ReportWire

Tag: rule

  • Commentary: Memo to Minneapolis from California: Please don’t take the bait

    Dear Minneapolis:

    We are sorry for what you are going through. We get it.

    One day you’re living in a vibrant, multicultural city that, yeah, has its problems but is also pretty great. The next day, the president is calling you terrorists and insurrectionists and threatening to turn the U.S. military on you and your kids.

    Been there.

    First off, thanks for standing up for Lady Liberty. The old gal had a rough year in 2025, and 2026 isn’t promising to be any better. She needs all the friends she can get, and the Twin Cities folks are true blue. And I’m not talking Democrat or Republican, because we’re past that.

    It’s come down to deciding what kind of American you are. The kind who believes in the Constitution, rule of law and due process, or the kind who believes in strongmen, rule of the rich and armed authorities who will disappear you if you make them mad, citizen or not.

    Minneapolitans have proven they’re on the righteous side of that divide.

    But here’s the thing — you’ve got to keep these protests peaceful. Being the entertainment capital of the world, we won’t deny that it’s riveting to watch video after video of ICE officers slipping on, well, ice like some klutzy Keystone Kops short. And the passion with which protesters are turning out, risking their own safety to protect strangers, is inspiring.

    But don’t take the bait. Don’t cross the line. Don’t use physical violence, whether it’s throwing a water bottle or something more. President Trump threatened on Thursday to invoke the Insurrection Act, just like he did in Los Angeles before sending in the National Guard using a lesser authority. Even that turned out to be legally problematic, but he did it anyway.

    “Minnesota insurrection is a direct result of a FAILED governor and a TERRIBLE mayor encouraging violence against law enforcement,” Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche wrote on social media after Trump’s post. “It’s disgusting. Walz and Frey – I’m focused on stopping YOU from your terrorism by whatever means necessary. This is not a threat. It’s a promise.”

    Whatever means necessary.

    This administration is salivating to invoke martial law. They bring it up every chance they get. Although the Insurrection Act has been used before — by President George H.W. Bush in Los Angeles in 1992 after the Rodney King beating — this is different.

    Too many other guardrails of democracy have been demolished. Too much power has already been consolidated into the hands of one man.

    If it happens, if the military is turned against citizens, a boundary will be broken that can’t be easily restored. We will likely then have military in streets of multiple American cities ahead of the November elections, which can only make this fragile turn at the ballot box more precarious.

    Los Angeles in 2025 was the test case on how far Trump could go, and it seems it wasn’t far enough. Just like in Minneapolis, we had some folks who used violence — even though the vast majority of protesters were peaceful. Because Los Angeles is and has always been a city of activists — like Minneapolis — there were plenty of leaders willing and able to step forward and ensure that protesters policed themselves.

    The result of that restraint was that at the end of the day, not even the so-called “journalists” of the right-wing propaganda machine could come up with enough shock-and-awe videos to convince the rest of America that the place was out of control.

    Now the Trump machine is trying it with you, Minnesota. It’s not by chance that this trouble has landed on your doorstep. After the killing of George Floyd, Minneapolis showed it wasn’t afraid to show up for justice. No one ever doubted — Trump especially — that sending immigration full-force into your city would stir up trouble.

    Gov. Tim Walz said it himself on Thursday in his own social media post.

    “We can — we must — speak out loudly, urgently, but also peacefully. We cannot fan the flames of chaos. That’s what he wants,” he wrote.

    But also, please keep filming, please keep fighting. Thursday was also Martin Luther King Jr.’s actual birthday. In 1959, King made a little-known appearance on Minneapolis TV.

    “I’m of the opinion that it is possible for one to stand firmly and courageously against an evil system, and yet not use violence to stand up against it,” he said then.

    “It is possible to love the individual who does the evil deed while hating the deed that the person does.”

    Someone described Minneapolis the other day as having the inclusivity and quirkiness of San Francisco but with the attitude of the Bronx — a fearsome combination.

    Don’t let Trump exploit it.

    In solidarity,
    California

    Anita Chabria

    Source link

  • Commentary: The U.S. Senate is a mess. He wants to fix it, from the inside

    To say the U.S. Senate has grown dysfunctional is like suggesting water is wet or the nighttime sky is dark.

    The institution that fancies itself “the world’s greatest deliberative body” is supposed to serve as a cooling saucer that tempers the more hotheaded House, applying weight and wisdom as it addresses the Great Issues of Our Time. Instead, it’s devolved into an unsightly mess of gridlock and partisan hackery.

    Part of that is owing to the filibuster, one of the Senate’s most distinctive features, which over roughly the last decade has been abused and misused to a point it’s become, in the words of congressional scholar Norman J. Ornstein, a singular “weapon of mass obstruction.”

    Democrat Jeff Merkley, the junior U.S. senator from Oregon, has spent years on a mostly one-man crusade aimed at reforming the filibuster and restoring a bit of sunlight and self-discipline to the chamber.

    In 2022, Merkley and his allies came within two votes of modifying the filibuster for voting rights legislation. He continues scouring for support for a broader overhaul.

    “This is essential for people to see what their representatives are debating and then have the opportunity to weigh in,” said Merkley, speaking from the Capitol after a vote on the Senate floor.

    “Without the public being able to see the obstruction,” he said, “they [can’t] really respond to it.”

    What follows is a discussion of congressional process, but before your eyes glaze over, you should understand that process is what determines the way many things are accomplished — or not — in Washington, D.C.

    The filibuster, which has changed over time, involves how long senators are allowed to speak on the Senate floor. Unlike the House, which has rules limiting debate, the Senate has no restrictions, unless a vote is taken to specifically end discussion and bring a matter to resolution. More on that in a moment.

    In the broadest sense, the filibuster is a way to protect the interests of a minority of senators, as well as their constituents, by allowing a small but determined number of lawmakers — or even a lone member — to prevent a vote by commanding the floor and talking nonstop.

    Perhaps the most famous, and certainly the most romanticized, version of a filibuster took place in the film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” The fictitious Sen. Jefferson Smith, played by James Stewart, talks to the point of exhausted collapse as a way of garnering national notice and exposing political corruption.

    The filibustering James Stewart received an Oscar nomination for lead actor for his portrayal of Sen. Jefferson Smith in the 1939 classic “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”

    (From the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences)

    In the Frank Capra classic, the good guy wins. (It’s Hollywood, after all.) In real life, the filibuster has often been used for less noble purpose, most notably the decades-long thwarting of civil rights legislation.

    A filibuster used to be a rare thing, its power holstered for all but the most important issues. But in recent years that’s changed, drastically. The filibuster — or, rather, the threat of a filibuster — has become almost routine.

    In part, that’s because of how easy it’s become to gum up the Senate.

    Members no longer need to hold the floor and talk nonstop, testing not just the power of their argument but their physical mettle and bladder control. These days it’s enough for a lawmaker to simply state their intention to filibuster. Typically, legislation is then laid aside as the Senate moves on to other business.

    That pain-free approach has changed the very nature of the filibuster, Ornstein said, and transformed how the Senate operates, much to its detriment.

    The burden is “supposed to be on the minority to really put itself … on the line to generate a larger debate” — a la the fictive Jefferson Smith — “and hope during the course of it that they can turn opinions around,” said Ornstein, an emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “What’s happened is the burden has shifted to the majority [to break a filibuster], which is a bastardization of what the filibuster is supposed to be about.”

    It takes 60 votes to end a filibuster, by invoking cloture, to use Senate terminology. That means the passage of legislation now effectively requires a supermajority of the 100-member Senate. (There are workarounds, which, for instance, allowed President Trump’s massive tax-and-spending bill to pass on a 51-50 vote, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaker.)

    The filibuster gives outsized power to the minority.

    To offer but two examples, there is strong public support for universal background checks for gun buyers and greater transparency in campaign finance. Both issues have majority backing in the Senate. No matter. Legislation to achieve each has repeatedly been filibustered to death.

    That’s where Merkley would step in.

    He would not eliminate the filibuster, a prerogative jealously guarded by members of both parties. (In a rare show of independence, Republican senators rejected President Trump’s call to scrap the filibuster to end the recent government shutdown.)

    Rather, Merkley would eliminate what’s come to be called “the silent filibuster” and force lawmakers to actually take the floor and publicly press their case until they prevail, give up or physically give out. “My reform is based on the premise that the minority should have a voice,” he said, “but not a veto.”

    Forcing senators to stand and deliver would make it more difficult to filibuster, ending its promiscuous overuse, Merkley suggested, and — ideally— engaging the public in a way privately messaging fellow senators — I dissent! — does not.

    “Because it’s so visible publicly,” Merkley said, “the American citizens get to weigh in, and there’s consequences. They may frame you as a hero for your obstruction, or a bum, and that has a reflection in the next election.”

    The power to repair itself rests entirely within the Senate, where lawmakers set their own rules and can change them as they see fit. (Nice work, if you can get it.)

    The filibuster has been tweaked before. In 1917, senators adopted the rule allowing cloture if a two-thirds majority voted to end debate. In 1975, the Senate reduced that number to three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 members.

    More recently, Democrats changed the rules to prevent filibustering most presidential nominations. Republicans extended that to include Supreme Court nominees.

    Reforming the filibuster is hardly a cure-all. The Senate has debased itself by ceding much of its authority and becoming little more than an arm of the Trump White House. Fixing that requires more than a procedural revamp.

    But forcing lawmakers to stand their ground, argue their case and seek to rally voters instead of lifting a pinkie and grinding the Senate to a halt? That’s something worth talking about.

    Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • California regulators approve rules to curb methane leaks and prevent fires at landfills

    In one of the most important state environmental decisions this year, California air regulators adopted new rules designed to reduce methane leaks and better respond to disastrous underground fires at landfills statewide.

    California Air Resources Board members voted 12-0 on Thursday to approve a batch of new regulations for the state’s nearly 200 large landfills, designed to minimize the release of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas produced by decomposing organic waste. Landfills are California’s second-largest source of methane emissions, following only the state’s large dairy cow and livestock herds.

    The new requirements will force landfill operators to install additional pollution controls; more comprehensively investigate methane leaks on parts of landfills that are inaccessible with on-the-ground monitoring using new technology like drones and satellites; and fix equipment breakdowns much faster. Landfill operators also will be required to repair leaks identified through California’s new satellite-detection program.

    The regulation is expected to prevent the release of 17,000 metric tons of methane annually — an amount capable of warming the atmosphere as much as 110,000 gas-fired cars driven for a year.

    It also will curtail other harmful landfill pollution, such as lung-aggravating sulfur and cancer-causing benzene. Landfill operators will be required to keep better track of high temperatures and take steps to minimize the fire risks that heat could create.

    There are underground fires burning in at least two landfills in Southern California — smoldering chemical reactions that are incinerating buried garbage, releasing toxic fumes and spewing liquid waste. Regulators found explosive levels of methane emanating from many other landfills across the state.

    During the three-hour Air Resources Board hearing preceding the vote, several Californians who live near Chiquita Canyon Landfill — one of the known sites where garbage is burning deep underground — implored the board to act to prevent disasters in other communities across the state.

    “If these rules were already updated, maybe my family wouldn’t be sick,” said Steven Howse, a 27-year resident of Val Verde. “My house wouldn’t be for sale. My close friend and neighbor would still live next door to me. And I wouldn’t be pleading with you right now. You have the power to change this.”

    Landfill operators, including companies and local governments, voiced their concern about the costs and labor needed to comply with the regulation.

    “We want to make sure that the rule is implementable for our communities, not unnecessarily burdensome,” said John Kennedy, a senior policy advocate for Rural County Representatives of California, a nonprofit organization representing 40 of the state’s 58 counties, many of which own and operate landfills. “While we support the overarching goals of the rule, we remain deeply concerned about specific measures including in the regulation.”

    Lauren Sanchez, who was appointed chair of the California Air Resources Board in October, recently attended the United Nations’ COP30 climate conference in Brazil with Gov. Gavin Newsom. What she learned at the summit, she said, made clear to her that California’s methane emissions have international consequences, and that the state has an imperative to reduce them.

    “The science is clear, acting now to reduce emissions of methane and other short-lived climate pollutants is the best way to immediately slow the pace of climate change,” Sanchez said.

    Tony Briscoe

    Source link

  • Sacramento County sheriff’s office ramp up water safety patrols for Labor Day weekend

    As Labor Day weekend begins, the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office is ramping up enforcement on local waterways to ensure safety amid crowded conditions and warm weather.Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputy Michael Nofziger was patrolling parts of the Sacramento River and American River on Saturday. “There’s just a lot of fast boats out here right now. A lot of people that are drinking. The weather’s hot. They’re trying to stay cool,” he said. He said a lot of his day consisted of educational stops and informing people about the rules on the water. “We’re stopping boaters that are either speeding in areas they’re not supposed to be going over five miles an hour — the no wake zones, between the bridges in Old Sac — if they’re doing anything reckless, or if they don’t have current tags on their boat,” he said. “A lot of times, we can just spread educational awareness and give them warnings.”He said a big focus this weekend is boater cards, which are required for anyone driving a boat or jet ski in the state. “So, all that is just an online course. You register and take the classes and you get a card in the mail. And really what it does is just explains a lot of the boating rules, regulations, so that everyone’s kind of on the same page,” Nofziger said.He said they did hand out one citation Saturday to a boater who did not have a boater card. “Something we ran into today was a boater who was having mechanical issues on his boat and claimed that the reason why he chose to drive at us, instead of around or away from us like normal boaters would have done, was because his boat was having some mechanical problems. That boater did not have a boater card, so he ended up getting a citation for that,” Nofziger said. He emphasized that he wants people to enjoy the weekend, but to do so safely. “Make sure your boat’s running good before you get out in the water and start drifting away. Make sure everyone has life jackets and get your boater safety card. It’s important. And just be safe. Have fun, but be safe,” Nofziger said.The sheriff’s office will have more crews spread throughout the county for the rest of the weekend.

    , Calif. —

    As Labor Day weekend begins, the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office is ramping up enforcement on local waterways to ensure safety amid crowded conditions and warm weather.

    Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputy Michael Nofziger was patrolling parts of the Sacramento River and American River on Saturday.

    “There’s just a lot of fast boats out here right now. A lot of people that are drinking. The weather’s hot. They’re trying to stay cool,” he said.

    He said a lot of his day consisted of educational stops and informing people about the rules on the water.

    “We’re stopping boaters that are either speeding in areas they’re not supposed to be going over five miles an hour — the no wake zones, between the bridges in Old Sac — if they’re doing anything reckless, or if they don’t have current tags on their boat,” he said. “A lot of times, we can just spread educational awareness and give them warnings.”

    He said a big focus this weekend is boater cards, which are required for anyone driving a boat or jet ski in the state.

    “So, all that is just an online course. You register and take the classes and you get a card in the mail. And really what it does is just explains a lot of the boating rules, regulations, so that everyone’s kind of on the same page,” Nofziger said.

    He said they did hand out one citation Saturday to a boater who did not have a boater card.

    “Something we ran into today was a boater who was having mechanical issues on his boat and claimed that the reason why he chose to drive at us, instead of around or away from us like normal boaters would have done, was because his boat was having some mechanical problems. That boater did not have a boater card, so he ended up getting a citation for that,” Nofziger said.

    He emphasized that he wants people to enjoy the weekend, but to do so safely.

    “Make sure your boat’s running good before you get out in the water and start drifting away. Make sure everyone has life jackets and get your boater safety card. It’s important. And just be safe. Have fun, but be safe,” Nofziger said.

    The sheriff’s office will have more crews spread throughout the county for the rest of the weekend.

    Source link

  • In L.A., thousands of newer apartments have rent caps. Tenants don’t always know.

    In L.A., thousands of newer apartments have rent caps. Tenants don’t always know.

    Alexa Castelvecchi was glad when she and her roommates found their new apartment about a year ago, in a modern building in Hollywood with a big, sleek kitchen and oversized windows. It was nothing like the aging, rent-controlled apartment she once sublet in Venice, where she often had to cook using a toaster oven.

    But with the end of her lease on the three-bedroom apartment fast approaching, she has found herself worrying about how much the already high monthly rent of nearly $4,000 might increase.

    Little did she know that she has some of the strongest protections available. Unbeknownst to many tenants across the city, an obscure city rule requires some newly built rental properties to be put under the city’s rent stabilization ordinance, commonly referred to as rent control.

    Developers have built more than 10,000 such units since 2007, city records show, adding a new crop of rent-controlled housing across the city.

    The buildings offer a counterpoint to real estate industry claims that rent control limits new construction. But they also raise a question: do their tenants even know they live in rent-controlled units?

    Castelvecchi said she had no idea that she lived in a building with rent caps until a Times reporter told her recently.

    “Nobody said anything,” she said.

    Generally, the city’s rent control law only applies to buildings built on or before Oct. 1, 1978 — a cutoff date many landlords and at least some renters are acutely aware of. Under the rules, landlords can set the rent whenever a unit becomes vacant, but face limits on how much they can raise rent on individual tenants annually, usually between 3% and 8%, depending on inflation.

    Newer buildings typically do not have those protections, but they can depending on what was there before. Under a 2007 city ordinance, newly constructed apartments, townhomes and condos must be rent controlled if an older rent controlled property was demolished on site.

    The data show that developers across the city frequently pursue these projects despite their buildings being subject to rent caps the moment a lease is signed.

    The apartment building at 5800 Harold Way in Los Angeles, CA is under rent control.

    (Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

    Leeor Maciborski, owner of ROM Residential, which currently owns Castelvecchi’s building, purchased that building after another investor built it. However, he said he’s developed five or six other properties in Los Angeles knowing they’d fall under the city’s rent stabilization ordinance.

    The projects made financial sense because he could set the initial rent at market rate and was allowed at least a 3% increase each year, he said.

    “If I could build something … and I can count on 3% to 4% annual increases, I am happy,” the developer said.

    Tenant advocates, meanwhile, say that even if some new rent-controlled apartments are being built, replacing older rent controlled units for new ones is devastating. Not only are people evicted, but new construction demands a premium when the unit is initially rented.

    “The only ones who make out with this trade off is the developers and the landlords who are pulling in more and more profits and income on the backs of those people they have displaced,” said Larry Gross, executive director with the tenants advocacy group Coalition for Economic Survival.

    Since mid-2007, owners have removed more than 13,000 older rent-controlled units from the market , leading to concern the demolition is worsening the city’s affordability and homelessness crisis.

    Over the same time frame, housing department data show 10,252 new units have been put under the city’s rent stabilization ordinance.

    New buildings can be exempt from the rules if they open for rent more than five years after the old property was removed from the market, or if the developer dedicates a certain number of new units as income-restricted affordable housing — though units will revert to rent control once those income restrictions expire in coming decades, according to the housing department.

    About 3,000 additional units fall into the latter, temporarily exempt category, although some are already income restricted.

    In theory, newly constructed rent-controlled properties could increase the overall number of apartments with rent caps in the city, because developers often knock down a small building to build more units. For now, that hasn’t happened.

    The real estate industry — as well as many housing economists — have long argued that far fewer developers would build if they are subject to rent caps, leading to even higher rents as supply shortages worsen. As a result, rent control ordinances across the country typically exempt new construction.

    Until recently, state law in California outlawed rent caps on properties built after Feb. 1, 1995, and even earlier in some cities like Los Angeles, with the exemption for newly built properties that replaced older rent controlled units.

    Then in 2020, a new law took effect and put statewide rent restrictions on buildings older than 15 years, though these caps are less strict than in places like Los Angeles, whose rules remain in place.

    The state bill’s author, then-Assemblyman David Chiu (D-San Francisco), had proposed 10 years as a cut off, but it was extended another five years to lessen opposition. At the time, the California Apartment Assn. took credit for the change, saying it would “mitigate the bill’s impact on future development of rental housing.”

    Fred Sutton, a senior vice president with the California Apartment Assn., said the fact that some developers build under the L.A. rules does not mean housing construction would not decline if rent caps were placed on all new buildings. As restrictions are added, fewer projects can be expected to turn a reasonable profit — even if some go forward, he said.

    “Can people still figure out a way to do it?” Sutton said. “Yes, but you’re not going to get as many people as you need.”

    Two developers told The Times they didn’t know about the rules before building. One said he’d do so again, while another wouldn’t because rent control gives him less flexibility to earn a profit.

    Maciborski said he’d take a different tack. He’d be willing to build another rent-controlled building, but only if the project would expect a greater return than before, to buffer him from potential actions by the Los Angeles City Council that might undercut his revenue stream.

    The pandemic pushed the council to freeze rent in controlled buildings for nearly four years. Only a few months ago did officials allow landlords to raise rent.

    “I’d consider it,” Maciborski said of constructing another rent-controlled property. “But now knowing what potential tools the city council … has at their disposal, it’s definitely a little scarier.”

    Renters who live in any rent-controlled buildings — old or new — should know about it. The Los Angeles Housing Department requires the landlord to alert tenants by posting notice at the property. But several residents who spoke to The Times at the newer buildings said they had no idea.

    After learning about her building’s status, Castelvecchi checked her lease and noticed that rent control is mentioned in a section she had previously overlooked. And she found a sign in the building outlining the rules, which she hadn’t previously noticed.

    It would have been better, she said, if she had simply been told verbally about the rules when she rented the apartment.

    “It’s extremely unnerving that it wasn’t communicated by anyone I met,” she said. “When you have to read the fine print, it feels difficult to trust.”

    Maciborski said that if a tenant asked, a leasing agent would tell them if a building was rent controlled, but when dealing with legal issues his company relies on putting it in writing.

    “It’s verifiable,” he said, adding written notices can also give more detailed information than a leasing agent may have on hand.

    Gross, the tenant advocate, said it’s a constant struggle to educate tenants of their rights, with many residents of older properties not understanding they have rent control protections. He believes the problem is even worse in newer buildings, because even if people understand rent control exists they often believe all new properties are exempt.

    “There’s not enough education and outreach,” Gross said.

    Monique Mendoza, who pays $3,800 a month to live in a townhome in Boyle Heights, said she also had no idea that her newer unit also falls under the city’s rent control protections. It would have given her some relief just to know, she said. She is constantly worrying about the cost of rent and probably couldn’t afford a big increase.

    Even without a rent hike, she said, “for us, as a family, it’s not affordable.”

    Andrew Khouri, Paloma Esquivel, Vanessa Martínez

    Source link

  • Activist faces 18 felony counts for allegedly threatening Bakersfield City Council

    Activist faces 18 felony counts for allegedly threatening Bakersfield City Council

    A Kern County activist is facing years in jail after authorities charged her with 18 felony counts for allegedly making terrorist threats against the Bakersfield City Council, the latest civic body to be roiled by unrest amid calls for a cease-fire in Gaza.

    Riddhi Patel, 28, who grew up in Bakersfield and works as the economic development coordinator for a local nonprofit, was arrested after public statements she made this week on the topic of a cease-fire and on metal detectors at City Hall.

    Among her comments, Patel said the council members were such “horrible human beings” that “Jesus probably would have killed you himself.” Later, she expressed hope that oppressed people might “bring the guillotine.” She concluded her public statements by saying: “We’ll see you at your house. We’ll murder you.”

    In response, Mayor Karen Goh at first calmly called for the next speaker to come to the lectern, and then paused and said: “Ms. Patel, that was a threat, what you said at the end. So the officers are going to escort you out and take care of that.”

    On Friday, Patel appeared in court and tearfully pleaded not guilty. Neither she nor her representatives could be reached for comment.

    Video from the Bakersfield City Council chambers quickly went viral, zipping across X (formerly Twitter) and TikTok and picked up by Fox News and newspapers in India.

    The mayor declined to comment, telling a local television station that “since the incident is under investigation, it’s not appropriate for me to offer comments.”

    Vice Mayor Andrae Gonzales, however, told KGET that the exchange was “deeply concerning” and “completely inappropriate.” “The city can’t function during a public council meeting if we’re being continuously disrupted,” he said.

    Patel’s comments came as activists have been lobbying the City Council about both a resolution calling for an Israeli cease-fire in Gaza and about increased security measures and rules around public speaking at council meetings.

    Israel launched its offensive against Hamas in Gaza in retaliation for an Oct. 7 cross-border attack that officials say killed about 1,200 people. The war has dragged on for nearly six months and killed more than 32,000 Palestinians, the majority of them women and children.

    Patel, wearing a colorful dress and speaking calmly, addressed both issues during the meeting’s public comment period.

    In calling for a cease-fire, she said she expected that council members would not support it because they were “horrible human beings and Jesus probably would have killed you himself.”

    She added that council members didn’t care about oppression in Gaza because “you don’t care about oppression occurring here” and then listed a number of problems in Kern County, including poor wages and waves of evictions.

    She referenced an Indian holiday, Chaitra Navratri, and said that some in “the global south” believe in “violent revolution against their oppressors. I hope one day somebody brings the guillotine and kills all you mother—-.”

    After those comments, Mayor Goh said: “Thank you.” Then she called for the next speaker.

    The United Liberation Front, the local group calling for a cease-fire, publicly condemned Patel’s comments later that night. “It does not represent those of us in the community who continue to show up and exercise our civic duty.”

    Fifteen minutes later, Patel again rose from her seat in the audience to address the council on a second issue involving metal detectors and increased security at City Hall, which she and others believe could stifle public participation. The issue has been a hot-button one in Bakersfield for years; in 2021 groups including the ACLU of Southern California protested the council’s “rules of public decorum” that were instituted during Black Lives Matter protests to place some limits on public speakers. The groups called the rules “overbroad” and said they could violate the 1st Amendment.

    Patel, whose public bio says she has a degree in neuroscience and enjoys “holding elected officials accountable” as well as movies, sports and time outdoors with her family and friends, accused the council of trying to criminalize members of the public who protest their policies.

    “You guys wanna criminalize … with metal detectors,” she said. “We’ll see you at your house. We’ll murder you.”

    No one on the council appeared to react, and Patel returned to her seat before police removed her.

    The Kern County district attorney could not be reached for comment but in a statement to Bakersfield.Com said that charges against Patel include 10 counts of threatening with the intent to terrorize a public official: five City Council members, the mayor, the city clerk, the assistant city clerk, the city attorney and the city manager.

    She also faces eight counts of threatening specific public officials. That includes all but two of those at the meeting. The D.A. told Bakersfield.Com that Councilmembers Bob Smith and Eric Arias “are not considered victims because they did not feel threatened.”

    Jessica Garrison

    Source link

  • ‘Daylighting,’ a new law that California drivers must know to avoid a ticket next year

    ‘Daylighting,’ a new law that California drivers must know to avoid a ticket next year

    California drivers will need to double-check where they park this year as a new law on the books has created a no-parking buffer around marked and unmarked pedestrian crosswalks.

    Drivers are typically not allowed to park their vehicles in the middle of an intersection, on a crosswalk, in front of marked curbs, in a way that blocks access to fire hydrants or too close to a fire station entrance, among other prohibited parking spots.

    Now drivers will need to consider the areas around crosswalks as no-park zones, because of the law that went into effect at the start of the year. Over the next 12 months, drivers will receive a warning if they violate the rule, but citations will start to flow on Jan. 1, according to state officials.

    Drivers will need to get into the habit of leaving a 20-foot gap between their vehicle and any marked or unmarked crosswalks. Assembly Bill 413 does not specify what constitutes an unmarked crosswalk and whether that applies to a sidewalk curb or ramp.

    Some form of the rule have been implemented in cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Alameda, Calif., and Portland, Ore., according to the bill authors. Other jurisdictions may have their own variations and exceptions to the rule in California. The new law applies to all jurisdictions that have not addressed this parking issue.

    Bill author Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-San José) said the concept of leaving a clear line of sight for all modes of transportation is called “daylighting” and aims to prevent a vehicle from obscuring the view of motorists who are approaching a crosswalk.

    “Daylighting is a proven way we can make our streets safer for everyone, and 43 other states have already implemented some version of daylighting,” Lee said in a statement that accompanied the bill’s introduction last year. “By making it easier for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists to see each other at intersections, we can take a simple and important step to help us all safely share the road.”

    California’s pedestrian fatality rate is nearly 25% higher than the national average, according to the latest data from the California Office of Traffic Safety. Pedestrian fatalities increased from 1,013 in 2020 to 1,108 in 2021 in California, while bicycle fatalities decreased from 136 to 125.

    In Los Angeles, 134 pedestrian were killed by drivers from January to October last year and 427 people were severely injured, according to city officials. The numbers represent a 13% hike in pedestrians killed compared with the previous year and an 18% rise in severe injuries, according to Los Angeles officials.



    Nathan Solis

    Source link

  • L.A. County backs a legal path for street vendors in unincorporated areas

    L.A. County backs a legal path for street vendors in unincorporated areas

    For five years, vendors hawking grilled meats, fresh fruit and used clothes on the streets of unincorporated L.A. County have been stuck in a strange legal gray area: no longer banned, but not yet regulated.

    On Tuesday, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors took a major step toward bringing these sellers out of their regulatory limbo, pushing forward a long-awaited ordinance that would set rules for street vending in unincorporated parts of the county.

    In 2018, California decriminalized street vending statewide, opening the door for local jurisdictions to create their own laws around who could sell what and where. Since then, at least 16 cities in L.A. County have created their own rules.

    “Now the county must do its part,” said Supervisor Hilda Solis, adding she believed the rule change would bring marginalized entrepreneurs, overwhelmingly from Latino and immigrant communities, into the county’s bustling economy.

    Under the ordinance, street vendors setting up in unincorporated parts of the county would have to register with the county’s Department of Economic Opportunity, which would enforce the new rules: no blocking the sidewalk, no selling on private property, no excessive littering, to name a few. Vendors could face fines if they don’t comply.

    The Board of Supervisors voted 4 to 0 in support of the ordinance, though they will need to take a final vote before it can pass. The ordinance would go into effect six months later.

    The supervisors also voted 4 to 0 to move forward on an ordinance from the county’s Department of Public Health that would change how food carts are regulated.

    Supervisor Kathryn Barger abstained from both votes.

    Barger said she’d heard from business owners who believed the rule change would create an uneven playing field between bricks-and-mortar businesses and street vendors, who she believed would get off relatively easy for violating the rules.

    Kelly LoBianco, head of the Department of Economic Opportunity, said the agency would emphasize a “care first” approach to enforcement, meaning the emphasis would be on educating vendors about the new regulations rather than fining them for flouting them.

    “I feel that we have not gone far enough,” Barger said. “The penalties don’t meet what we’re requiring for restaurants that can get shut down and lose a day’s business.”

    Business owners said they were also concerned about unnavigable streets and trash — problems, they believed, that would not improve unless the county cracked down.

    “Without having a rigorous, effective enforcement, nothing’s going to happen,” said Tony DeMarco, a pawnshop owner and president of the Whittier Boulevard Merchants Assn., which opposed the ordinance.

    While bricks-and-mortar business owners lamented an uneven playing field, street vendors and their advocates hailed the rules as some of the best they’ve seen since the state decriminalized street vending.

    “Our hope is that L.A. County can actually be the model,” said Doug Smith of Inclusive Action, part of a coalition of groups that have advocated for legalization of street vending. “It does not include some of the things we’ve seen that are really intended to keep them out of the system — things like criminal background checks, really high fees or really significant restrictions on locations.”

    Smith said, however, that food vendors, in particular, could still face a challenging path to registering with the county as they would need to get a permit from the Department of Public Health, which enforces the state’s retail food code. Food vendors ubiquitous across the county, such as taco stands, have struggled in the past with the agency’s cumbersome rules, and only a small fraction are believed to have the proper permits.

    Barbara Ferrer, director of the Public Health Department, emphasized Tuesday that the rule changes under consideration would not apply to “pop-up food stands” — typically larger food operations with big tables and canopies that she said can’t be permitted under state law.

    Advocates say some jurisdictions have taken a punitive approach when formalizing rules on street vending. In Fontana, for example, unlicensed sellers could be arrested on misdemeanor charges. The city of Los Angeles, which passed its ordinance in 2018, has been sued over its “no-vending zone” — tourist-friendly areas such as Dodger Stadium and Hollywood Bowl where city officials contend vendors will add to congestion.

    Ritu Mahajan Estes of Public Counsel, which represents the vendors suing Los Angeles, said the law firm supports the county’s ordinance, which doesn’t have any significant no-vending zones.

    She said there were some small tweaks she’d like to see: namely nixing the requirements on distancing. Under the draft ordinance, sidewalk vendors cannot be within 500 feet of a day-care nor farmers market.

    “It’s not perfect, but it has a lot of good things,” she said.

    Other vendors said they worried about how much it could end up costing them to get licensed. The department says it would need to set the registration fee at $604 to offset the regulatory program costs. Officials say they don’t plan to charge the first year and have found funding that will allow them to charge $100 annually through mid-2028.

    Many of the vendors warn that a fee of $600 — if it came to fruition years later— would be a death knell to their business.

    “Rent is high. Food is high. The cost of living is high,” Alfredo Gomez, a street vendor in East Rancho Dominguez, told the board through an interpreter. “Please, look at the cost, the fees.”



    Rebecca Ellis

    Source link