Mendocino Public Health once more revises shelter-in-place order; order to remain in place till May 10

Help us bring you the latest news

We depend on reader support to bring you up-to-the-minute, in-depth, useful news from across the county and Northern California. By making a contribution or becoming a member you're ensuring our continued ability to bring you the most useful news for all of Mendocino.

Contribute & become a member!

Thanks to our sponsor


3 thoughts on “Mendocino Public Health once more revises shelter-in-place order; order to remain in place till May 10

  1. If the County SIP cannot be less restrictive than the State of California’s order and if the State of California’s order does not exempt or authorize housing construction then how can the County order exempt it?

  2. One of the strengths of a free society is that one individual does not get to issue “orders” or decrees to the population according to their own whims. How interesting that despite all the propaganda we get from the corporate media about “our democracy,” the entirety of California (and most of the country) is under House Arrest on the “orders” of a handful of individuals, just like in any dictatorship, no vote or other semblance of consent of the governed, even of the Legislature.

    These “orders” are concocted according to personal whims, compliant with personally-valued social agendas. Besides the implicit suspension of the Bill of Rights, the “order” in question violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws. YOU (and I) are “required” to “shelter in place” (euphemism for house arrest) while there is an exemption for the homeless. If they have no place to “shelter in place,” and the government “authorities” deem it “necessary,” it’s their obligation to make it happen, at their expense. For example, we’ve got plenty of hotels/motels/B&Bs empty right now. Further, the “non-essential travel” bans are only applicable to we little folks, not the individual who issued the “order” nor the clique that backs her up.

    In short, to address your question, the Newsom’s “order” takes precedence over Doohan’s, legality or proprietary aside. The discrepancy is just an example of what I stated above.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *