Anywho,
Would it not be more expedient to challenge the validity of the law on the Brown Act’s ground that Alex Stillman, by law, should have recused herself from voting due to the appearance of a conflict of financial interest in downtown properties? The vote was three to two with the allegedly illegal Stillman vote, without it, it would have been two to two, which, I believe, is not sufficient. Someone, please, correct me if I am wrong, here. I asserted this argument before the council on the night the ordinance was voted on (see video, the public comment part at the end) and other times on the Eye’s comment forums and I have never been rebutted.

Justice Kennard wrote in a unanimous decision that the public areas of LAX “are similar to shopping malls and railway stations,” but that “time, place, and manner restrictions on expressive activities in public forums are valid,” and “activities…that interfere with the legitimate interests of the airport management, arriving or departing passengers…need not be tolerated.”

Now the same could be said of the areas around ATM’s but on the street outside a retail store?
As a pedicab operator I solicit money for rides on the streets, is that begging?
Is that tolerated because I have license from the city?
What about the girl scouts that sat on the corner of the Plaza during the cookie drive?
What about the kids that hold car washes in the Outdoor Store parking lot?

I also see a LOT of folding sandwich board signs on the sidewalks here in town, Arcata land use code:
9.38.060 Prohibited Signs
(J.) A sign placed within a public right-of-way, except as provided by Subsection 9.38.070.D;
9.38.070 General Requirements for All Signs
D. Signs placed within the public right-of-way.

1. No sign shall be allowed in the public right-of-way except for:

a. Public signs erected by or on behalf of a governmental agency to convey public information, identify public property, post legal notices, or direct or regulate pedestrian or vehicular traffic;

b. Bus stop signs installed by a public transit company;

c. Informational signs of a public utility regarding lines, pipes, poles, or other facilities; or

d. Emergency warning signs installed by a governmental agency, a public utility company, or a contractor doing authorized work within the public right-of-way.

2. Any sign installed or placed within the public right-of-way other than in compliance with this Section shall be forfeited to the public and be subject to confiscation.

3. In addition to other remedies identified in Chapter 9.96 (Enforcement and Penalties), the City shall have the right to recover from the owner, or person placing the sign, the full costs related to the removal and disposal of the sign.

Now would someone (the police) please confiscate these signs, I am sick of having to push my baby stroller into the street to get around that freaking Catalyst church sign they put on the sidewalk every weekend.