ReportWire

Tag: gavin newsom

  • At least 2,000 people arrested at pro-Palestinian protests on US campuses, AP tally shows

    At least 2,000 people arrested at pro-Palestinian protests on US campuses, AP tally shows

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES – At least 200 people were arrested at UCLA Thursday, bringing the nationwide total of arrests to more than 2,000 at dozens of college campuses since police cleared an encampment at Columbia University in mid-April, according to a tally by The Associated Press.

    Demonstrations — and arrests — have occurred in almost every corner of the nation. But in the last 24 hours, they’ve drawn the most attention at the University of California, Los Angeles, where chaotic scenes played out early Thursday as officers in riot gear surged against a crowd of demonstrators.

    The nationwide campus demonstrations began at Columbia on April 17 to protest Israel’s offensive in Gaza, following Hamas’ deadly attack on southern Israel on Oct. 7. Militants killed about 1,200 people, most of them civilians, and took roughly 250 hostages. Vowing to stamp out Hamas, Israel has killed more than 34,000 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, according to the Health Ministry there.

    THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP’s earlier story follows below.

    Police arrested pro-Palestinian protesters on college campuses across the country overnight, notably at the University of California, Los Angeles, where chaotic scenes played out early Thursday as officers in riot gear surged against a crowd of demonstrators.

    Police removed barricades and began dismantling demonstrators’ fortified encampment at UCLA after hundreds of protesters defied orders to leave, some forming human chains as police fired flash-bangs to break up the crowds.

    At least 132 people were arrested at UCLA, said Sgt. Alejandro Rubio of the California Highway Patrol. Rubio said the arrestees were being booked at the county jails complex near downtown Los Angeles. UCLA police will determine what if any charges to seek.

    Workers entered the former encampment site Thursday morning and began an extensive cleanup. Bulldozers scooped up bags of trash and dismantled tents. Some buildings were covered in graffiti.

    The arrests came after officers spent hours threatening arrests over loudspeakers if people did not disperse. A crowd of more than 1,000 had gathered on campus, including inside a barricaded tent encampment. Protesters and police shoved and scuffled as officers encountered resistance. Video showed police pulling off protesters’ helmets and goggles as they were detained.

    With police helicopters hovering, the sound of flash-bangs — which produce a bright light and a loud noise to disorient and stun — pierced the air. Protesters chanted at the officers, “Where were you last night?” Late Tuesday, counterprotesters attack the encampment and the UCLA administration and campus police took hours to respond.

    Tent encampments of protesters calling on universities to stop doing business with Israel or companies they say support the war in Gaza have spread across campuses nationwide in a student movement unlike any other this century. The ensuing police crackdowns echoed actions decades ago against a much larger protest movement protesting the Vietnam War.

    Demonstrations — and arrests — have occurred in almost every corner of the nation. At least 1,945 people have been arrested since the protests began at Columbia University in New York on April 18.

    They included a college professor from Illinois who said he suffered multiple broken ribs and a broken hand during a pro-Palestine protest on Saturday at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri.

    Bystander video shows the arrest of Steve Tamari, a history professor at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. He seems to be moving in to take video or photos of protesters being detained when multiple officers roughly take him down.

    Tamari said in a statement Thursday that it was “a small price to pay for Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza.”

    Officials at New York’s Stony Brook University on Long Island said 29 people were arrested early Thursday morning, including students, faculty members and others “from outside our campus community.” In New York City, Fordham University officials said 15 people were arrested after pushing inside the lobby of a building on the school’s campus at Lincoln Center.

    NYPD late Wednesday arrested 15 people for misdemeanor trespassing late Wednesday after several dozen people pushed inside the lobby of the Lowenstein building at Fordham University’s campus at Lincoln Center.

    Seventeen people were arrested on criminal trespass charges Wednesday at the University of Texas at Dallas after demonstrators refused to comply with law enforcement orders to remove an encampment from the school’s main walkway, a university spokeswoman said in a statement Thursday.

    Yale University police arrested four people, including two students, Wednesday night after around 200 demonstrators marched to the school president’s home and the campus police department, school officials said. Protesters ignored repeated warnings that they cannot occupy parts of campus without permission, school officials said in a statement Thursday.

    The protest group Occupy Yale said campus police were violent during the arrests and did not issue warnings. The group posted a video on Instagram showing officers taking one person to the ground and pinning another to a sidewalk.

    “A peaceful protest,” Occupy Yale said. “Police officers seized, pushed, and brutalized people. Is this what you call keeping campus safe?”

    In Oregon, police began to clear pro-Palestinian rights demonstrators out of the Millar Library at Portland State University, which they have been occupying since Monday.

    They spray-painted graffiti inside and knocked over or piled up furniture to create barricades. Portland State said on social media Thursday that campus would remain closed because of the police activity.

    University President Ann Cudd said Wednesday that about 50 protesters vacated the library after administrators promised not to seek criminal charges, expulsion or other discipline if they left peacefully, but others — including non-students — remained. Portland police said Thursday that 15 police vehicles were set on fire overnight; it was not immediately clear if that was related to the protest.

    University of Minnesota officials meanwhile reached agreement with protesters to end an encampment on the Minneapolis campus. Interim President Jeff Ettinger said in an email Thursday to the campus community that protesters agreed not to disrupt final exams or commencement ceremonies. That followed similar agreements at Northwestern University in suburban Chicago and Brown University in Rhode Island.

    Meanwhile, Florida’s state university chancellor has ordered campus presidents to take whatever steps necessary to prevent disruption of graduation ceremonies, including at large schools such as the University of Florida and Florida State University.

    Protests also sprung up off campuses. In Albuquerque on Thursday, about two dozen protesters sat in the middle of a roadway blocking access to a main gate at Kirtland Air Force Base. The group waved flags and vowed to “shut everything down” over the ongoing war in Gaza.

    The protests at UCLA appeared to be getting the most attention. Iranian state television carried live images of the police action, as did Qatar’s pan-Arab Al Jazeera satellite network. Live images of Los Angeles also played across Israeli television networks.

    President Joe Biden on Thursday defended the students’ right to peaceful protest but decried the disorder of recent days.

    Israel has branded the protests antisemitic, while Israel’s critics say it uses those allegations to silence opposition. Although some protesters have been caught on camera making antisemitic remarks or violent threats, protest organizers — some of whom are Jewish — call it a peaceful movement to defend Palestinian rights and protest the war.

    California Highway Patrol officers poured into the UCLA campus by the hundreds early Thursday. Wearing face shields and protective vests, they held their batons out to separate them from demonstrators, who wore helmets and gas masks and chanted: “You want peace. We want justice.”

    Police methodically ripped apart the encampment’s barricade of plywood, pallets, metal fences and dumpsters, then pulled down dozens of canopies and tents. The number of protesters diminished through the morning, some leaving voluntarily with their hands up and others detained by police.

    The law enforcement presence and continued warnings contrasted with the scene Tuesday night, when counterdemonstrators attacked the pro-Palestinian encampment, throwing traffic cones, releasing pepper spray and tearing down barriers. Fighting between the two sides continued for hours before police stepped in. No one was arrested, but at least 15 protesters were injured. Authorities’ tepid response drew criticism from political leaders, Muslim students and advocacy groups.

    By Wednesday afternoon, a small city sprang up inside the reenforced encampment, with hundreds of people and tents on the quad. Demonstrators rebuilt the makeshift barriers around their tents while state and campus police watched.

    Some protesters said Muslim prayers as the sun set, while others chanted “we’re not leaving” or passed out goggles and surgical masks. They wore helmets and headscarves, and discussed the best ways to handle pepper spray or tear gas as someone sang over a megaphone.

    Outside the encampment, a crowd of students, alumni and neighbors gathered on campus steps, joining in pro-Palestinian chants. A group of students holding signs and wearing T-shirts in support of Israel and Jewish people demonstrated nearby.

    The crowd grew as the night wore on as more and more officers poured onto campus.

    Ray Wiliani, who lives nearby, said he came to UCLA on Wednesday evening to support the pro-Palestinian demonstrators.

    “We need to take a stand for it,” he said. “Enough is enough.”

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom denounced the delayed law enforcement response on Tuesday and UCLA Chancellor Gene Block promised an investigation. The head of the University of California system, Michael Drake, ordered an “independent review of the university’s planning, its actions and the response by law enforcement.”

    “The community needs to feel the police are protecting them, not enabling others to harm them,” Rebecca Husaini, chief of staff for the Muslim Public Affairs Council, said during a news conference Wednesday.

    Meanwhile, police cleared protest encampments at schools across the U.S., resulting in arrests, or were closed up voluntarily. In New York, those included the City College of New York, Fordham University, Stony Brook University and the University of Buffalo. Others nationwide included the University of New Hampshire in Durham, Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, and Tulane University in New Orleans.

    On Tuesday night, police burst into a building occupied by war protesters at Columbia University, breaking up a demonstration that had paralyzed the school.

    Columbia’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors condemned the school’s leadership on Thursday for asking New York police to remove the protesters. The chapter said “the horrific police attack on our students” is now “shamefully on view for the whole world to see.”

    At the University of Wisconsin in Madison, a scrum broke out early Wednesday after police with shields removed all but one tent and shoved protesters. Four officers were injured. Four people were charged with battering law enforcement.

    The nationwide campus demonstrations began at Columbia on April 17 to protest Israel’s offensive in Gaza, following Hamas’ deadly attack on southern Israel on Oct. 7. Militants killed about 1,200 people, most of them civilians, and took roughly 250 hostages. Vowing to stamp out Hamas, Israel has killed more than 34,000 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, according to the Health Ministry there.

    U.S. college campuses have become a flashpoint, with school leaders facing intense scrutiny over their handling of allegations of antisemitism and the right to free speech. The presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania resigned following questions at a congressional hearing about whether calls on campus for the genocide of Jews would violate the school’s conduct policy.

    ___

    Offenhartz and Frederick reported from New York. Associated Press journalists around the country contributed to this report, including Julie Watson, Krysta Fauria, John Antczak, Christopher L. Keller, Lisa Baumann, Stefanie Dazio, Jae C. Hong, Colleen Long, Karen Matthews, Sarah Brumfield, Carolyn Thompson, Philip Marcelo, Steve Karnowski and Eugene Johnson.

    Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

    [ad_2]

    Krysta Fauria, Ethan Swope, Jake Offenhartz And Joseph B. Frederick, Associated Press

    Source link

  • State estimates California’s population grew in 2023, halting 3 years of decline

    State estimates California’s population grew in 2023, halting 3 years of decline

    [ad_1]

    The nation’s most populous state is growing again, ending a trend of population decline that had dogged Gov. Gavin Newsom through much of his tenure.

    California gained just over 67,000 people last year, the first increase since 2019, according to an estimate released Tuesday by the state Department of Finance.

    After joining the United States in 1850 on the heels of a gold rush, California was a demographic marvel for its first 169 years — adding population every year as people flocked to the Golden State for its stunning terrain, weather and super-sized economy, which is larger than those of all but four countries.

    That streak ended in 2020, when California lost population for the first time during a pivotal census year that led to the state losing a congressional seat. Newsom’s partisan critics said the state’s high cost of living, uncertain power supply, a housing and homelessness crisis and concerns about crime were partly to blame. For a two-year period, Californians moving to Texas made up the largest state-to-state movement in the U.S., according to U.S. Census data — a fact often shared by Republicans eager to slam Newsom.

    But the Democratic governor, who is widely considered a future presidential candidate, had reason to celebrate Tuesday, as state estimates showed a return to the formula that has powered California’s growth in recent years: A strong influx of legal international immigration, fewer deaths following the coronavirus pandemic and a reduction in the number of people leaving California for other states.

    “People from across the nation and the globe are coming to the Golden State to pursue the California Dream and experience the success of the world’s 5th largest economy,” Newsom said in a news release.

    Tuesday’s estimate — representing a 0.17% growth rate — can hardly be called a surge. But state officials were confident that it signaled a return to more normal population patterns after years of pandemic disruption.

    Legal immigration to California from other countries stalled during and just before the coronavirus pandemic amid a spate of travel restrictions and tightened rules under then-President Donald Trump. It rebounded last year, though, with a net gain of 114,200 people, which was nearly its pre-pandemic level.

    State officials called it “a stable foundation for continued growth” — although that growth will likely be a lot smaller than it had been, said Eric McGhee, senior fellow for the Public Policy Institute of California.

    “It’s going to be better for the state in terms of its total population,” McGhee said. “It would still, at this rate, not be enough to probably avoid losing more congressional districts in the 2030 census.”

    More people still left California for other states in 2023 than moved to California from other states, but it was far less than previous years.

    In 2021 — when coronavirus cases were still surging and more people were working remotely — California lost a net 355,648 people because of domestic migration. In 2023, that was down to 91,189. That’s much closer to pre-pandemic trends, according to Walter Schwarm, chief demographer for the California Department of Finance.

    “The governor bragging about that is sort of like the guy who lost thousands of dollars at the casino last night bragging about being up 20 bucks at the blackjack table,” said James Gallagher, the Republican leader in the state Assembly. “I don’t understand why the governor and the Democratic supermajority just continue to turn a blind eye to it. They sort of act like nothing’s wrong when there is a lot wrong.”

    It’s still expensive to live in California, where gas prices, utility bills and housing costs are among the highest in the country. The state’s homelessness problem has only worsened despite billions of dollars that the Legislature has thrown at it. California is in the middle of consecutive multibillion-dollar budget deficits.

    Newsom has been taking steps to address the state’s cost of living. Last week, his administration voted to limit health care cost increases statewide by 3% each year to try and rein in the ever-increasing cost of medical expenses. On Monday, he announced a partnership to sell a generic version of Narcan — the drug that can save a person’s life during an opioid overdose — at a 40% discount of the market rate.

    Population estimates are tricky, as they rely on a range of statistics while trying to make a good guess of how many people are in one place at one time. An estimate released in Decembe r by the U.S. Census Bureau said California’s population fell by 75,000 residents in 2023.

    But those estimates were targeting different points in time. The U.S. Census Bureau’s estimate was for July 1, 2023. The California Department of Finance’s estimate was for Jan. 1, 2024.

    The state’s estimate was based on a number of factors, including births and deaths, driver’s license address changes, vehicle registration, and enrollment in the government-funded health insurance programs of Medicaid and Medicare.

    [ad_2]

    CBS San Francisco

    Source link

  • California joining with N.J. company to buy generic opioid overdose reversal drug Narcan

    California joining with N.J. company to buy generic opioid overdose reversal drug Narcan

    [ad_1]

    California is partnering with a New Jersey-based pharmaceutical company to purchase a generic version of Narcan, the drug that can save someone’s life during an opioid overdose, under a deal announced Monday by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom.

    Amneal Pharmaceuticals will sell naloxone to California for $24 per pack, or about 40% cheaper than the market rate. California will give away the packs for free to first responders, universities and community organizations through the state’s Naloxone Distribution Project.

    The deal is significant because it means California will be able to buy a lot more naloxone — 3.2 million packs in one year instead of 2 million — for the same total cost.

    The deal means naloxone eventually will be available under the CalRx label. Newsom first proposed CalRx back in 2019 as an attempt to force drug companies to lower their prices by offering much cheaper, competing versions of life-saving medication. He signed a law in 2020 giving the authority to the state.

    California governments and businesses will be able to purchase naloxone outside of the Naloxone Distribution Project, the Newsom administration said, adding the state is working on a plan to make it available for sale to individuals.

    “California is disrupting the drug industry with CalRx — securing life-saving drugs at lower and transparent prices,” Newsom said in an statement provided by his office.

    Naloxone has been available in the U.S. without a prescription since March of 2023, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Narcan, a nasal spray brand produced by the Maryland-based pharmaceutical company Emergent BioSolutions.

    Amneal Pharmaceuticals makes a generic equivalent to Narcan that won FDA approval last week.

    The naloxone packs purchased by California initially will be available under the Amneal label. The naloxone will move to the CalRx label once its approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a process the Newsom administration said could take several months.

    Opioid overdose deaths, which are caused by heroin, fentanyl and oxycodone, have increased dramatically in California and across the country. Annual opioid overdose deaths in California more than doubled since 2019, reaching 7,385 deaths at the end of 2022.

    California began giving away naloxone kits for free in 2018. State officials say the Naloxone Distribution Project has given out 4.1 million kits, which have reversed a reported 260,000 opioid overdoses. The money has come from taxpayers and portions of a nationwide settlement agreement with some other pharmaceutical companies.

    Last year, California lawmakers agreed to spend $30 million to partner with a drug company to make its own version of naloxone. But they ended up not needing to spend that money on this deal, since Amneal Pharmaceutical was already so far along in the FDA approval process it did not require up-front funding from the state.

    Instead, California will use a portion of the revenue it receives from a national opioid settlement to purchase the drugs.

    Naloxone is just one drug the Newsom administration is targeting.

    Last year, California signed a 10-year agreement with the nonprofit Civica to produce CalRx branded insulin, which is used to treat diabetes. California has set aside $100 million for that project, with $50 million to develop the drugs and the rest set aside to invest in a manufacturing facility. Newsom said a 10 milliliter vial of state-branded insulin would sell for $30.

    Civica has been meeting with the FDA and “has a clear path forward,” the Newsom administration said.

    [ad_2]

    CBS San Francisco

    Source link

  • Gov. Newsom signals support for bill targeting consumers of child sex trafficking industry

    Gov. Newsom signals support for bill targeting consumers of child sex trafficking industry

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday signaled his support for a proposal targeting the consumers of child sex trafficking in California, but he suggested he has concerns about changes that were abruptly made to the proposal this week. “I look forward to getting this bill on my desk in a way that I’ll sign it, but we have some work to do,” Newsom said in response to a KCRA 3 question on the proposal. Republican State Senator Shannon Grove introduced the proposal, SB 1414 this year after successfully passing legislation that made child sex trafficking a serious felony in the state last year. The governor intervened when a committee in the Assembly tried to block that bill, SB 14, last summer. Grove said the work last year, she learned buyers typically face lesser, misdemeanor penalties, which prompted her to propose SB 1414, which would make the purchase of a child for sex a felony. Grove’s original proposal also required those convicted to register as sex offenders for a decade and would have removed the requirement in state law that those convicted of soliciting a minor knew or should have known that person was a minor. During negotiations ahead of the bill’s first hearing in the Senate Public Safety committee, Grove agreed to require sex offender registration once someone has committed the crime twice and leave the requirement in state law that those convicted knew or should have known the person they were soliciting was a minor. The one change she refused to agree to was to allow the crime to remain a felony for the purchase of 16- and 17-year-olds. On Tuesday, against her will, the Senate Public Safety committee publicly made the change, excluding 16- and 17-year-olds in the bill’s definition of a child. Legislative observers note these are considered “hostile amendments,” a rare move made by committees to forcibly change proposals when the author of the bill does not want them. “I deeply appreciate the direction that Senator Grove is going and I’m mindful that those three amendments, one in particular that there’s some work to do,” Newsom told reporters on Thursday. “I’m going to continue to fight for California’s children,” Grove told KCRA 3 on Thursday.She had been weighing her options on how or even if she would move forward with the proposal that she said now includes language she does not support. “We are regrouped now; we are focusing on how we can try to undo something that they did to us that was horrific to us in public safety, ” said Grove. Democratic State Senator Aisha Wahab stood by the changes and said they were key to keeping the bill alive. Wahab noted that previous, similar proposals have failed in the state’s Democratic-led Legislature since 2014. “We have to have harsh penalties against anybody who violates a child first and foremost,” Wahab said, noting she supported Grove’s proposal last year to ramp up penalties for child sex trafficking. “There are already current federal laws and state laws that protect children in this arena, I don’t want to conflate the issue that has been conflated,” Wahab said, who said the law needs to strike the right balance noting solicitation can be delicate. “Solicitation is not trafficking. Solicitation is not prostitution. Solicitation is a verbal request of an action in exchange for money that is usually sexual in nature.” Wahab and Democratic Senators Nancy Skinner and Scott Wiener had concerns about how broad the bill had been written, with concerns it could criminalize older teens and young adults for potentially consensual relationships. “I think this is an important bill to continue moving forward through the legislature.” Skinner was unavailable for an interview on Wednesday and Thursday. In a prepared statement she said, “Last year, the Senate Public Safety Committee passed, and the governor signed into law, new felony, three-strikes penalties for anyone who sex traffics a child. Senator Grove’s current bill deals with verbal exchanges, not sexual acts.” “It is already a crime for any adult to solicit sex with a minor; the amended bill we adopted includes stronger criminal penalties if the minor is under 16. Every legislator knows that amendments are part of the process. California has and will continue to enforce severe penalties for sexual acts against children, and of course, human trafficking,” Skinner said. The proposal still faces several steps in the legislative process. Its next stop is in the Senate Appropriations Committee. A hearing is not yet scheduled.

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. —

    Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday signaled his support for a proposal targeting the consumers of child sex trafficking in California, but he suggested he has concerns about changes that were abruptly made to the proposal this week.

    “I look forward to getting this bill on my desk in a way that I’ll sign it, but we have some work to do,” Newsom said in response to a KCRA 3 question on the proposal.

    Republican State Senator Shannon Grove introduced the proposal, SB 1414 this year after successfully passing legislation that made child sex trafficking a serious felony in the state last year. The governor intervened when a committee in the Assembly tried to block that bill, SB 14, last summer.

    Grove said the work last year, she learned buyers typically face lesser, misdemeanor penalties, which prompted her to propose SB 1414, which would make the purchase of a child for sex a felony.

    Grove’s original proposal also required those convicted to register as sex offenders for a decade and would have removed the requirement in state law that those convicted of soliciting a minor knew or should have known that person was a minor.

    During negotiations ahead of the bill’s first hearing in the Senate Public Safety committee, Grove agreed to require sex offender registration once someone has committed the crime twice and leave the requirement in state law that those convicted knew or should have known the person they were soliciting was a minor. The one change she refused to agree to was to allow the crime to remain a felony for the purchase of 16- and 17-year-olds.

    On Tuesday, against her will, the Senate Public Safety committee publicly made the change, excluding 16- and 17-year-olds in the bill’s definition of a child. Legislative observers note these are considered “hostile amendments,” a rare move made by committees to forcibly change proposals when the author of the bill does not want them.

    “I deeply appreciate the direction that Senator Grove is going and I’m mindful that those three amendments, one in particular that there’s some work to do,” Newsom told reporters on Thursday.

    “I’m going to continue to fight for California’s children,” Grove told KCRA 3 on Thursday.

    She had been weighing her options on how or even if she would move forward with the proposal that she said now includes language she does not support.

    “We are regrouped now; we are focusing on how we can try to undo something that they did to us that was horrific to us in public safety, ” said Grove.

    Democratic State Senator Aisha Wahab stood by the changes and said they were key to keeping the bill alive. Wahab noted that previous, similar proposals have failed in the state’s Democratic-led Legislature since 2014.

    “We have to have harsh penalties against anybody who violates a child first and foremost,” Wahab said, noting she supported Grove’s proposal last year to ramp up penalties for child sex trafficking.

    “There are already current federal laws and state laws that protect children in this arena, I don’t want to conflate the issue that has been conflated,” Wahab said, who said the law needs to strike the right balance noting solicitation can be delicate. “Solicitation is not trafficking. Solicitation is not prostitution. Solicitation is a verbal request of an action in exchange for money that is usually sexual in nature.”

    Wahab and Democratic Senators Nancy Skinner and Scott Wiener had concerns about how broad the bill had been written, with concerns it could criminalize older teens and young adults for potentially consensual relationships.

    “I think this is an important bill to continue moving forward through the legislature.”

    Skinner was unavailable for an interview on Wednesday and Thursday. In a prepared statement she said, “Last year, the Senate Public Safety Committee passed, and the governor signed into law, new felony, three-strikes penalties for anyone who sex traffics a child. Senator Grove’s current bill deals with verbal exchanges, not sexual acts.”

    “It is already a crime for any adult to solicit sex with a minor; the amended bill we adopted includes stronger criminal penalties if the minor is under 16. Every legislator knows that amendments are part of the process. California has and will continue to enforce severe penalties for sexual acts against children, and of course, human trafficking,” Skinner said.

    The proposal still faces several steps in the legislative process. Its next stop is in the Senate Appropriations Committee. A hearing is not yet scheduled.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Gov. Newsom calls for ceasefire in Gaza

    Gov. Newsom calls for ceasefire in Gaza

    [ad_1]

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom is pushing for a ceasefire in Gaza.

    Newsom wrote an open letter to California’s Muslim, Palestinian American and Arab American communities. He also posted a link to the letter on social media on Thursday.

    In the letter, Newsom said that he supports President Joe Biden’s call for a ceasefire as part of a deal to secure desperately needed relief for Gazan civilians and the release of hostages.

    The letter comes just one day before the U.S. plans to ask the UN Security Council to back a resolution.

    Newsom said in part, “It is time to work in earnest toward an enduring peace that will furnish the lasting security, autonomy, and freedom that the Palestinians and the Israeli people both deserve.”

    [ad_2]

    NBC Bay Area staff

    Source link

  • California voters approve Prop. 1, ballot measure aimed at tackling homeless crisis

    California voters approve Prop. 1, ballot measure aimed at tackling homeless crisis

    [ad_1]

    A statewide ballot measure aimed at overhauling California’s mental health care system, primarily through the issuance of nearly $6.4 billion in bonds, has been approved by voters.

    Proposition 1 is a two-pronged measure backed heavily by Gov. Gavin Newsom and a host of Southland elected officials, including Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and county Supervisors Hilda Solis and Janice Hahn. Backers of the measure say that it will dramatically increase access to treatment beds and supportive housing, but opponents claim it would slash funding for already successful programs. 

    It took more than two weeks for the vote tallying process to be completed, with the officials results being announced on Wednesday. 

    County officials across California will now be required to redirect money to create drug and mental health treatment beds and bolster their response to lessen the homeless issue that many major cities face.

    According to Newsom’s office, the proposition is slated to create 11,150 behavioral health treatment beds across the state, along with housing and 26,700 outpatient treatment slots. Roughly $1 billion of the bond measure is earmarked specifically for veterans. 

    “This is the biggest change in decades in how California tackles homelessness, and a victory for doing things radically different,” Gov. Newsom said in a statement. “Now, counties and local officials must match the ambition of California voters. This historic reform will only succeed if we all kick into action immediately – state government and local leaders, together.”

    What happens now that Prop. 1 passed?

    Since Proposition 1 is a bond measure, there will be no immediate impact on taxes. However, California is now slated to take on the new debt proposed in the measure — $6.4 billion — and pay it back with interest.

    Additionally, counties will now be required to change some of their mental health care and drug or alcohol treatment services, shifting some of the focus to housing and personalized support services. 

    The money for Proposition 1 will come in two methods, primarily the issuance of $6.38 billion in bonds and also through a re-apportionment of funds generated by the Mental Health Services Act, which was passed by California voters in 2004, and it imposed a 1% income tax on people earning more than $1 million per year. Funds from that measure are largely directed to counties for mental health programs, but Proposition 1 would give the state control over much of the funding. 

    The Associated Press suggests that annual revenue from the tax runs between $2 billion and $3 billion a year, providing one-third of the state’s mental health budget. 

    Counties will be required to spend around two-thirds of the funds on housing and homeless outreach programs for people with serious mental health illness or substance abuse problems. 

    The bill also authorizes California to borrow more than $6 billion to build 4,350 housing units. Half of the units would be reserved for veterans and add nearly 7,000 mental health and addiction treatment beds. 

    Dean Fioresi

    Dean Fioresi is a web producer at KCAL News in Los Angeles. He covers breaking news throughout Southern California. When he’s not writing about local events, he enjoys focusing on sports and entertainment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Adam Schiff’s Victory Speech Hijacked By Anti-Gaza War Protesters; Republican Steve Garvey Locks In Second Place For CA Senate Run-Off In November – Update

    Adam Schiff’s Victory Speech Hijacked By Anti-Gaza War Protesters; Republican Steve Garvey Locks In Second Place For CA Senate Run-Off In November – Update

    [ad_1]

    (Updated with more results & Super Tuesday details) The Congressman from Hollywood is one big step closer to becoming the Golden State’s junior Senator, but saw up-close this Super Tuesday some of the visceral challenges Democrats face from their own base.

    In the double header that is California’s primary this Super Tuesday, Adam Schiff secured the top spot with just under 40% of the vote in. NBC News and the Associated Press called it for Schiff just over 30 minutes after the polls closed in the nation’s most populous state.

    Not that night was all balloon drops and victory dances for the veteran Congressman.

    Dozens of protesters chanting “ceasefire now” over the worsening situation in Gaza made it near impossible for Schiff to get though his speech to supporters at Avalon on LA’s Vine Street.

    As security attempted to remove the protesters, Schiff at first tried to make their presence a sign of democracy’s strength, but their sheer numbers overwhelmed the Congressman and his Hollywood victory party. Likely forcing a shorter speech than the gregarious politician intended, the incursion by the protesters exemplifies the backlash that Democrats — from President Joe Biden to down ticket races — face as an end to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza remains elusive.

    Protesters disrupt Democratic Senate candidate U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) as he speaks during his primary election night partty at The Avalon in LA // Credit: Getty

    Representing Burbank for over 20 years, Schiff is running for the seat that the late Dianne Feinstein held since 1992 until her death last September. With his district encompassing Disney, Warner Bros. and more, cable news regular Schiff has garnered support in the race from high profile fans such as Nancy Pelosi, Jon Hamm, ex-Senator Barbara Boxer and Billy Crystal.

    For a while it looked like the battle zone would shift to second place race. Would Schiff face fellow Democrat Kate Porter or Republican Steve Garvey in November? That dust up didn’t last very long if the eventual results bear out the trajectory we’re seeing so far.

    “Welcome to the California comeback,” Garvey told his supporters as his lead over Porter proved insurmountable. “We haven’t come this far to only go this far,” he added in a speech that sounded very Ronald Reagan. Hell, Garvey even mentioned a 1984 Dodgers game in his remarks.

    In a low turn-out day, Schiff snagged 37% of the vote, while political novice Garvey took 29% to three-term Orange County Congresswoman Porter’s 15%. Beloved Oakland Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who many thought Gov. Gavin Newsom would appoint to serve out the remainder of Feinstein’s term, is in a far fourth with 7% of the votes tallied.

    Under the jungle primary rules in California, where all candidates for elected office run in the same primary no matter their political party and the top two vote-winners move forward, Schiff has strategically worked almost harder for Garvey than the ex-Dodger player did for himself.

    On a not-so Super Tuesday that saw Joe Biden and Donald Trump hoover up delegates in their respective long marches towards the GOP and Democrats conventions this summer, Garvey coming in second place allows Schiff to sidestep the bloody Blue State civil war that would surely emerge if Porter was his November rival.

    In a state that hasn’t elected a Republican to state office in decades, another benefit for longtime Congressman Schiff in a race against Garvey is the cost savings.

    A big fundraiser, the former lead House Manager in the first Senate impeachment trial of the ex-Celebrity Apprentice host will save millions not just from his own coffers but from the accounts of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee. With California as close to a sure thing as you can get in American politics, the DSCC can allocate funds to closer races like Montana incumbent Jon Tester.

    Aside from the Senate race, the bid for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office and Gov. Newsom’s mental heath and homelessness-focused Proposition 1 are also possible game changers in the Golden State.

    George Gascón, Los Angeles City Hall

    Getty Images

    Having beaten back two recall efforts since his 2020 victory, current L.A. DA George Gascón is up against 11 challengers this election, five of whom are from his own office. The most recent results have Gascón with 23% to 18% for Nathan Hoffman. The largest fundraiser in the DA race, former federal prosecutor Hoffman was unsuccessful in his 2022 bid to be the Republican nominee for California Attorney General. With two very different views of reform, the role of the DA, plus an inability to even agree on whether crime is rising or declining in the nation’s largest county, Gascón and Hoffman will go at it again in November.

    There is a bit of déjà vu  to their race.

    Funded by big donations from Netflix founder Reed Hastings and other Hollywood luminaries, former San Francisco DA and ex-LAPD officer Gascón took down incumbent Jackie Lacey in a bitter and close 2020 face off.

    Backed by a bipartisan support in Sacramento and with a big push from Gov. Newsom, Proposition 1 is the only statewide measure on the ballot this year. A mix of two bills passed by the legislature, the Behavioral Health Services Program and Bond Measure, as it is formally known, would authorize the state to raise over $6 billion in bonds for housing for those living on the streets. Currently holding a slight lead in the incoming results, Prop 1 also aims to create facilities for those with mental health and substance use issues.

    Moving into the closing years of his tenure as Governor and facing another recall, Newsom put a lot of his political capitol on the line for Prop 1.

    Not that the Biden surrogate and potential one day White House candidate could resist putting at least one foot on the national stage tonight

    While the run-off races look set earlier than usual, remember that California votes often to take weeks to be finalized.

    Every resident of the state was sent a mail-in ballot. For those who choose to make their voice known that way, the mail-in ballot had to be postmarked by today to be valid. With that, and as long as the ballot is in by March 12, it will be counted.

    California joined Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont Arkansas, Virginia, Massachusetts and Texas voting in the Republican presidential primary today. Alaska and American Samoa joined those 15 states in holding their Democratic primary races this Super Tuesday.

    [ad_2]

    Dominic Patten

    Source link

  • Biden Is Still the Democrats’ Best Bet for November

    Biden Is Still the Democrats’ Best Bet for November

    [ad_1]

    Let’s start with the obvious. The concerns about Joe Biden are valid: He’s old. He talks slowly. He occasionally bumbles the basics in public appearances.

    Biden’s age is so concerning that many Biden supporters now believe he should step aside and let some other candidate become the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. The New York Times journalist Ezra Klein made the best-available case for this view recently in a 4,000-word piece that garnered intense attention by arguing that Biden is no longer up to the task of campaign life. “He is not the campaigner he was, even five years ago,” Klein writes. “The way he moves, the energy in his voice. The Democrats denying decline are only fooling themselves.”

    In one sense Klein is correct. As the political strategist Mike Murphy said many moons ago, Biden’s age is like a gigantic pair of antlers he wears on his head, all day every day. Even when he does something exceptional—like visit a war zone in Ukraine, or whip inflation—the people applauding him are thinking, Can’t. Stop. Staring. At. The antlers.

    Biden can’t shed these antlers. He’s going to wear them from now until November 5. If anything, they’ll probably grow.

    That said, there’s another point worth noting up front: Joe Biden is almost certainly the strongest possible candidate Democrats can field against Donald Trump in 2024.

    Biden’s strengths as a candidate are considerable. He has presided over an extraordinarily productive first term in which he’s passed multiple pieces of popular legislation with bipartisan majorities.

    Unemployment is at its lowest low, GDP growth is robust, real wage gains have been led by the bottom quartile, and the American economy has achieved a post-COVID soft landing that makes us the envy of the world. He has no major scandals. His handling of American foreign policy has been stronger and defter than any recent president’s.

    Moreover, he is a known quantity. The recent Michigan primary results underscored that Democratic voters don’t actually have an appetite for leaving Biden. In 2012, 11 percent of Michigan Democrats voted “uncommitted” against Barack Obama when he had no opposition. This week, with two challengers on the ballot and progressive activists whipping votes against Biden, the “uncommitted” vote share was just 13 percent. Biden is fully vetted, his liabilities priced in. Voters are not being asked to take a chance on him.

    This last part is crucial, because 2024 pits a current president against a former president, making both quasi-incumbents. If Biden was replaced, another Democrat would have her or his own strengths—but would be an insurgent. Asking voters to roll the dice on a fresh face against a functionally incumbent President Trump is a bigger ask than you might think.

    Read: Democrats should pick a new presidential candidate now

    But the biggest problem plaguing arguments for Biden’s retirement is: Who then? Pretend you are a Democrat and have been handed a magical monkey’s paw. You believe that Biden is too old to defeat Trump and so you make a wish: I want a younger, more vigorous Democrat. There’s a puff of smoke and Kamala Harris is the nominee.

    Do you feel better about the odds of defeating Trump in nine months?

    You shouldn’t. Harris’s approval rating is slightly lower than Biden’s. People skeptical of her political abilities point to her time as vice president, but that’s not really fair: Very few vice presidents look like plausible successors during their time in office. (George H. W. Bush and Al Gore are the exceptions.)

    What should worry you about Harris is her 2020 campaign, which was somehow both disorganized and insular. She did not exhibit the kind of management skills or political instincts that inspire confidence in her ability to win a national campaign. Worse, she only rarely exhibited top-level-candidate skills.

    Harris had some great moments in 2020. Her announcement speech and first debate performance were riveting. But more often she was flat-footed and awkward. She fell apart at the Michigan debate in 2019 and never got polling traction. (My colleague Sarah Longwell likens Harris to a professional golfer who’s got the yips.)

    Some public polling on this question fills out the picture: Emerson finds Harris losing to Trump by three percentage points (Biden is down one point in the same poll). Fox has Harris losing by five points (it also has Biden down by one point). These are just two polls and the questions were hypothetical, but at best, you can say that Harris is not obviously superior to Biden in terms of electability. At worst, she might give Democrats longer odds.

    So you go back to the monkey’s paw with another wish: a younger, more vigorous Democrat who’s not Kamala Harris, please.

    I’m not sure how it would work logistically—would the Democratic Party turn its back on the sitting vice president?—but this is magic, so just roll with it. There’s a puff of smoke and Gavin Newsom walks onstage.

    Newsom is one of those people who, like Bill Clinton, has been running for president since he was 5 years old. Also like Clinton, Newsom is a good talker with some ideas in his head. But Clinton was a third-way Democrat from the Deep South at a time when the Democratic Party needed southern blue-collar voters. Today, the Democratic Party needs Rust Belt blue-collar voters—and Newsom is a liberal from San Francisco. Not a great starting position.

    Every non-Harris Democrat begins from a place of lower name recognition, meaning that there would be a rush to define them in the minds of voters. Republicans have convinced 45 percent of the country that Scrantonian Joe Biden is a Communist. What do you think they’d do with Newsom? In the Fox poll, he runs even with Vice President Harris at -4 to Trump. In the more recent Emerson poll, Newsom trails Trump by 10 points.

    Then there’s the eyeball test. Look at Newsom’s slicked-back hair, his gleaming smile, and tell me: Does he look like the guy to eat into Trump’s margins among working-class whites in Pennsylvania and Michigan?

    What about Pennsylvania and Michigan? You have only one wish left on the monkey’s paw, and Gretchen Whitmer and Josh Shapiro—popular governors who won big in swing states in 2022—are sitting right there. Maybe you should put one of them on the ticket in place of Biden?

    There’s some polling to back you up: Whitmer would probably beat Trump in Michigan and Shapiro would probably beat Trump in Pennsylvania.

    Nationally, it’s a much different question. I haven’t found anyone who’s polled Shapiro-Trump nationally, but Emerson and Fox both have Whitmer polling worse than Biden. (Emerson has Whitmer 12 points behind Trump.)

    Name recognition accounts for part of this gap, but not all of it. In 2022, Whitmer won her gubernatorial race by 11 points while Shapiro won by 15. But each ran against an underfunded MAGA extremist. In the Michigan poll pitting Whitmer against Trump, she leads by only six points; in the Pennsylvania poll with Shapiro, he leads Trump by 11. So even in states where everyone knows them, these potential saviors are softer against Trump than they were against their 2022 MAGA tomato cans.

    Sure, Whitmer and Shapiro seem like strong candidates at the midsize-state level. But you never know whether a candidate will pop until they hit the national stage. Scott Walker, Ron DeSantis, John Kerry, Mitt Romney, Kamala Harris—all of these politicians looked formidable too. Then the presidential-election MRI for the soul exposed their liabilities. Always remember that Barack Obama’s ascent from promising senator to generational political talent was the exception, not the rule.

    Read: A wild and dangerous 2024 experiment

    Let’s say that one of these not–Kamala Harris candidates is chosen at the Democratic National Convention in August. In the span of 10 weeks they would have to:

    1. Define themselves to the national audience while simultaneously resisting Trump’s attempts to define them.

    2. Build a national campaign structure and get-out-the-vote operation.

    3. Unify the Democratic Party.

    4. Fend off any surprises uncovered during their public (and at-scale) vetting.

    5. Earn credit in the minds of voters for the Biden economy.

    6. Distance themselves from unpopular Biden policies.

    7. Portray themselves as a credible commander in chief.

    8. Lay out a coherent governing vision.

    9. Persuade roughly 51 percent of the country to support them.

    Perhaps it’s possible. But that strikes me as a particularly tall order, even if one of them is a generational political talent. Which—again with the odds—they probably aren’t.

    We’ve got one final problem with the monkey’s paw: It doesn’t exist. If Biden withdrew from the race, the Democratic Party would confront a messy, time-consuming process to replace him. Perhaps a rigorous but amicable write-in campaign would produce a strong nominee and a unified party. But perhaps the party would experience a demolition derby that results in a suboptimal nominee and hard feelings.

    Or maybe party elites at a brokered convention would choose a good nominee. (This is the Ezra Klein scenario, and I’m sympathetic to it. Smoke-filled back rooms get a bad rap; historically they produced better candidates than the modern primary system.) But very few living people have participated in a brokered convention. It could easily devolve into chaos and fracture the moderate, liberal, and progressive wings of the party.

    The point is: Biden has a 50–50 shot. Maybe a little bit worse, maybe a little bit better—like playing blackjack. Every other option is a crapshoot in which the best outcome you can reasonably hope for is 50–50 odds and the worst outcome pushes the odds to something like one in three.

    Joe Biden is Joe Biden. He isn’t going to win a 10-point, realigning victory. But his path to reelection is clear: Focus like a laser on suburban and working-class white voters in a handful of swing states. Remind them that Trump is a chaos agent who wrecked the economy. Show them how good the economy is now. Make a couple of jokes about the antlers. And then bring these people home—because many of them already voted for him once.

    Having a sure thing would certainly be nice, given the ongoing authoritarian threat we face. But there isn’t one. Joe Biden is the best deal democracy is going to get.

    [ad_2]

    Jonathan V. Last

    Source link

  • California Republicans want investigation into Newsom’s ties to Panera franchisee, new fast food law

    California Republicans want investigation into Newsom’s ties to Panera franchisee, new fast food law

    [ad_1]

    Republican California lawmakers on Thursday called for an investigation into Gov. Gavin Newsom’s ties to a billionaire Panera franchisee and the restaurant’s exemption from a new state law that will require major fast-food chains to pay their workers $20 an hour. “He owes everybody an explanation,” Republican State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones said. Some Republican lawmakers said they had little faith in the ability of California’s Democratic Supermajority Legislature or other top Democrats in state government to investigate the issue. Assemblyman Joe Patterson, R-Rocklin, went as far as to say the FBI should get involved. “Frankly, I don’t think the California Attorney General is capable of doing that,” Patterson said. “I think it has to be an outside agency that investigates this.” Multiple sources who spoke on condition of anonymity have confirmed to KCRA that billionaire franchisee and Newsom donor Greg Flynn influenced Newsom’s push to carve out chains that sell and break bread on-site from the new law in the final weeks of the legislative session in 2022. Newsom’s office has said that it was the result of two years’ worth of negotiations between him and the Legislature. The law goes into effect in April. “The Governor never met with Flynn about this bill & this story is absurd. Our legal team has reviewed and it appears Panera is not exempt,” Newsom’s spokesman Alex Stack said on Thursday. Newsom’s office said the exemption applies to those who produce bread on-site, and said some bakeries, including Panera, mix dough off-site at a centralized location before sending it to their restaurants for baking and sale. Experts note that appearance is up for interpretation, and stakeholders for years have understood it as an exemption. The legislation also does not define the word “produce.” KCRA 3 asked Newsom why the exemption was in there when he signed the law in September of 2023. He said it was “part of the sausage making … part of the negotiations.” Greg Flynn sent KCRA 3 a lengthy statement on Thursday night: “It is true that I opposed AB1228, as did thousands of other California restaurant owners. If the intent of the bill was to address alleged labor code violations in fast food restaurants, then the scope of the law should be limited to true fast food restaurants and not include fast casual restaurants like bakeries, bagel shops, delis, etc. I suggested the bill’s language defining “fast food restaurant” should be amended to exclude fast casual restaurants,” Flynn said. “To be clear, at no time did I ask for an exemption or special considerations. In fact, the idea never even occurred to me and I was surprised when the exemption appeared in the final legislation. Such a narrow exemption has very little practical value. As it applies to all of our peer restaurants in the fast casual segment, we will almost certainly have to offer market value wages in order to attract and retain employees,” Flynn said. “I also never met with Governor Newsom about this bill, though I did meet with his staff in a group meeting with other restaurant owners. And finally, although we attended the same high school, I never met him there and in fact didn’t meet him until decades later,” he said. Democratic Assemblyman Chris Holden, who wrote the law, said he did not know why the exemption was put into the bill. He told reporters on Thursday that despite being the author of the law, he was not part of the negotiation to include the carve-out for bakeries. “It’s my bill, but in terms of the negotiations, it was bringing together the business community and franchisees and franchisors and through the governor’s leadership, it came together and what came out of that came the amendments of the bill,” Holden said. Holden said he was not aware of the relationship between Flynn and Newsom. When KCRA 3 asked if, to the average Californian, Panera’s exemption from the law may appear questionable, Holden replied, “That’s a conversation you’ll have to have with others.”Neither Speaker of the Assembly Robert Rivas nor Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire have responded to a request for comment. Flynn has not responded to KCRA 3’s request for comment but told Bloomberg he was not involved in the crafting of the exemption. Campaign finance data show Flynn donated $100,000 to Newsom’s campaign to fight his recall in 2021. In 2022, Flynn donated $64,800 to Newsom’s reelection campaign. That includes a $32,400 contribution deposited three months before the law passed with the exemption in 2022, and a $14,800 donation that October after Newsom signed it. Flynn has donated to other state politicians individually, but the majority of his contributions have gone to Newsom. Since 2020, Flynn has made smaller contributions to State Treasurer Fiona Ma and State Sen. Steve Glazer. His most recent contribution was made to Attorney General Rob Bonta for $5,000 in June of 2023. Bonta did not respond to a request for comment. Flynn is the franchisee of dozens of Panera restaurants across Northern California. According to city records, Flynn opened another Panera restaurant within view of the state capitol in Sacramento in December. See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app.

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. —

    Republican California lawmakers on Thursday called for an investigation into Gov. Gavin Newsom’s ties to a billionaire Panera franchisee and the restaurant’s exemption from a new state law that will require major fast-food chains to pay their workers $20 an hour.

    “He owes everybody an explanation,” Republican State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones said.

    Some Republican lawmakers said they had little faith in the ability of California’s Democratic Supermajority Legislature or other top Democrats in state government to investigate the issue. Assemblyman Joe Patterson, R-Rocklin, went as far as to say the FBI should get involved.

    “Frankly, I don’t think the California Attorney General is capable of doing that,” Patterson said. “I think it has to be an outside agency that investigates this.”

    Multiple sources who spoke on condition of anonymity have confirmed to KCRA that billionaire franchisee and Newsom donor Greg Flynn influenced Newsom’s push to carve out chains that sell and break bread on-site from the new law in the final weeks of the legislative session in 2022.

    Newsom’s office has said that it was the result of two years’ worth of negotiations between him and the Legislature. The law goes into effect in April.

    “The Governor never met with Flynn about this bill & this story is absurd. Our legal team has reviewed and it appears Panera is not exempt,” Newsom’s spokesman Alex Stack said on Thursday. Newsom’s office said the exemption applies to those who produce bread on-site, and said some bakeries, including Panera, mix dough off-site at a centralized location before sending it to their restaurants for baking and sale. Experts note that appearance is up for interpretation, and stakeholders for years have understood it as an exemption. The legislation also does not define the word “produce.”

    KCRA 3 asked Newsom why the exemption was in there when he signed the law in September of 2023. He said it was “part of the sausage making … part of the negotiations.”

    Greg Flynn sent KCRA 3 a lengthy statement on Thursday night:

    “It is true that I opposed AB1228, as did thousands of other California restaurant owners. If the intent of the bill was to address alleged labor code violations in fast food restaurants, then the scope of the law should be limited to true fast food restaurants and not include fast casual restaurants like bakeries, bagel shops, delis, etc. I suggested the bill’s language defining “fast food restaurant” should be amended to exclude fast casual restaurants,” Flynn said.

    “To be clear, at no time did I ask for an exemption or special considerations. In fact, the idea never even occurred to me and I was surprised when the exemption appeared in the final legislation. Such a narrow exemption has very little practical value. As it applies to all of our peer restaurants in the fast casual segment, we will almost certainly have to offer market value wages in order to attract and retain employees,” Flynn said.

    “I also never met with Governor Newsom about this bill, though I did meet with his staff in a group meeting with other restaurant owners. And finally, although we attended the same high school, I never met him there and in fact didn’t meet him until decades later,” he said.

    Democratic Assemblyman Chris Holden, who wrote the law, said he did not know why the exemption was put into the bill. He told reporters on Thursday that despite being the author of the law, he was not part of the negotiation to include the carve-out for bakeries.

    “It’s my bill, but in terms of the negotiations, it was bringing together the business community and franchisees and franchisors and through the governor’s leadership, it came together and what came out of that came the amendments of the bill,” Holden said.

    Holden said he was not aware of the relationship between Flynn and Newsom.

    When KCRA 3 asked if, to the average Californian, Panera’s exemption from the law may appear questionable, Holden replied, “That’s a conversation you’ll have to have with others.”

    Neither Speaker of the Assembly Robert Rivas nor Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire have responded to a request for comment. Flynn has not responded to KCRA 3’s request for comment but told Bloomberg he was not involved in the crafting of the exemption.

    Campaign finance data show Flynn donated $100,000 to Newsom’s campaign to fight his recall in 2021. In 2022, Flynn donated $64,800 to Newsom’s reelection campaign.

    That includes a $32,400 contribution deposited three months before the law passed with the exemption in 2022, and a $14,800 donation that October after Newsom signed it.

    Flynn has donated to other state politicians individually, but the majority of his contributions have gone to Newsom. Since 2020, Flynn has made smaller contributions to State Treasurer Fiona Ma and State Sen. Steve Glazer. His most recent contribution was made to Attorney General Rob Bonta for $5,000 in June of 2023. Bonta did not respond to a request for comment.

    Flynn is the franchisee of dozens of Panera restaurants across Northern California. According to city records, Flynn opened another Panera restaurant within view of the state capitol in Sacramento in December.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California Just Introduced Its Slavery Reparations Package

    California Just Introduced Its Slavery Reparations Package

    [ad_1]

    Opinion

    Screenshot: ABC 10 YouTube Video

    Lawmakers in California – a free state that never had slaves – have introduced a comprehensive slavery reparations package, a series of bills that mark a first-in-the-nation attempt to turn the concept into law.

    The legislative package includes measures such as restoring property taken through eminent domain and providing state funding for specific groups. It tackles a wide range of issues, from criminal justice reforms to housing segregation.

    Noticeably absent is any kind of cash payments for descendants of slavery.

    Assemblymember Lori Wilson, chair of the Legislative Black Caucus, downplayed the significance of the lack of direct funding.

    “While many only associate direct cash payments with reparations, the true meaning of the word, to repair, involves much more,” she said in a statement. “We need a comprehensive approach to dismantling the legacy of slavery and systemic racism.”

    Slavery was abolished in 1865 and no person living today has ever suffered under its terrible legacy.

    RELATED: San Francisco Board Expresses ‘Unanimous’ Support For Racist $5 Million Reparations Payments

    Why The California Reparations Package Doesn’t Provide Cash Payments

    Make no mistake, this reparations package doesn’t include cash payments because the left-wing cesspool of California can’t afford it.

    The state is currently facing a $68 billion budget deficit.

    Even knowing that, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors last March expressed “unanimous” support for a race-based reparations plan that included $5 million payments for every eligible black resident.

    They also wanted a guaranteed annual income of $97,000 for 250 years and homes “for just $1 a family.”

    Even the state task force advised that each of the roughly 2.5 million members of the black population receive approximately $277,000 each – a total price tag of about $34 billion.

    This legislative package didn’t include those things. But there is a provision that would give some monetary relief.

    The package states a goal to: “Restore property taken during raced-based uses of eminent domain to its original owners or provide another effective remedy where appropriate, such as restitution or compensation.”

    Some advocates of the racist reparations concept – which is designed to buy votes – weren’t happy.

    RELATED: Kathy Hochul Blasted For Signing Bill To Study Reparations In New York: ‘Set Back Race Relations For No Good Reason’

    The other reason this California reparations package might not have included cash payments is because the vast majority of Americans oppose it and recognize it as an unaffordable pipe dream.

    Even Democrats.

    Governor Gavin Newsom, who would do anything for a tub of Brycreem let alone votes, refused to publicly support payments recommended by a California task force.

    “Dealing with legacy is about much more than cash payments,” he said.

    Except, no matter what they’re saying publicly, the people behind the reparations push are not concerned about legacy first and foremost. They’re concerned about money.

    Polling shows that three-quarters or more of white adults oppose reparations, as do a majority of Latinos and Asian Americans. Even in deep blue California voters overwhelmingly object to the idea of cash payments to make up for slavery.

    There is no more nakedly racist legislation than a call for reparations based on skin color and a faux notion that anybody in America today has ever suffered from slavery.

    Follow Rusty on X

    Marjorie Taylor Greene Introduces Censure Resolution For ‘Foreign Agent’ Ilhan Omar ‘Of Somalia’

    The Political Insider is facing imminent closure.
    Please consider PLEDGING $10 NOW to keep our doors open.

    Rusty Weiss has been covering politics for over 15 years. His writings have appeared in the Daily Caller, Fox… More about Rusty Weiss

    FREE NEWS ALERTS

    Subscribe to receive the most important stories delivered straight to your inbox. Your subscription helps protect independent media.



    By subscribing, you agree to receive emails from ThePoliticalInsider.com and that you’ve read and agree to our Privacy policy and to our terms and conditions.

    FREE NEWS ALERTS



    [ad_2]

    Rusty Weiss

    Source link

  • California-bashing is a constant occurrence on Iowa campaign trail

    California-bashing is a constant occurrence on Iowa campaign trail

    [ad_1]

    DES MOINES — 

    Despite the Iowa caucuses taking place 1,700 miles away from California — and the temperature being much colder here — the Golden State, its elected leaders and its policies were a constant target in the lead up to the first presidential nominating contest in the nation Monday.

    Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) could be a “hedge fund maven,” given how much money she has made in the stock market while in office, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis told Iowans. He accused GOP rival Nikki Haley, the former U.N. ambassador, of telling more lies and being “more liberal than Gavin Newsom.” Haley said she is as afraid of a Kamala Harris presidency as she is of another term for former President Trump.

    Bashing California, one of the most liberal states in the nation, is a grand tradition in the GOP. But Republican presidential candidates may be targeting the state and its politicians more this cycle because they are a better target than President Biden.

    “Biden isn’t as motivating a villain as other Democrats might be. So the Republican candidates are essentially running a negative campaign against California,” said Dan Schnur, a politics professor at USC, UC Berkeley and Pepperdine.

    He pointed to DeSantis’ attack on Haley during a debate last week as proof.

    “The very worst thing Ron DeSantis could think of to say about Nikki Haley during the debate was that she might be more liberal than Gavin Newsom,” Schnur added. “For an Iowa Republican — or any Republican for that matter — that’s an absolutely terrifying concept.”

    California was once a Republican stronghold, launching the political careers of Presidents Nixon and Reagan. But conservative attacks on the state have ramped up in the decades since Reagan left office.

    In 2002, former President George H.W. Bush even apologized for referring to American Taliban fighter John Walker Lindh as “some misguided Marin County hot-tubber.” By 2012, California was the most disliked state of any in the nation, according to poll of Americans by Public Policy Polling. About 44% of those surveyed said they viewed the state unfavorably.

    Today, GOP fundraising appeals bleat about the state’s residents — especially Hollywood celebrities and tech billionaires — fueling Democratic campaigns, despite the fact that the state also provides an outsize amount of political donations to Republican candidates.

    This electoral cycle, DeSantis compared Haley to Newsom, whom he debated in November, at a CNN face-off in Des Moines last week.

    DeSantis brought up Pelosi while lamenting the lack of rules on members of Congress while campaigning at Jethro’s BBQ in Ames.

    “I just think we have a problem with Congress … they’re almost detached from the people. They live under different rules,” he said, adding that he has not traded stocks since being elected to office and compared himself to Pelosi. “They make a killing in the market … and I don’t think the congressmen should be able to be doing the stock trades. I think we need to reform that.”

    Haley raised Harris, the current vice president and former U.S. senator and state attorney general, as she discussed why she believes Trump should not be reelected president.

    “Y’all know it, chaos follows him. And we can’t be a country in disarray and have a world on fire and go through four more years of chaos because we won’t survive it,” she told supporters at an event space in Ankeny. “You don’t defeat Democrat chaos with Republican chaos. And the other thing we need to think about: We can never afford a President Kamala Harris.”

    California should overhaul its fiscal situation and policies before questioning why Iowa should have such an important role in selecting the nation’s presidential nominees, said former Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, who has family connections to California and has spent substantial time in the state.

    “Maybe you ought to get your house in order. California has got the biggest deficit and California is moving in the wrong direction,” Branstad said in an interview. “California has got so much going for it. It’s a beautiful state, it has got great weather and all that stuff. But now people are leaving because of the tax burden and the hostility and all the regulations.”

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • Critics Crap On DeSantis For Breaking Out A Map Full O’ Feces In Newsom Debate

    Critics Crap On DeSantis For Breaking Out A Map Full O’ Feces In Newsom Debate

    [ad_1]

    The California governor couldn’t help but laugh after DeSantis showcased the poop plots on Fox News.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Rumble In The Fox Den: Sean Hannity’s Newsom Vs. DeSantis Debate Proves A Wasted Opportunity

    Rumble In The Fox Den: Sean Hannity’s Newsom Vs. DeSantis Debate Proves A Wasted Opportunity

    [ad_1]

    If there were winners out of Fox News’ debate between California’s Gavin Newsom and Florida’s Ron DeSantis tonight, it was Joe Biden, Donald Trump and the Walt Disney Company. If there were losers, it looks to be the Sunshine State Governor himself, civility and Sean Hannity.

    Live from Alpharetta, Georgia, the crowd free Great Red Vs Blue State Debate saw the incumbent POTUS get big props and support over and over from his ambitious adoptive political son. On the other side fo the aisle, the Hannity moderated event left the former Celebrity Apprentice host actually looking like a heavyweight compared to the shrill DeSantis.

    Far from the chumminess of Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman’s VP debate in 2000 as well as the verbal and philosophical sabers of the dramatic Town Meeting of the World between then California Gov. Ronald Reagan and Senator Robert F Kennedy via satellite in 1967, this insult match was reminiscent in all the wrong ways of Biden and Trump’s first debate in 2020.

    Getty Images

    Of course, the difference is Ron DeSantis is running for the 2024 GOP nomination for President and Gavin Newsom, who quoted from the Great Communicator tonight in whacking down Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law, isn’t running for anything in 2024 – as he pledged tonight under pressure from Hannity and his fellow governor.

    Which means in the short term, Newsom had nothing to lose by playing in the Fox den.

    Quipping “Ron, relax” and labeling DeSantis as “nothing but a bully,” Newsom had the best two lines of night.  On the flip side, DeSantis often called his foe a liar as Newsom deamed the Florida governor’s record on Covid as one of flip flopping, at times parroting some of the same points made by Trump.

    “I had Disney open during Covid and we made them a fortune and we saved a lot of jobs,” DeSantis bellowed after the West Coast Democrat took the first of several digs at him over recent jurisdictional and legal battles with the Bob Iger-led House of Mouse. “You had Disney closed inexplicably for over a year. You were a lockdown Governor, you did a lot of damage to your people,” DeSantis added, literally stomping over his own attempt to resurrect the tension in 2020 between Newsom and the then Bob Chapek-run company over Disneyland closures.   

    Trolling each other for months and throwing mud at the other’s state, leadership and Oval Office dreams, Newsom and DeSantis’ long-awaited dogfight was ultimately a wasted opportunity.

    Even more so that the participants themselves, the debate floundered because it didn’t live up to its own fair and balanced hype. From the start, this proved to be an extension of Hannity’s opinion show, with many of the questions tailored to put Newsom on defense. With a squint and a redirection of ambition, FNC’s Hannpalooza could be seen as a backhanded audition for The Daily Show co-hosting gigs for the ultimately termed out Governors if Newsom hadn’t been so dominate.

    The debate certainly wasn’t the planned crowning achievement for its moderator, who seemed out of his comfort zone for most of the 90-minute debate.

    The Great Red Vs Blue State Debate kicked off with Hannity declaring “I will be moderating this debate, I will not be part of the debate.” Unfortunately for Hannity, that proved to be very true within minutes as the Fox host lost control of the proceedings. The two governors went at each other with little regard for time limits or rules of engagement.

    Put it this way: You know you have a problem when you have to declare in the first half hour as Hannity did that “I want this debate to breath …I don’t want to be a hall monitor.” A plea he had to make twice. Even before that, the moderator’s Switzerland stance dissipated pretty quick with the first trio of questions being standard Fox News-host digs at the Golden State.

    Hannity insisted towards the end of the debate that he was “not a potted plant,” but the candidates continued to talk over one another.

    Getty Images

    Having said that, the issues aside, the lack of an audience was one distinct upside this debate provided. The contenders on stage may have not had a lot to say to each other, but the lack of the constant interruptions and partisan crowd applause and groans was a welcome relief and a blueprint for the future.

    Slamming Newsom as slick and willing to tell “a blizzard of lies,” DeSantis came out swinging while a comfortable Newsom played it cool circa Clinton 1992 with a bit of Obama flare and slipped the shiv to the Florida governor. Newsom’s accusation of DeSantis taking “America in reverse” and trying to “out Trump Trump” by sending migrants from non-border Florida to Martha’s Vineyard and Sacramento left political blood on the red carpeted set.

    “By the way, how’s that going for you Ron?” Newsom then mocked DeSantis. “You’re down 41 points in your own home state,” he added in what was a Trump campaign ad waiting to be made.

    “As he continues to talk over me, I’ll talk to the American people,” Newsom said earlier, adding “as you smile and smirk over there” to an often-wide-eyed DeSantis. Claiming West Coast Democrats are on an “ideological joyride” when it comes to crime and trying to shame Newsom over his pandemic French Laundry scandal, DeSantis smartly pivoted again and again to Fox viewers.

    Newsom was willing to attack DeSantis from the right, or to borrow from Trump, as he did quoted the former president’s “Red Ron” pro-China kick at the Florida Governor.

    The well-publicized debate was locked down ages ago when DeSantis looked like likely GOP alternative to Trump. DeSantis’ decline in the polls, though, didn’t appear to diminish interest in the matchup with Newsom. The event was heavily promoted and hyped on Fox hype throughout the day on Thursday. The Five kicked off with Dana Perino calling it “the Red vs. Blue showdown we’ve all been waiting for.”

    While the stakes for DeSantis were clear, Jesse Watters made the case that it also was a risk for Newsom as well. He noted that “Newsom has to be good, but he can’t be too good.” “What I mean is Newson has to be good so he has to establish himself as the heir apparent as the alternative in case something happens to Joe…. But if he’s too good … then you’re going see donors and pundits start drafting him and telling Joe Biden to clip the campaign, and that’s going to create a war. And I don’t think the Democratic Party wants that.”

    The night’s dust-up between the two governors did offer a rare chance for an unnuanced live and direct clash of visions for the nation and the world. Some of that came through, but much time was spent trying to discern what the candidates were even saying to the other, something that Hannity tried to remind the both of them.

    There are other dates on the calendar that will give DeSantis the opportunity to command media attention for his record in Florida. Next Wednesday is another Republican debate, this time hosted by NewsNation, the upstart news network that has had a fraction of the Fox audience. In two weeks, a federal court will hear arguments in his motion to dismiss Disney’s First Amendment lawsuit, in which the company alleges retaliation after it came out against the governor’s parental rights law, dubbed the “don’t say gay” bill. The real big date on the calendar is January 15, the day of the Iowa caucuses.

    Newsom repeatedly reminded DeSantis that he was trailing in the polls, he suggested that he drop out to boost Nikki Haley and he predicted that neither one of them would be a nominee in 2024. As much as Hannity tried to steer the debate into questions of policy, often noting California’s downsides vs. Florida’s upsides, the evening often was one of jostling and jabs. And when it comes to who will be facing off against each other in 2024, Newsom may very well be right.

    [ad_2]

    Dominic Patten

    Source link

  • Listen to the DeSantis-Newsom Debate Live on FOX News Channel

    Listen to the DeSantis-Newsom Debate Live on FOX News Channel

    [ad_1]

    FOX News Channel (Ch. 114) will air the much-anticipated political showdown between Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom and Republican Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. “The Great Red vs. Blue State Debate” will broadcast live from Alpharetta, Ga., at 9pm ET this Thursday (November 30). The debate will also be available on the SiriusXM app after it airs.

    DeSantis-Newsom Debate Preview

    Moderated by FOX News host Sean Hannity, known for his weeknight show in the 9 pm slot, the 90-minute debate will delve into key issues facing both states. Hannity will lead discussions on the economy, the border, immigration, crime, and inflation, providing a comprehensive examination of each governor’s stance.

    Hannity will not only moderate the debate but also offer live reactions alongside a panel of guests from 10:30-11 pm. Following this analysis, “Fox News at Night with Trace Gallagher” will air at its regular 11 pm slot.

    Let’s take a closer look at the debaters:

    Governor Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.):

    Newsom, representing the Golden State, has been in office since January 2019. His policies have often mirrored progressive ideals, focusing on issues like climate change, healthcare, and social justice. California’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic recovery will likely be key points of discussion.

    Governor Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.):

    Leading the Sunshine State since January 2019, DeSantis is known for his conservative approach to governance. His strategies, particularly concerning COVID-19 restrictions, have gained national attention. Expect discussions on Florida’s economic resilience, border policies, and the governor’s stance on individual liberties.

    [ad_2]

    Matt Simeone

    Source link

  • Governors Ron DeSantis, Gavin Newsom to face off in unusual debate today

    Governors Ron DeSantis, Gavin Newsom to face off in unusual debate today

    [ad_1]

    Newsom to face off against DeSantis in nationally televised debate


    Newsom to face off against DeSantis in nationally televised debate

    02:30

    In what may be the most unorthodox match-up of the 2024 presidential primary campaign to date, Florida governor and GOP presidential candidate Ron DeSantis and California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, who is not running for president, will face each other Thursday night in a debate moderated by Fox News’ Sean Hannity.

    At 9 p.m. ET, the two will be taking part in what Fox News is billing as “The Great Red vs. Blue State Debate.” The two will debate for 90 minutes in Alpharetta, Georgia, and then will each speak to the press afterward. 

    Why are DeSantis and Newsom debating?

    DeSantis, a Republican presidential candidate, will be debating a governor who is not running for president in 2024, but the rivalry between the two has been building for years, as they had opposite responses to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. Their public disagreements and spats over education, immigration and economic policy have also increased in the last two years. 

    In September 2022, Newsom first proposed a debate with DeSantis on CNN. Then, Hannity raised the idea again in a June 2023 interview with Newsom, and he agreed to it. A couple of months later, in August, DeSantis told Hannity, “Let’s get it done. Just tell me when and where.” 

    According to the Daily Mail, Hannity privately negotiated with both camps to finalize arrangements for the debate. 

    Background on the governors

    Both governors were first elected in 2018, and won reelection handily in 2022. Both have been touted as the future of their respective parties, though DeSantis’ has been testing that claim since he launched his bid in May. Newsom is a staunch backer of and surrogate for President Biden and has repeatedly said he has no plans to run for president or challenge Mr. Biden in 2024. 

    The two governors have been criticizing each other in ads and news conferences for over a year. In 2022, Newsom ran an ad against DeSantis’ policies affecting the LGBTQ community and accused him of attacking freedom in his state. DeSantis responded by saying that California “is driving people away with their terrible governance.” 

    The two are likely to face questions on their handling of issues likely to resonate nationally — border policy, inflation and the economy.

    Sonoma State political science professor David McCuan says Newsom will likely try to appeal to the Fox audience by presenting himself as a moderate.

    “There’s a lot at stake here, and there’s a lot at stake because these two also potentially match up in 2028,” McCuan told CBS Sacramento.

    In recent months, DeSantis has repeatedly suggested that Newsom could end up replacing Mr. Biden on the 2024 general election ballot. The DeSantis campaign, in messaging guidance sent to supporters and donors by the DeSantis campaign this week, made several references to a “Newsom presidency” appear and wrote, “This will be the first chance for Republicans to contrast our vision for the future of the country with the failed agenda of someone who very well could become the Democrats’ nominee.”

    The debate will air on Fox News and on Fox News radio.

    Aaron Navarro

    Aaron Navarro is a CBS News digital reporter covering Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ presidential campaign and the 2024 election. He was previously an associate producer for the CBS News political unit in the 2021 and 2022 election cycles.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden, Xi hold high-stakes meeting in California

    Biden, Xi hold high-stakes meeting in California

    [ad_1]

    Biden, Xi hold high-stakes meeting in California – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    President Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping held a face-to-face meeting near San Francisco Wednesday. Prior to this, the two leaders had not even spoken by phone in over a year, during which time tensions have soared between the two superpowers. Weijia Jiang has more.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Massive LA Freeway Fire Set Intentionally, Officials Say

    Massive LA Freeway Fire Set Intentionally, Officials Say

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES (AP) — Arson was the cause of a massive weekend fire that charred and indefinitely closed a vital section of a Los Angeles freeway, causing major traffic headaches for hundreds of thousands of commuters, California authorities said Monday.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom said investigators were trying to determine if one person or more were involved. He gave no other details.

    “I have to stress that we have determined what started the fire,” Newsom told reporters.

    The fire erupted Saturday in two storage lots under Interstate 10. Construction materials combusted quickly and the fire grew. It left many columns charred and chipped and the deck guardrails twisted. Crews shored up the most damaged section for the safety of workers clearing the debris. It’s still unclear what structural damage, if any, the blaze caused to the freeway.

    Beyond a massive traffic headache, the closure is expected to be felt well beyond the metropolis, including possibly slowing the transport of goods from the twin ports of LA and Long Beach, federal officials have said. The ports handle more than half the goods coming into the country. President Joe Biden had been briefed on the fire.

    “It’s disrupting in every way, whether you are talking about traveling to and from work or your child care plans and the flow of goods and commerce, this will disrupt the lives of Angelenos,” LA Mayor Karen Bass said.

    Los Angeles residents were urged to avoid travel to the area Monday and to work from home if possible.

    “Our streets cannot handle 300,000 cars,” Bass said, referring to how many vehicles use the I-10 stretch daily.

    Officials have said the damage is reminiscent of the 1994 Northridge earthquake that flattened thoroughfares. After the quake, it took more than two months to repair Interstate 10 — and that was considered significantly fast.

    Newsom said early tests show that the deck “appears to be much stronger than originally assessed.” Concrete and rebar samples taken Monday from the superstructure, decks and columns will help determine “whether or not we’re tearing this down and replacing it, or we’re continuing the recovery and repairs,” he said.

    “This isn’t going to be resolved in a couple of days, and it’s not going to take a couple years,” Federal Highway Administrator Shailen Bhatt told The Associated Press. “But whether it’s weeks or months, we’re still too early to tell.”

    Bhatt said the fiery June 11 crash of a tractor-trailer hauling gasoline in Philadelphia that collapsed an elevated section of Interstate 95, snarling traffic and hurting area businesses, highlights the impact of such disasters not only on a city but on the nation.

    “The ports are still open and the goods will still flow, but when you remove a section of the interstate that carries 300,000 vehicles a day, there’s going to be spillover impacts,” Bhatt said. “The concern there is the quicker we can get this open, the faster we can remove an impediment.”

    Drivers were tested Monday during the first weekday commute since the raging fire. Some freeway exits backed up as drivers were forced to use crowded surface streets to bypass the damaged freeway stretch south of downtown.

    Some routes, however, had lighter traffic, suggesting drivers heeded warnings from the city to make alternate plans. Cellphones blasted Monday with a predawn reminder for residents to plan different routes or expect significant delays.

    “Our businesses are just bouncing back from the Covid shutdowns. Business was just getting good,” said Blair Besten, director of LA’s Historic Core business improvement district. She’s worried about the lingering effects of this closure.

    Flames reported around 12:20 a.m. Saturday ripped through two storage lots in an industrial area beneath I-10, burning parked cars, stacks of wooden pallets and support poles for high-tension power lines, city fire Chief Kristin Crowley said. No injuries were reported.

    At least 16 homeless people, including a pregnant woman, living underneath the freeway were brought to shelters. More than 160 firefighters responded to the blaze, which spread across 8 acres (3 hectares) and burned for three hours.

    California Fire Marshal Daniel Berlant said investigators have identified where the fire started and what the cause was after sorting through the rubble for evidence but did not specify what they found. He said there is no suspect information yet. He said they are talking to witnesses, including homeless people and nearby business owners.

    Storage yards under highways are common statewide, with the money from the leases going to public transit. Newsom said the practice would be reevaluated following the fire.

    The governor said California has been in litigation with Apex Development, Inc., the owner of the business leasing the storage property where the fire started. The lease is expired, Newsom said, and the business had been in arrears while illegally subleasing the space to five or six other entities. “They’ve been out of compliance for some time, that’s why we’re going to court” early next year, he said.

    Mainak D’Attaray, an attorney for Apex Development, confirmed the company was in litigation with the state.

    “We are currently investigating ourselves what happened at the yard under the freeway. As such, we are not prepared to give an official statement or answer questions until we have determined what actually occurred,” D’Attaray said in an email.

    Ertugrul Taciroglu, chair of the civil and environmental engineering department at the University of California, Los Angeles, said part of the challenge is how expensive real estate has become.

    “Every piece of land is being utilized, so I can see the pressure or the incentives for making use of these spaces under these highways,” he said.

    Two contractors have been hired to clean up the hazardous material and to shore up the freeway, according to California Secretary of Transportation Toks Omishakin.

    Repairs will require environmental waivers and federal funding, officials said.

    In 2011, a fire from a poorly maintained fuel tanker that burst into flames damaged a stretch of State Route 60 — a key freeway connecting LA with its eastern suburbs — and took six months to reopen at a cost of $40 million.

    The city and county of Los Angeles in 2020 agreed to provide housing for almost 7,000 people living under freeways and near exit and entrance ramps. In approving the deal, a federal judge said unhoused residents in those areas face particularly deadly hazards.

    Watson reported from San Diego. Associated Press writer Christopher Weber in Los Angeles contributed to this report. McMurray reported from Chicago.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Gavin Newsom is mesmerized by the growth of driverless cars. Other California Democrats, not so much

    Gavin Newsom is mesmerized by the growth of driverless cars. Other California Democrats, not so much

    [ad_1]

    SHANGHAI — 

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom walked out of the Tesla gigafactory in China last month feeling jazzed about the future.

    A future where people do a lot less driving, instead being whisked around by autonomous cars and flying taxis. A future where, he said, the “entire transportation system is completely reorganized.”

    “I think it’s going to come very fast,” Newsom said to reporters on the last day of his trip to China promoting clean energy partnerships with California.

    “With AI in particular aiding this advancement, I think it’s just going to explode and you’re going to start seeing driverless flying cars as well.”

    Newsom made it clear that he’s committed to keeping California the global leader in the development of autonomous technology and said the state shouldn’t “cede the future” to other countries or states.

    A tech-friendly, entrepreneurial streak has been one of Newsom’s hallmarks since he entered politics. As lieutenant governor in 2011, he famously set up his San Francisco office in a private hub of tech start-ups. Newsom boasts of having bought one of the first Teslas ever sold, and has had a longstanding relationship with Elon Musk, whom he calls “one of the world’s great innovators.”

    But the governor’s effusive comments about autonomous vehicles come as the technology is causing outrage in some California cities, putting Newsom in conflict with many fellow Democrats who are calling for more oversight of the robotic cars on public roads. He’s clashing with mayors and other local officials who want more control over the expansion of robotaxis in their cities, as well as with state lawmakers who believe California’s system for regulating autonomous vehicles is insufficient.

    Martha Hubert writes a message opposing robotaxi expansion on Aug. 10 in San Francisco.

    (Godofredo A. Vásquez / Associated Press)

    The friction is growing as autonomous vehicle companies ramp up their lobbying in Sacramento. Cruise, Waymo, Motional and the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Assn. collectively spent about $2.4 million on lobbying the state government in the first nine months of this year — more than three times the $671,579 they spent lobbying in all of last year, according to disclosures filed with the Secretary of State. Much of that increase is due to a huge jump in spending by Waymo, the business owned by Google’s parent company that operates robotaxis in San Francisco and Santa Monica, with plans to expand to other parts of L.A. this month.

    Skepticism from local officials has intensified since a Cruise robotaxi dragged a person down a San Francisco street last month, and the company allegedly failed to disclose footage of the wreck. The DMV suspended Cruise’s permits and the General Motors-owned company announced it is suspending U.S. operations while it works to “rebuild public trust.” It recalled its autonomous fleet to perform a software update.

    On Nov. 1, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass wrote a fiery letter to state regulators saying the city wants more say in regulating driverless taxis and she criticized the state for a lack of attention to “public safety, road safety, and other serious concerns.”

    “To date, local jurisdictions like Los Angeles have had little to no input in AV deployment and are already seeing significant harm and disruption,” Bass wrote to the state Public Utilities Commission, which approved a massive expansion of robotaxis in August.

    Newsom appoints the members of the Public Utilities Commission and oversees the Department of Motor Vehicles, the two agencies tasked with regulating autonomous vehicles. He told reporters he agreed with the DMV’s decision to ban Cruise from San Francisco streets following the crash that left a pedestrian seriously injured.

    Even before the Cruise debacle, city officials in San Francisco criticized the state’s move to grow the presence of autonomous vehicles. The fire chief complained that robotaxis are a danger to emergency response because they stop in traffic, pull up too close to firetrucks that are unloading equipment and block firehouse driveways. The police officers union also raised concerns about their expansion. After the Public Utilities Commission approved the expansion, San Francisco’s city attorney filed motions asking it to reverse course, which the commission declined to do.

    Now a state lawmaker is pressing the DMV for more information on how it permits autonomous vehicles, how it addresses safety concerns and why it suspended Cruise’s permit. The formal inquiry by state Sen. Dave Cortese (D-San Jose) could portend hearings or legislation on autonomous vehicles after the Legislature reconvenes in January.

    “All of us in public service would like to intervene and prevent things from happening and not have tragedy dictate an acceleration of remedies. But if we don’t hurry that’s what’s going to happen,” Cortese said in an interview.

    He said California’s structure of having two agencies tasked with regulating driverless cars is problematic.

    “I believe we need a single executive agency that deals with autonomous vehicles much like the FAA deals with air travel, commercial and private,” Cortese said. “We don’t have the infrastructure set up to monitor what’s going on or hold people accountable.”

    Newsom defended the state’s oversight during his conversation with reporters outside the Shanghai Tesla plant.

    “The DMV has built a whole new shop in terms of organizing around making sure people are safe,” he said. “But autonomy is the future.”

    An electric Jaguar I-Pace car outfitted with Waymo full self-driving technology drives through Santa Monica on Feb. 21.

    An electric Jaguar I-Pace car outfitted with Waymo full self-driving technology drives through Santa Monica on Feb. 21.

    (Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

    The DMV launched an investigation in 2021 into whether Tesla falsely markets its autonomous technology. The company brands it as “full self-driving” but California does not regulate Teslas as autonomous vehicles, so the company doesn’t have to report crash data to the state. The DMV’s investigation has yielded no public results in more than 2½ years, to the frustration of some state lawmakers.

    The governor also clashed with lawmakers over autonomous vehicles earlier this year when he vetoed a bill to require human safety drivers in self-driving big-rig trucks — a measure that sailed through the Legislature with bipartisan support. Newsom said the bill was unnecessary because of the state’s existing system for regulating the evolving technology.

    “DMV continuously monitors the testing and operations of autonomous vehicles on California roads and has the authority to suspend or revoke permits as necessary to protect the public’s safety,” he wrote in the veto message.

    Peter Finn, a vice president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which sponsored the bill to require human drivers on autonomous trucks, said the union will keep pushing because both safety and jobs are at stake.

    “We’re not backing away from this fight. We’re going to double down in terms of pursuing fair and responsible guardrails to this technology,” he said.

    He called Newsom “completely out of touch with California residents” on the issue of autonomous vehicles.

    There’s no sign that Newsom’s zeal for automotive innovation will subside. In addition to touring the Shanghai Tesla factory, while in China Newsom test drove a hybrid SUV made by Chinese manufacturer BYD. He took his hands off the wheel and waved to reporters as the car went into automated mode and rotated in a full 360-degree turn.

    “This is another leap of the technology. Next level,” Newsom marveled from behind the wheel of the vehicle, which played the Eagles’ song “Hotel California” on the sound system when he turned it on.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom test drives a BYD brand SUV during a visit to Shenzhen, China, on October 24, 2023.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom test drives an SUV with autonomous features made by BYD during a visit to Shenzhen, China, on Oct. 24.

    (Laurel Rosenhall / Los Angeles Times)

    The governor said he first experienced driverless technology many years ago during a visit to Google with company founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page. Four years ago, at the Sears Point raceway in Sonoma County, Newsom said he rode in an “Audi going 160 miles an hour with no one in the driver’s seat.”

    Newsom also expressed excitement about aviation innovation underway in California. Drone-like electric planes are being tested across the state by Silicon Valley tech companies pitching the vision of clean, quiet flying taxis to get people off clogged freeways. Two companies, Archer and Joby, plan to launch with pilots while a company called Wisk is developing an autonomous air taxi.

    Joby reported hiring a Sacramento lobbying firm for the first time in July, and one of its lobbyists, Michael Picker, is a former president of the Public Utilities Commission, which regulates taxis and rideshare companies.

    Asked if he had safety concerns with autonomous technology, the governor echoed industry talking points that human drivers who can get drunk or sleepy behind the wheel are more dangerous than driverless cars.

    “I think we’re gonna look back in 20 to 30 years and go, why were we allowed to drive? And allow 30-plus-thousand Americans to die every single year in accidents?” Newsom said. “There’s a precision with the technology, but it has to be worked through. I just think it’s mesmerizing, the change that’s about to come.”

    Times staff writer Anabel Sosa contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Laurel Rosenhall

    Source link

  • Column: Newsom gets no California love for his political ambitions. Maybe he should try elsewhere

    Column: Newsom gets no California love for his political ambitions. Maybe he should try elsewhere

    [ad_1]

    Bill Clinton was a man of large appetite and no small ambition when he served as Arkansas governor, a job he assumed at the age of 32.

    So it was hardly a surprise when, 14 years later, Clinton launched a bid for president.

    There was skepticism at the time and some carping of the too-big-for-his-britches variety. But that soon faded with the growing excitement of the 1992 election and the opening of Clinton’s Little Rock campaign headquarters, as Skip Rutherford, an old confidant, recalled.

    Gavin Newsom can only sigh with envy.

    California’s governor is not running for president. Take him at his word.

    Filing deadlines have passed in the key early-voting states of Nevada and New Hampshire, and Newsom must know that a run against President Biden — his fellow Democrat — would almost surely fail, destroying Newsom’s political future in the process.

    Still, the gallivanting governor has acted very much like a presidential candidate, striding the global stage and trolling the GOP’s White House contestants whenever he has the chance. Maybe he’s positioning himself for a run after his term ends in January 2027.

    Either way, California voters are not pleased.

    A Los Angeles Times/UC Berkeley poll released this week found Newsom’s approval rating sinking to the lowest point of his nearly five years in office, with 44% of respondents having a favorable view of his job performance and 49% disapproving.

    There may be several explanations; like barnacles on a ship, negatives tend to accumulate the longer a politician stays in office.

    Some on the left are disappointed with Newsom’s approach to the state’s homelessness and mental health crises. Some environmentalists are unhappy with the governor’s water policy. (Republicans never could stand Newsom.)

    But probably the biggest reason for voter discontent is the governor’s political wandering eye.

    “A lot of people don’t think California is doing well,” said Mark DiCamillo, who oversaw the poll for The Times and Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies.

    “There’s homelessness and now the budget deficit,” DiCamillo went on. “There’s a lot of issues that need attention and they seem to be getting worse — or at least not better — and he’s off doing his own thing.”

    The ill will is nothing new. Govs. Jerry Brown and Pete Wilson both sagged in the polls when they stinted on their day job to run off and seek the presidency.

    Maybe it’s a California thing.

    Nationwide, two sitting governors have been elected president in the last 90-plus years: Clinton and Texas’ George W. Bush. Both ran with the blessing of the folks back home.

    Rutherford, who oversaw the planning of Clinton’s presidential library, said Arkansas voters were captivated as they watched “all the people who came in to work” for the campaign, “all the national press coming in and out,” and “it became a source of, ‘Wow, we got a guy who now has a shot to win this thing.’”

    Bush, whose father had been president, was coy even as he used his 1998 gubernatorial reelection campaign to position himself for a White House bid. He won his second term in a landslide and soon enough was traveling the country in pursuit of the presidency.

    Texans didn’t seem to mind.

    A November 1999 poll, conducted by the Scripps Howard news service, found 72% of those surveyed approved of Bush’s performance as governor. The state’s most powerful Democrat, Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock, even endorsed Bush for president in 2000, burnishing the Republican’s bipartisan credentials in a way that’s unimaginable in today’s age of impermeable partisanship.

    “He was just a chatty, friendly character,” said Bruce Buchanan, a longtime Bush watcher and presidential scholar at the University of Texas at Austin. “Everybody who got close to him came away feeling that way, whether they happened to agree with his politics or not.”

    Maybe Californians aren’t all that excited about installing one of their own in the Oval Office.

    After yielding two presidents in the last half-century, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, and two House speakers of recent vintage, Nancy Pelosi and Kevin McCarthy, perhaps national political celebrity isn’t what it used to be.

    Things may be different in Florida, which has never produced a president.

    Even though Ron DeSantis is struggling there — a recent poll put him a whopping 39 percentage points behind former President Trump in Florida’s Republican primary — voters haven’t necessarily soured on their governor, now in his second and final term.

    In a recent trial heat for the 2026 gubernatorial race, DeSantis’ wife, Casey, had more than twice the support of any other potential candidate tested, said Mike Binder, a political science professor and pollster at the University of North Florida in Jacksonville.

    “Clearly, the DeSantis name brand still has a lot of value to it,” Binder said.

    Maybe Newsom can ask Florida’s governor for pointers on running for president without alienating his home state when the two archrivals — one seeking the presidency, the other kinda-sorta but not really — debate at the end of the month.

    Either that or Newsom could start over someplace else like, say, Democratic-leaning Rhode Island. There has never been a president elected from the Ocean State.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    [ad_1]

    While it’s common knowledge that citizens have very little influence on elected officials, The Onion asked U.S. politicians how their constituents feel about a ceasefire in Gaza, and this is what they said.

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “A cease what? I’ve never heard that word in my life.”

    Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)

    Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “My constituents routinely vote in favor of having blood on our hands.”

    Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

    Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “Does AIPAC count as a constituent?”

    Vice President Kamala Harris

    Vice President Kamala Harris

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “Am I a politician? Gee, that’s flattering.”

    Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)

    Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “One more word about a ceasefire, and I’m ordering Israel to bomb south Brooklyn.”

    Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “Oh, while I’m at work the nanny is the one who looks after the constituents.”

    Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “My constituents know I have been calling for a cease-ceasefire since day one.”

    Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)

    Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “Representatives are public servants. That means it’s my job to listen to what my constituents have to say, internalize it, and then do whatever I want.”

    Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “I have genuinely not thought about another human being since 1998.”

    Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “When I got elected in 2014, my campaign pitch was ‘You wanna see a dead body?’”

    Gov. Gavin Newsom Of California

    Gov. Gavin Newsom Of California

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “Constituents…constituents… Oh, you mean the blurred shapes I sometimes see before meetups with donors?”

    Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “Hmm… What is this ‘feel’?”

    Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)

    Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “My Illinois colleague Dick Durbin, who called for a ceasefire, obviously has different constituents than I do.”

    Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

    Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “I don’t know. I can’t hear frequencies coming out of the mouths of people who make below $400k.”

    Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “They elected me to kill people, so that’s what I’m gonna do.”

    Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “I have but one constituent, and their name is Lockheed Martin.”

    Gov. Kathy Hochul Of New York

    Gov. Kathy Hochul Of New York

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “I know what they want. I just think they are stupid and don’t respect them. Make sense?”

    Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL)

    Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “A ceasefire is a sacred bond between one man and one woman. Anything else is a sin.”

    Former President Barack Obama

    Former President Barack Obama

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “No constituents anymore, motherfuckers! You people can’t goddamn touch me! I can say whatever the hell I want. Fuck all of you!”

    Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

    Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “My term doesn’t expire until 2068.”

    Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO)

    Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “Constituents? Oh, do you mean money? The money says to burn it to the ground.”

    Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “I assume all my constituents were also given a full ride by the Federalist Society.”

    Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ)

    Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “We often think about others so much that we forget to think about our own feelings. The question is, do I want a ceasefire?”

    Gov. Greg Abbott Of Texas

    Gov. Greg Abbott Of Texas

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “Most of my constituents are guns, and they love firing. It’s the equivalent of orgasm to them.”

    You’ve Made It This Far…

    You’ve Made It This Far…

    [ad_2]

    Source link