in real estate through her trust (the Stillman Building that runs down H St. between 8th and 9th St – think Luke’s Joint). She also has a registered business there called Plaza View and Terrance View Stay, where she rents out luxurious suites starting at $169 a night that overlooks the Plaza.
Now, under California’s Political Reform Act, an elected official who is about to vote on an issue where they have a “conflict of interest” must identify that interest and recuse themselves, meaning they are not allowed to vote on the matter. There are many different conflicts of interest that an elected official must consider when making a vote, but one of them is, obviously, financial.
In the case of Alex Stillman, under 87103 of the PRA she meets at least one criteria for a conflict of interest for sure — a direct or indirect investment in real estate of $2,000 or more — and probably two others: a business investment of at least $2,000 and a source of income of at least $500 within 12 months of said decision being made.
A further indication that a conflict of interest does exist is that Mayor Stillman recently recused herself from a vote on whether to lift the meal restrictions on the Endeavor back in January. Although she didn’t define her conflict at the meeting, it can be rationalized that the proximity of the real estate she owns to the Endeavor, and the possible benefit she would gain by reducing the presence of street folk if the restrictions stayed in place, necessitated her to take that action.
So what makes this panhandling ordinance different? Semantics. With the meal restrictions vote, it was a specific location, i.e. the Endeavor, as opposed to this ordinance, which is city-wide. The problem here is that all the conversation by the council on the matter has focused specifically on the Plaza or Downtown area. Even if the wording of the ordinance doesn’t specify a particular location, the council is crystal clear on what areas this ordinance would impact. And the fact that Mayor Stillman has recused herself in the past shows that conflict does exist going into this vote.
With the blanket restrictions on panhandling defined in this ordinance, there is no doubt that Mayor Stillman would financially benefit from it, since a stated goal based on what was discussed at the March 3 meeting was to create a situation where everyone could enjoy Downtown and other areas of town without the burden of dealing with the street folk begging for change or being intimidating by their presence. Such a situation would bring more customers to businesses there, and if Mayor Stillman not only has a business of her own there but also owns the building where her tenants are more secure with more business, then it stands to reason she would benefit either directly or indirectly.
I’m not saying that Mayor Stillman has some diabolical plan to financially benefit from this ordinance. I’m just saying that the law is the law, right? And if the majority of this council expects the community to follow the law, they themselves should set an example.
We will see what manifests at this meeting, but I have a feeling she won’t recuse herself, probably at the advice of the city attorney, which could come back to bite her one day. Perception is everything. Dancing around technicalities is not going to earn one better standing in the eyes of some in this community. Mayor Stillman should seriously consider the conflict she has going into this vote.
You’re right John, it seems a conflict of interest. However, you’re right – perception is the issue. Since this is a city-wide ordinance, she is not exempt from the vote. Yes, they’re referring to the Plaza as the main area in question, but it does involve the whole city. She stepped out of the vote regarding the Endeavor because it was a single entity within 1,000 feet from her business interest. Legally, she does not have to step out of the vote tonight.
Back to perception: aside from all that, yes, this law does not address the real problem. John, you may think it’s ok, (and a right) to give handouts to the homeless, but how about making it ok for people to NOT give money or food to the homeless?
If this law is not addressing the real problem, then neither is being a “good samaritan.” Perhaps the city should empower its residents to “just say no.” Perhaps the homeless network’s perception of Arcata will change, and the city wouldn’t have to step in and tell us what’s ok. Jeanne(Quote) (Reply)
http://www.portlandonline.com/phb/index.cfm?c=30140
A program within the City of Portland, to address homelessness at the roots of the problem. Jeanne(Quote) (Reply)
It would have been nice if Alex Stillman recused herself.
Perceptions. Right now my confidence in the city council is at an all-time low. How can they be protecting the interests of the City if they don’t even know what the ordinance is about? And then they voted to pass it? Scary.
BTW, the Endeavor changed its name almost a year ago to the North Coast Resource Center to signal a regional approach to the contributing factors of poverty–and to change the community’s perception.
Perceptions. People think the Endeavor enables people to stay in poverty and is the reason why there are folks panhandling or loitering on the plaza.
Fact: in the last 2 years the NCRC has seen over 80 clients find employment through their Back to Basics work-readiness program.
Fact: in the past few months the NCRC has stopped almost 60 evictions and 40 homeless folks have moved into homes through Obama’s rapid rehousing program. All these people will be followed for success for 18 months–adding stability.
Fact: the North Coast Resource Center has seriously taken on the recommendations of the $30,000 Baron Report that was paid for by the City of Arcata to look at solutions for our homeless population. The only recommendation the City has followed is to put pressure on the NCRC to move out of the ASC (Arcata). All the while convincing the community that this organization is doing something wrong–like attracting homeless folks to Arcata.
Perceptions: I know the council did some studying on ordinances. I don’t think they did much studying on solutions. Wendy(Quote) (Reply)
Excellent blog post! I wish I still lived in Arcata and I could really do something about this. I’m glad you’re following it! Melody Stone(Quote) (Reply)