From: Crystal Henso
To: City Manager"s Office
Subject: formal objections on the official record regarding Ordinance No. 1593 Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2026 9:02:15 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
For distribution before today’s Arcata city council meeting regarding formal objections on the official public record regarding Ordinance No. 1593..
August 19, 2026
To Arcata City Manager and Arcata City Council,
I am writing to place my formal objections on the official record regarding Ordinance No. 1593.
This ordinance introduces vague, subjective definitions that grant unbridled personal discretion to enforcement officials, directly inviting inequitable and selective enforcement. Rather than serving public safety, this expansion of power functions as a punitive mechanism to pressure independent operators out of Arcata and clear the path for favored commercial developers.
The ordinance dismantles fundamental due process and fairness through several excessive provisions:
Subjective and Arbitrary Discretion (Section 5501.H.7): The code empowers enforcement officials to label structures as nuisances based purely on their own discretionary judgment regarding "dilapidation" or "security problems." This opens the door wide to selective targeting while identical conditions elsewhere go ignored.
Vague Aesthetic Standards (Section 5501.H): Classifying broad, subjective concepts of "visual blight," rubbish, or storage materials as public nuisances gives the city a blank check to penalize normal business operations under the guise of aesthetics.
Punitive Financial Asymmetry (Section 5515.C): Allowing the City to recover attorney’s fees creates an intimidating financial barrier that deters small businesses and property owners from mounting valid administrative defenses against arbitrary enforcement.
Bypassing Accountable Adjudication: Shifting final administrative enforcement and hearing powers directly through the City Manager's office removes independent oversight and public accountability.
An administrative code must protect public safety through clear, predictable rules—not serve as a tool to clear the runway for politically aligned real estate transitions.
I urge the Council to reject this ambiguous expansion of arbitrary enforcement power.
Regards,
Crystal Henson
Owner and Operator, Creamery District Storage