Tag: gov. gavin newsom

Trump rails against low-income housing in Pacific Palisades. But officials say no projects are planned

[ad_1]

President Trump’s foray this week into the fire rebuilding process in Pacific Palisades has been met with confusion and rolled eyes from local officials who say he’s now railing against projects that have never even been proposed.

Trump said Thursday he planned to stop a low-income housing project from being developed in Pacific Palisades. His promise, made during a Cabinet meeting, marked the second time this week he has weighed in on local housing issues in the fire-scarred Palisades.

“They want to build a low-income housing project right in the middle of everything in the Palisades, and I’m not going to allow it to happen,” Trump said. “I’m not going to let these people destroy the value of their houses.”

The comments left politicians around Los Angeles and California scratching their heads: what low-income housing project was the president referring to?

Both Councilmember Traci Park and Mayor Karen Bass said they did not know of a major, low-income housing project coming to the Palisades.

“There are no plans to bring low-income housing to the Palisades,” Bass said in a phone interview with The Times on Thursday from Washington, D.C. “It’s not true. There couldn’t possibly be a project that neither the councilmember nor the mayor would have any knowledge of.”

Trump also took aim at Bass and Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday as he announced an executive order to “preempt” the city’s permitting process to make it easier for fire victims to rebuild.

The order, if implemented, would allow residents to self-certify to federal authorities instead of going through city bureaucracy for permits.

Bass said Thursday that she would welcome an executive order that would bring the insurance and banking industries together to help Angelenos whose houses burned down get more significant insurance payouts and longer-term mortgages.

The Governor’s Office also said they had no idea what low-income housing project Trump was referring to on Thursday.

“The president of the United States is a bumbling idiot and has no idea what he’s talking about,” said Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Newsom. “This narrative that Gavin Newsom is trying to build high-density, low-income housing in the Palisades and turn them into ‘Newsomvilles’ is absurd.”

Gardon said the state is providing resources for developers to rebuild below-market-rate housing that was destroyed in the Palisades fire, which tore through the beach-side enclave in January 2025, killing 12 and destroying thousands of homes and structures.

In July, the governor committed $101 million to help rebuilding efforts of “affordable multifamily rental housing in the fire-devastated Los Angeles region.”

The financing was for areas affected by both the Palisades and Eaton fires.

The program allows affordable housing developers to apply for financing and prioritizes projects that are near wildfire burn areas, ready for immediate construction.

The program required the developments to remain affordable for more than a half-century to receive the funding.

Trump did not specify Thursday whether he was speaking about the July announcement or about a specific project.

“That was money that went to the L.A. area for the four communities impacted by the fires to help developers to rebuild low-income mixed-use housing that was destroyed by the fires,” Gardon said.

Maryam Zar, a Palisades resident, said that many in the Palisades feared a new project on the site of a Shell gas station that developer Justin Kohanoff said he wanted to build into an eight-story, 100-unit, low-income building.

Kohanoff’s father, Saeed Kohanoff, declined to comment beyond saying the family has no immediate plans to develop the property.

The Trump administration did not immediately specify what low-income housing project, if any in particular, the president was speaking about.

[ad_2]

Noah Goldberg, Ana Ceballos

Source link

January 29, 2026
State of the State: Gavin Newsom to deliver final address as California governor

[ad_1]

Gov. Gavin Newsom is set to deliver his final State of the State address as the state’s governor this Thursday.Newsom will host the address at the state Capitol in front of a joint session of the Legislature, the first time he has done so since 2020. In recent years, he has opted for writing letters to the Legislature, releasing pre-recorded messages or touring across the state to issue new policies and initiatives.Ahead of the address, the governor’s office offered brief outlines of themes Newsom is expected to touch upon. One topic includes homelessness and California’s efforts to resolve the state’s mental health crisis.Housing affordability, education and investment in public schools are other topics outlined. The governor also plans on addressing public safety, violent crime, and theft across the state, and the various levels of law enforcement working to handle those issues.Another major topic Newsom is expected to address is climate initiatives and how California’s policies have implications both nationally and globally.Newsom’s office also shared that Newsom will convey that California is a stable democracy, an economic engine with conscience, and a “functioning alternative to Donald Trump’s federal dysfunction.” The State of the State address begins at 10:30 a.m. Thursday.Because there is a two-term limit on holding the office of California governor, Newsom will not be able to run for a third term.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

SACRAMENTO, Calif. —

Gov. Gavin Newsom is set to deliver his final State of the State address as the state’s governor this Thursday.

Newsom will host the address at the state Capitol in front of a joint session of the Legislature, the first time he has done so since 2020. In recent years, he has opted for writing letters to the Legislature, releasing pre-recorded messages or touring across the state to issue new policies and initiatives.

Ahead of the address, the governor’s office offered brief outlines of themes Newsom is expected to touch upon. One topic includes homelessness and California’s efforts to resolve the state’s mental health crisis.

Housing affordability, education and investment in public schools are other topics outlined. The governor also plans on addressing public safety, violent crime, and theft across the state, and the various levels of law enforcement working to handle those issues.

Another major topic Newsom is expected to address is climate initiatives and how California’s policies have implications both nationally and globally.

Newsom’s office also shared that Newsom will convey that California is a stable democracy, an economic engine with conscience, and a “functioning alternative to Donald Trump’s federal dysfunction.”

The State of the State address begins at 10:30 a.m. Thursday.

Because there is a two-term limit on holding the office of California governor, Newsom will not be able to run for a third term.

See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

[ad_2]

Source link

January 8, 2026
Justice Department sues to block laws restricting masked, unidentified law enforcement officers in California

[ad_1]

SACRAMENTO — The U.S. Department of Justice sued California on Monday to block newly passed laws that prohibit law enforcement officials, including federal immigration agents, from wearing masks and that require them to identify themselves.

The laws, passed by the California Legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, came in the wake of the Trump administration’s immigration raids in California, when masked, unidentified federal officers jumped out of vehicles this summer as part of the president’s mass deportation program.

Atty. Gen. Pamela Bondi said the laws were unconsitutional and endanger federal officers.

“California’s anti-law enforcement policies discriminate against the federal government and are designed to create risk for our agents,” Bondi said in a statement. “These laws cannot stand.”

The governor recently signed Senate Bill 627, which bans federal officers from wearing masks during enforcement duties, and Senate Bill 805, which requires federal officers without a uniform to visibly display their name or badge number during operations. Both measures were introduced as a response to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration raids that are often conducted by masked agents in plainclothes and unmarked cars.

The lawsuit, which names the state of California, Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta as defendants, asserts the laws are unconstitutional as only the federal government has the authority to control its agents and any requirements about their uniforms. It further argued that federal agents need to conceal their identities at times due to the nature of their work.

“Given the personal threats and violence that agents face, federal law enforcement agencies allow their officers to choose whether to wear masks to protect their identities and provide an extra layer of security,” the lawsuit states. “Denying federal agencies and officers that choice would chill federal law enforcement and deter applicants for law enforcement positions.”

Federal agents will not comply with either law, the lawsuit states.

“The Federal Government would be harmed if forced to comply with either Act, and also faces harm from the real threat of criminal liability for noncompliance,” the lawsuit states. “Accordingly, the challenged laws are invalid under the Supremacy Clause and their application to the Federal Government should be preliminarily and permanently enjoined.”

Newsom previously said it was unacceptable for “secret police” to grab people off the streets, and that the new laws were needed to help the public differentiate between imposters and legitimate federal law officers.

The governor, however, acknowledged the legislation could use more clarifications about safety gear and other exemptions. He directed lawmakers to work on a follow-up bill next year.

In a Monday statement, Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who introduced SB 627, said the FBI recently warned that “secret police tactics” are undermining public safety.

“Despite what these would-be authoritarians claim, no one is above the law,” said Wiener. “We’ll see you in court.”

[ad_2]

Katie King

Source link

November 17, 2025
What is Gov. Gavin Newsom’s role in the California Capitol Annex project?

[ad_1]

Gov. Gavin Newsom has promised to push state lawmakers leading the California Capitol Annex project to be more transparent about how they’re using taxpayer dollars, but documents show Newsom’s office plays a larger role in the project than the governor suggested earlier this week. It has been at least three years since project leaders in the California Legislature provided an update on the estimated cost of the taxpayer funded office building that will be used by the governor and state lawmakers. At last check, it was expected to cost more than $1.1 billion. | PREVIOUS COVERAGE | Gov. Newsom says California Legislature’s secrecy around Capitol Annex is ‘inappropriate’ Project leaders, also known as the Joint Rules Committee, have also not been forthcoming with information about how they’re spending the funds; only confirming information that is leaked to KCRA 3, including millions spent on Italian stonework, and the decision to add a hallway system that only lawmakers can use to avoid the public and media. The legislature also continues to withhold documents that KCRA 3 has requested, which could shed light on how much the project is costing. “As a taxpayer, I’d like to know as well,” Newsom told KCRA 3 at a news conference Tuesday when pressed about the legislature’s handling of the project and lack of information.But documents provided to KCRA 3 show Gov. Newsom’s Director of Operations has been part of a three-member Executive Committee that is expected to meet regularly and vote on final decisions about the project behind closed doors. The committee includes Newsom’s current Director of Operations Miroslava de la O, Democratic Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco and Democratic State Sen. John Laird. A 2018 memorandum of understanding between the legislature and governor’s office established the committee to ensure the legislature keeps the governor’s office in the loop on the project. The legislature’s Joint Rules Committee does the bulk of the decision making. The memo lays out the expectations for the committee, stating it should meet as needed, with a monthly standing meeting that can be “more frequent or cancelled as necessary.” The memo also states changes to project scope, schedules, budgets and delivery methods made by the committee shall be subject to a majority vote. The memo has allowed everything the committee does to be kept confidential. The agreement was established before Gov. Newsom took office.All three members of the committee have signed non-disclosure agreements that the legislature has required since 2018 from people involved in the project in order to keep broad information about it confidential, which KCRA 3 first reported last fall. With the NDAs in place, the project price tag swelled from $558.2 million to more than $1 billion. Documents provided to KCRA 3 through a Legislative Open Records Act request this year show de la O recently signed the non-disclosure agreement. Prior to de la O, Erin Suhr served in the Executive Committee role representing the governor. Suhr also signed the NDA. It’s not clear when the committee last met, a spokesperson for the legislature’s Joint Rules Committee could not say immediately when asked on Wednesday. KCRA 3 has filed a public records act request for meeting information between 2018 and now. “The Executive Committee was designed to ensure collaboration and transparency despite your claims of secrecy,” a spokesperson for the Joint Rules Committee said in part in a statement to KCRA 3 on Wednesday. “Consistent with the MOU, the Governor’s office staff is not involved in day-to-day operations or management of the project,” said Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for Gov. Newsom. KCRA 3 asked the governor’s office if the NDA kept de la O from sharing information with the governor. “Our office’s role on the committee is limited to reviewing significant scope changes as defined in the MOU, which have not been presented to the committee at this time, as well as reviewing security concerns. We are not privy to detailed financial information beyond what is addressed by the committee. The NDA does not prevent the Governor’s staff from briefing him on actions taken by the committee and limited information received in this function,” Gallegos said. “Those three people make key decisions on the capitol. More importantly, they made those decisions privately and not have to disclose those to the public,” said Luree Stetson, a member of the Public Accountability For Our Capitol Political Action Committee. When asked if she’s convinced the governor does not know how much the building costs Stetson said, “I don’t know if the governor would or not, his staff might, whether his staff informed him of that, we’ve tried to get in touch with the governor over the last five years also and never heard back from him.”Newsom will likely never use the 525,000 square-foot building as governor, which is expected to be complete in 2027 after he’s termed out of office. Newsom has approved legislation appropriating funds for the project. He also signed a bill in 2024 that exempted the new building from California’s Environmental Quality Act to cease the litigation that had been stalling it.The last public update on the project was in a hearing in April of 2021. The California Legislature’s Joint Rules Committee said it planned to provide an update this year, but that never happened before state lawmakers left Sacramento for the rest of the year in September. See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

SACRAMENTO, Calif. —

Gov. Gavin Newsom has promised to push state lawmakers leading the California Capitol Annex project to be more transparent about how they’re using taxpayer dollars, but documents show Newsom’s office plays a larger role in the project than the governor suggested earlier this week.

It has been at least three years since project leaders in the California Legislature provided an update on the estimated cost of the taxpayer funded office building that will be used by the governor and state lawmakers. At last check, it was expected to cost more than $1.1 billion.

| PREVIOUS COVERAGE | Gov. Newsom says California Legislature’s secrecy around Capitol Annex is ‘inappropriate’

Project leaders, also known as the Joint Rules Committee, have also not been forthcoming with information about how they’re spending the funds; only confirming information that is leaked to KCRA 3, including millions spent on Italian stonework, and the decision to add a hallway system that only lawmakers can use to avoid the public and media. The legislature also continues to withhold documents that KCRA 3 has requested, which could shed light on how much the project is costing.

“As a taxpayer, I’d like to know as well,” Newsom told KCRA 3 at a news conference Tuesday when pressed about the legislature’s handling of the project and lack of information.

But documents provided to KCRA 3 show Gov. Newsom’s Director of Operations has been part of a three-member Executive Committee that is expected to meet regularly and vote on final decisions about the project behind closed doors. The committee includes Newsom’s current Director of Operations Miroslava de la O, Democratic Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco and Democratic State Sen. John Laird.

A 2018 memorandum of understanding between the legislature and governor’s office established the committee to ensure the legislature keeps the governor’s office in the loop on the project. The legislature’s Joint Rules Committee does the bulk of the decision making. The memo lays out the expectations for the committee, stating it should meet as needed, with a monthly standing meeting that can be “more frequent or cancelled as necessary.”

The memo also states changes to project scope, schedules, budgets and delivery methods made by the committee shall be subject to a majority vote. The memo has allowed everything the committee does to be kept confidential. The agreement was established before Gov. Newsom took office.

All three members of the committee have signed non-disclosure agreements that the legislature has required since 2018 from people involved in the project in order to keep broad information about it confidential, which KCRA 3 first reported last fall. With the NDAs in place, the project price tag swelled from $558.2 million to more than $1 billion.

Documents provided to KCRA 3 through a Legislative Open Records Act request this year show de la O recently signed the non-disclosure agreement. Prior to de la O, Erin Suhr served in the Executive Committee role representing the governor. Suhr also signed the NDA.

It’s not clear when the committee last met, a spokesperson for the legislature’s Joint Rules Committee could not say immediately when asked on Wednesday. KCRA 3 has filed a public records act request for meeting information between 2018 and now.

“The Executive Committee was designed to ensure collaboration and transparency despite your claims of secrecy,” a spokesperson for the Joint Rules Committee said in part in a statement to KCRA 3 on Wednesday.

“Consistent with the MOU, the Governor’s office staff is not involved in day-to-day operations or management of the project,” said Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for Gov. Newsom.

KCRA 3 asked the governor’s office if the NDA kept de la O from sharing information with the governor.

“Our office’s role on the committee is limited to reviewing significant scope changes as defined in the MOU, which have not been presented to the committee at this time, as well as reviewing security concerns. We are not privy to detailed financial information beyond what is addressed by the committee. The NDA does not prevent the Governor’s staff from briefing him on actions taken by the committee and limited information received in this function,” Gallegos said.

“Those three people make key decisions on the capitol. More importantly, they made those decisions privately and not have to disclose those to the public,” said Luree Stetson, a member of the Public Accountability For Our Capitol Political Action Committee.

When asked if she’s convinced the governor does not know how much the building costs Stetson said, “I don’t know if the governor would or not, his staff might, whether his staff informed him of that, we’ve tried to get in touch with the governor over the last five years also and never heard back from him.”

Newsom will likely never use the 525,000 square-foot building as governor, which is expected to be complete in 2027 after he’s termed out of office.

Newsom has approved legislation appropriating funds for the project. He also signed a bill in 2024 that exempted the new building from California’s Environmental Quality Act to cease the litigation that had been stalling it.

The last public update on the project was in a hearing in April of 2021. The California Legislature’s Joint Rules Committee said it planned to provide an update this year, but that never happened before state lawmakers left Sacramento for the rest of the year in September.

See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

[ad_2]

Source link

October 29, 2025
Menendez brothers resentenced to 50 years to life, opening the door for possible parole, judge rules

[ad_1]

A judge resentenced Erik and Lyle Menendez to 50 years to life in prison for the 1989 murders of their parents, ruling Tuesday the brothers will be eligible for parole. The brothers have been serving life without parole for the killings.The stunning decision came at the end of the first day of what was scheduled to be a two-day hearing about resentencing for the brothers, who were convicted of first-degree murder for the killings in the living room of the family’s Beverly Hills home.Judge Michael Jesic said during the resentencing that a horrific crime was committed, but he was equally shocked by the letters from prison and corrections officers, saying it’s remarkable what the brothers have done.While they are immediately eligible for parole, Jesic said he is not suggesting they should be released, but “one day they should get that chance.”The state parole board and governor must still decide whether to grant parole. A hearing with the board is already scheduled for June 13 as part of a separate bid by the brothers.They’re also seeking clemency from the governor, which could allow for their immediate release, and they have filed a habeas petition for a new trial.“It’s now up to the parole board and the governor of California,” Jesic said. CNN has reached out to the governor’s office and the state parole board for comment on the ruling.The parole board could either deny their request or recommend to the governor that they be granted parole. If the board recommends parole be granted, the decision will go to Gov. Gavin Newsom.In California, the governor has “executive authority to affirm, reverse, or modify any Board decision to grant or deny parole to a convicted murderer,” according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. He’ll have 120 days to do that.In 2022, Newsom used that authority to deny parole for Sirhan Sirhan, the man convicted of assassinating Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, after the board recommended Sirhan for parole.Last fall, former Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón recommended resentencing for the brothers, but his successor, Nathan Hochman, has fought against it.“The decision to resentence Erik and Lyle Menendez was a monumental one that has significant implications for the families involved, the community, and the principles of justice,” Hochman said in a statement Tuesday evening. “Our office’s motions to withdraw the resentencing motion filed by the previous administration ensured that the Court was presented with all the facts before making such a consequential decision.”The hearing moved much more quickly than expected. Jesic had given no indication about when or in what form he would rule, acknowledging the complicated nature of the case in which the family members are victims who also support the defense. It was even thought a decision wouldn’t come before the end of proceedings Wednesday, he said.Brothers take ‘full responsibility’ for the murdersThe high-stakes hearing began Tuesday with arguments about whether Erik and Lyle Menendez should be resentenced in the first place.The brothers appeared remotely from prison before the judge made the decision, and both took “full responsibility” for the murders.“I committed an atrocious act against two people who had every right to live, my mom and dad,” Erik said, adding that he “created a crushing sadness” for his family and there was “no excuse” for his behavior.“I will never stop trying to make a difference whether I am inside or outside of prison,” he said.Lyle also admitted to killing his parents, saying he “was immature” and “filled with rage.”“Had I trusted others to help me, I wouldn’t have committed these crimes,” he said. “I didn’t think anyone would believe me about my sexual abuse.”If he was let out of prison, he would “continue to serve sexual abuse victims,” he said.After court, defense attorney Mark Geragos said, “I just know that on a day like today, that redemption is possible.”“The fact is, the Menendez brothers have done remarkable work, and today is a great day after 35 years,” he said. “They are a real family, real people who have lived through unimaginable horrors, and I’m hopeful and glad that we’re one, one huge step closer to bringing the boys home.”The brothers were hoping the judge would reduce that sentence to life with parole; Geragos said earlier Tuesday he hoped the judge would go even further and reduce the charge to voluntary manslaughter, with a sentence of time served.Family members and close supporters testifyFamily members who have long supported the brothers were in court Tuesday, with several taking the stand to plead for the brothers’ release.“We just want this to end,” cousin Anamaria Baralt testified.Relatives say the brothers have demonstrated remorse and rehabilitation, and that the severity of the sentence should be revisited because of an evolving understanding of childhood sexual abuse. The brothers have maintained they carried out the murders in self-defense after years of abuse by their father, and continued to say that Tuesday.Diane Hernandez, another cousin who testified Tuesday, lived with the Menendez family in their Beverly Hills home and viewed herself as an older sister to the boys. On the stand, she described how Jose Menendez intimidated and terrorized the house, and testified about his “hallway rule” that when he was with the brothers, no one else could be.“Please be merciful,” Hernandez told the judge. The brothers, she said, “are remarkable human beings at this point.”Hochman, the current Los Angeles County district attorney, had said he was not opposed to resentencing, but doesn’t feel it’s justified yet. The brothers, he says, have “fabricated” their claims of abuse and self-defense and must admit it first.“The Menendezes have had numerous chances to come clean with all their actions and if and when they do, they’ll be ready for resentencing,” Hochman told CNN earlier Tuesday.Prosecutors pressed family members on whether they were aware of the brothers having lied to them over the years.“Were you aware the brothers lied to the family, to law enforcement and to the media?” Seth Carmack asked Tamara Goodell, another cousin. She said she was, but that the brothers never spoke about it to her one way or another and they talk about the murders with her only to say sorry.Baralt was also asked whether the brothers had ever admitted to lying and trying to manipulate the case. She said Lyle had recently admitted asking a girlfriend to lie about his father’s abuse.Retired Judge Jonathan Colby, who knew the brothers through a prison program, also testified they were great inmates, calling them “peacemakers” in prison. Anare Brown, who met the brothers while he was in prison, said they have remorse and insight, and have helped “dozens” of people they were imprisoned with.Another factor Hochman cited in opposing resentencing is the recent finding the brothers would pose a “moderate” risk of violence if released. That came in a pair of comprehensive risk assessments conducted by the state parole board.Both brothers had committed cell phone violations while in prison, he said – Lyle in November 2024 and Erik in January 2025.Prosecutor Habib Balian asked Baralt on Tuesday about the cell phones, and she acknowledged some of her conversations with Lyle had taken place on an illegal burner phone he had in prison.Efforts toward releaseUnlike a new trial, which would focus on the facts of the case, resentencing allowed the judge to consider a variety of factors, including the brothers’ rehabilitative efforts.The brothers have founded a long list of prison programs, with Erik starting at least five, including a support group for disabled and elderly inmates. Lyle founded a massive beautification program, raising more than $250,000 to install greenery to help prison life to resemble the outside world.Besides authority to change parole board decisions, Newsom also has the power to commute the brothers’ sentences, which would immediately free them – but he has so far refrained from doing so. The “comprehensive risk assessments” the judge requested ahead of the resentencing hearing were commissioned by the state’s Board of Parole after Newsom asked them to investigate whether the brothers would pose an “unreasonable risk” to the public if released.Attorneys for the Menendez brothers are also pursuing a new trial, formally known as a habeas corpus petition. Attorneys claim to have new evidence against the brothers’ father, including a 1988 letter from Erik Menendez to a relative referencing the alleged abuse.

LOS ANGELES —

A judge resentenced Erik and Lyle Menendez to 50 years to life in prison for the 1989 murders of their parents, ruling Tuesday the brothers will be eligible for parole. The brothers have been serving life without parole for the killings.

The stunning decision came at the end of the first day of what was scheduled to be a two-day hearing about resentencing for the brothers, who were convicted of first-degree murder for the killings in the living room of the family’s Beverly Hills home.

Judge Michael Jesic said during the resentencing that a horrific crime was committed, but he was equally shocked by the letters from prison and corrections officers, saying it’s remarkable what the brothers have done.

While they are immediately eligible for parole, Jesic said he is not suggesting they should be released, but “one day they should get that chance.”

The state parole board and governor must still decide whether to grant parole. A hearing with the board is already scheduled for June 13 as part of a separate bid by the brothers.

They’re also seeking clemency from the governor, which could allow for their immediate release, and they have filed a habeas petition for a new trial.

“It’s now up to the parole board and the governor of California,” Jesic said. CNN has reached out to the governor’s office and the state parole board for comment on the ruling.

The parole board could either deny their request or recommend to the governor that they be granted parole. If the board recommends parole be granted, the decision will go to Gov. Gavin Newsom.

In California, the governor has “executive authority to affirm, reverse, or modify any Board decision to grant or deny parole to a convicted murderer,” according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. He’ll have 120 days to do that.

In 2022, Newsom used that authority to deny parole for Sirhan Sirhan, the man convicted of assassinating Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, after the board recommended Sirhan for parole.

Last fall, former Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón recommended resentencing for the brothers, but his successor, Nathan Hochman, has fought against it.

“The decision to resentence Erik and Lyle Menendez was a monumental one that has significant implications for the families involved, the community, and the principles of justice,” Hochman said in a statement Tuesday evening. “Our office’s motions to withdraw the resentencing motion filed by the previous administration ensured that the Court was presented with all the facts before making such a consequential decision.”

The hearing moved much more quickly than expected. Jesic had given no indication about when or in what form he would rule, acknowledging the complicated nature of the case in which the family members are victims who also support the defense. It was even thought a decision wouldn’t come before the end of proceedings Wednesday, he said.

Brothers take ‘full responsibility’ for the murders

The high-stakes hearing began Tuesday with arguments about whether Erik and Lyle Menendez should be resentenced in the first place.

The brothers appeared remotely from prison before the judge made the decision, and both took “full responsibility” for the murders.

“I committed an atrocious act against two people who had every right to live, my mom and dad,” Erik said, adding that he “created a crushing sadness” for his family and there was “no excuse” for his behavior.

“I will never stop trying to make a difference whether I am inside or outside of prison,” he said.

Lyle also admitted to killing his parents, saying he “was immature” and “filled with rage.”

“Had I trusted others to help me, I wouldn’t have committed these crimes,” he said. “I didn’t think anyone would believe me about my sexual abuse.”

If he was let out of prison, he would “continue to serve sexual abuse victims,” he said.

After court, defense attorney Mark Geragos said, “I just know that on a day like today, that redemption is possible.”

“The fact is, the Menendez brothers have done remarkable work, and today is a great day after 35 years,” he said. “They are a real family, real people who have lived through unimaginable horrors, and I’m hopeful and glad that we’re one, one huge step closer to bringing the boys home.”

The brothers were hoping the judge would reduce that sentence to life with parole; Geragos said earlier Tuesday he hoped the judge would go even further and reduce the charge to voluntary manslaughter, with a sentence of time served.

Family members and close supporters testify

Family members who have long supported the brothers were in court Tuesday, with several taking the stand to plead for the brothers’ release.

“We just want this to end,” cousin Anamaria Baralt testified.

Relatives say the brothers have demonstrated remorse and rehabilitation, and that the severity of the sentence should be revisited because of an evolving understanding of childhood sexual abuse. The brothers have maintained they carried out the murders in self-defense after years of abuse by their father, and continued to say that Tuesday.

Diane Hernandez, another cousin who testified Tuesday, lived with the Menendez family in their Beverly Hills home and viewed herself as an older sister to the boys. On the stand, she described how Jose Menendez intimidated and terrorized the house, and testified about his “hallway rule” that when he was with the brothers, no one else could be.

“Please be merciful,” Hernandez told the judge. The brothers, she said, “are remarkable human beings at this point.”

Hochman, the current Los Angeles County district attorney, had said he was not opposed to resentencing, but doesn’t feel it’s justified yet. The brothers, he says, have “fabricated” their claims of abuse and self-defense and must admit it first.

“The Menendezes have had numerous chances to come clean with all their actions and if and when they do, they’ll be ready for resentencing,” Hochman told CNN earlier Tuesday.

Prosecutors pressed family members on whether they were aware of the brothers having lied to them over the years.

“Were you aware the brothers lied to the family, to law enforcement and to the media?” Seth Carmack asked Tamara Goodell, another cousin. She said she was, but that the brothers never spoke about it to her one way or another and they talk about the murders with her only to say sorry.

Baralt was also asked whether the brothers had ever admitted to lying and trying to manipulate the case. She said Lyle had recently admitted asking a girlfriend to lie about his father’s abuse.

Retired Judge Jonathan Colby, who knew the brothers through a prison program, also testified they were great inmates, calling them “peacemakers” in prison. Anare Brown, who met the brothers while he was in prison, said they have remorse and insight, and have helped “dozens” of people they were imprisoned with.

Another factor Hochman cited in opposing resentencing is the recent finding the brothers would pose a “moderate” risk of violence if released. That came in a pair of comprehensive risk assessments conducted by the state parole board.

Both brothers had committed cell phone violations while in prison, he said – Lyle in November 2024 and Erik in January 2025.

Prosecutor Habib Balian asked Baralt on Tuesday about the cell phones, and she acknowledged some of her conversations with Lyle had taken place on an illegal burner phone he had in prison.

Efforts toward release

Unlike a new trial, which would focus on the facts of the case, resentencing allowed the judge to consider a variety of factors, including the brothers’ rehabilitative efforts.

The brothers have founded a long list of prison programs, with Erik starting at least five, including a support group for disabled and elderly inmates. Lyle founded a massive beautification program, raising more than $250,000 to install greenery to help prison life to resemble the outside world.

Besides authority to change parole board decisions, Newsom also has the power to commute the brothers’ sentences, which would immediately free them – but he has so far refrained from doing so. The “comprehensive risk assessments” the judge requested ahead of the resentencing hearing were commissioned by the state’s Board of Parole after Newsom asked them to investigate whether the brothers would pose an “unreasonable risk” to the public if released.

Attorneys for the Menendez brothers are also pursuing a new trial, formally known as a habeas corpus petition. Attorneys claim to have new evidence against the brothers’ father, including a 1988 letter from Erik Menendez to a relative referencing the alleged abuse.

[ad_2]

Source link

October 22, 2025
Trump Deploys Troops To Oregon, Despite Judge’s Order – KXL

[ad_1]

President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Monday, Sept. 15, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Portland, Ore. – President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of 300 California National Guard troops to Oregon, after a federal judge blocked the use of Oregon’s Guard in Portland, Saturday evening. In a statement Sunday, California Governor Gavin Newsom said, “President Trump is deploying 300 California National Guard personnel into Oregon. They are on their way there now.” Oregon Governor Tina Kotek added in a statement, “My administration is aware that 101 federalized California National Guard members arrived in Oregon last night via plane, and it is our understanding that there are more on the way today.” Kotek went on to say her office received no official notification from the Trump administration.

Portland Mayor Keith Wilson says, “this action circumvents the court’s decision and threatens to inflame a community that has remained peaceful. Our legal team is coordinating with our partners and will immediately pursue all lawful steps to enforce the judge’s order and protect Portlanders’ rights.” Gov. Newsom says his office will sue for what he calls the President’s “breathtaking abuse of power.”

This is a developing story.

More about:

[ad_2]

Heather Roberts

Source link

October 5, 2025
California Gov. Newsom signs bill aimed at banning law enforcement from using face coverings

[ad_1]

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday signed legislation that aims to make California the first state to ban most law enforcement from covering their faces while carrying out operations.Senate Bill 627, authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, was in response to federal immigration raids where officers have been seen wearing masks. It would prohibit neck gaiters, ski masks and other facial coverings for local and federal officers, including immigration enforcement agents, while they conduct official business. It makes exceptions for undercover agents, medical masks such as N95 respirators or tactical gear.(Earlier coverage in the video above.)Republican lawmakers and law enforcement agencies were opposed to the bill, arguing it would make officers’ and agents’ job more dangerous. Immigration officials have cited the fear of agents and their families being doxed. It’s unclear if California will be able to enforce the measure. Newsom also signed several other bills that his office argued would counter “secret police tactics” by the president and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. The package of legislation would require that families be notified when immigration agents come on school campuses and require a judicial warrant or court order before giving student information or classroom access to ICE.The new legislation would also require a warrant or court order before allowing agents access to emergency rooms and other nonpublic areas of a hospital. It would clarify that immigration information collected by a health care provider is medical information. “Public safety depends on trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve — but Trump and Miller have shattered that trust and spread fear across America,” Newsom said in a statement. “California is putting an end to it and making sure schools and hospitals remain what they should be: places of care, not chaos.”See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel–The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday signed legislation that aims to make California the first state to ban most law enforcement from covering their faces while carrying out operations.

Senate Bill 627, authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, was in response to federal immigration raids where officers have been seen wearing masks. It would prohibit neck gaiters, ski masks and other facial coverings for local and federal officers, including immigration enforcement agents, while they conduct official business. It makes exceptions for undercover agents, medical masks such as N95 respirators or tactical gear.

(Earlier coverage in the video above.)

Republican lawmakers and law enforcement agencies were opposed to the bill, arguing it would make officers’ and agents’ job more dangerous. Immigration officials have cited the fear of agents and their families being doxed.

It’s unclear if California will be able to enforce the measure.

Newsom also signed several other bills that his office argued would counter “secret police tactics” by the president and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller.

The package of legislation would require that families be notified when immigration agents come on school campuses and require a judicial warrant or court order before giving student information or classroom access to ICE.

The new legislation would also require a warrant or court order before allowing agents access to emergency rooms and other nonpublic areas of a hospital. It would clarify that immigration information collected by a health care provider is medical information.

“Public safety depends on trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve — but Trump and Miller have shattered that trust and spread fear across America,” Newsom said in a statement. “California is putting an end to it and making sure schools and hospitals remain what they should be: places of care, not chaos.”

See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

–The Associated Press contributed to this story.

[ad_2]

Source link

September 20, 2025
California lawmakers approve bill to make it a crime for them to sign NDAs when negotiating state laws

[ad_1]

The California Legislature this week approved a bill that would ban state lawmakers from signing non-disclosure agreements when they decide how to use taxpayer dollars or create state laws. Non-disclosure agreements are legally binding contracts that force people to keep information secret. The California Assembly unanimously passed the measure in its final legislative vote Wednesday and sent it to Gov. Gavin Newsom to decide whether it becomes state law. The legislation is a direct result of KCRA 3’s reporting on how California’s government has either used them or allowed special interest groups to use them on a major public project and state laws.The bill, AB 1370, would make it a crime for California lawmakers to sign or force anyone to sign the secrecy agreements as they craft legislation. It would be enforced by local law enforcement and give prosecutors the power to charge lawmakers with either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the circumstances. “I think us as legislators and the governor should not be signing away the public’s right to know the deliberations of important things that will impact their lives,” said Assemblyman Joe Patterson, R-Rocklin, who wrote the proposal. “This is one step to bringing more transparency but more trust in the government, more trust in the work we do here in the legislature.” No Democratic lawmakers have spoken publicly about the proposal this year. KCRA 3 was the first to report the use of NDAs in the California Legislature’s construction of a new $1.1 billion office building for state lawmakers. The Legislature directed 2,000 people, including five state lawmakers and dozens of government workers, to sign NDAs to keep broad information about the project secret. Democratic leaders haven’t given an update on the project in years.KCRA 3 also first reported last year that state lawmakers were entirely left out of the negotiations of California’s fast-food minimum wage law, which raised pay to $20 an hour for fast-food workers across the state but provided a mysterious exemption for bakeries that sell and bake their own bread.Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office oversaw the negotiations and allowed NDAs to cover the secret talks at the insistence of a major labor organization, SEIU California. Newsom’s office has said neither the governor nor his staff signed them. Since then, no one has been able to explain the bakery exemption, but multiple sources have told KCRA 3 it was for one of the governor’s billionaire donors, who is also a Panera franchisee.Joseph Bryant, an SEIU official who is also a member of California’s Fast-Food Council, which is meant to set the wages and working conditions for the workers across the state, would not confirm or deny that he signed the NDA.Republican lawmakers twice last year tried to introduce legislation that would have broadly restricted the use of NDAs by lawmakers, staff, other government officials and lobbyists when crafting public policy. Democrats in the Assembly claimed the measure was too broad.California Attorney General Rob Bonta earlier this year would not confirm or deny if he would try to enforce the existing NDAs on the fast-food law and Capitol Annex project if anyone were to violate them. Gov. Newsom has until mid-October to sign or veto legislation. See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

SACRAMENTO, Calif. —

The California Legislature this week approved a bill that would ban state lawmakers from signing non-disclosure agreements when they decide how to use taxpayer dollars or create state laws.

Non-disclosure agreements are legally binding contracts that force people to keep information secret.

The California Assembly unanimously passed the measure in its final legislative vote Wednesday and sent it to Gov. Gavin Newsom to decide whether it becomes state law.

The legislation is a direct result of KCRA 3’s reporting on how California’s government has either used them or allowed special interest groups to use them on a major public project and state laws.

The bill, AB 1370, would make it a crime for California lawmakers to sign or force anyone to sign the secrecy agreements as they craft legislation. It would be enforced by local law enforcement and give prosecutors the power to charge lawmakers with either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the circumstances.

“I think us as legislators and the governor should not be signing away the public’s right to know the deliberations of important things that will impact their lives,” said Assemblyman Joe Patterson, R-Rocklin, who wrote the proposal. “This is one step to bringing more transparency but more trust in the government, more trust in the work we do here in the legislature.”

No Democratic lawmakers have spoken publicly about the proposal this year.

KCRA 3 was the first to report the use of NDAs in the California Legislature’s construction of a new $1.1 billion office building for state lawmakers. The Legislature directed 2,000 people, including five state lawmakers and dozens of government workers, to sign NDAs to keep broad information about the project secret. Democratic leaders haven’t given an update on the project in years.

KCRA 3 also first reported last year that state lawmakers were entirely left out of the negotiations of California’s fast-food minimum wage law, which raised pay to $20 an hour for fast-food workers across the state but provided a mysterious exemption for bakeries that sell and bake their own bread.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office oversaw the negotiations and allowed NDAs to cover the secret talks at the insistence of a major labor organization, SEIU California. Newsom’s office has said neither the governor nor his staff signed them. Since then, no one has been able to explain the bakery exemption, but multiple sources have told KCRA 3 it was for one of the governor’s billionaire donors, who is also a Panera franchisee.

Joseph Bryant, an SEIU official who is also a member of California’s Fast-Food Council, which is meant to set the wages and working conditions for the workers across the state, would not confirm or deny that he signed the NDA.

Republican lawmakers twice last year tried to introduce legislation that would have broadly restricted the use of NDAs by lawmakers, staff, other government officials and lobbyists when crafting public policy. Democrats in the Assembly claimed the measure was too broad.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta earlier this year would not confirm or deny if he would try to enforce the existing NDAs on the fast-food law and Capitol Annex project if anyone were to violate them.

Gov. Newsom has until mid-October to sign or veto legislation.

See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

[ad_2]

Source link

September 11, 2025
California Republicans energized by their opposition to Newsom’s redistricting special election

[ad_1]

Generally speaking, it’s a grand time to be a Republican in the nation’s capital.

President Trump is redecorating the White House in his gold-plated image. The GOP controls both houses of Congress. Two-thirds of the Supreme Court was appointed by Republican presidents.

In California, the outlook for the GOP is far bleaker. The party hasn’t elected a statewide candidate in almost two decades; Democrats hold a nearly 2-to-1 voter registration edge and have supermajorities in both houses of the Legislature.

That’s long been the story for a state party stuck in the shadows in a deep-blue coastal state.

Will O’Neill, chairman, Republican Party of Orange County, Mark Mueser, Dhillon Law Group, Shawn Steel, RNC National Committeeman, Garrett Fahy, chair, Republican National Lawyers Association, and California State Assembly member David Tangipa during the Redistricting Lawfare in 2025 session at the California GOP Convention in Garden Grove on Saturday.

(Eric Thayer / For The Times)

However, amid a sea of “Trump 2028” T-shirts, red MAGA hats and sequined Americana-themed accessories, California Republicans had a brief reprieve from minority status this weekend at their fall convention in Orange County.

Members of the California GOP — often a fractious horde — were energized and united by their opposition to Proposition 50, the ballot measure crafted by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democratic leaders to redraw the state’s congressional districts to counter gerrymandering efforts in GOP-led states. Newsom accused Republicans of trying to “rig” the 2026 election at Trump’s behest to keep control of Congress.

Voters will decide its fate in a Nov. 4 special election and receive mail ballots roughly four weeks prior.

“Only one thing really matters. We’ve gotten people in the same room on this issue that hated each other for 20 years, probably for good reasons, based on ego,” said Shawn Steel, one of California’s three members of the Republican National Committee and the chairman of the party’s anti-Proposition 50 campaign, on Saturday. “But those days are over, at least for the next 58 days. … This is more than just unity. It’s survival.”

If approved, Proposition 50 could cost Republicans five seats in the closely divided U.S. House of Representatives and determine control of Congress during Trump’s final two years in office.

More than $40 million has already poured into campaigns supporting and opposing the effort, according to reports of large donations filed with the secretary of state’s office through Saturday.

Spending has been evident as glossy pamphlets opposing the effort landed in voters’ mailboxes even before lawmakers voted to put Proposition 50 on the ballot. This weekend, ads supporting the measure aired during the football game between the University of Michigan and the University of Oklahoma.

At the state GOP convention, which drew 1,143 registered delegates, alternates and guests to the Hyatt Regency in Garden Grove, this priority was evident.

Republican candidates running for governor next year would normally be focused on building support among donors and activists less than a year before the primary. But they foregrounded their opposition to Proposition 50 during the convention.

“I’m supposed to say every time I start talking, the No. 1 most important thing that we can talk about right now is ‘No on 50,’” Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a GOP gubernatorial candidate, said Saturday as he addressed the Log Cabin Republicans meeting. “So every conversation that you have with people has to begin with ‘No on 50.’ So you say, ‘No on 50. Oh, how are you doing?’”

Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton are the two most prominent Republican candidates in the crowded race to succeed Newsom, who will be termed out in 2026.

The walls of the convention hotel were lined with posters opposing the redistricting ballot measure, alongside typical campaign fliers, rhinestone MAGA broaches and pro-Trump merchandise such as T-shirts bearing his visage that read “Daddy’s Back!” and calling for his election to an unconstitutional third term in 2028.

Though California Republicans last elected statewide candidates in 2006, they have had greater success on ballot measures. Since 2010, the party has been victorious in more than 60% of the propositions it took a position on, according to data compiled by the state GOP.

“We need you to be involved. This is a dire situation,” state Assemblyman David Tangipa (R-Fresno) told a packed ballroom of party activists.

The California GOP Convention in Garden Grove, CA on Saturday, September 6, 2025. (Eric Thayer / For The Times)

Attendees of the Redistricting Lawfare in 2025 session at the California GOP Convention in Garden Grove. (Eric Thayer / For The Times)

Tangipa urged the crowd to reach out to their friends and neighbors with a simple message that is not centered on redistricting, the esoteric process of redrawing congressional districts that typically occurs once every decade following the U.S. census to account for population shifts.

“It’s too hard to talk about redistricting. You know, most people want to get a beer, hang out with their family, go to work, spend time,” he said. “You need to talk to the Republicans [and ask] one question: Does Gov. Newsom and the legislative body in Sacramento deserve more power?”

“No!” the crowd roared.

Should the measure pass, lawyers would challenge the new lines in federal court the next day, attorney and former GOP candidate Mark Meuser said during a separate redistricting panel.

But rather than rely on the courts, panelists hoped to defeat the measure at the ballot box, outlining various messaging strategies for attendees to adopt. Voter outreach trainings took place during the convention, and similar virtual classes were scheduled to begin Monday.

Even with the heavy focus on the redistricting ballot measure, gubernatorial candidates were also skittering around the convention, speaking to various caucuses, greeting delegates in the hallways and holding private meetings.

More than 80 people have signaled their intent to run for governor next year, according to the secretary of state’s office, though some have since dropped out.

Despite being rivals who both hope to win one of the top two spots in the June primary and move on to the November 2026 general election, Bianco and Hilton amicably chatted, a two-man show throughout some of the convention.

Hilton, after posing alongside Bianco at the California MAGA gathering on Friday, argued that the number of Californians who supported Trump in the 2024 election shows that there is a pathway for a Republican to be elected governor next year.

Pointing to glittery gold block letters that spelled MAGA, he said he wanted to swap the first A for a U, so that the acronym stood for “the most useless governor in America, Gavin Newsom.”

“The worst record of any state, the highest unemployment, the highest poverty, the highest taxes, the highest gas prices,” Hilton said. “If we can’t rip these people apart, then we don’t deserve to be here. They’re going to be asking for another four years. They don’t deserve another four minutes.”

California gubernatorial candidate Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco speaks at the California GOP Convention in Garden Grove.

(Eric Thayer / For The Times)

At a Saturday gathering of roughly 60 delegates from the conservative northern swath of California, Bianco said he would never say a bad word about his Republican opponents. But, he argued, he was the only candidate who could win the election because of his ability to siphon off Democratic votes because of his law enforcement bona fides.

“Democrats want their kids safe. They want their businesses safe. They want their neighborhoods safe. And they can say, ‘I’ll vote for public safety.’ They’re not even going to say I’m voting for a Republican,” Bianco promised.

As he raised his hands to the crowd with a grin, Bianco’s closely cropped high-and-tight haircut and handlebar mustache instantly telegraphed his law enforcement background, even though his badge and holstered pistol were hidden beneath a gray blazer.

Later, after Bianco addressed a crowd of Central Coast delegates sporting more cowboy hats and fewer button-down shirts, Hilton walked to the front of the room and spoke in his clipped British accent about how another attendee had promised to take him pig hunting.

California gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton speaks at the California GOP Convention in Garden Grove.

(Eric Thayer / For The Times)

“We weren’t talking about police officers, I want to make that clear!” a man yelled from the crowd.

“Exactly,” Hilton continued, explaining how his family had a salami business in Hungary and he had gotten his hands plenty dirty in the past, “doing every aspect of making sausage, including killing the pigs.”

[ad_2]

Seema Mehta, Julia Wick

Source link

September 7, 2025
Gov. Newsom awards $131M to clear homeless encampments, including $18M for Sacramento
[ad_1]
Gov. Newsom awards $131M to clear homeless encampments, including $18M for Sacramento

The “Encampment Resolution Funds” will give out more than $18 million to the city of Sacramento as part of the effort.

Updated: 12:05 PM PDT Oct 4, 2024

California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Friday the state will give 18 communities nearly $131 million in funding to clear homeless encampments while providing other options for shelter, care and support.The state’s “Encampment Resolution Funds” will give out more than $18 million to the city of Sacramento as part of the effort. Watch Newsom talk about the awards in the video above after 11 a.m. Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg said $12 million will be used in north Sacramento to “double the size” of a temporary housing pallet home site on Roseville Road. He also anticipated the other $6 million to be used to help about 100 people who are living in encampments “go straight to permanent housing.” That will involve offering those “who are ready” to receive 24 months of rental assistance. Newsom’s administration anticipates that the $130.7 million in funds and grants will “help 3,364 people who are living in encampments and permanently house 1,565 people.” As a condition for accepting the money, the municipalities must follow accountability and compliance measures, he said. Newsom said the “money does not materialize” unless the communities “provide ample evidence of the support they will provide to individuals who will be impacted and/or displaced by the removal of encampments. This application requires a housing-first mindset.”See the full list of recipients below. City of Antioch – $6,812,686 City of Berkeley – $5,395,637 City of Carlsbad – $2,994,225 City of Los Angeles – $11,351,281 City of Palm Springs – $5,106,731 City of Petaluma – $8,098,978 City of Redlands — $5,341,800 City of Richmond —- $9,336,746 City of Sacramento — $18,199,661 City of San Jose —- $4,821,083 City of Victorville — $6,365,070 City of Visalia —- $3,000,000 County of Contra Costa —- $5,708,516 County of Riverside — $12,612,779 County of San Bernardino — $11,000,000 City and County of San Francisco – $7,975,486 Humboldt County — Continuum of Care – $3,784,294Pasadena – Continuum of Care – $2,772,801″We want to be partners in this process,” Newsom said of addressing homelessness. “If you play by the rules that are established, we want to provide carrots, not just sticks.”This story is developing. Stay with KCRA 3 for updates.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Friday the state will give 18 communities nearly $131 million in funding to clear homeless encampments while providing other options for shelter, care and support.

The state’s “Encampment Resolution Funds” will give out more than $18 million to the city of Sacramento as part of the effort.

Watch Newsom talk about the awards in the video above after 11 a.m.

Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg said $12 million will be used in north Sacramento to “double the size” of a temporary housing pallet home site on Roseville Road. He also anticipated the other $6 million to be used to help about 100 people who are living in encampments “go straight to permanent housing.” That will involve offering those “who are ready” to receive 24 months of rental assistance.

Newsom’s administration anticipates that the $130.7 million in funds and grants will “help 3,364 people who are living in encampments and permanently house 1,565 people.”

As a condition for accepting the money, the municipalities must follow accountability and compliance measures, he said.

Newsom said the “money does not materialize” unless the communities “provide ample evidence of the support they will provide to individuals who will be impacted and/or displaced by the removal of encampments. This application requires a housing-first mindset.”

See the full list of recipients below.

City of Antioch – $6,812,686

City of Berkeley – $5,395,637

City of Carlsbad – $2,994,225

City of Los Angeles – $11,351,281

City of Palm Springs – $5,106,731

City of Petaluma – $8,098,978

City of Redlands — $5,341,800

City of Richmond —- $9,336,746

City of Sacramento — $18,199,661

City of San Jose —- $4,821,083

City of Victorville — $6,365,070

City of Visalia —- $3,000,000

County of Contra Costa —- $5,708,516

County of Riverside — $12,612,779

County of San Bernardino — $11,000,000

City and County of San Francisco – $7,975,486

Humboldt County — Continuum of Care – $3,784,294

Pasadena – Continuum of Care – $2,772,801

“We want to be partners in this process,” Newsom said of addressing homelessness. “If you play by the rules that are established, we want to provide carrots, not just sticks.”

This story is developing. Stay with KCRA 3 for updates.
[ad_2]

Source link
October 4, 2024
Emails show Gov. Newsom’s office would be open to Prop 47 changes in 2026

[ad_1]

Emails between Gov. Gavin Newsom’s chief of staff and the leader of the campaign hoping to reform a controversial public safety law show the governor’s office would be open to presenting the issue to voters in 2026, raising new questions behind the Democratic-led effort to negotiate it off the ballot this year. KCRA 3 independently obtained and verified the authenticity of a set of leaked emails between Newsom’s top staffer, Dana Williamson, and Greg Totten, the co-chair of the campaign leading the effort to change Proposition 47. Prop 47 loosened the state’s consequences around drug and theft crimes a decade ago. Law enforcement, business groups and elected officials on both sides of the aisle have blamed it for a rise in crime. Read the emails here.The initiative specifically asks voters to ramp up the consequences and require prison time for fentanyl dealers and repeat thieves. For the last several months, Newsom and Democratic leaders of the state Legislature have said there is no need for voters to change Proposition 47, claiming they have the ability to crack down on crime through legislation and a fear of swelling the state’s prison population should the initiative pass. But in an email sent to Totten on June 15, Williamson wrote, “As far as an initiative, we are open to something in 2026 as well as providing all of the necessary bells and whistles to make sure the deal is rock solid.” Totten replied in part, “our focus is on amending Proposition 47 on the 2024 ballot. This necessary policy change is simply too urgent to wait for another two years. If the administration is prepared to consider an amendment of Proposition 47 on the 2024 ballot, then we are happy to meet. If not, we understand and accept your decision, and don’t believe further meetings would be productive.” Experts noted while Newsom and Democratic leaders may have ideological differences compared to the campaign attempting to change Proposition 47, the governor may not want the issue to be on the ballot for broader political reasons. “We can absolutely imagine that there are political reasons why you wouldn’t want this on the ballot now,” said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School. “There would be a perception that it could hurt Democrats in down-ballot races, you could have a higher turnout of conservative and moderate voters who are really worried about rising crime rates and who want to weigh in on this,” she said. Sources within the coalition backing the initiative have been privately questioning if a set of close congressional races may be behind the effort to kill the crime initiative from the 2024 ballot. Republicans currently have a razor-thin edge over Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, which could either expand or be eliminated depending on the outcome of the November election.The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has identified eight congressional seats held by Republicans it is targeting in California, including Rep. Kevin Kiley’s seat in California’s 3rd congressional district, and Rep. John Duarte in the 13th district. In Northern California, the DCCC is also working to protect Democratic Rep. Josh Harder in the 9th district. The DCCC did not respond to a request for comment. Aside from its potential impacts on the 2024 election, Levinson said the initiative could have a negative impact on Newsom’s political future. “You can also imagine that Governor Newsom, while he’s still governor, doesn’t want a vote on a big issue that would be viewed as a rebuke of his legacy. He was very strongly in favor of Prop 47,” Levinson said.”I think that 2026 makes sense if you are the governor of California that does not want to have to deal with actual problems occurring today in California,” said Mike Trujillo, a Democratic strategist who supports the ballot initiative. “Most politicians always want to sort of kick the can, and Governor Newsom is part of that very old tradition.” In an attempt to negotiate the issue off the ballot, Democratic legislative leaders are in the process of adding controversial amendments to a set of organized retail theft bills that would have them go into effect immediately but then kill them if voters decide to approve the changes to Prop 47. Democrats have been divided over the tactic, with the leader of the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee, Kevin McCarty, among those opting out of supporting the legislative package. “I think smart Democrats are looking to meet that challenge today,” Trujillo said. “Pushing it for another two years just means another two years of victims of crime, whether they’re Brown, Black, Asian, White.” Neither Democratic Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas nor Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire have responded to a request for comment on the correspondence between Williamson and Totten. In a statement, a spokesman for Newsom’s office said, “We regularly engage with a diverse range of stakeholders from across the political spectrum. The California District Attorneys Association requested a meeting with our office but canceled. It appears their decision was based on a position that does not reflect the consensus of their broader coalition.” “We’ve had one objective in pursuing this ballot measure: to address the unintended consequences of parts of Proposition 47, which have resulted in a surge of smash-and-grab retail theft, fentanyl trafficking, and overdose deaths,” Totten told KCRA 3 in a statement. “Additionally, we aim to provide stronger incentives for getting hard drug users into treatment. Unfortunately, state leaders are prioritizing politics over public safety.”See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. —

Emails between Gov. Gavin Newsom’s chief of staff and the leader of the campaign hoping to reform a controversial public safety law show the governor’s office would be open to presenting the issue to voters in 2026, raising new questions behind the Democratic-led effort to negotiate it off the ballot this year.

KCRA 3 independently obtained and verified the authenticity of a set of leaked emails between Newsom’s top staffer, Dana Williamson, and Greg Totten, the co-chair of the campaign leading the effort to change Proposition 47. Prop 47 loosened the state’s consequences around drug and theft crimes a decade ago. Law enforcement, business groups and elected officials on both sides of the aisle have blamed it for a rise in crime.

The initiative specifically asks voters to ramp up the consequences and require prison time for fentanyl dealers and repeat thieves.

For the last several months, Newsom and Democratic leaders of the state Legislature have said there is no need for voters to change Proposition 47, claiming they have the ability to crack down on crime through legislation and a fear of swelling the state’s prison population should the initiative pass.

But in an email sent to Totten on June 15, Williamson wrote, “As far as an initiative, we are open to something in 2026 as well as providing all of the necessary bells and whistles to make sure the deal is rock solid.”

Totten replied in part, “our focus is on amending Proposition 47 on the 2024 ballot. This necessary policy change is simply too urgent to wait for another two years. If the administration is prepared to consider an amendment of Proposition 47 on the 2024 ballot, then we are happy to meet. If not, we understand and accept your decision, and don’t believe further meetings would be productive.”

Experts noted while Newsom and Democratic leaders may have ideological differences compared to the campaign attempting to change Proposition 47, the governor may not want the issue to be on the ballot for broader political reasons.

“We can absolutely imagine that there are political reasons why you wouldn’t want this on the ballot now,” said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School. “There would be a perception that it could hurt Democrats in down-ballot races, you could have a higher turnout of conservative and moderate voters who are really worried about rising crime rates and who want to weigh in on this,” she said.

Sources within the coalition backing the initiative have been privately questioning if a set of close congressional races may be behind the effort to kill the crime initiative from the 2024 ballot. Republicans currently have a razor-thin edge over Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, which could either expand or be eliminated depending on the outcome of the November election.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has identified eight congressional seats held by Republicans it is targeting in California, including Rep. Kevin Kiley’s seat in California’s 3rd congressional district, and Rep. John Duarte in the 13th district. In Northern California, the DCCC is also working to protect Democratic Rep. Josh Harder in the 9th district.

The DCCC did not respond to a request for comment.

Aside from its potential impacts on the 2024 election, Levinson said the initiative could have a negative impact on Newsom’s political future.

“You can also imagine that Governor Newsom, while he’s still governor, doesn’t want a vote on a big issue that would be viewed as a rebuke of his legacy. He was very strongly in favor of Prop 47,” Levinson said.

“I think that 2026 makes sense if you are the governor of California that does not want to have to deal with actual problems occurring today in California,” said Mike Trujillo, a Democratic strategist who supports the ballot initiative. “Most politicians always want to sort of kick the can, and Governor Newsom is part of that very old tradition.”

In an attempt to negotiate the issue off the ballot, Democratic legislative leaders are in the process of adding controversial amendments to a set of organized retail theft bills that would have them go into effect immediately but then kill them if voters decide to approve the changes to Prop 47.

Democrats have been divided over the tactic, with the leader of the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee, Kevin McCarty, among those opting out of supporting the legislative package.

“I think smart Democrats are looking to meet that challenge today,” Trujillo said. “Pushing it for another two years just means another two years of victims of crime, whether they’re Brown, Black, Asian, White.”

Neither Democratic Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas nor Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire have responded to a request for comment on the correspondence between Williamson and Totten.

In a statement, a spokesman for Newsom’s office said, “We regularly engage with a diverse range of stakeholders from across the political spectrum. The California District Attorneys Association requested a meeting with our office but canceled. It appears their decision was based on a position that does not reflect the consensus of their broader coalition.”

“We’ve had one objective in pursuing this ballot measure: to address the unintended consequences of parts of Proposition 47, which have resulted in a surge of smash-and-grab retail theft, fentanyl trafficking, and overdose deaths,” Totten told KCRA 3 in a statement. “Additionally, we aim to provide stronger incentives for getting hard drug users into treatment. Unfortunately, state leaders are prioritizing politics over public safety.”

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

[ad_2]

Source link

June 18, 2024
California Assembly passes bill allowing Amsterdam-style cannabis cafes

[ad_1]

A bill that would allow Amsterdam-style cannabis cafes in California passed the state Assembly Monday afternoon on a 49-4 vote and is headed to the Senate. But even if the Legislature’s upper chamber approves AB 1775, legalization remains far from a sure thing.

Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a prior iteration of the bill in October, citing the state’s long-standing smoke-free workplace protections.

The bill would authorize local jurisdictions to allow licensed cannabis retailers to prepare and sell non-cannabis food and nonalcoholic beverages. The bill would also allow the cafes to host live music and other performances.

Under current state law, consumers can consume cannabis at a dispensary, but dispensaries can’t legally sell non-cannabis products like coffee and food, as is legal in Amsterdam.

California’s symbolic position at the apex of weed culture has long been rivaled by the Dutch capital, where cannabis cafes have been legal since the 1970s.

Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco), who introduced the legislation, has framed it as a matter of fairness. He argues that the cafes would level the playing field for the state’s highly taxed and regulated legal weed industry, allowing legitimate businesses to compete with black-market sellers who don’t operate under the same constraints.

“This is a bill that supports our legal small businesses that just want to diversify their businesses and do the right thing,” Haney said Monday on the Assembly floor. “The illicit illegal market is continuing to grow and thrive, while our legal cannabis market is struggling.”

Haney cited the governor’s prior veto, saying he had been working to address Newsom’s concerns through amendments to the bill. The new version would prohibit cannabis smoking or vaping in “back of house” of lounges, where food is being prepared or stored, creating separation between where people are consuming cannabis and other work areas.

Rather than taking a blunt statewide approach, the bill would put the decision to allow cannabis cafes in the hands of local jurisdictions. Should a jurisdiction decide to greenlight the lounges, it would have to hash out its own permitting process and regulations.

West Hollywood put a licensing system in place several years ago, and a handful of cannabis lounges operate within the city’s 1.89 square miles. The West Hollywood businesses operate with workarounds that separate the food businesses, The Times has previously reported.

No such licensing system exists in the city of Los Angeles.

The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Assn. and the American Lung Assn. have all opposed the bill, raising concerns about the health effects of secondhand marijuana smoke. They argue that the bill would undo hard-fought workplace protections “by re-creating the harmful work environments of the past.”

Marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access has argued that patrons and employees would face no health risks because of the highly regulated nature of such establishments.

A Newsom spokesperson declined to comment on pending legislation.

Staff writer Nathan Solis contributed to this report.

[ad_2]

Julia Wick

Source link

May 20, 2024
Gov. Newsom headed to the Vatican for climate summit in May

[ad_1]

California Gov. Gavin Newsom will travel to the Vatican in May to participate in a climate solutions summit, his office said. The trip is planned for May 15 to 17. Newsom will speak at the summit and “advance subnational climate work with a region in Italy.” A Vatican press release about the summit said that mayors and governors “form the core” of transdisciplinary partnerships with researchers, engineers and entrepreneurs, along with science, faith and community leaders. Last year, Newsom spoke alongside world leaders at a United Nations climate summit in New York City. In 2015, then-California Gov. Jerry Brown also traveled to the Vatican to speak about climate change. This story is developing. Stay with KCRA 3 for updates. See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom will travel to the Vatican in May to participate in a climate solutions summit, his office said.

The trip is planned for May 15 to 17. Newsom will speak at the summit and “advance subnational climate work with a region in Italy.”

This content is imported from Twitter.
You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

New: Gov. Newsom’s office says the governor is heading to the Vatican May 15 – 17th to participate in a climate summit.

His office says he’ll make remarks at the summit and “advance sub national climate work with a region in Italy”

— Ashley Zavala (@ZavalaA) April 29, 2024

A Vatican press release about the summit said that mayors and governors “form the core” of transdisciplinary partnerships with researchers, engineers and entrepreneurs, along with science, faith and community leaders.

Last year, Newsom spoke alongside world leaders at a United Nations climate summit in New York City.

In 2015, then-California Gov. Jerry Brown also traveled to the Vatican to speak about climate change.

This story is developing. Stay with KCRA 3 for updates.

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

[ad_2]

Source link

April 29, 2024
Gov. Gavin Newsom goes viral for ‘shoplifting’ at Target

[ad_1]

Gov. Gavin Newsom has gone viral for shoplifting at Target. Well, sort of.

The governor didn’t actually steal anything. But as he tells it, he did witness someone blatantly walking out of a Sacramento-area store with an armload of stolen stuff, presumably right in front of his own intimidating-looking security detail. And when Newsom asked why no one was taking action, the clerk told him it was the governor’s fault.

Newsom has made it too easy to steal, he said the clerk told him — before realizing who he was and freaking out.

Newsom, who was Christmas shopping with one of his children at the time, said he was outraged. It’s just not true, he said he told the clerk. California has the tenth-toughest laws against retail theft in the nation, he lectured — in a way that must have seemed super weird until she deduced his identity.

“I said: ‘Why didn’t you stop him?’ ” Newsom said he asked the clerk.

“She goes, ’Oh, the governor’ ” — he broke off — “swear to God, true story, on my mom’s grave.” He added that the clerk had the temerity to tell him: “The governor lowered the threshold, there’s no accountability. … We don’t stop them because of the governor.”

Newsom told the story this week to a group of mayors from around the state who had gathered on Zoom for a news conference on his mental health initiative, Proposition 1. He and the mayors were chatting among themselves while waiting for San Francisco’s London Breed and San Diego’s Todd Gloria to log on. After relating the anecdote, the governor added that he hoped the two mayors weren’t the only ones not yet signed into the Zoom. “Hopefully, all the reporters weren’t on,” he said.

Too late. The exchange, posted on X (formerly known as Twitter) and then picked up by television and print outlets around the state, quickly went viral — catnip in the heated debate about retail theft and Proposition 47, which reduced some thefts and drug offenses to misdemeanors to reduce mass incarceration. Some critics have blamed Proposition 47 for the rise in thefts.

Newsom himself came out last month calling for legislation to crack down on “professional thieves” without amending Proposition 47, noting that one of the wine stores he owns in San Francisco was robbed at least three times in 2021. He pointed out that Texas’ threshold for felony theft is among those that is higher than California’s.

But those points did little to calm the viral story. The chairwoman of the state Republican Party, Jessica Millan Patterson, quickly jumped into the fray, writing on X: “Shout-out to this store clerk for saying to the governor’s face what every Californian has wanted to say: that he and his radical @CA_Dem buddies are to blame for CA’s surging crime. Sadly, Newsom still didn’t seem to take the hint.”

Newsom’s office declined to identify which Target the encounter occurred at, to keep the media from mobbing the store. They did say the encounter took place in the Sacramento area, around Christmastime, while the governor was shopping with one of his children.

The exchange, the governor said, ended with an attempt at a photo-op.

As the governor was explaining how strict California’s retail theft laws actually are, the clerk, he said, “looks at me, twice. She freaks out. She calls everyone over, wants to take photos.”

“I said, no, I’m not taking a photo,” Newsom said. “We’re having a conversation. Where’s your manager? How are you blaming the governor?”

He added: “Why am I spending $380? Everyone can walk the hell right out.”

[ad_2]

Jessica Garrison

Source link

February 3, 2024
Column: Tinkering with Prop. 47 won't lower crime. Fixing San Quentin will

[ad_1]

In 2020, after the tragic murder of George Floyd, there was a moment when it seemed as if America, California included, was ready to reform our broken and discriminatory criminal justice system.

In 2024, as the California Legislature returns from vacation, criminal justice is once again at the forefront. But now, the proverbial pendulum has swung and a new tough-on-crime era seems to be creeping up through the cracks of our good intentions.

Proposition 47, which helped lower California’s prison population by changing certain nonviolent crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, is likely to be rolled back, if not undone this year.

The California Highway Patrol has been called in to stop retail theft, despite the fact that no one is entirely sure just how big a problem it is.

Drug dealers are being charged with murder as deaths from fentanyl overdoses continue to spike, a new tactic in a new war on drugs, little different from the one that led to overincarceration of Black and brown people during the crack epidemic of the ’80s when we insisted we could arrest our way out of poverty and addiction.

It is a troubling reversal of both attitude and reform that, as history has proven, will not lead to the safer communities we all want.

But what is about to happen inside San Quentin State Prison has the potential to fundamentally change crime and punishment in the Golden State, and beyond.

Because as much as we want to believe that a single law, more police or a tougher sentence can protect us, the truth is that the best way to cut crime is to stop it from happening in the first place — not with the pounding fist of punishment that for decades has left us with jails and prisons where more than a third of people return within a few years of release.

But instead by helping people to find other paths, and giving them opportunities to survive in ways that uplift rather than prey upon our communities — an approach with proven results both in the U.S. and other countries, where incarceration decades ago embraced rehabilitation not as an option but a mandate.

Last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that he wanted to transform San Quentin, California’s oldest and most famous prison, into a new kind of incarceration facility modeled after Scandinavian principles of rehabilitation, where that mandate for changing lives is written into law.

With his love of catchphrases, he dubbed it the California Model and left the details for later. On Friday, a long-awaited explanation of what the California Model will look like in practice was released, providing both an ideal and a blueprint for what is a radical, subversive and important shift in what it means to be in prison.

“This is a big deal,” Darrell Steinberg told me. He helped chair the committee that created the recommendations, and is the mayor of Sacramento, a city as plagued as any by the drug addiction, mental illness and homelessness that have driven much of the shift in attitudes around crime. So he knows as well as any that voters want results, not experiments.

“This will enhance public safety for the self-evident reason that when people have the tools to succeed on the outside they will have better lives and are much less likely to commit another crime,” he said.

It is visionary, he said, but also doable.

A core part of the transition involves changing the job of correctional officers from enforcers and adversaries to participants in rehabilitation, a metamorphosis that the union representing correctional officers supports. Under the plan, officers would take college-level classes on trauma-informed practices, and be expected to interact with inmates as mentors and guides.

San Quentin itself would also receive a makeover, albeit one curtailed by our current economic realities. Cramped cells that currently house two people in 46 square feet, about half the size of a decent bathroom, would be removed to allow for single-occupancy spaces that Steinberg said are the minimum dignity demands.

Correctional officers would also see an upgrade. Housing prices are so high in Marin County, where San Quentin is located, that it is impossible for many to live close enough for a daily shift (a two-bedroom averages more than $3,000 a month), leaving them with hours-long commutes.

So some officers have resorted to “dry camping” in trailers with homeless-like conditions that lack running water, electricity or even sewers. They are packing a week’s worth of work into a few days just to get by. The new plan would give correctional officers a campground with basic facilities and access to showers and safe spaces to relax — perhaps making the job less stressful.

For incarcerated people, the change will mean that on Day 1 of their sentences, there is a coordinated effort to arrange services — mental health care, education, job training, substance abuse treatment. And that there are people to implement those plans, and support them.

While that seems basic, it doesn’t happen now. People are largely left to their own devices to navigate an opaque and inefficient system that is so archaic that some of it isn’t even computerized. Wait lists are long and information can be hard to come by.

If the ideas laid out in the plan makes it through the upcoming budget negotiations (in a year with a large and unexpected deficit), it will be a culture change inside the most infamous prison in the country’s second-largest state prison system (Texas is the only state with a larger incarcerated population).

Though taking the California Model from paper to practice is the work of years, the proposal for San Quentin has the potential to be the largest and most meaningful criminal justice reform in decades — if we get it right, which of course is always an if when it comes to government.

But it is a big swing with the potential for real payoff — not the knee-jerk anger and fear of proposals like gutting Proposition 47, which will only repeat the mistakes of the past.

There will always be predators and there will always be crime. And admittedly, it all sounds touchy-feely and nebulous, like we are about to spend a bunch on money on holding criminals’ hands while they talk about their childhoods and get their GED.

And to be honest, that’s part of it, one we shouldn’t ignore.

At its root, the California Model is about dignity and compassion, creating policy around the belief that healing isn’t just for the innocent, and it isn’t soft.

Fixing humans, especially ones broken enough to hurt others, is the hardest of tasks.

But it can be done.

And if California turns San Quentin into a place where that happens, we will all be safer.

[ad_2]

Anita Chabria

Source link

January 5, 2024