ReportWire

Tag: Proposal

  • Explaining California’s billionaire tax: The proposals, the backlash and the exodus

    The battle over a new tax on California’s billionaires is set to heat up in the coming months as citizens spar over whether the state should squeeze its ultra-rich to better serve its ordinary residents.

    The proposed billionaire tax that triggered the tempest is still far from being approved by voters or even making the ballot, but the idea has already sparked backlash from vocal tech moguls — some of whom have already shifted their bases outside the state.

    Under the Billionaire Tax Act, Californians worth more than $1 billion would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total wealth. The Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the union behind the act, said the measure would raise much-needed money for healthcare, education and food assistance programs.

    Other unions have piled on billionaires, targeting the rich in Los Angeles.

    A group of Los Angeles labor unions said Wednesday that it is proposing a ballot measure to raise taxes on companies whose chief executive officers earn 50 times more than their median-paid employees.

    Here is how this fight could continue to play out in the Golden State:

    Who would be affected?

    The California billionaire tax would apply to about 200 California billionaires who reside in the state as of Jan. 1. Roughly 90% of funds would go to healthcare and the rest to public K-14 education and state food assistance.

    The tax, due in 2027, would exclude real estate, pensions and retirement accounts, according to an analysis from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, a nonpartisan government agency. Billionaires could spread out the tax payment over five years, but would have to pay more.

    Which billionaires are already distancing themselves from California?

    Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin

    Google is still headquartered in California, but December filings to the California Secretary of State show other companies tied to Page and Brin recently converted out of the state.

    One filing, for example, shows that one of the companies they managed, now named T-Rex Holdings, moved from Palo Alto to Reno last month.

    Business Insider and the New York Times earlier reported on these filings. Google didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel

    Thiel Capital, based in Los Angeles, announced in December it opened an office in Miami. The firm didn’t respond to a request for comment. Thiel recently contributed $3 million to the political action committee of the California Business Roundtable, which is opposing the ballot measure, records provided to the Secretary of State’s Office show.

    Oracle co-founder and Chief Technology Officer Larry Ellison

    Years before the wealth tax proposal, Ellison began pulling back from California, but he’s continued to distance himself farther from the state since the proposal emerged.

    Last year, Ellison sold his San Francisco mansion for $45 million. The home on 2850 Broadway was sold off-market in mid-December, according to Redfin.

    Oracle declined to comment.

    DoorDash co-founder and Chief Technology Officer Andy Fang

    Fang, who was born and raised in California, said on X that he loves the state but is thinking about moving.

    “Stupid wealth tax proposals like this make it irresponsible for me not to plan leaving the state,” he said.

    DoorDash didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    What would it still take to become law?

    To qualify for the ballot, proponents of the proposal, led by the healthcare union, must gather nearly 875,000 registered voter signatures and submit them to county elections officials by June 24.

    If it makes it on the November ballot, the proposal would be the focus of intense scrutiny and debate as both sides have already lined up big war chests to bombard voters with their positions. A majority of voters would need to approve the ballot measure.

    Lawyers for billionaires have also signaled the battle won’t be over even if the ballot measure passes.

    “Our clients are prepared to mount a vigorous constitutional challenge if this measure advances,” wrote Alex Spiro, an attorney who has represented billionaires such as Elon Musk in a December letter to California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

    What are the initiative’s chances?

    It’s unclear if the ballot measure has a good chance of passing in November. Newsom opposes the tax, and his support has proved important for ballot measures.

    In 2022, he opposed a ballot measure that would have subsidized the electric vehicle market by raising taxes on Californians who earn more than $2 million annually. The measure failed. The following year, he opposed legislation to tax assets exceeding $50 million. The bill was shelved before the Legislature could vote on it. A bill that would impose an annual tax on California residents whose net worth surpassed $30 million also failed in 2020.

    However, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) have backed the wealth tax proposal, and Californians have passed temporary tax measures before. In 2012, they approved Proposition 30 to increase sales tax and personal income tax for residents with an annual income of more than $250,000.

    Could it solve California’s problems?

    The Legislative Analyst’s Office said in a December letter that the state would probably collect tens of billions of dollars from the wealth tax, but it could also lose other tax revenue.

    “The exact amount the state would collect is very hard to predict for many reasons. For example, it is hard to know what actions billionaires would take to reduce the amount of tax they pay. Also, much of the wealth is based on stock prices, which are always changing,” the letter said.

    California economist Kevin Klowden said the tax could create future budget problems for the state. “The catch is that this is a one-off fix for what is a systemic problem,” he said.

    Supporters of the proposal said the measure would raise about $100 billion and pushed back against the idea that billionaires would flee.

    “We see a lot of cheap talk from billionaires,” said UC Berkeley law professor Brian Galle, who helped write the proposal. “Some people do actually leave and change their behavior, but the vast bulk of wealthy people don’t, because it doesn’t make sense.”

    Still, the pushback has been escalating.

    Palo Alto-based venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya estimates that the lost revenues from the billionaires who have already left the state would lead to more losses in tax revenues than gained by the new tax.

    “By starting this ill-conceived attempt at an asset tax, the California budget deficit will explode,” he posted on X. “And we still don’t know if the tax will even make the ballot.”

    The union backing the initiative says “the billionaire exodus narrative” is “wildly overstated.”

    “Right now, it appears the overwhelming majority of billionaires have chosen to stay in California past the Jan. 1 deadline,” said Suzanne Jimenez, chief of staff at SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West. “Only a very small percentage left before the deadline, despite weeks of Chicken Little talking points claiming a modest tax would trigger a mass departure.”

    Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

    Queenie Wong

    Source link

  • I Don’t Think So! Woman Rejects Boyfriend’s $898 Walmart Engagement Ring & The TL Is Divided

    Alexa, play ‘Irreplaceable,’ because it looks like love is in the air — but so is confusion, disappointment, and a whole lotta side-eye. What was supposed to be a step into forever for Priscilla and Tyler now has the internet grabbing popcorn and picking sides without even knowing the full story yet. And, let’s just say… this one has the internet clutching its pearls, taking sides, and analyzing engagement rings like it’s the NBA Finals.

    RELATED: Social Media Reacts To Bella Thorne Surprising Fiancé Mark Emms With Proposal Of Her Own (VIDEO)

    When The Walmart Ring Doesn’t Ring True, Sis

    It all started when a woman named Priscilla hopped on Threads to share a screenshot of the moment she turned down her boyfriend’s proposal. And the $898 Walmart engagement ring that came with it. She also sparked a debate under the caption, “What are y’all thoughts on this? I’m curious.” But don’t get it twisted—her issue wasn’t the price tag. According to her, this was about him “not listening.” In the leaked text exchange, she told Tyler, “I’ve told you the kind of ring I wanted more than once & you showed up with something from Walmart… If you knew what I wanted & still chose to do what was easiest [it] tells me you don’t really hear me.” Whew.

    The Comments Section Was Fighting For Its Life

    The internet was immediately divided in Priscilla’s Threads comment section like a Super Bowl fan using a parlay. Some were full-on girl’s girls, riding hard for her and insisting she deserved a partner who actually listens. Meanwhile, people started dropping photos of their own inexpensive-but-beloved rings, and a few fellas chimed in telling Tyler to run—fast—and find someone else to spend his life with.

    One Threads user @india_kilo said, “I’m confused, if you have $900 to spend on a ring, why the hell would you spend it at Walmart? He could’ve went to Kay Jewelers…“

    This Threads user, @misslaurarh, added, “She doesn’t want to spend the rest of her life being unheard.“

    And, Threads user @rubyyyork shared, “It’s not about the ring. It’s about her stating her needs and him dismissing them. That’s a deeper issue than a Walmart ring. I’m on her side.“

    Meanwhile, Threads user @t.giulia04 wrote, “Lemme put it in another perspective. ‘Oh he loooves playing Fifa on his ps5, let me get a game for him’ *buys Call of duty for xbox* The guy: ‘this isn’t gonna work’ The girl: ‘You’re ungrateful!’“

    While Threads user @iamsaheira commented, “Girl………..what the FAWK is wrong with you??? Dam. I hate when I have to side with men.“

    Lastly, Threads user @itsricharddrew said, “Avoid any woman who cares more for the ring than the proposal“

    Chile, Even Expensive Rings Ain’t Safe Out Here

    It looks like Priscilla isn’t the only one side-eyeing a ring. Another bride-to-be recently confessed on Facebook that she hates the surprise ring her fiancé proposed with, admitting she gets “sad every time [she looks] at it.” Though the jewel was far pricier than Priscilla’s, the issue was the same: he never asked her what she wanted. From changing her nail shape to trying to “grow” into it, nothing helped. She still didn’t like it—period.

    One thing’s for sure: between skyrocketing proposal budgets, Pinterest-perfect expectations, and communication breakdowns, engagement season is looking real messy this year. Whether you think Priscilla was right or wrong, she’s definitely sparked a conversation about love, listening, and the true cost of a ring. And, the debate started a conversation on whether this was a red flag—or simply a woman with standards.

    RELATED: Congrats! Woman Goes Viral Over Her Sweet Reaction To Fiancé’s Surprise Proposal (VIDEO)

    What Do You Think Roomies?

    Desjah

    Source link

  • MIT President Says She ‘Cannot Support’ Proposal To Adopt Trump Priorities For Funding Benefits – KXL

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said Friday she “cannot support” a White House proposal that asks MIT and eight other universities to adopt President Donald Trump’s political agenda in exchange for favorable access to federal funding.

    MIT is among the first to express forceful views either in favor of or against an agreement the White House billed as providing “multiple positive benefits,” including “substantial and meaningful federal grants.” Leaders of the University of Texas system said they were honored its flagship university in Austin was invited, but most other campuses have remained silent as they review the document.

    In a letter to Trump administration officials, MIT President Sally Kornbluth said MIT disagrees with provisions of the proposal, including some that would limit free speech and the university’s independence. She said it’s inconsistent with MIT’s belief that scientific funding should be based on merit alone.

    “Therefore, with respect, we cannot support the proposed approach to addressing the issues facing higher education,” Kornbluth said in a letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon and White House officials.

    The higher education compact circulated last week requires universities to make a wide range of commitments in line with Trump’s political agenda on topics from admissions and women’s sports to free speech and student discipline. The universities were invited to provide “limited, targeted feedback” by Oct. 20 and make a decision no later than Nov. 21.

    Others that received the 10-page proposal are: Vanderbilt, the University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth College, the University of Southern California, the University of Arizona, Brown University and the University of Virginia. It was not clear how the schools were selected or why.

    Colleges have faced mounting pressure to reject the proposal
    University leaders face immense pressure to reject the compact amid opposition from students, faculty, free speech advocates and higher education groups. Leaders of some other universities have called it extortion. The mayor and city council in Tucson, home of the University of Arizona, formally opposed the compact, calling it an “unacceptable act of federal interference.”

    Even some conservatives have dismissed the compact as a bad approach. Frederick Hess, director of education policy at the American Enterprise Institute, called it “profoundly problematic” and said the government’s requests are “ungrounded in law.”

    At the University of Virginia, officials invited campus feedback on the proposal this week. A message from university leaders said it would be “very difficult” to accept certain terms of the arrangement and said the decision will be guided by “principles of academic freedom and free inquiry.”

    Democrats in the Virginia Senate threatened to cut the university’s funding if it signed the deal. In a letter to the university’s leaders on Tuesday, top Democrats called the compact a trap and said the state would not “subsidize an institution that has ceded its independence to federal political control.”

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, issued a similar ultimatum to USC last week.

    At Brown, which already struck an agreement with the White House in July to resolve a series of investigations, university president Christina H. Paxson said Friday she is seeking campus input to decide how or whether to respond to the new proposal.

    The compact marks a new tactic to seek reforms
    In its letter to universities, the administration said the compact would strengthen and renew the “mutually beneficial relationship” between universities and the government. That bond faces unprecedented strain as the White House cuts billions of dollars in research funding from campuses it accuses of antisemitism and liberal bias.

    The compact is a proactive attempt at reform even as the government continues enforcement through other means, the letter said. The nine universities were invited to become “initial signatories.”

    Kornbluth’s letter did not explicitly decline the compact but suggested that its terms are unworkable. Still, she said MIT is already aligned with some of the values outlined in the deal, including prioritizing merit in admissions and making college more affordable.

    Kornbluth said MIT was the first to reinstate requirements for standardized admissions tests after the COVID-19 pandemic and admits students based on their talent, ideas and hard work. Incoming undergraduates whose families earn less than $200,000 a year pay nothing for tuition, she added.

    “We freely choose these values because they’re right, and we live by them because they support our mission,” Kornbluth wrote.

    As part of the compact, the White House asked universities to freeze tuition for U.S. students for five years. Those with endowments exceeding $2 million per undergraduate could not charge tuition at all for students pursuing “hard science” programs.

    It asked colleges to require the SAT or ACT for all undergraduate applicants and to eliminate race, sex and other characteristics from admissions decisions. Schools that sign on would also have to accept the government’s binary definition of gender and apply it to campus bathrooms and sports teams.

    Much of the compact centers on promoting conservative viewpoints. To make campuses a “vibrant marketplace of ideas” campuses would commit to taking steps including “transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.”

    Jordan Vawter

    Source link

  • As USC considers Trump’s offer tying funding to conservative policies, MIT firmly rejects it

    As USC weighs its options, MIT has become the first of nine universities to forcefully reject a White House proposal that asks them to adopt President Trump’s conservative political agenda in exchange for favorable access to federal funding.

    In a letter to Trump administration officials, MIT President Sally Kornbluth said Friday the campus disagrees with provisions of the proposal, including some that would limit free speech and the university’s independence. She said that Trump’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” is inconsistent with MIT’s belief that scientific funding should be based on merit alone.

    “Therefore, with respect, we cannot support the proposed approach to addressing the issues facing higher education,” Kornbluth said in a letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon and White House officials.

    The MIT rejection comes as University of Southern California has been roiled by the proposed compact since receiving it earlier this month. The school’s faculty members strongly denounced the offering at a meeting this week, calling it “egregiously invalid,” “probably unconstitutional” and “antithetical to principles of academic freedom.”

    But interim President Beong-Soo Kim told the roughly 500 attendees the university “has not made any kind of final decision.”

    At the same time, Gov. Gavin Newsom has aggressively weighed in, challenging USC “to do the right thing” and reject the offer. He threatened to withhold state funding to any California university that agrees to it.

    White House spokesperson Liz Huston said that “the Trump Administration’s only request is for universities to end discrimination. Any university that refuses this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transform higher education isn’t serving its students or their parents — they’re bowing to radical, left-wing bureaucrats.”

    “The truth is, the best science can’t thrive in institutions that have abandoned merit, free inquiry, and the pursuit of truth,” Huston said. “President Trump encourages universities to join us in restoring academic excellence and commonsense policies.”

    What’s in the compact

    The higher-education compact circulated this month requires universities to make a wide range of commitments in line with Trump’s political agenda. In exchange, universities that agree to the terms would get more favorable access to federal research grants and additional funding, as well as other benefits.

    They would have to accept the government’s definition of gender — two sexes, male and female — and would not be allowed to recognize transgender people’s gender identities. Foreign student enrollment would be restricted. The compact also calls for a five-year tuition freeze for U.S. students.

    It asks colleges to require the SAT or ACT for all undergraduate applicants and to eliminate race, sex and other characteristics from admissions decisions. As for free speech, schools would have to commit to promoting a wide range of views on campus — and change or abolish “institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas,” according to the compact.

    The universities were invited to provide “limited, targeted feedback” by Oct. 20 and make a decision no later than Nov. 21.

    Other institutions that received the 10-page proposal are: Vanderbilt, the University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth College, the University of Arizona, Brown University, the University of Texas and the University of Virginia. It was not clear how the schools were selected or why.

    Leaders of the Texas system were “honored” that the Austin campus was chosen to be a part of the compact and its “potential funding advantages,” according to a statement from Kevin Eltife, chair of the board of regents.

    University leaders face immense pressure to reject the compact amid opposition from students, faculty, free speech advocates and higher education groups. Leaders of some other universities have called it extortion. The mayor and City Council in Tucson, home of the University of Arizona, formally opposed the compact, calling it an “unacceptable act of federal interference.”

    Some conservatives have criticized it. Frederick Hess, director of education policy at the American Enterprise Institute, called it “profoundly problematic” and said the government’s requests are “ungrounded in law.”

    “I am deeply sympathetic to the Trump critique of higher education,” he told The Times on Friday. “I support just about every point in the compact, but even I have real concerns about the way it has been framed and proffered.”

    But Hess noted that the compact has become something of a “Rorschach test.”

    “If you look at it one way, you see a bullying attempt by the administration to impose its will,” he said. “If you look at it another way, it is the Trump administration offering a positive, constructive vision of the federal-university partnership.”

    The view from Los Angeles

    The USC faculty’s vociferous disapproval of the compact during a meeting of the university’s academic senate on Oct. 6 was in line with the reactions of similar bodies at other affected campuses.

    In stark terms, USC department heads, professors and others condemned the compact, with several saying there should be no negotiations with the Trump administration.

    Kim, the interim president, attended the meeting, but did not share his opinion of the compact. He noted that USC did not solicit the offer from Trump. “I wanted to make sure that I heard from the community and received your input,” he said.

    Asked for comment Friday, a USC spokesperson referred The Times to comments Kim made Oct. 3, when he said that he would consult with the school’s board of trustees and other stakeholders to “hear their wide-ranging perspectives” on the proposal.

    Trump’s proposal comes at a fraught time for USC, which is in the midst of widespread layoffs as it faces down a $200-million budget deficit.

    Across town, UCLA has also been grappling with dire financial issues of its own, albeit ones that directly relate to the president’s forceful attempt to remake higher education.

    UCLA has been negotiating with the Trump administration over a $1.2-billion settlement proposal that would resolve a federal investigation into alleged civil rights violations on campus. The claims stem from UCLA’s handling of alleged antisemitism during spring 2024 pro-Palestinian protests. UC leaders say the fine would be “devastating” to the 10-campus system and have broadly indicated that other proposals violate the university’s mission and values.

    Speaking at a UC-wide academic senate meeting Thursday, UC President James B. Milliken said the “landscape changed” after the Trump administration offered the compact last week to non-UC campuses.

    He did not indicate whether the proposal affected UC negotiations but said that there was a “shift from a bespoke pursuit of universities to a wholesale” targeting of higher education, which he suggested put UC in a safer position. He said he did not know the impact of the compact on UCLA.

    In some ways, the compact presented to USC matches the settlement proposed to UCLA. Both, for example, make stipulations about binary definitions of gender that exclude transgender people.

    But the compact differs in proposing strict limits on foreign student enrollment and the tuition freeze for U.S. citizens.

    Although the compact has not been offered to UC, university officials are studying its contents to better understand Trump’s positions on higher education and formulate a negotiation strategy.

    Colleges nationwide debate compact

    Besides USC and MIT, the compact has been the subject of fierce debate at several other campuses that received it.

    At an Oct. 3 convening of the University of Virginia senate attended by interim President Paul G. Mahoney and hundreds of faculty, senate representatives voted down the compact.

    According to notes on the meeting provided to The Times, faculty expressed concern over academic freedom, discrimination against transgender individuals — and said they feared complying with it would have a “chilling” effect on free speech.

    Three days later, at a meeting of the University of Arizona faculty senate, 81% of voting members rejected the government’s proposal.

    At Dartmouth, President Sian Leah Beilock has also expressed hesitation over signing.

    “I am deeply committed to Dartmouth’s academic mission and values and will always defend our fierce independence,” Beilock said in a statement. “You have often heard me say that higher education is not perfect and that we can do better. At the same time, we will never compromise our academic freedom and our ability to govern ourselves.”

    Some university faculty, including at USC, have voiced skepticism over Trump’s willingness to adhere to the terms of the compact should an institution accept it. That, Hess said, is “a valid concern.”

    “If you look at the deal that have been struck [by the Trump administration] around tariffs and tech, there is certainly a sense that deals … are not written in stone,” he said. “Normally, in these conversations, I am usually very skeptical of faculty concerns, but from what we’ve seen … a lot of these practical concerns are very legitimate.”

    Binkley writes for the Associated Press.

    Daniel Miller, Jaweed Kaleem, Collin Binkley

    Source link

  • News Analysis: Can Trump’s Gaza ‘eternal peace’ plan deliver results when details remain vague?

    BEIRUT  — When President Trump presented his 20-point peace plan for the Gaza Strip, he deployed his trademark hyperbolic speaking style to trumpet it as a “big, big day, a beautiful day, potentially one of the great days ever in civilization,” which would end the war and deliver “eternal peace in the Middle East.”

    Yet many of the plan’s details are unknown, and though Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he “supports” it and a bevy of Arab and Muslim nations welcomed it as a sign of U.S. commitment to ending the war, observers — both supporters and critics — warn that Trump’s optimism is unwarranted in a deal where so much remains ambiguous.

    “It’s so vague that a million things still need to be negotiated,” said Mouin Rabbani, a nonresident fellow at the Qatar-based Center for Conflict and Humanitarian Studies.

    “And for both Israel and Hamas, accepting terms and implementing them are different things,” he said.

    The proposal, which Hamas negotiators received late night on Monday and are still studying, would immediately end the war and allow aid to flood Gaza, where Israel’s months-long blockade has triggered famine.

    The U.N., rights and aid groups and governments, including Western allies of the U.S. and Israel, accuse Israel of committing genocide in the enclave. Israel denies the charge.

    Even as Trump said on Tuesday he was “waiting for Hamas” for its response, the Israeli military continued pummeling Gaza, with at least 42 Palestinians killed and 190 injured in Israeli attacks across the Strip in the past 24 hours, according to Palestinian health authorities.

    Some 66,097 Palestinians have been killed and a further 168,536 wounded in the two years since Israel began its campaign on Gaza after Hamas’ attacks nearly two years ago.

    Under the plan, Hamas would surrender, release all hostages, disarm and relinquish any future role in Gaza’s governance — all points Netanyahu has insisted on throughout many rounds of fruitless Qatari-brokered negotiations with Hamas.

    Also in Netanyahu’s favor: The Palestinian Authority — which welcomed the initiative — would have no control over Gaza until after it fulfills a “reform program” and the mention of Palestinian statehood was so notional it amounted to little more than a recognition that Palestinian self-determination and statehood were “the aspiration of the Palestinian people.”

    Yet although Netanyahu said the plan fulfilled “our war aims,” he did not leave the White House on Monday completely pleased.

    Crucially, the agreement stipulates Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza, nor will its residents be forced to leave, conditions that frustrate Netanyahu’s right-wing allies. On Tuesday, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a coalition partner of Netanyahu and an ardent supporter of Israel conquering the enclave, dismissed celebrations of the proposal as “premature,” writing on X it was “a resounding diplomatic failure” that will “end in tears.”

    Israel would begin a staged withdrawal conditioned “on standards, milestones, and time frames linked to demilitarization,” leading to an eventual full withdrawal, save for a temporary “security perimeter” until Gaza is “properly secure from any resurgent terror threat.”

    Yet those standards, milestones and time frames remain undefined, along with much else in the initiative, which for the moment serves more as a blueprint for a wider agreement, one requiring days, if not weeks, of negotiations to flesh out.

    And in a seeming contradiction of the terms outlined, Netanyahu released a video address on Tuesday saying the Israeli military “will remain in most of the Gaza Strip.” As for a withdrawal, “no way, that’s not happening.”

    For the Palestinians, other misgivings abound.

    “There are plenty of guarantees to the Israelis, but not a single guarantee given to Palestinians — nothing,” said Diana Buttu, a Palestinian lawyer who served as a legal advisor to the Palestinian negotiating team. As it stands, the plan allows Israel to resume fighting at any moment, choose not to withdraw and block humanitarian aid at will.

    It also imposes a transitional authority — composed of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee without Hamas or the Palestinian Authority — to rule over Gaza and overseen by a “Board of Peace” involving Trump and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

    After the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority completes reforms, according to the document, “conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.”

    In effect, Buttu said, “Palestinian agency has been completely removed.” And the reforms called for in the plan include the Palestinian Authority dropping its case for genocide in the International Criminal Court — a deeply unpopular move likely to further tank the authority’s image with Palestinians.

    “The sum total,” Buttu said, ”is we have no Hamas, no Palestinian Authority, and just Israel.”

    Another concern is that the proposal transfers the onus of making Hamas comply from Israel to regional governments, especially those supposed to provide training and support, if not troops, for the stabilization force. Deploying their soldiers into a chaotic post-war enclave would open them up to accusations of collaborating with Israel.

    Still, Buttu and others said that, for many regional governments, they have little choice but to go along with Trump’s plan as the least-bad option.

    “If you compare it to what Netanyahu and other senior Israeli officials were threatening to do to Gaza, the plan is good,” said Oraib al-Rantawi, who heads the Amman-based Al Quds Center for Political Studies, adding that most Arab governments were unconcerned with the fate of Hamas’ arsenal and had little interest in helping it secure a victory in negotiations.

    “Their central issue is there be no annexation and that the people of Gaza not be forcibly displaced,” al-Rantawi said.

    An earlier draft of the proposal — according to diplomatic figures who received it but spoke on background because they were not allowed to comment publicly — said Israel would not occupy or annex the West Bank as well as Gaza; the published version only mentions the enclave. In recent days, Trump has said Israel will not be allowed to annex the West Bank, which Israel occupies and which Palestinians want as part of a future state.

    The war began on Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas militants blitzed into southern Israel, killing around 1,200 people and kidnapping 251 others. Hamas and other groups still hold 48 people; 20 are still alive.

    Trump touted his plan as a path to bring other Arab nations into the Abraham Accords, the normalization agreements he brokered during his first term between Israel and some Arab countries.

    Trump has long angled for Saudi Arabia to join the accords, but the kingdom has refused without a credible path to Palestinian statehood. The plan is unlikely to change that, said Ali Shihabi, a Saudi commentator who is close to the country’s monarchy.

    “Saudi Arabia won’t be normalizing based on this agreement,” Shihabi said. “If concrete steps are taken on the ground and a Palestinian state happens, then it’s there.”

    Still, the hope is that Arab nations backing Trump’s peace plan can influence him to steer events, said Amer Al Sabaileh, a Jordanian political analyst.

    “You’re now talking about a peace in which these countries are involved,” he said. “They want to contain the danger of a unilateral Israeli vision.”

    For now, al-Rantawi said, the plan could bring a close to the “open wound” that was Gaza, but little else.

    “Let’s not make this greater than it is. We’re still in the beginning of a long road, but we know it can help Gaza,” he said. As for the initiative leading to Trump’s “eternal peace,” he added, there was little horizon for that, and many observers expect it would flounder like other attempts to forge a comprehensive agreement in the Middle East.

    “We’ve all seen this movie before.”

    Nabih Bulos

    Source link

  • Both sides dig in ahead of threatened government shutdown

    WASHINGTON — Washington is barreling toward a government shutdown Tuesday night, with few signs of an off-ramp as Democrats and Republicans dig in for a fight over government spending.

    Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill is insisting on an extension of Affordable Care Act tax credits as part of a package to fund the government. At least seven Democratic votes are needed in the Senate to pass a seven-week stopgap bill that cleared the House last week.

    But Republican lawmakers and the White House have dismissed the proposal, with senior officials in the Trump administration threatening to use unique legal authorities granted during a government shutdown to conduct yet more mass firings of federal workers.

    Bipartisan congressional leadership met with President Trump at the White House on Monday afternoon in a last-minute effort to avert the crisis. But neither side exited the meeting with expectations of a breakthrough. On the contrary, Republican leaders in the House told the GOP caucus to plan to return to work next week and said they would hold a news conference on Wednesday anticipating the government’s closure.

    “We are not going to support a partisan Republican spending bill that continues to gut the healthcare of everyday Americans, period, full stop,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said Monday.

    House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer talk to reporters outside the White House.

    (Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

    Vice President JD Vance said he thought the country was “headed to a shutdown,” labeling Democratic calls for healthcare tax credits an “absurd” demand that amounts to an “excuse for shutting down the people’s government.”

    “You don’t use your policy disagreements as leverage to not pay our troops,” Vance said. “That’s exactly what they’re proposing out there.”

    When the government shuts down, the law requires all nonessential government services to cease, requiring most federal workers to go on furlough or work without pay. Essential services — such as national security functions and air traffic control — are not affected.

    Ahead of the meeting, Trump told reporters he hoped Democrats would agree to “keeping our country open,” before proceeding to criticize their proposals.

    “They’re going to have to do some things, because their ideas are not very good ones,” Trump said. “They’re very bad for our country. So we’ll see how that works out.”

    But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he thought his message was beginning to resonate with the president after their meeting Monday afternoon.

    “We have very large differences, on healthcare, and on their ability to undo whatever budget we agree to, through rescissions and through impoundment,” Schumer said. “I think for the first time, the president heard our objections and heard why we needed a bipartisan bill. Their bill has not one iota of Democratic input. That is never how we’ve done this before.”

    “We’ve made to the president some proposals,” Schumer added. “Ultimately, he’s a decision-maker.”

    Schumer faced widespread ridicule from within his party in March after reversing course during the last showdown, choosing then to support the Trump administration’s continuing resolution to fund the government at the height of an aggressive purge of the federal workforce.

    At that point, Schumer feared a shutdown could accelerate the firings. But Schumer is now defiant, despite the renewed threat of layoffs, after the White House Office of Management and Budget circulated a memo last week directing federal agencies to relieve workers on discretionary projects that lose funding after Oct. 1.

    “This is an attempt at intimidation,” Schumer said in response to the memo. “Donald Trump has been firing federal workers since day one — not to govern, but to scare. This is nothing new and has nothing to do with funding the government.”

    Vice President JD Vance talks to reporters as House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune listen.

    Vice President JD Vance talks to reporters as House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune listen.

    (Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

    Still, Schumer began gauging his caucus Monday afternoon on the prospects of a continuing resolution that would in effect delay a shutdown by a week, briefly extending government funding in order to continue negotiations.

    Betting markets had chances of a shutdown soaring above 70% by the end of the day on Monday.

    Speaking to Fox News on Monday, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said the president’s position was “the reasonable and commonsense thing to do,” calling on Democrats to continue funding to the military and its veterans.

    “All we are asking for is a commonsense, clean funding resolution — a continuing resolution — to keep the government open,” Leavitt said. “This is a bill that keeps the government funded at the exact same levels as today, just adjusted for inflation.”

    “So there is zero good reason for the Democrats to vote against this,” she added. “The president is giving Democrat leadership one last chance to be reasonable.”

    But Jeffries dismissed Leavitt as “divorced from reality” in a podcast interview.

    “In what world will any rational American conclude, after we’ve been lectured throughout the year about this so-called mandate that the Republican Party has in this country, and their complete control of government in Washington, that because Democrats are unwilling to gut the healthcare of the American people as part of the Republican healthcare crisis, that it’s us shutting the government down?” Jeffries said.

    “Nobody’s buying that,” he continued, “outside of the parts of the MAGA base who basically, seemingly, will buy anything that Donald Trump has to peddle.”

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said he would call a vote on funding the government Tuesday afternoon.

    “This is purely and simply hostage-taking,” Thune said Monday. Whether it passes or fails, he said, is “up to the Democrats.”

    Michael Wilner

    Source link

  • Jail watchdog that exposed grim conditions faces elimination under L.A. County plan

    An oversight body that has documented and exposed substandard jail conditions for decades would cease to exist if the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors moves forward with a cost-cutting plan.

    L.A. County could save about $40,000 a year by eliminating the Sybil Brand Commission, according to an August report prepared for the supervisors by the board’s Executive Office.

    The Sybil Brand Commission’s 10 members serve a key oversight role, regularly conducting unannounced inspections of county jails and lockups.

    Named for a philanthropist and activist who worked to improve jail conditions for women in L.A. starting in the 1940s, the commission’s findings were recently cited in a state lawsuit over what Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta called a “humanitarian crisis” inside the county jails.

    “In June 2024, the Sybil Brand Commission reported that multiple dorms at Men’s Central were overcrowded with broken toilets … and ceilings that had been painted over to cover mold,” Bonta’s office wrote in its complaint, which seeks to compel reforms by the county and sheriff’s department.

    The recommendation to “sunset” the commission comes amid a spike in in-custody deaths with 38 so far this year, which puts the county on track for what Bonta’s office said would mark at least a 20-year high.

    The Executive Office for the Board of Supervisors responded to questions from The Times with a statement Friday that said its report’s “purpose was not to eliminate oversight or input,” but to demonstrate “where responsibilities overlap and where efficiencies could strengthen oversight and support.”

    The unattributed statement said the report found issues with “commissioner availability” that led to meeting cancellations and put “limits on their ability to conduct inspections.”

    The Sybil Brand Commission took up the possibility of elimination at its meeting earlier this month, when commissioners and advocates railed against the proposal as a shortsighted way to cut costs that will leave county inmates more vulnerable to mistreatment and neglect.

    In a separate move, the Executive Office of the Board of Supervisors is reassigning or eliminating a third of Inspector General Max Huntsman’s staff, slashing funding to the watchdog that investigates misconduct by county employees and the sheriff’s department, according to Huntsman.

    “At the back of all this is the fundamental question of whether the board wants oversight at all,” Eric Miller, a Sybil Brand commissioner, said in an interview.

    Miller added that the “sunsetting of Sybil Brand seems to be part of a persistent attempt to control and limit oversight of the sheriff’s department.”

    The report from the Executive Office of the Board of Supervisors said its recommendation to do away with the jail oversight body came after a review of “225 commissions, committees, boards, authorities, and task forces” funded by the county. The proposal would “sunset” six commissions, including Sybil Brand, and “potentially merge” 40 others.

    The report noted that “jail and detention inspection duties are also monitored by the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission.”

    But that commission, which was established less than a decade ago, takes on a broader range of issues within the sheriff’s department, from deputy misconduct to so-called deputy gangs. Unlike Sybil Brand, its members do not go on frequent tours of jails and publish detailed reports documenting the conditions.

    The Executive Office’s statement said “unannounced jail inspections would continue, either through a COC subcommittee or coordinated oversight structure.”

    Peter Eliasberg, chief counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, said the proposal to get rid of the commission is the latest in a recent succession of blows to law enforcement accountability.

    That list includes the ousting of former Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission chair Robert Bonner earlier this year, and the introduction last week of a county policy requiring oversight bodies to submit many of their communications to the county for approval.

    Eliasberg said losing the Sybil Brand Commission would be a major setback.

    “Sybil Brand has been incredibly effective in shining a really harsh spotlight on some terrible things going on in the jails,” he said. “Sybil Brand, I think, has done some really important work.”

    Huntsman, the inspector general, said during a Probation Oversight Commission meeting Monday that his office expects to lose a third of its staff. The “current plan proposes to eliminate 14 positions including vacancies,” according to the Executive Office statement.

    Huntsman told the commission that the Executive Office of the Board of Supervisors informed him on Sept. 11 that “a number of positions in my office will be taken away from me and moved to the Executive Office and will no longer be available for independent oversight.”

    The inspector general added that “there’s a group of staff that have been specifically identified by the Executive Office and taken away, and then there are positions that are curtailed. So the end result is we have a third fewer people, which will impact our operations.”

    The Executive Office’s statement said the changes would “save more than $3.95 million” and avoid “deeper cuts” elsewhere.

    “We remain confident that the OIG’s remaining staffing levels will allow the OIG to fulfill its essential duties and carry out its mandate,” the statement said.

    Late Friday afternoon, Edward Yen, executive officer for the Board of Supervisors, sent out an email “retracting” the new county policy that required many communications by oversight bodies to undergo prior approval.

    “While the intent of the policy was to provide long-requested structure and support for commissions and oversight bodies,” Yen wrote, “we recognize that its rollout created confusion and unintended consequences.”

    Connor Sheets

    Source link

  • Bella Thorne Is Getting Two WILDLY Different Reactions To Proposing To Her Boyfriend! Which Do U Agree With?? – Perez Hilton

    Bella Thorne just got on one knee!

    The Disney Channel alum definitely still knows how to Shake It Up… In her household, it’s out the door with tradition! Over the weekend, she took to Instagram to share a post dedicated to her engagement to fiancé Mark Emms. Except she didn’t post ANY pics or vids of him popping the question — because SHE was the one to ask!

    Related: Benny Blanco’s Biggest Fear Could Ruin Engagement To Selena Gomez

    The 27-year-old kicked off a carousel of snapshots with a video of her lowering down on one knee and presenting a ring to her man in a candlelit room. In her caption, she pointed out that HE was actually first to propose in 2023, but that she wanted a turn at it too. She shared:

    “3 years ago we met, 1 year later he proposed, Now 1 year later so did I”

    Scroll through all the pics and vids (below):

    Exciting for them!

    But in the comments, fans were quick to sound off with their varying takes. Some were NOT into it!!! They reacted:

    “Ok ladies let’s not normalize this, okay?”

    “If he already proposed why did you do it lol I’m confused”

    “Girls in 2025: he said yeeesss”

    “This one shoulda stayed in the gallery sis”

    However, others thought it was a totally sweet gesture:

    “This is so romantic what is wrong with yall”

    “this comment section is giving mad single energy”

    “comments failed. girl power i love you for this”

    “THESE COMMENTS R ARE NOT IT. i think what Bella did here is showing her s/o (& herself) that she believes in equality for their relationship, that she’s committed to him as much as he is & that it doesn’t have to be a one-sided cute proposal. Oh anddd it’s clear that she dgaf about social norms.”

    Clearly! What matters most is Bella and her beau are happy!

    What are YOUR reactions, Perezcious readers??

    [Images via Bella Thorne/Instagram]

    Perez Hilton

    Source link

  • Trump seeks $1-billion fine against UCLA. Newsom says ‘we’ll sue,’ calling it extortion

    Hours after the Trump administration demanded that the University of California pay a $1-billion fine to settle federal accusations of antisemitism in exchange for restoring frozen grant funding to UCLA, Gov. Gavin Newsom called the proposal “extortion” and said the state will go to court to protect the nation’s premier university system.

    “We’ll sue,” Newsom said during a news conference with Texas legislators over California’s effort to counter a contentious Republican redistricting plan in that state.

    President Trump is “trying to silence academic freedom” by “attacking one of the most important public institutions in the United States of America,” Newsom said, adding that he would “stand tall and push back against that, and I believe every member of California Legislature feels the same way.”

    The federal government on Friday said UC should pay the billion-dollar fine in installments and contribute $172 million to a fund for Jewish students and other individuals affected by alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The statute covers illegal discrimination related to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, including Jewish and Israeli identity.

    • Share via

    In addition, the Trump administration demanded sweeping campus changes encompassing protests, admissions, gender identity in sports and housing, the abolition of scholarships for racial or ethnic groups, and submission to an outside monitor over the agreement, according to four UC senior officials who have reviewed the proposal.

    “He has threatened us through extortion with a billion-dollar fine, unless we do his bidding,” Newsom said.

    “We will not be complicit in this kind of attack on academic freedom on this extraordinary public institution. We are not like some of those other institutions,” he said.

    The governor appeared to be referring to controversial and costly deals the Trump administration secured from Columbia and Brown universities over charges similar to those facing UCLA, deals Newsom criticized a day earlier in public remarks.

    In a statement Friday that UC was “reviewing” the terms, UC President James B. Milliken, who oversees the 10-campus system that includes UCLA, also seemed to rebuff the demand.

    “As a public university, we are stewards of taxpayer resources and a payment of this scale would completely devastate our country’s greatest public university system as well as inflict great harm on our students and all Californians,” Milliken said. “Americans across this great nation rely on the vital work of UCLA and the UC system for technologies and medical therapies that save lives, grow the U.S. economy, and protect our national security.”

    UC Regents Chair Janet Reilly told The Times the university was still willing to negotiate with the Trump administration but not on “unacceptable” terms.

    “Demand for a $1 billion payment from UCLA, coupled with conditions that contradict the university’s values, is unacceptable,” Reilly said, describing it as a “financial burden” that would be “catastrophic for our students, research, our patients and the people of California.

    “The university remains willing to engage in a constructive and good faith dialogue with the federal government but the University of California will always stand firm in protecting the integrity and values of our institution,” Reilly said.

    A spokesperson for UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk referred The Times to Milliken’s statement. Federal negotiations are being handled on a UC-wide level.

    UC is grappling with how to restore $584 million in frozen medical and science grant funds to UCLA. If the deal was accepted, it would be the largest settlement between a university and the Trump administration, far surpassing a $221-million agreement that Columbia University announced last month. Harvard is also reportedly considering a settlement involving a hefty fine.

    “We would never agree to this,” said one of the UC officials who is involved in the deliberations with the Trump administration. “It is more money than was frozen at UCLA. So how does that make sense?”

    But another senior UC official said the figure was understandable if it resolved all federal investigations across the system, even if UC may not ultimately agree to it. The federal proposal focuses on UCLA only, not all campuses.

    Any payment would be a political liability for the university and state leaders in deep-blue California, where Trump’s policies are highly unpopular. A billion dollars would be a financial burden for a university system that is already facing a hiring freeze, budget squeezes, deferred state funding and scattered layoffs.

    UC and individual campuses are under multiple federal investigations into alleged use of race in admissions, employment discrimination against Jews, civil rights complaints from Jewish students and improper reporting of foreign donations.

    UCLA has faced the most charges from the government of any UC or public university, many of them tied to a 2024 pro-Palestinian encampment.

    The encampment, which unsuccessfully demanded the university divest from weapons companies tied to Israel’s war in Gaza, was targeted in a violent overnight attack last spring and was later the subject of federal lawsuit by pro-Israel Jewish students. The students, along with a professor, accused UCLA of enabling antisemitism by not shutting down the encampment, which plaintiffs said blocked pro-Israel Jews from campus pathways. UCLA settled the suit for $6.45 million, including more than $2 million in donations to Jewish nonprofits.

    The Trump administration’s Friday offer follows a similar playbook to agreements it reached with Columbia and Brown universities to restore federal funding and resolve allegations of civil rights violations against Jewish and Israeli students.

    Trump wants to remake universities, which he has called “Marxist” hotbeds of liberalism and anti-Israel sentiment. During his second term, federal agencies have suspended or canceled billions in federal medical and science grants related to gender, LGBTQ+ issues or in response to campuses it accuses of being antisemitic. The White House has also attacked campus diversity programs and admissions practices as being illegal discrimination against white and Asian Americans.

    University leaders have challenged the notion that cutting medical research helps protect Jewish people. “This far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination,” Frenk, the UCLA chancellor, said in a campus letter this week.

    At UCLA, Trump’s demands include an end to scholarships that focus on race or ethnicity, the sharing of admissions data with the government and changes to campus protest rules. The Trump administration is also proposing that UCLA Health and the medical school cease gender-affirming care for transgender people.

    UC has already overhauled practices in some areas called for by the Trump administration — including a ban on protest encampments and the abolition of diversity statements in hiring.

    The Trump administration is also saying it wants an outside monitor to oversee the agreement.

    The proposal came one day after Newsom said UC should not bend “on their knees” to Trump. Newsom, a Democrat, has fashioned himself as a national anti-Trump figure and is considering a presidential run in 2028.

    The university system, run by Milliken — who assumed his role only last week — and the Board of Regents, is independent under the state Constitution. But the governor can exercise political sway over the regents, whose members he appoints. Newsom also holds an ex-officio seat on the board.

    Kaleem reported from Los Angeles and Wilner from Washington. Times staff Writer Taryn Luna in Sacramento and Seema Mehta in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

    Jaweed Kaleem, Michael Wilner

    Source link

  • Shocked couple pops the question simultaneously at Merriweather Post Pavilion – WTOP News

    Shocked couple pops the question simultaneously at Merriweather Post Pavilion – WTOP News

    One couple shocked each other with a simultaneous proposal at Merriweather Post Pavilion.

    This page contains a video which is being blocked by your ad blocker.
    In order to view the video you must disable your ad blocker.

    Couple proposes at the same time during Merriweather Post Pavilion show

    It was last December that Rachel Hundertmark decided she wanted to ask her boyfriend Rashad Polk to spend the rest of his life as her husband.

    “I want to be the one to propose and feel special, because he makes me feel like a princess all the time,” said Rachel.

    It has been two and half years since Rachel asked Rashad to go see the band Modest Mouse for their first date.

    In January, when she heard that Modest Mouse would be performing at Merriweather Post Pavilion, Rachel knew that was where she would ask Rashad to get married.

    Fast forward to the night of the concert, and Rachel had stashed the engagement ring she had for Rashad with her 16-year-old daughter Jasmine Halstead.

    What Rachel didn’t know was that Rashad was also planning to ask for her hand in marriage during the concert, but Jasmine was in on the surprise.

    “She didn’t tell either one of us, she can really can keep a secret. She kept a straight face too, don’t play her in poker,” said Rachel.

    Both Rachel and Rashad individually asked Jasmine to film the proposal.

    Both Rachel and Rashad individually asked Jasmine, Rachel’s daughter, to film their planned proposals to one another at Merriweather Post Pavilion.
    (Courtesy Rachel Hundertmark)

    Courtesy Rachel Hundertmark

    Rashad’s mouth fell open in shock when Rachel got down on one knee.
    (Courtesy Rachel Hundertmark)

    Courtesy Rachel Hundertmark

    “I was shocked like the Ravens just won the Super Bowl after being down,” Rachel said.
    (Courtesy Rachel Hundertmark)

    Courtesy Rachel Hundertmark

    The pair will get married next September.
    (Courtesy Rachel Hundertmark)

    Courtesy Rachel Hundertmark

    Right after Rashad had returned from the bathroom to remove the engagement ring from where he hid in his sock, Rachel bent down to one knee.

    Rashad was stunned. His mouth dropped open, he reached in his pocket to pull out her ring and dropped to one knee.

    “I was shocked, ” “We laughed, hugged and cried.”

    Rachel pointed out to WTOP that she did propose first.

    “The band was playing in the background, so I whispered slash-yelled at him, ‘I wanna spend the rest of my life on the Merriweather lawn with you.’”

    Rachel’s mom Laura Bewley was also at the concert, and said she knew Rashad was right for her daughter the first time she met him. “He is amazing. I have four kids, grandkids, grand dogs, they all love him,” she said.

    The pair will tie the knot Sept. 28, 2025.

    “He was my concert husband and now he will be my real husband,” said Rachel.

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2024 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    Ana Golden

    Source link

  • Jenn’s shocking ‘Bachelorette’ finale has Bachelor Nation reeling

    Jenn’s shocking ‘Bachelorette’ finale has Bachelor Nation reeling

    NEW YORK — We’re back in Hawaii for the dramatic conclusion to Jenn’s journey, and was it ever. We picked up with Jenn meeting up with her family. She was hoping they could help provide some clarity on which of the remaining men, Marcus or Devin, was right for her.

    Jenn’s brother, friend Nicole, aunt, and mother were in Hawaii to meet her final two suitors. She admitted to her family that she said I love you to both, but only Devin has said it back so far. Jenn said at this point, her feelings towards the men are pretty equal.

    Jenn’s Family Meets Devin

    Devin brought gifts for everyone, he looked like Santa Claus with all of the bags he had. Devin told them that Jenn lights up whenever she talks about them. He added that he grew up with a strong, single mother as well. Jenn said to them that that’s how they really started to connect.

    Devin told Jenn’s mom and aunt that he never dated an Asian girl but he loves it, loves Jenn, and that it’s not about ethnicity for him. He was quick to tell them that he loves Jenn and that he has zero doubts about her. Jenn’s mother thanked Devin for loving Jenn. It was so sweet! He really drove the point home that he wants to be her rock and would find that responsibility to be “a blessing.” He said that it would kill him to not be the one. He asked for their blessing, and they said that they would need more time because in their culture they take that time.

    Jenn’s mom really pressed her on why she loves Devin. Jenn said that Devin unwaveringly loves her and wants to know all of her parts. Her mother was concerned that Devin didn’t know much about Vietnamese culture. Jenn said that Devin wants their future kids to know their culture and learn to speak Vietnamese. Her mother then told her that she needed more time to get to know Devin. Jenn tried to say that she shouldn’t worry because she would never marry someone she didn’t want to marry.

    Live Show – Jenn’s Guys in the Audience

    Dylan Jeremy and Jonathon were in the audience – and they told Jesse Palmer that they were there to give support to Jenn. What could be happening?

    Jenn’s Brother and Devin

    Jenn and her brother talked about her and Devin’s similar past with a single mom and strained relationship with their dads. Her brother said that he would support whatever she wanted to do. James said he could see how happy Jenn was with Devin. But – he wanted to grill him!

    Devin told James that he was confident in their relationship. He said he never has to change anything about himself with Jenn and he’s never had that before. Devin admitted that he’s worried about the other guy that’s still involved. Devin also asked for her brother’s blessing and got shot down again. “I’m definitely not going to give my blessing now,” he said. James added he wanted to speak to the second guy first. He said it wasn’t because he didn’t like Devin, but he wanted to make sure he was doing the right thing for his sister.

    Jenn told Devin to hold on and that she’d “never felt like this before and I love you.” Except with Marcus maybe, who she said it to first. “Don’t get in your head, okay?” Jenn said to Devin as he got in the SUV and drove away.

    Marcus Meets Jenn’s Family

    Here we go! Marcus’ turn! I’m so nervous for him. James is worried that Jenn is falling yet again for another emotionally unavailable man. Marcus brought just one gift bag. He admitted that he was a bit nervous. Marcus shared how he and his siblings were put in foster care. He had two older sisters who were adopted out, and then he and his sister Gabby got adopted out eventually to another. Wow, to be split up like that is so sad. Marcus also shared his experience of nearly losing his life while serving his country.

    James Speaks with Marcus

    James shared his appreciation with Marcus for sharing so much with his family about his past and how he knew that it wasn’t easy for him. Marcus said he wouldn’t do it unless he really cared for Jenn. He also admitted that he underestimated how important emotions are, especially because he had to block them while serving. Marcus said that Jenn makes him believe that taking the next step is possible. James thought that Marcus played “Ring Around the Rosy” with his questions.

    James Speaks with Jenn’s Mom and Aunt

    Marcus said that he believes that he can fall in love with Jenn, but he’s not there yet. He said he’s missing the feeling of “certainty.” He started to cry as he spoke about it. He really wants to be that guy for her, but it seems like he’s under too much pressure. This seems to be way too fast for him. “The feelings I have for your daughter are real,” Marcus said. Jenn’s mom is worried that Marcus could hurt her in the long run.

    Jenn told her brother that she feels Marcus is close to being in love with her, but he’s not there yet. She blames his past trauma. James told her that Marcus fits the mold of men from her past who are emotionally unavailable. “Marcus is a really good man who has good intentions, but it is a little concerning,” Jenn said. She hopes she knows where his heart is at. “How long are you willing to wait?” James asked Jenn. “I’m not sure,” she said. James cried as he told his sister how he just wanted the best for her.

    Jenn Confronts Marcus About His Feelings

    Jenn said her family said some things that were really hard to hear. She asked him, “How do you see this ending for us?” Marcus said that he thought they made progress that day. “Where are you at with your feelings?” Jenn pressed. “Are you not certain about me?” Marcus said he doesn’t think it’s her, he thinks it’s the pressure to build the family that he never had. He hoped that him saying he’s getting there and his feelings are still growing could be “enough.” Jenn realizes she shouldn’t still feel confused.

    Live Show

    James was emotional again. Jesse asked him how he was feeling. “As you can tell, I’m not too happy.” Yikes!

    Jenn’s Last Date with Devin

    Jenn met up with Devin on the beach where they walked over to two spiritual guides. They did a spiritual ceremony that is supposed to happen before any life event. Jenn said she wanted to put any concerns in the past and this was a chance for them to have a fresh future. They got lava rocks that represented their fears and shared how they felt with each other. Jenn wants someone who won’t leave when things get tough. They threw their rocks into the water to release their fears. Devin and Jenn dipped their bodies into the ocean as a spiritual rebirth of sorts. They shared a bunch of kisses on the beach as Devin remained worried that he wouldn’t be the guy in the end.

    In the evening, they met up with a passionate kiss. Devin said that he wants Jenn to “feel the weight of his soul.” That’s intense. Devin and Jenn talked about throwing the stones in the ocean and how it made them not afraid to take the next step together. Devin said that he trusts her opinions and decisions. That was something that really made Jenn feel seen. Santa Claus pulled out another gift and it was from the shaman on their New Zealand date. He told him not to give it out until he knew whom he wanted to give it to for the rest of his life. Jenn loved the level of commitment that it showed. “Devin keeps blowing me away!” Jenn said. “You can continue to be loved like that, but you just have to love me back,” Devin said. “I do love you,” Jenn said. She said she now knows what unconditional love is.

    Jenn Has Doubts

    Jenn woke up frustrated and confused after her amazing date with Devin. She doesn’t understand how Marcus can’t feel as strongly about her as she does with him. “His uncertainty is making me uncertain,” Jenn admitted.

    Jesse Talks with Marcus

    Jesse wanted to see how everything was going and if he had made progress with falling in love. Marcus said to Jesse that he told Jenn’s family the truth, he has struggled with his feelings. Marcus said that every time he spends time with Jenn their connection grows. Jesse’s like, so do you love her or are you just afraid to tell her? Marcus said he’s just not certain. Even Jesse seems confused. “If you do in fact love this woman, you have to tell her. Or, I’m afraid you are going to lose her if you don’t,” Jesse said.

    Jenn Talks to Marcus

    She doesn’t want to go on the date until she talks to Marcus. Jenn had to wait an uncomfortably long time for Marcus to answer his hotel room door when she knocked. She asks him to talk, and that never seems like a good thing and he knows that. She wants to know if he would propose, does he just want to date her, does he even see her in his future? Marcus said he regretted not diving deeper into that topic. “I feel like I tried and you just didn’t want to,” Jenn said. “I don’t think that you were excited for the future.” Marcus said it’s not that he can’t picture it, it’s scary for him. “I’m struggling, for sure,” he said. Marcus said that he wants to keep trying and she makes him want to keep trying. He doesn’t understand why it’s hard for him. Tears rolled down his face as Jenn described how much time and feelings she invested into him when he couldn’t give it back.

    “At the end of the day, I know that I love you, I want to be the kind of person that fights for it. Like I want to do this with you. I want to give it a try. I don’t want to give up on us,” Marcus said. That’s how he finally says he loves her. Does he? She’s very conflicted and confused. She has a pit in her stomach instead of feeling elated. Probably not a good sign. Jenn leaves the room, comes back eventually and Marcus admits that he’s afraid of losing her. “I did fall in love with you. It’s clear to me that you know what you want, and I think that’s why I’ve been asking myself some pretty hard questions,” he said. “I’m not giving you what you need.” “I opened my heart to you every second that I got,” Jenn said. She is sick of proving herself, she’s done waiting. “I’m just done,” Jenn said. Marcus then said that he is worried that he wouldn’t find someone like Jenn again. Jenn thanked him for being honest, but she knew that she didn’t want to feel like this anymore. Bye, Marcus!

    Marcus in the Hot Seat

    Marcus said it was tough to watch his breakup with Jenn back. He said after getting home he didn’t know if he had made the right decision or not. Was it his decision? I think that was all Jenn really… anyway, he said that he hates that he let her down. He didn’t want to be part of the problem of why she had ever felt unworthy of love. “The difficult truth is that I needed to get out of her way.”

    Jenn and Marcus Talk Live

    Jenn said that their relationship meant a lot to her and that she was glad that he went on this journey with her. He said he felt the same. Jenn said that she wanted to run toward her feelings with Devin and not run from them. She felt like they weren’t aligned with certain things after the fantasy suites. Jenn said that even if Marcus had said I love you sooner, it wouldn’t have worked out because it just wasn’t the right relationship. “My heart was in a different place and wanted something different,” Jenn said.

    Decision Day

    Jenn was fresh off her breakup with Marcus and although she loves Devin she said she was a bit confused about what she wanted to do. Devin was not confused at all. He met up with Neil Lane to pick out a beautiful engagement ring.

    Jenn said that in order to fulfill herself she wants to choose herself. She’s not going to let Devin propose to her, she wants to propose to him! Wow! This is a Bachelor Nation first.

    Jesse Interrupts the Proposal

    Jesse says that we need to hear what happened since Hawaii from Jenn herself before they air the proposal. This is unprecedented!

    Jenn in the Hot Seat

    Jenn comes out and wipes away tears. She then started to sob. This is awful. They left Hawaii engaged, and she said she was very happy, but then he started to pull away from her. His promises of where they would live and be together just drifted away. Jenn said she felt like she was secondary to everything in his life and he didn’t even bring her around his family anymore.

    They had a happy couple visit planned and instead of going he called her and broke off the engagement. He said he didn’t love her anymore, he felt like something was off and he regretted getting engaged. For the past month, she’s been trying to understand how he could switch his feelings up the way he did. She even told Devin that they could just date, but he said it wasn’t what he wanted anymore. Devin refused couple’s counseling.

    How could he do this to her? I’m really disgusted at this situation. At the same time, he shouldn’t be in a relationship that he doesn’t want to be in, Jenn deserves better than that. Jesse then asked her if she was ready to see him. What? This guy is here? How? Dylan, Jeremy, and Jonathon have the look in their eyes of wanting to tear him apart.

    Devin Talks to Jenn Live

    Devin got a few claps and even a boo as he walked out. Jenn didn’t know where to start and said it wasn’t what she wanted and it wouldn’t be meaningful to her. She wanted to do it off-camera. Jenn asked why he ended their engagement on the phone and then started following Maria on Instagram. She asked if their relationship meant anything to him. He made a face and then said that he couldn’t excuse the Instagram follow, and that he failed her. “Everything I felt for you was real,” he said. He said he needed time and space to process his emotions, but then went clubbing with Jeremy. He said he was there for a work trip, but then went out with Jeremy. “Am I not allowed to live a life?” he said.

    Jesse reigned it in, and asked what happened? When he left the show he had a lot of doubts and he admitted that he suppressed his feelings. Jenn asked why he allowed her to keep falling for him for 2 months after the show. Devin said he couldn’t really explain further. “I was regretfully late on letting you know,” Devin said. Jenn couldn’t believe he was posting memes about Sam. She said that every Monday night she was heartbroken watching the lies that he told her.

    After a commercial break, Devin said he just wanted to focus on the breakup and not after the break. Devin said he had nothing to gain other than to make sure that she was ok. Devin said that he watches Jenn grow and flourish and he said that he fell short of her expectations in the real world. This isn’t him trying to make her feel bad, Devin said he does care, but he was contributing to her regression. She shouldn’t have to compromise what she wants for him, Devin added. Jenn could hardly look at him.

    Watching the Proposal

    Jesse said, “I know that your love story didn’t unfold the way that you thought or expected it would, I’m truly sorry.” He added, “You also showed us what a strong and powerful woman is.” Who loves Jesse? Everyone! But then, Jesse was like can we watch the proposal together? “Do I have a choice?” Jenn said. This broke my heart. I don’t even want to watch this proposal. The little box in the corner of Jenn sitting next to the man who broke her heart, sobbing, is unnecessary. This footage should be burned. It would have been beautiful if it was true. Jenn had this moment stolen from her. She deserves the best. I wish this could have worked out for her so badly.

    Jesse said that he hoped in watching it she could feel empowered because she really did things her own way. I think it would have been more empowering if they had honored her wishes to not have to see it. Jenn said that the man on the screen doesn’t exist anymore, but she’s still the same woman that she is. Right on! Jenn said that she’s ready to fight for love and to find the man who can keep the promises he makes to her. Devin said that he fully believed those things. Then he said some things about falling short of expectations and I really don’t understand this breakup. The bottom line, he basically fell out of love with her in the real world. She told Devin that she hopes that he can find himself in his self-journey one day.

    Jesse tried to reassure her that her great love is still out there. I would say so! Then to try to uplift us, they teased that Joan’s season is coming up and there’s a chance she could end up with Kelsey’s dad, who was also in the audience.

    Sneak Peek of Joan’s Journey

    Jesse made a bad joke about keeping his promises with a sneak peek of Joan’s season of “The Golden Bachelorette.” We got to see Kelsey come out of the limo to talk to Joan, and then introduce her dad to her! Mark is a silver fox! I loved him on Joey’s season and I’m so glad to see him get his moment in the sun and make a possible love connection. He’s incredible! “He’s cute! Thank you! You can just call me mom!” Joan said to Kelsey! Adorable!

    Joan said that she went on some amazing dates and that she’s really excited for everyone to see her season! I can’t wait!

    You can watch the very first “Golden Bachelorette” on Wednesday, September 18 on ABC.

    Click here to subscribe on Apple Podcasts

    Click here to subscribe on Spotify

    Click here to subscribe on iHeart

    Copyright © 2024 WABC-TV. All Rights Reserved.

    WABC

    Source link

  • Newsom calls Legislature into special session after lawmakers reject his latest salvo at Big Oil

    Newsom calls Legislature into special session after lawmakers reject his latest salvo at Big Oil

    SACRAMENTO — 

    Gov. Gavin Newsom called California lawmakers into a special session Saturday after Assembly Democrats pushed back on his request to approve new requirements on oil refineries in the final days of the regular legislative session that ends Saturday night.

    The unusual maneuver effectively pushes the Legislature into overtime to address the complex and politically sensitive issue of energy affordability just as campaign season heats up in advance of the Nov. 5 election.

    Newsom’s order requires that lawmakers formally open a special session immediately, but it’s unclear when they plan to hold hearings to consider the bills or how long the session will go. Lawmakers were scheduled to leave Sacramento this weekend for four months in their home districts.

    “It should be common sense for gas refineries to plan ahead and backfill supplies when they go down for maintenance to avoid price spikes. But these price spikes are actually profit spikes for Big Oil, and they’re using the same old scare tactics to maintain the status quo,” Newsom said in a statement.

    “Calling the session now allows the Legislature to begin that work immediately so that the state can resolve this important matter to establish the necessary rules to prevent price spikes next year and beyond.”

    It’s the second time in two years that Newsom has called a special session focused on the economics of the oil industry, an issue that divides Democrats as they navigate a desire to fight climate change with ambitions to lower prices at the pump. Newsom has blamed high gas prices on the industry, which he accused of gouging consumers. Oil companies point to the state’s climate change and tax policies as drivers of higher prices.

    Two weeks ago, Newsom announced a proposal to require that petroleum refiners maintain a stable inventory in order to prevent fuel shortages and price spikes when refinery equipment is taken offline for maintenance.

    As the oil industry lobbied heavily against the proposal, Democrats in the Assembly and Senate squabbled over how to move forward. Lawmakers said they were frustrated with Newsom’s attempt to push the plan through the Capitol at the last minute.

    In a statement Friday, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) said his caucus agreed with the governor about the need to urgently address affordability and would deliver results if a special session was called. But he refused to take up the bills for a floor vote by Saturday’s deadline.

    “What I’m not going to do is push through bills that haven’t been sufficiently vetted with public hearings,” Rivas said. “Doing so could lead to unintended consequences on Californians’ pocketbooks.”

    Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said he wouldn’t rush Newsom’s energy proposal through the Legislature.

    (Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

    Newsom’s office began talking with the Senate and Assembly earlier this summer about legislation that would allow his administration to require that petroleum refiners maintain a stable inventory in order to prevent fuel shortages in California.

    After gathering more insight about pricing from laws passed in a previous special session on oil that ended last year, state regulators had reported that charges at the pump increase when the oil companies do not maintain enough refined gasoline to backfill production shortfalls or protect against the impact of unplanned maintenance.

    Western States Petroleum Assn. leaders said the governor’s refinery proposal will drive up fuel costs in California and reduce supplies in Arizona and Nevada. The argument raised a potent political concern that the state policy could become a national headache for Vice President Kamala Harris and other Democrats in a critical election year.

    “It’s noteworthy that legislators are considering such radical energy policies at a time when the nation is closely examining how the ‘California model’ will impact their families and pocketbooks,” Catherine Reheis-Boyd, CEO of the Western States Petroleum Assn., said in a statement this week.

    The warning from WSPA, Chevron and other industry players spooked Assembly Democrats, who were also irked by the late introduction of the proposal.

    In an effort to reach an agreement with Democratic lawmakers, the proposal was tied together with other bills in the Senate and Assembly during negotiations with leaders of both houses. But environmentalists opposed some of those proposals, leaving Democrats with a suite of bills that angered both ends of the environmental policy spectrum.

    One of the Assembly bills, which would cut energy and climate programs that fund HVAC improvements in schools, installation of energy storage and generation technologies in vulnerable communities and solar energy systems on multifamily affordable housing to achieve a meager one-time customer credit on electricity and gas bills, drew sweeping opposition from a coalition of environmental, education, housing and energy groups. Another bill, which ratepayer advocates supported, would have required the Public Utilities Commission to develop a framework for analyzing total annual energy costs for residential households.

    The bills didn’t offer enough incentive for Assembly Democrats to slam the plan through this week. They also soured on efforts by Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) to leverage the moment to pass Senate bills that would accelerate environmental reviews for clean energy and hydrogen projects, save ratepayers money by lowering requirements for utility wildfire mitigation plans and make it harder for companies to terminate utility service to customers.

    McGuire, who earlier this week said the Senate did not support a special session and urged the Assembly to take action on the bills, stuck to that position on Saturday.

    “The Senate always had the votes and was ready to get these important measures across the finish line this legislative year and deliver the relief Californians need at the pump and on their electricity bills,” McGuire said in a statement.

    “We won’t be convening a special session this fall, but we look forward to continuing conversations with the Governor and Speaker about this critical issue in the days and weeks to come.”

    It was unclear Saturday night how Newsom would respond or whether the Senate leader has the legal authority to refuse the governor’s call for a special session.

    The drama marked another effort by a governor on the cusp of the final two years of his second term to push last-minute bills through a Legislature guided by two new leaders. Earlier this summer lawmakers similarly balked on passing a bill that would have placed his measure targeting retail crime on the ballot.

    Newsom’s decision to call for a special session also marks the second time he’s sought to toughen California’s oil laws outside the typical two-year process to hear bills, which runs from January through August or mid-September each year.

    The governor called a special session two years ago to penalize oil companies for excessive profits as gasoline prices spiked. But lawmakers were ultimately reluctant to adopt a penalty and Newsom refined his request to instead demand more transparency from the industry.

    Instead of enacting a cap and penalty on oil refinery profits, Newsom and lawmakers gave state regulators the ability to do so in the future. Consumer advocates and the governor celebrated the resulting law as a groundbreaking tool that could keep gas prices from escalating.

    But Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo of Nevada joined the industry and his party in May when he sent Newsom a letter warning a cap could “further raise gas prices for both of our constituencies” because his state’s gas largely comes from refineries in California.

    On Friday, Andy Walz, president of Americas products for Chevron, sent a letter to the California Energy Commission saying that Newsom’s new refinery proposal “risks the safety of refinery operations, the orderly functioning of markets and would leave industry and labor experts without a voice in key policies.”

    “The physical, operational and cost burdens to sustain unnecessary inventory are also a concern,” he wrote. “Building just one new storage tank can take a decade and cost $35 million. These costs would likely be passed onto the consumer. And given the current regulatory regime, with constraints on permits and a gasoline vehicle sales ban, there is no opportunity to recover capital invested to build additional tanks, which could be the ‘last straw’ for the state’s energy market investors.”

    The timing of a second special session on oil regulations could work in Newsom’s favor if lawmakers immediately get to work.

    Newsom will finish signing the bills on his desk by Sept. 30, which means he could have the political upper hand if the special session begins before that period concludes. If the special session begins after bill signing, the governor could lose some of that leverage.

    But when, and, if, they ultimately pass new mandates on the oil industry or lower electricity bills could also affect the election.

    Legislation that saves consumers money could give them something to tout to their constituents. Laws that potentially raise gas prices could be weaponized in California races or national contests.

    Taryn Luna, Laurel Rosenhall

    Source link

  • Travis Kelce Reportedly ‘Found The Ring’ To Propose To Taylor Swift After Worldwide Search – And We Have Details! – Perez Hilton

    Travis Kelce Reportedly ‘Found The Ring’ To Propose To Taylor Swift After Worldwide Search – And We Have Details! – Perez Hilton

    OK, yes, we’ve heard Travis Kelce and Taylor Swift were secretly engaged several times before. But never with this much detail…

    It’s unclear whether he’s actually popped the question yet or not — more on that in a moment. But a new report has deets that seem to show even if it hasn’t happened quite yet, it’s any day now.

    A source close to Trav’s entourage spilled to The US Sun on Wednesday that the Kansas City Chiefs star had been spending some of his time touring the world — mostly following around Tay on The Eras Tour — looking for the perfect engagement ring! And he’s found it! The source said:

    “It probably took more than 40 shop visits and 100 Zoom calls and meetings with jewelry experts.”

    He apparently has been at this for months, since the end of 2023! He reportedly saw rings in New York, Los Angeles, England, France, and Italy — inneresting since some believe he proposed to Tay during their romantic Lake Como getaway!

    Related: Did Taylor React To Kanye West Name-Dropping Her & Travis In New Song??

    Whoa! Sounds like he’s working on this with the same intensity with which he trains for the NFL season! Well, it makes sense… Proposing to Taylor would kind of be the Super Bowl of dating, right? But while it was a mighty effort, it wasn’t exactly hard work — because, as the insider explains, the athlete was “so excited about” the search that it was fun!

    It’s clearly important to Trav to get the ring just right. The source says he “wants the best for his lady” to “show how much he loves” her. So he got advice from close friends of his AND of hers on exactly what to pick. And all the extra care was “worth” it! Because he got it just right! The friend says:

    “He finally found the ring he is sure she will love.”

    Apparently Trav ultimately found the ring at Place Vendôme in Paris. The insider says he picked out the band as well as “the finest diamonds and pieces to build it.” So it sounds like it’ll be a custom piece — we’d expect no less for a unicorn like Tay. The ring, says the insider is worth a whopping $250,000!

    Nice! It sounds like instead of one big diamond, it’ll be a more intricate design. Man, we can’t wait to see it!

    The insider also noted how the ring was far from the only thing Trav bought as he took the time to learn Tay’s taste. He also spent $59k on clothes for her from German designer Jil Sander! Awww! The insider says:

    “He knows her tastes so well now. She will have plenty to choose from when she watches him play in the NFL this fall.”

    He’s apparently has been showering her with gifts because he can’t be there with her as he’s back in training — but never stops thinking about her:

    “Travis misses Taylor a lot, and he knows that she is getting onto the last few weeks of the Eras tour in Europe.”

    Awww!

    Do YOU think Trav got the right ring??

    [Image via New Heights/YouTube/MEGA/WENN.]

    Perez Hilton

    Source link

  • Mayor Karen Bass vetoes ballot proposal to let police chief fire problem officers

    Mayor Karen Bass vetoes ballot proposal to let police chief fire problem officers

    Mayor Karen Bass has vetoed a proposed ballot measure to rework the disciplinary process at the Los Angeles Police Department — a step that could result in its removal from the Nov. 5 ballot.

    In her veto letter to the City Council, Bass said the proposal, which would have allowed the police chief to fire officers accused of committing serious misconduct, “risks creating bureaucratic confusion” within the LAPD.

    Bass said the proposal, which also would have reworked the composition of the department’s three-member disciplinary panels, provided “ambiguous direction” and “gaps in guidance.”

    “I look forward to working with each of you to do a thorough and comprehensive review with officers, the department, and other stakeholders to ensure fairness for all,” she wrote. “The current system remains until this collaborative review is complete and can be placed before the voters.”

    Bass issued her veto during the council’s summer recess, when meetings are canceled for three weeks. The deadline for reworking the language of the ballot proposal has already passed, City Clerk Holly Wolcott said.

    “If the council does not override the veto or take any action, the measure will be pulled from the ballot,” Wolcott said in an email.

    The council’s next meeting is scheduled for July 30. Whether it can muster 10 votes to override the mayor’s veto is unclear.

    By issuing the veto, Bass effectively sided with top LAPD brass, who warned last month that the proposal would create a two-tier disciplinary system, with some offenses resulting in termination by the chief and others heading to a disciplinary panel known as a Board of Rights.

    The mayor’s appointees on the Board of Police Commissioners also criticized the ballot proposal, saying they felt excluded from the deliberations. At least one commissioner voiced concern about the proposal’s creation of a binding arbitration process to resolve cases where an officer files an appeal of his or her termination.

    Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez expressed similar worries, arguing that binding arbitration would lead to more lenient outcomes for officers accused of serious wrongdoing. Soto-Martínez, who voted against the proposal last month, had also argued that the range of offenses that would lead to termination by the police chief was too narrow.

    An aide to Soto-Martínez said Tuesday that his boss supports the veto.

    Councilmember Tim McOsker, who spearheaded the ballot proposal, said he is “deeply disappointed” with the mayor’s action, arguing that it threatens the most significant reform of the LAPD’s disciplinary system in more than two decades.

    If the council fails to override the veto, the next opportunity for major reform would not occur until the 2026 election, McOsker said.

    “What this veto would do is put us back in the status quo for at least two years,” he said in an interview.

    McOsker said he is still looking at the options for responding to the mayor’s veto. During the council’s deliberations last month, four council members — Soto-Martínez, Nithya Raman, Eunisses Hernandez and Curren Price — backed a proposal to seek additional changes to the ballot measure.

    Soto-Martínez took aim at the decision to let a police chief fire officers for some offenses but not others, saying it would create “ambiguity” in the disciplinary system.

    That proposal was defeated on a 9 to 4 vote. Had it passed, it would have effectively killed the ballot measure for this year’s election, since the deadline had passed for making extensive changes.

    The proposal vetoed by Bass had been billed as a way to undo some of changes brought by Charter Amendment C, a ballot measure approved by voters in 2017, which paved the way for all-civilian disciplinary panels at the LAPD.

    The ballot proposal would have reworked the system, ensuring that each panel would have have two civilian members and one commanding officer.

    Representatives of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, which represents about 8,800 rank-and-file officers, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    Last month, the union issued a statement saying the ballot proposal struck “the right balance” on disciplinary issues, ensuring that officers who are terminated by a chief have access to an appeal process with binding arbitration.

    David Zahniser, Libor Jany

    Source link

  • Expand the L.A. City Council? A citizens commission will explore that and other ideas

    Expand the L.A. City Council? A citizens commission will explore that and other ideas

    The Los Angeles City Council voted Tuesday to create a new citizen’s commission to look at expanding the size of the council, reducing the number of council meetings and other potential changes to city operations.

    The 13-member commission will be charged with developing proposals for the November 2026 ballot that would revise the city charter, which spells out the powers and duties of city departments, offices and elected officials.

    The idea of expanding the 15-member council has been circulating for a few years, with several council members signing on to the idea. Council President Paul Krekorian had hoped to send a council expansion measure to L.A. voters in November.

    Although a council committee studied the concept over several months, its members never coalesced around a single strategy, leaving the question to the new commission.

    Council expansion had drawn support from a number of civic groups, which argued that it would improve community representation at City Hall and diversify the membership of the council.

    Godfrey Plata, deputy director of the nonprofit group L.A. Forward, said his organization and others were disappointed by the council’s failure to act.

    “We thought it was procrastination to punt it over to a charter commission,” said Plata, whose group argued last year in favor of growing the council to 29 members. “But we’re certainly eager to continue a public conversation around it.”

    Krekorian, who faces term limits at the end of the year, has continued to argue in favor of expansion, pointing out that the city of nearly 4 million has the same number of districts as nearly a century ago, when its population was much smaller.

    Reducing the size of each district would make the council more responsive to residents, he said, while also reducing the influence of “institutional organized money” in elections.

    “I think it even reduces the risk of corruption,” Krekorian said last week during an appearance at the Los Angeles Current Affairs Forum.

    Krekorian said the new charter reform commission will also look at other issues, including the city’s handling of real estate development, the process of filling vacant council seats and the procedure for censuring or suspending elected officials who have engaged in wrongdoing.

    Michael Feinstein, speaking on behalf of the Los Angeles County Green Party, called on the council to make sure the commission also looks at major changes to city elections, including a move to “ranked-choice” voting, which allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference instead of choosing just one.

    The last major overhaul of the city charter was in 1999. That year, voters established a system of neighborhood councils and gave more authority to the mayor, among other things. On that same ballot, voters rejected efforts to expand the council.

    This time around, it’s not clear how wide-ranging the commission’s work will be. Although the council can forward topics for study, the commission will also collect input from a wide range of individuals and community groups.

    Under the plan approved on Tuesday, Mayor Karen Bass will have the power to appoint four of the commission’s 13 members. Krekorian will select two, as will council President-elect Marqueece Harris-Dawson.

    Those eight would be appointed in August and September, according to a timeline created for the commission. Once they convene, they would then spend three months developing a work plan and selecting five additional commissioners.

    The commission’s schedule calls for it to spend much of 2025 deliberating and collecting public input. In January 2026, its proposals would be submitted to the council, which would then decide which ones would appear on the November 2026 ballot.

    Feinstein, a former mayor of Santa Monica, criticized that arrangement, warning that the council will have the power to reject any of the commission’s proposals. He also faulted the council for allowing the commission to be populated by political appointees.

    “This [process] embeds a direct City Council conflict of interest around deciding the future size and powers of the council,” he said in an email to The Times.

    The charter reform commission is also expected to look at whether to shrink the number of council meetings — a topic that has exasperated some council members in recent months.

    The city charter requires that the council meet at least three days each week. Councilmembers Katy Yaroslasvky, Tim McOsker and Eunisses Hernandez recently backed a ballot proposal to reduce that number to one day per week. But others on the council resisted the idea, saying it needed vetting from the soon-to-be-formed commission.

    Separately, the council voted on Tuesday to approve language for two city charter amendments on the Nov. 5 ballot. One would establish an independent redistricting process for the Los Angeles Unified School District, which takes in 26 cities and is governed by a seven-member board.

    The other ballot proposal is aimed at strengthening the city Ethics Commission, which enforces laws dealing with campaign fundraising, lobbying and other political activities. Under the proposal, the agency would receive a minimum of $7 million per year for its operations.

    Backers say this would prevent elected officials from retaliating against the agency by cutting its budget. The proposal would also triple the fines for ethics violations and give the Ethics Commission the ability to hire its own lawyer in some cases.

    David Zahniser

    Source link

  • Gov. Newsom seeks faster review of insurance rate hikes. What to know

    Gov. Newsom seeks faster review of insurance rate hikes. What to know

    With insurers continuing to pull back from the California’s homeowners’ market, Gov. Gavin Newsom wants to speed up the process by which the companies have their requests for rate hikes reviewed.

    The governor said Friday that he is backing a bill that would require the Department of Insurance to complete reviews of proposed premium increases within 60 days to halt any more exits from the market. Here’s what to know:

    What exactly did the governor say?

    Newsom said that immediate steps need to be taken to stabilize the market, which has seen insurers not renew existing policyholders, stop writing new policies or pull out of the market entirely — sending many homeowners to the insurer of last resort, the state’s FAIR Plan, which is now on the hook for more than $300 billion in payouts. Newsom said he was “deeply mindful” of the burdens placed on the plan.

    The governor said he had considered issuing an executive order, but instead is proposing a bill that would require the Insurance Department to speed up its review process of premium rate-hike requests.

    “We need to stabilize this market. We need to send the right signals. We need to move,” he said.

    Isn’t there already an insurance reform package being hashed out in Sacramento?

    Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara is holding hearings on his Sustainable Insurance Strategy, a set of comprehensive regulations intended to stabilize rates and make it more attractive for insurers to write homeowners policies, especially in wildfire areas such as hillsides and canyons.

    However, these regulations won’t become law until the end of the year — a deadline sought by the governor, assuming it can be met.

    “It should not take this long for emergency regulations,” Newsom said. “We can’t wait until December.”

    How would this bill fit into the larger set of reforms?

    Lara has reached a grand bargain with the insurance industry to make the market more attractive, though details are still being worked out.

    The plan would allow insurers to include the cost of reinsurance they buy to protect themselves from large fires and other catastrophes into premium costs. It also would allow them to set rates using sophisticated algorithms to predict the risk and cost of future fires, rather than just base them on past events. It’s unclear how an insurer’s application for an expedited rate approval this year would fit into the proposed reforms.

    Has Lara reacted to the governor’s proposal?

    The commissioner tweeted Friday that his department has taken “significant steps forward” to implement his planned reforms but more needs to be done — and that his department is working with the governor and the Legislature “on critical budget language that keeps us on track to get the job done.”

    What do consumer groups have to say?

    Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, said he didn’t understand the proposal, worrying that it would be a “rubber stamp” on proposed rate increases.

    He noted that Proposition 103, the landmark 1988 initiative that gives the insurance commissioner authority to review rate hikes, already mandates that they are conducted within 60 days except in certain circumstances. Those circumstances include requests for rate increases exceeding 7% for homeowners insurance, which allow consumers to seek a hearing, or the commissioner’s own decision to conduct a hearing.

    What is the insurance industry’s reaction

    Rex Frazier, president of the Personal Insurance Federation of California, a trade group of property and casualty insurers, said despite the promise of 60-day rate reviews under Proposition 103, they are taking longer. He said the Insurance Department will often request that insurers waive their rights to a speedy decision or face an administrative hearing, which can lead to extensive delays. However, Frazier withheld comment on the governor’s proposal until the draft language is released.

    What are the next steps?

    Newsom’s office will release the draft bill, which will be carried by a member of the Legislature and be included in the process for adopting the state budget, which the Legislature must approve by June 15. Newsom made his remarks Friday in outlining plans for a revised $288-billion budget, which calls for a series of cutbacks to close a nearly $45-billion shortfall.

    Laurence Darmiento

    Source link

  • What To Say When Proposing: Tips And Ideas

    What To Say When Proposing: Tips And Ideas

    It’s become a real occasion, hasn’t it? Thanks to social media, the entire run-up to a wedding starts even before the date has been announced. Now it’s all about the wedding proposal as well. What to say when proposing? Where to say it? How to dress? What sort of ring? How do you document the event? Everything is planned and fine-tuned to the last minute.

    Considering my wedding ‘proposal’ consisted of a meaningful look and a casual “Shall we?”, I guess it may be sour grapes speaking. So ignore my Gen-X angst, and let’s dive into the wonderful world of romance! After all, asking someone to spend the rest of their lives with you is no easy feat. So when it comes to what to say when proposing to someone, best be prepared on all fronts and start with the most important thing — the marriage proposal speech.

    How To Craft The Perfect Proposal Speech

    Yes, you must get down on one knee and produce the engagement ring, but what you say with it must be as meaningful and memorable. Let’s get into a few key things to remember when thinking of ideas on how to propose and what to say when you propose to your partner.

    But, first, what is a proposal speech anyway? It’s the way of asking for a person’s hand in marriage, but it’s also so much more. To make this personal moment all the more special, the perfect proposal speech needs to show your vulnerable side as well as sound honest and authentic.

    There are no definite rules or a formal structure for this speech, but proposing to your girlfriend/boyfriend does need to present a convincing argument as to why they should agree to marry you. Therefore, it needs to be romantic and passionate for sure. The important thing is to stay calm and start writing from your heart.

    Related Reading: 10 Ways To Build Your Relation After Getting Engaged And Before Marriage

    Tips on crafting the perfect proposal speech

    There’s a very popular Reddit thread asking for tips on what to say when proposing. My personal favorite has to be this user’s personal recommendation: “There is a vocabulary of shared words, meanings, locations, jokes, body language, and other small things between partners. This is your own private method of communication. Use this language to create a way to propose which is private, just between you two, meaningful only to you.”

    If your top question continues to be, “How can I propose to the one I love?”, we are here to help. Our top tips to help you craft your perfect proposal speech:

    1. Use your own words

    The best marriage proposal lines are always the most authentic ones. They don’t need to be poetic (if you are not a poet) or extra dramatic (if you are naturally reticent). What’s more important is that they express your true feelings. Ensure the words and feelings attached are all yours. So, don’t stress about perfection while creating a beautiful proposal for your loved one. You do you!

    2. To find the perfect things to say when you propose, dig into your past

    “How can I propose in a way that’s memorable?” you ask. Well, I would definitely recommend including some inside jokes that mean a lot to the two of you. You could make the speech a collaborative, fun activity with your friends and family, if that’s what you both are into. Or would you prefer it to be low-key rather than over the top? It’s your day and your rules.

    Related Reading: 17 Sure-Shot Signs He Is Going To Propose Soon!

    If you need more help in remembering, have a look at the following questions and let the writing process flow:

    • What was your first meeting like?
    • What did you think about them, then and now?
    • What do you love most about them?
    • What things do you have in common?
    • How has your relationship altered your life?
    ideas on how to propose
    I cannot imagine spending one moment without you. Will you marry me?

    3. Start your speech with a significant event

    If you are worried about what to say when proposing and are lost for ideas on how to propose, an easy beginning refers to a memorable event that both of you shared. It can be a recollection of a funny first date or that big moment when you realized you were in love. If you have any nostalgic memories you can recount, it’s an easy way to set the tone for a beautiful proposal.

    4. List out all the things you love about them

    When proposing to your girlfriend or boyfriend, you can start writing about everything that makes them special. List out the qualities you adore and that make your relationship special. Some of the best marriage proposal lines are rooted in sincere flattery. A few things to say when you propose to your partner:

    • You are the most loving person I know
    • I love the way you love my family
    • I have never met anyone as generous and patient as you
    • You are my best friend first
    • Your enthusiasm is the glue that keeps us together

    Related Reading: Surprising Psychological Benefits Of Women Proposing To Men And 19 Ways To Do It Right

    5. Tell them why you want to marry them

    You’ve set the stage by explaining why they mean so much to you. Now take the lovely proposal to the next level by mentioning why exactly you want to marry them. What are your plans for the future? Why are you sure this is the right person to spend your life with? Get into the details and capture your future spouse with your imagination and authenticity.

    As summed up by this Reddit user, “Tell her whatever your heart needs you to say.” And that’s as much of a beautiful proposal as one could want.

    6. Keep it short

    It may seem like we are asking you to write a tome about your love life. But that’s not the case — In fact, when it comes to romantic things to say when proposing, the shorter the speech, the greater the impact. When proposing to your girlfriend/boyfriend, take that deep breath, go down on one knee, bring out the engagement ring, and utter those three or four lines that will capture the moment and your partner’s heart.

    7. One of the most endearing ideas on how to propose: Be yourself

    If you are not into formal clothes and over-the-top gestures, we urge you to stay true to yourself and keep it simple. If your partner hates attention, don’t go planning a proposal in front of their friends and family. On the other hand, if you know your partner has been dreaming about this day ever since you started dating, it wouldn’t hurt to give into the romance of the moment and plan a lovely proposal. Just be true to yourselves – in what you say and do – and let the day unfold naturally.

    8. Practice your speech

    And finally, once you have written your marriage proposal speech, remember to practice it a few times before the big day. One of the best proposal tips, it will help you get more confident with the speech and make it less awkward. It helps to say it aloud in front of a mirror or even to a trustworthy friend. But do not over-rehearse. You don’t want it to sound mechanical either.

    Related Reading: 115 Best Engagement Announcement Captions

    What To Say When Proposing: 100 Most Romantic Things To Say When Proposing

    Now that you have the basic building blocks of what to say when you propose, let us help you with some proposal speech examples. Use these with discretion. You can mix and match. Think of these proposal tips as prompts to get your own creative juices flowing. Or even copy them into a longer, personalized speech. We leave the fun part to you. Here are 100 romantic things to say when proposing to your partner:

    More on dating tips
    1. Marry me and make my life complete?
    2. I want to be yours forever. Say yes today, and make me the happiest person on the planet
    3. I’ve collected so many special moments with you — Remember our first date? Our first road trip together? Moving into our new home? I want so much more with you
    4. I want to turn our love story into an adventure of a lifetime. Will you be my partner?
    5. My love for you is pure. My heart knows it’s sure. Will you marry me?
    6. The strangest twists of fate brought us together. Say yes, and let’s never take our miracle for granted
    7. My search for perfection ended when I found you
    8. You are my missing puzzle piece. Please complete me and be mine forever
    9. Our love is a masterpiece. All it needs is the perfect frame. Marry me?
    10. I promise to always be your best friend, soulmate, and biggest fan
    11. Every day with you is a dream. Say yes and make it a reality
    12. I never knew what I was missing before I met you. Now that I have found you, let’s never let us go
    13. Let’s write the next chapter of our love story together. I’m ready for it all
    14. Let’s make music together. You and I, we are magic
    15. Nothing would make me happier than waking up next to you for the rest of my life
    16. I never believed in ‘forever’ until we met. Say yes and make my forever dreams come true
    17. Marry me. We’ll make every day a celebration
    18. I cannot imagine spending one moment without you. Will you marry me?
    19. When I prayed for a perfect life partner, you appeared. Marry me and be my everlasting miracle?
    20. I want to be the reason you smile every day
    21. I want my life to be special every day. I only see that happening if you accept me as your life partner
    22. You are what I have been searching for my whole life. I thank God for you every day
    23. You are the answer to my prayers. Will you continue to bless my life with your presence forever?
    24. I want to make you as happy as you make me. Will you marry me?
    25. Let’s keep discovering each other for a lifetime. What do you say?
    26. I promise to be your strength when you are weak, your smile when you are sad, and the person you run to for anything and everything
    27. You love movies. So, I’ve decided to make our love story a blockbuster. The plot twist is that I now need you to marry me
    28. You are my sunshine when it rains. My warmth when it’s winter. I want to spend every season of my life with you. Will you spend the rest of our years together?
    29. In your eyes, I see a future I could only dream of. You’ve given me the impossible
    30. With you, every day is Valentine’s Day. So, imagine a lifetime of love like ours
    31. I promise to cherish you with all my heart. Give me the chance to show you how much I love you
    32. Promise to be my anchor when life gets rough; I will be your safe harbor when you need protection
    33. The rollercoaster of life awaits us. Join me? And then, up we go
    34. You are my today and tomorrow for always and forever
    35. Am I your dream too? You’ve been mine ever since I met you
    36. We are the perfect partners — on the dance floor, on the sports field, while traveling, and even at home. Be mine for life. Please?
    37. I want to be the one who sees you at your best and loves you at your worst
    38. You are my greatest inspiration and strongest motivator. Let’s get married and be each other’s anchors
    39. I promise to stand by you during every storm. Even if you say no, my love is not going anywhere
    40. I want nothing more than for you to be my sunshine for the rest of my life
    41. In your eyes, I can see our future so clearly. Do you see the same?
    42. You are my ride-or-die, am I yours?
    43. In your arms, I have found home
    44. Give me your hand today to hold it through life’s ups and downs
    45. You wanted to get me a present last week. This is it. Marry me, my love?
    46. In this world of chaos, you are the only thing that makes sense to me
    47. I don’t need fairy tales anymore. You are my happily ever after
    48. Let’s share our morning coffee and our good night kisses for the rest of our lives
    49. From the first day we met, I knew we had something special. There is no doubt in my heart that we are meant to be together forever
    50. Accept my ring and my heart, today and forever
    51. Let’s hop aboard this train of life together. The journey starts today and ends at never
    52. There is no other story as sweet as our love story. Be mine, and let’s write a bestseller
    53. There are a million reasons I fell in love with you. I want to spend the rest of my life coming up with more and more
    54. I always thought there was nothing you could do to make me happier. But there is — You can be my partner for the rest of our lives
    55. Accept this ring and you accept my heart. It is yours from this day on
    56. You know how I love logic and science? Well, marrying you is the most sensible and logical thing I could do
    57. You are my greatest blessing. Say you will grow old with me
    58. You will always have the best of me. I am yours to take, marry, and annoy
    59. There is no confusion. I will always choose you. And I will keep choosing you till the end of time
    60. I want to wake up next to you for the rest of my life
    61. Love like ours is a once-in-a-lifetime gift. Say you will be my man so we can cherish it together
    62. Let me make you the most loved woman in the world
    63. Can you hear my heart beating? It gets stronger when you are close to me. Please marry me and be my heartbeat forever
    64. You are everything and more than I ever dreamed possible
    65. Hold my hand, we’ll step into the sunset of our lives together
    66. You are my favorite hello and saddest goodbye; let’s get hitched so we never have to part
    67. I love how we never run out of things to talk about. I love how you always put me first. I love how you love
    68. I want to be a better person, and with you, I know it’s possible. Spending the rest of our lives together can only make things better
    69. How is it that you always know how to make my heart happy?
    70. Your heart is my home
    71. You once asked me if I’ve ever fallen in love. Here’s my answer: Yes, many times, and always with you
    72. The best thing about me is you
    73. You are the reason I now believe in love
    74. From the moment we met, you changed my life in innumerable ways. Today, I ask you to marry me because I cannot imagine a life without you in it
    75. We may have met by chance, but I know we are meant to be together forever
    76. I love the feeling I get when I see you. I want to feel like that every day
    77. Be mine, and let’s build a life we have always dreamed of
    78. In the words of a famous movie, “I’m just a girl, standing in front of a boy, asking him to love her.”
    79. Will you do me the honor and be my bride?
    80. Home isn’t a place. It’s a person. And for me, that person is you
    81. Meeting you made me understand why it never worked out with anyone else
    82. I started writing a list of why I love you, and I still haven’t stopped writing
    83. Do you remember the time when we? That’s when I knew you were the one!
    84. Life is full of challenges, but nothing worries me if I know you are by my side
    85. If fools are the ones that fall in love, will you marry this fool?
    86. My life before you was black and white. After meeting you, I see joy in the little things. Thank you for coloring my life with happiness. Will you marry me?
    87. I can’t paint or sing to save my life. But I can love you till the end of time
    88. Life is too short to make bad decisions. I promise I’ll be the best decision you’ll ever make
    89. Do you have any plans for the next 50 years?
    90. You are perfect. Marry me, and let us create a perfect life together
    91. You are the apple of my eye. Marry me and keep me healthy forever
    92. I can conquer the world with you by my side
    93. I can’t wait to have moments like <mention a specific memory> for the rest of my life
    94. Who would have thought that the stranger I once met on a blind date would be someone I can’t imagine spending my life without?
    95. I love that we both want the same things in life
    96. You were my first love, and you will be my last
    97. Nothing compares to how intensely you care about the world, and still manage to have so much compassion for me
    98. No one else holds my heart the way you do. Will you please marry me?
    99. I have a problem. I have only one life to share with you
    100. You filled a hole in my heart that I never knew I had

    Key Pointers

    • Stumped for ideas about romantic things to say when proposing to your partner? Choose from the 100 lovely proposal ideas in this article to get those creative juices flowing
    • Our proposal tips will help you craft the most memorable day for both of you. You don’t have to go over the top you just have to be sincere
    • It’s important to keep it as natural and authentic as possible
    • Remember, these proposal speech examples should be used only as a framework for your thoughts and memories

    Now you know what to say when proposing to your partner. The ‘perfect’ proposal speech is the one that makes your private moment memorable for both of you. While you could possibly get away with “Let’s get married!” (like a certain spouse we shall not name), keep in mind that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to woo your partner and sweep them off their feet with the most romantic things to say when proposing.

    Odds are you and your partner will recount the proposal story to quite a few people, so it pays to be prepared, give it your best, and face the ensuing social media frenzy in style. You got this!

    15 Psychological Tricks To Get Your Boyfriend To Propose

    How To Say No To A Proposal – 12 Polite Ways

    10 Beach Proposal Ideas To Make The Love Of Your Life Say ‘Yes’

    Ask Our Expert

    Source link

  • Opinion: Don’t gut L.A.’s best shot at building affordable housing

    Opinion: Don’t gut L.A.’s best shot at building affordable housing

    Last October, the Los Angeles City Planning Department ditched some of the region’s most ambitious actions to tackle racial and economic segregation and confront the ongoing affordability crisis. Two housing initiatives — an Affordable Housing Overlay and expansions to the Transit Oriented Communities program — would have made it possible to build affordable and mixed-income housing in areas traditionally off-limits to multifamily homes.

    But core components of these proposals have been withdrawn to shield single-family neighborhoods from development. This move puts L.A. at risk of running afoul of California’s fair housing law, falling short on housing production goals, and increasing displacement in its most vulnerable communities. Revised proposals are expected to be made public this winter or spring, with public outreach to follow. City leadership can and should reverse this harmful decision.

    The original proposals were a response to state mandates meant to accelerate housing construction to meet demand. Under these mandates, Los Angeles has made plans to add more than 450,000 new housing units through 2029, including amending its zoning rules by February 2025 to accommodate about 250,000 more homes.

    California law requires that development programs “affirmatively further fair housing,” meaning that they should “overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities” and “address significant disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity.” In certifying L.A.’s housing plan, the state made clear that “rezoning for multifamily housing in higher opportunity and low-density neighborhoods” was crucial.

    The initial Transit Oriented Communities expansion and Affordable Housing Overlay did just that. In their original form, the two initiatives combined could have added almost 200,000 new units citywide, with a focus on higher-income, transit-accessible neighborhoods. Many of these communities are dominated by single-family detached houses, including Rancho Park, Westwood and Encino, among others.

    But on Oct. 26, the planning department backpedaled, announcing that the programs would no longer be considered for single-family-zoned land. This followed pressure from the Hancock Park Homeowners Assn. and other homeowner groups.

    The change is significant, and unjust. Our review of the city’s data shows that L.A.’s current capacity for development — places where denser housing is already allowed, ignoring the rezoning proposals — is disproportionately concentrated in lower-income neighborhoods and communities of color. The data indicate that half of this capacity is in the poorest quarter of Los Angeles, while the wealthiest 10% of the city furnishes less than 1%.

    We also found that the change to exclude single-family neighborhoods from rezoning slashes the two programs’ capacity by up to 82%, with the greatest reversals in the city’s wealthiest and whitest neighborhoods. Among the census tracts where the proposed zoning changes were cut by 75% or more, the median household income is $111,000. In neighborhoods where the original proposals are still being considered, it is $67,500. The racial and ethnic disparities are also stark, with tracts in the former group having more than twice the share of white residents as those in the latter (57% to 23%, respectively).

    From a fair housing perspective, the Transit Oriented Communities expansion and Affordable Housing Overlay in single-family neighborhoods were L.A.’s strongest proposals. None of the alternatives come close to their potential to produce new mixed-income housing in the city’s wealthiest neighborhoods, where exclusionary policies have limited opportunities for lower- and middle-income households and people of color.

    With less capacity to build in higher-income neighborhoods where developers most want to invest, it’s likely that fewer apartments and condos will be constructed citywide in the years to come. As the housing supply falls further behind growing demand, affordability will decline. Meanwhile, more homes will be built in lower-income, renter-dominated neighborhoods, where residents are at greater risk of displacement as older apartments make way for larger multifamily buildings.

    Angelenos, and Californians, shouldn’t accept the decision to exempt L.A.’s richest neighborhoods from helping to solve our housing crisis, insulating them from changes the city needs. The outcry of a vocal minority is no excuse to renege on the city’s commitments to fair housing.

    The proposed changes are disheartening, but Los Angeles still has time to adopt a progressive housing affordability strategy, adding homes where they’re needed most. The city can start by restoring the rezoning plan to its original form, or by implementing similar strategies that direct most of the city’s new housing to higher-opportunity neighborhoods. Until L.A. takes those steps, very little about this housing plan can be called fair.

    Aaron Barrall is a housing data analyst for the UCLA Lewis Center Housing Initiative, which Shane Phillips manages.

    Aaron Barrall and Shane Phillips

    Source link

  • Love them or loathe them, pinyon-juniper woodlands are a growing biofuel battleground

    Love them or loathe them, pinyon-juniper woodlands are a growing biofuel battleground


    CALIENTE, Nev. — 

    When Varlin Higbee eyes the scrubby forest of pinyon pines and juniper trees that fill the high desert outside this old Union Pacific Railroad town, there’s just one thought that crosses his mind:

    “They’re just a wildfire waiting to happen,” the Lincoln County commissioner says of the low, bushy trees.

    And Higbee is not alone in his distaste for the plants.

    Lincoln County Commissioner Varlin Higbee, 63, in the rural eastern Nevada community of Caliente, Nev., which he believes would benefit from a plan to harvest pinyon and juniper trees to make methanol.

    (Louis Sahagun / Los Angeles Times)

    Despite the many uses Native Americans once had for pinyon-juniper woodlands — not the least of which was sustenance from pine nuts — ranchers and federal land managers throughout the American Southwest have now come to regard them as a highly flammable and invasive scourge.

    In parts of California and much of the Great Basin, land owners have declared war on pinyon pines and juniper trees, clearing them from rangelands with chains, bulldozers, saws and herbicides. At the same time, the trees are drawing increasing interest as a source of renewable energy — such as in California’s Lassen County, where 150,000 tons of the trees are fed into the Honey Lake Power Plant each year to generate energy for customers including San Diego Gas & Electric.

    Most recently, Higbee and other Nevada officials have proposed converting them into green methanol — a biofuel that could be used for everything from generating electricity to powering cargo ships calling on the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

    In January, Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo signed a declaration of understanding with Denmark to develop an industrial park in Lincoln County where methanol would be extracted from wood and used as a fuel additive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from diesel engines.

    To hear Lombardo tell it, it’s a match made in heaven.

    “This innovative and collaborative technology project produces clean renewable energy, while simultaneously utilizing trees that need to be thinned out to maintain a healthy forest,” Lombardo said.

    Environmental groups, however, have blasted the plan. Among other criticisms, they say the deal with Denmark sets the stage for a fight over the future of an ecologically rich landscape, much of which has remained untouched by the glitz and bustle of Las Vegas and Reno.

    Gary Hughes of Biofuelwatch, an advocacy group focused on the impact of bioenergy development, dismissed the proposal as “a technological dead end road and heartbreaking waste of healthy trees.”

    Three container ships are docked at a port.

    A Maersk line container ship from Denmark awaits unloading at the Port of Los Angeles. Denmark is looking to the state of Nevada to convert pinyon pine and juniper trees into biofuel that could be used to power cargo ships.

    (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

    Denmark — which is home to Maersk, the world’s largest container shipping company — has pledged to become 100% fossil fuel free by 2050, and bioenergy is a key part of that ambitious effort.

    “Denmark is at the forefront of renewable energy developments and closer collaboration between Nevada and Denmark can only strengthen our joint quests to create economic growth and well-paid jobs — while also doing good for the environment and our planet,” read a statement from Danish Ambassador to the U.S. Jesper Møller Sørensen.

    Nevada officials want to locate the facility in the middle of about 1.3 million acres of pinyon-juniper woodlands in public lands some 150 miles northeast of Las Vegas. The proposed site is also crossed by a Union Pacific mainline that terminates at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

    The facility, according to officials, could attract $260 million in investments, create 150 sorely needed local jobs and become a model for creating similar industrial parks in other parts of Nevada.

    But there are significant environmental issues involved in scalping eastern Nevada’s mountainous public lands of century-old trees standing 15 to 20 feet tall.

    “I’d be surprised if this proposal is successful,” Hughes said. “So far, efforts to produce methanol from wood at scale for the aviation industry, for example, have all failed.”

    Patrick Donnelly, Great Basin director for the Center for Biological Diversity, called it a new chapter in “our nation’s 200-year-long war on pinyon-juniper ecosystems.”

    “Each generation finds a new excuse to justify their destruction because they don’t provide the economic benefits obtained from tall pine trees favored by the timber industry,” he said.

    “Now, it seems the state of Nevada is popping champagne corks because it believes it has found a way of making money from the trees,” Donnelly said. “But I see it as a short-term carbon benefit at the expense of the long-term carbon sequestration benefits provided by a healthy forest.”

    The development of renewable energy facilities — solar, wind, geothermal and biomass — on public lands has been a top priority of the federal government as it seeks to ease the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels and curb global warming.

    With that goal in mind, the Bureau of Land Management is working closely in Lincoln County with the governor’s economic development office, engineers in Denmark, and Sixco Nevada Inc. — a consortium of companies focused on deployment of new technologies — to develop the proposal.

    In the eyes of the BLM, pinyon pine and juniper trees are weedy species that invade sagebrush rangelands and increase the risk of wildfire. They say an overabundance of pinyon-juniper woodlands fueled the 2022 Calf Canyon-Hermits Peak fire in New Mexico, which burned 341,735 acres, a state record.

    But environmentalists argue that the loss of the trees outweighs the benefits of biofuel and biomass production.

    Pinyon-juniper woodlands absorb atmospheric carbon through the process of photosynthesis, and have been widespread for thousands of years in much of Nevada and Utah, as well as portions of California, Idaho, Oregon, Wyoming and Baja California. Critics of the biofuel project say the woodlands’ role in carbon storage is critical to battling climate change.

    Environmentalists also worry that the loss and degradation of pinyon-juniper woodlands will pose a significant threat to a number of animal species, including the bright blue pinyon jay, which is under consideration for listing as a federally endangered species.

    Three men walk in the proposed biofuel project site surrounded by 1.3 million acres of pinyon-juniper forest

    Lincoln County Commissioner Varlin Higbee, center, walks with Derick Hembd, right, president of Sixco Nevada, a consortium of firms focused on infrastructure, and Bill Vinnicombet, a Sixco Nevada energy finance advisor, at the proposed site of the tree harvesting and biofuel production project northeast of Las Vegas.

    (Louis Sahagun / Los Angeles Times)

    The Western Watershed Project and Center for Biological Diversity have filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court challenging the BLM’s approval of a plan to remove pinyon-juniper forests across more than 380,000 acres of sagebrush shrublands on federal land in eastern Nevada.

    The lawsuit claims the plan would eradicate habitat for imperiled sage grouse and pinyon jays with techniques including “chaining” — the dragging of an anchor chain from a U.S. Navy vessel between two bulldozers in order to uproot and crush pinyon-juniper forests and sagebrush.

    Derick Hembd, president of Sixco Nevada, said the governor’s proposal calls for using shears and saws to harvest individual trees, leaving saplings and sagebrush untouched.

    It remains to be seen, however, whether concerns over the future of pinyon jays and other creatures threaten to stall or derail the project in rural Lincoln County, which is best known as a gateway to the secretive Area 51 U.S. Air Force military installation.

    But Higbee, 63, has high hopes for the proposal that could also breathe new life into struggling rural communities such as Caliente, where the population of about 1,100 people hasn’t budged in decades.

    “We need to grow,” Higbee said with frustration. “I’m going to do everything in my power to get this project up and running.”



    Louis Sahagún

    Source link

  • Golden Gate Bridge toll could climb to more than $12 under new proposal

    Golden Gate Bridge toll could climb to more than $12 under new proposal

    Motorists driving south across the famed Golden Gate Bridge could have to shell out more than $12 a trip under a new proposal from the transit agency responsible for tolls.

    Meanwhile, commuters from the North Bay with FasTrak passes could see their daily toll rise to more than $11 by 2028, according to a proposal from the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District.

    The current tolls are $9.75 for invoice payments for infrequent users and $8.75 for FasTrak pass holders, according to the transit agency.

    Daily bridge crossings have fallen since the pandemic ushered in the rise of remote work and reduction of commuter travel. Traffic on the bridge is now at 85% of pre-pandemic levels with commute hours down almost 30%, according to an agency staff report.

    That has translated to a loss of up to $30 million a year, the staff report said. The transportation agency relies heavily on bridge tolls to fund its operation and says it’s facing a five-year projected shortfall of at least $220 million.

    The new proposal lays out four possible toll rate options that would steadily increase over five years. The priciest option for motorists would generate $139 million over the five-year period — still far short of the anticipated funding gap.

    “I was a little bit shaken by the fact that anything we do is only half of the shortfall,” said board member Barbara Pahre, who represents Napa County, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle. “It’s not just about tolls, it’s about cinching our belts a little bit. This might end up being the easy part.”

    The priciest option would raise tolls by 50 cents each year starting in July. Under that option, FasTrak pass holders would see their daily toll rise to $9.25 this summer and to $11.25 by 2028 while invoice drivers who pay the highest rate would owe $10.75 this summer and $12.25 by 2028.

    A public hearing has been scheduled for Feb. 22 and the board will vote in March. Any new toll approved would go into effect July 1, according to the agency.



    Ben Poston

    Source link