California has a number of formal acts in statute. Unemployment Insurance Code Division 7 provides the California Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which is contained in Section 14000 to 14531. Division 7 was added by Chapter 111 in 2001.

Section 14000 makes numerous legislative findings and declarations, including that, in order for California to remain prosperous and globally competitive, it needs to have a well-educated and highly skilled workforce. Specified principles must guide the state’s workforce investment system. In addition, state and local workforce development boards are encouraged to collaborate with other public and private institutions to better align resources across workforce, training, education, and social service delivery systems and build a well-articulated workforce investment system.

Section 14002 provides legislative findings and declarations, such as screening should be designed to detect unidentified disabilities, including learning disabilities, improve workforce preparation, and enhance the use of employment and training resources. In addition, the Legislature encourages one-stop career centers to maximize the use of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act resources and other federal and state workforce development resources for screening designed to detect unidentified disabilities, and if indicated, appropriate diagnostic assessment.

Section 14003 provides that grants or contracts awarded under the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, or any other state or federally funded workforce development program, may not be awarded to organizations that are owned or operated as pervasively sectarian organizations.

Section 14004 provides that, in order to be eligible for state or federal workforce development funds awarded by the state under the California Community and Faith Based Initiative, an organization must be a separate nonprofit entity or affiliate that is a tax-exempt organization.

Section 14004.5 creates the Consolidated Work Program Fund in the State Treasury for the receipt of all moneys deposited pursuant to the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. The Employment Development Department is the entity responsible for administering this section.

Chapter 1 contains General Provisions, and Chapter 2 contains Definitions and Severability. Chapter 3 concerns State Responsibilities. Article 1 establishes the California Workforce Development Board, while Article 2 provides for State Planning and Sectors. Article 3 establishes the Removing Barriers to Employment Act. Article 4 establishes the Prison to Employment Program. Article 6 provides for the Social Entrepreneurs for Economic Development Initiative.

Chapter 4 concerns Local Service Delivery. Article 1 establishes the Local Workforce Development Board. Article 2 concerns the Local Workforce Investment Plan. Article 3 provides for the One-Stop Career Center System. Article 4 establishes the California Creative Workforce Act of 2021. Chapter 5 concerns Educational Services. Chapter 5.1 provides the Community Economic Resilience Fund Program.

The post The California Workforce Innovation Act appeared first on California Globe.

California’s statutes are contained in 29 separate codes. The twenty-fifth alphabetically is the Streets and Highways Code. All 29 Codes have general provisions applicable to reading and interpreting that Code’s sections. The following are selected general provisions of the Streets and Highways Code:

Section 1 – This Act is known as the Streets and Highways Code.

Section 2 – The provisions of this Code, in so far as they are substantially the same as existing statutory provisions relating to the same subject matter, are to be construed as restatements and continuations and not as new enactments.

Section 5 – Unless the particular provision or the context otherwise requires, the definitions, rules of construction, and general provisions forth govern the construction of this Code.

Section 6 – Division, part, chapter, article, and section headings contained are not to be deemed to govern, limit, modify or in any manner affect the scope, meaning or intent of the provisions of any division, part, chapter, article or section.

Section 7 – Whenever any power or authority is given to, or any duty is imposed upon, any person by any provision of this Code, it may be exercised or performed by any deputy or person authorized by him unless it is expressly provided that it must be exercised in person.

Section 8 – Whenever any notice, report, petition, permit, statement or record is required by this Code, it must be made in writing in the English language.

Section 9 – Whenever any reference is made to any portion of this Code or of any other law, the reference must apply to all amendments and additions.

Section 11 – The present tense includes the past and future tenses; and the future tense includes the present.

Section 12 – The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter.

Section 12.2 – The term “spouse” includes “registered domestic partner.”

Section 13 – The singular number includes the plural, and the plural includes the singular.

Section 16 – The term “shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.

Section 17 – The term “oath” includes affirmation.

Section 19 – The term “person” means any person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, organization, limited liability company, or business trust.

Section 28 – If any provision of this Code, or the application of it to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the Code, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances, must not be affected.

The post General Guidance in Reading the California Streets and Highways Code appeared first on California Globe.

California has a number of formal acts in statute. The Unemployment Insurance Code provides the California Green Collar Jobs Act of 2008, which is contained in Sections 15000 to 15003. Division 8 was added in 2008 by Chapter 312. Section 15000 names the Act.

Section 15001 contains six legislative findings and declarations, including that the State of California has long been a national and international leader on environmental, natural resource, pollution prevention, and energy issues, as well as recent landmark laws in the areas of climate change, renewable energy, energy efficiency, and alternative transportation fuels.

In addition, as the green economy grows, it will be accompanied by an increased demand for a highly skilled and well-trained “green collar” workforce. The California Workforce Investment Board is required to adopt a sector strategy approach in responding to industry sector workforce and economic development needs. This strategy must ensure industry has a qualified workforce and can offer opportunities for employment, training, and career advancement for all Californians.

Section 15002 requires the California Workforce Investment Board (CWIB) to establish a special committee known as the Green Collar Jobs Council (GCJC), comprised of appropriate representatives from the CWIB’s existing membership, including the K–12 representative, the California Community Colleges representative, the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development representative, the Employment Development Department representative, and other appropriate members.

As part of the strategic initiative, the GCJC must focus on developing the framework, funding, strategies, programs, policies, partnerships, and opportunities necessary to address the growing need for a highly skilled and well-trained workforce to meet the needs of California’s emerging green economy. The GCJC is required to conduct specified activities.

The CWIB may accept any revenues, moneys, grants, goods, or services from federal and state entities, philanthropic organizations, and other sources, to be used for purposes relating to the administration and implementation of the strategic initiative. In addition, t CWIB is required to ensure the highest level of transparency and accountability and make information available on the CWIB Internet Web site.

Section 15003 requires annually the CWIB to report to the Legislature on the status of GCJC activities, grants awarded, and its development and implementation of a green workforce strategic initiative.

The post The California Green Collar Jobs Act appeared first on California Globe.

California’s statutes are contained in 29 separate codes. The twenty-fourth alphabetically is the Revenue and Taxation Code. All 29 Codes have general provisions applicable to reading and interpreting that Code’s sections. The following are selected general provisions of the Revenue and Taxation Code:

Section 1 – This Act is known as the Revenue and Taxation Code.

Section 2 – The provisions of this Code in so far as they are substantially the same as existing statutory provisions relating to the same subject matter are to be construed as restatements and continuations, and not as new enactments.

Section 5 – Unless the context otherwise requires, the general provisions set forth govern the construction of this Code.

Section 6 – Division, part, chapter, article, and section headings do not in any manner affect the scope, meaning, or intent of the provisions of this Code.

Section 7 – Whenever a power is granted to, or a duty imposed on, any person or board by any provision of this Code, it may be exercised or performed by any deputy or person authorized by the person or board to whom the power is granted or on whom the duty is imposed, unless it is expressly provided that the power or duty must be exercised or performed only by the person or board to whom the power is granted or on whom the duty is imposed.

Section 8 – Writing includes any form of recorded message capable of comprehension by ordinary visual means. Whenever any notice, report, petition, permit, statement, or record is required by this Code, it must be made in writing in the English language.

Section 9 – Whenever any reference is made to any portion of this Code or of any other law, the reference applies to all amendments and additions now or later made.

Section 10 – The present tense includes the past and future tenses; and the future tense includes the present.

Section 12 – The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter.

Section 12.2 – The term “spouse” includes “registered domestic partner.”

Section 13 – The singular number includes the plural, and the plural the singular.

Section 16 – The term “shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.

Section 17 – The term “oath” includes affirmation and written declarations signed under the penalties of perjury.

Section 19 – The term “person” includes any person, firm, partnership, general partner of a partnership, limited liability company, registered limited liability partnership, foreign limited liability partnership, association, corporation, company, syndicate, estate, trust, business trust, or organization of any kind.

Section 24 – No act in all the proceedings for raising revenue by taxation is illegal on account of informality or because not completed within the required time.

Section 25 – Unless expressly otherwise provided, any notice required to be given to any person by any provision of this Code may be given in the manner prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure for service by mail.

Section 26 – If any provision of this Code, or its application to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the Code, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances, is not affected.

Section 29 – Whenever any official is authorized to commence an action for the violation of any law relating to revenue or to compel the specific performance of a law, he may designate the county in which the action is to be commenced and prosecuted, unless otherwise provided by law.

Section 30 – The courts of this State must recognize and enforce liabilities for taxes lawfully imposed by any other state, or their political subdivisions, which extends a like comity to this State.

Section 31 – The Attorney General or an appropriate official of any political subdivision of this State may bring suits in the courts of other states to collect taxes legally due this State or any political subdivision thereof.

Section 36 – Whenever any notice or other communication is required by this Code to be mailed by registered mail, the mailing of the notice or other communication by certified mail is to be deemed to be sufficient compliance with the requirements of law.

Section 36.5 – Whenever this Code requires the tax collector to publish a notice in a newspaper, the tax collector must also provide notice on the tax collector’s regularly maintained Internet Web site.

The post General Guidance in Reading the California Revenue and Taxation Code appeared first on California Globe.

Los Angeles—A galaxy of Hollywood stars reacted with horror and outrage over the tragic deaths of more than 50 migrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries whose bodies were found trapped inside a semi-truck near San Antonio this week. 

Matthew McConaughey, a native Texan, traveled to the site where the bodies were discovered to make a personal plea to President Joe Biden. “This has to stop now,” said the Oscar-winning actor. “Your administration must put an end to its disastrous open borders policy because it is literally killing people.”

Meanwhile Jimmy Kimmel, Judd Apatow, Mark Ruffalo and Amy Schumer joined other A-list celebrities in signing an open letter calling for beefed-up border security and an end to the flood of illegal immigrants pouring into this country. 

“The drug cartels have taken over,” said a fiery Schumer. “Drug trafficking and human trafficking are out of control. And now, this horrible loss of life is the result.”

All right, none of this happened. We made it all up. These are all manufactured quotes, sort of like the testimony of star witness Cassidy Hutchinson at the Jan. 6 show trials in Washington.

Nevertheless the question does arise: Why isn’t Hollywood’s glitterati expressing more indignation over what has been called the “deadliest human trafficking incident in American history?” Some of those who died were teenagers. All the victims likely paid thousands of dollars each to be secretly transported across the border, only to be stacked on top of one another in that tomb on wheels “in conditions unfit for animals.”

A terrible human tragedy that shocks our senses and demands compassion. Like another terrible human tragedy that also occurred in Texas not long ago: the fatal shootings of the 19 schoolchildren and two adults in Uvalde.

In the latter case McConaughey, a native of Uvalde, did in fact react with horror and outrage over the loss of so many innocent lives, traveling to his old hometown to make a plea for more gun control in his state and the nation.

And an equally shocked and outraged Jimmy Kimmel, Judd Apatow, Mark Ruffalo and Amy Schumer did indeed join other show business figures in signing an open letter calling for a change in the glorification and widespread use of guns in movies and television, as a means of reducing violence in the U.S..

There is an old axiom in show business: Sincerity is everything. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.

So this is not to say that McConaughey and the others are not sincere. But has anyone else noticed that their sincerity always seems to have the same leftward tilt?

On the usual witches’ brew of leftist issues—gun control, climate change, abortion rights, Black Lives Matter, Jan. 6, Trump—Hollywood liberals stand poised and ready with their Twitter spoons, eager to stir the pot. But on another sort of issue—one that exposes the inhumanity of our current border policies and the gross negligence of those in charge—they present a little different look. More like a performing street mime. Very quiet.

There is nothing new about any of this; it’s a tired old rerun with predictable plot points. The selective outrage of Hollywood is virtually always in conformity with the talking points of the mainstream media and Democrat Party, whatever they happen to be at any given moment. As long as the stars do their part and follow the script, everybody wins.

The Democrats get their message reinforced and glamorized through its association with Hollywood stars. The media get oodles and oodles of Hollywood star clickbait, and the stars themselves get what they (and their PR people) crave most of all: attention.

This endlessly repeating Democrat-media-Hollywood loop, brilliant in its way, also provides the stars with something else, something they cannot buy on Rodeo Drive: feelings of virtue and moral superiority.

These feelings of self-righteousness are also shared by their liberal colleagues in the industry, people who might conceivably offer them jobs that pay millions of dollars and that will make them even more famous than they already are. What could be better than that?

The post Hollywood’s Selective Outrage over the Tragedies of Uvalde and the Truck Migrants appeared first on California Globe.

California has a number of formal acts in statute. Public Utilities Code Division 1.7 provides the Golden State Energy Act, which is contained in Sections 3400 to 3558. The Act was added in 2020 by Chapter 27. Section 3400 provides the naming of the Act.

Section 3401 provides three legislative findings and declarations, including that the safe, efficient, and reliable generation, procurement, transmission, distribution, and storage of energy for residents and businesses in California is essential for living and doing business in California. 

In addition, the Legislature recognizes that Pacific Gas and Electric Company may meet the requirements of Chapter 79 of the Statutes of 2019 and emerge from bankruptcy as a transformed utility that is positioned to provide Californians with access to safe, reliable, and affordable service.

And, the purpose of this division is to ensure that if Pacific Gas and Electric Company fails to emerge from bankruptcy as a transformed utility, then Golden State Energy is duly empowered to serve in that critical role.

Moreover, it is the intent of the Legislature that Golden State Energy act pursuant to this division only in the event that a transformed utility does not emerge from the bankruptcy or the transformed utility fails to meet its duty to provide safe, reliable, and affordable energy services.

Section 3402 provides that it is the intent of the Legislature that specified activities occur if Golden State Energy commences energy operations in this state.

Part 1 of Division 1.7 provides General Provisions, including Preliminary Matters and Definitions. Part 2 provides for the Golden State Energy Board Governance. Part 3 provides for Golden State Energy Regulation and Oversight. Part 4 provides for Golden State Energy Financing Power, and Part 5 contains Other Matters.

The post The Golden State Energy Act appeared first on California Globe.

California’s statutes are contained in 29 separate codes. The twenty-third alphabetically is the Public Utilities Code. All 29 Codes have general provisions applicable to reading and interpreting that Code’s sections. The following are selected general provisions of the Public Utilities Code:

Section 1 – This Act is known as the Public Utilities Code.

Section 2 – The provisions of this Code, insofar as they are substantially the same as existing statutory provisions relating to the same subject matter, are to be construed as restatements and continuations, and not as new enactments.

Section 5 – Unless the provision or the context otherwise requires, the definitions, rules of construction, and other general provisions contained in Sections 1 to 22, inclusive, and the definitions in the Public Utilities Act (Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 201) of Part 1 of Division 1), govern the construction of this Code.

Section 6 – Division, part, chapter, article, and section headings do not in any manner affect the scope, meaning, or intent of the provisions of this Code.

Section 7 – Whenever a power is granted to, or a duty is imposed upon, a public officer, the power may be exercised or the duty may be performed by a deputy of the officer or by a person authorized, pursuant to law, by the officer, unless this Code expressly provides otherwise.

Section 8 – Writing includes any form of recorded message capable of comprehension by ordinary visual means. Whenever any notice, report, statement, petition, or record is required or authorized by this Code, it must be made in writing in the English language unless it is expressly provided otherwise.

Section 9 – Whenever reference is made to any portion of this Code or of any other law of this State, the reference applies to all amendments and additions made.

Section 11 – The present tense includes the past and future tenses, and the future tense includes the present.

Section 12 – The masculine gender includes the feminine and the neuter.

Section 12.2 – The term “spouse” includes “registered domestic partner.”

Section 13 – The singular number includes the plural, and the plural, the singular.

Section 14 – The term “shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.

Section 15 – The term “oath” includes affirmation.

Section 21 – If any provision of this Code, or the application of it to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the Code, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances, is not affected.

The post General Guidance in Reading the Public Utilities Code appeared first on California Globe.

I am often asked about the timing for gubernatorial actions. Some of the questions include: How long does the Governor have to sign or veto a bill? Does the 12 days include weekends and holidays? When does the 30-day timeline start? Does that timeline begin after the Legislature adjourns?

California’s Governor has three options when the Legislature sends the Governor a bill: Sign it; veto it; or, allow the bill to become law without the Governor’s signature. Article IV, Section 10(a) provides in part: “Each bill passed by the Legislature shall be presented to the Governor. It becomes a statute if it is signed by the Governor.”

But what are the timing requirements for these actions? In general, the Governor has 12 days in which to act on a bill sent to the Governor from the Legislature. That 12-day period begins once the bill has been “presented” to the Governor, not the day that the bill passed the Senate or Assembly.

Recall that, after both houses pass a bill, but before the bill reaches the Governor’s Desk, the bill must go through the engrossing and enrolling processes. In the history section of the bill, look for the following: 

This entry in the bill’s history will follow one that looks like the following example:

As a result, the 12-day period begins on June 29 in the above example. And, the Governor would have until July 11 to act on the bill. The 12-day period does not include Sundays. Therefore, if the 12 days conclude on a Sunday, the Governor has until Monday to sign or veto that bill.

In terms of timing, the 12-day “signing” period is applicable to all bills that are presented to the Governor twelve or more days prior to the date the Legislature adjourns for a joint recess in the first year of the two-year session, as well as on or before August 20th of the second year of the Session.

The applicable calendar date in the first year of the Session is based on the date both houses of the Legislature “consent” to adjourn for the interim recess and is subject to change. This date is set forth in the Joint Rules of the Assembly and Senate.

The applicable calendar date in the second year of the Session is set forth in Article IV, Section 10(b)(2), which provides: “Any bill passed by the Legislature before September 1 of the second calendar year of the biennium of the legislative session and in the possession of the Governor on or after September 1 that is not returned on or before September 30 of that year becomes a statute.”

As a result, with a few specified exceptions, the Legislature must adjourn by midnight on August 31 in the even-numbered year and that recess date (August 31) in the second year of the 2-year Session is fixed by the State Constitution. Bills that are passed before September 1 in the second year of the Session and which are in the Governor’s possession on or after September 1 must be signed or vetoed by September 30th of that year or they become a statute without the Governor’s signature.

The post How Much Time Does the California Governor Have to Act on Bills? appeared first on California Globe.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced on Thursday that Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, and Utah would be added to the list of  states that California halts state-sponsored travel to due to recent LGBT restriction laws.

Ever since AB 1887 was passed in 2016, California has prohibited state-funded and state-sponsored travel to states with discriminatory LGBT laws on the books. Until Friday, 18 states have had travel bans enacted, including Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia. Many lawsuits by several of the affected states challenging the travel bans have been knocked down in courts across the country, including the Texas lawsuit going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2021 until they finally turned it down.

However, a flood of new laws in the first half of 2022 prompted Bonta to restart the bannings. Specifically, Bonta noted the number of new laws restricting transgender rights in the four states.

“Make no mistake: There is a coordinated, ongoing attack on transgender rights happening right now all across the country,” said Attorney General Bonta on Thursday. “Blanket legislation targeting transgender children is a ‘solution’ in search of a problem. It is detached from reality and directly undermines the well-being of our LGBTQ+ community. During this pride month and all year round, we’re committed to standing up against discrimination in all its forms. California is restricting state-funded travel to Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, and Utah. As mandated under AB 1887, we’re putting our money where our values are.”

Bonta also went into the details on why each state was added. In March, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed two bills into law. One, Senate Bill 1138, stops all Arizona healthcare professionals and insurance companies from providing and covering gender transition care to those under 18. The other, Senate Bill 1165, prevents transgender women and girls from playing in intramural and interscholastic school sports under their new gender, i.e., men who transitioned into women cannot play in women’s athletic events.

In Indiana and Utah, bills similar to the Arizona transgender sports ban passed by the legislatures of each state over the veto of Governors Eric Holcomb and Spencer Cox respectively. Louisiana also had a similar bill pass, but with no legislative veto.

Due to when the bills were passed, the states bans will go into effect throughout the summer. Indiana and Utah will be effective immediately, with the bans to start on July 1st. Louisiana’s travel ban will begin on August 1st, while Arizona’s doesn’t come into effect until September 28th.

Praise, opposition against Bonta’s addition of four more states to ban list

Many LGBT groups and transgender organizations praised Bonta’s action on Thursday, noting that the state is sticking up for the rights of transgender people and following the law appropriately.

“This just shows once again that, for as crazy as Californian laws can sometimes be, they are, at their heart, still trying to protect the rights of everyone,” explained Alexis Sheridan, a lawyer in San Francisco with many LGBT clients, to the Globe on Thursday. “We’re denying kids playing sports just because they changed genders. That isn’t ok. Some think it gives them an unfair advantage, to to the natural athletic differences, but they aren’t changing just to win or get medals. It’s who they are and they still want to play the sports they love while also be identified by their correct new gender.”

Others, however, have called the bans wrong, as the laws were put into place to stop giving unfair advantages to some athletes.

“This has nothing to do with them changing their sex,” noted legal assistant Rita Stark, who has assisted on cases over transgender athletes in the past, to the Globe. “If you do, fine. That’s great. Even with hormone therapy, they really do bring an advantage over others in women’s sports. So trying to be equal and fair, we’re not being equal and fair. I mean, how do we win?

“And it’s not for every sport either. Many really don’t care about gender and just base it on skill. Look at how many young girls have made it to the Little League World Series or baseball minor leagues. Women have made it to college football and even played in the NHL. The NFL has over a dozen female coaches now, with female MLB coaches now coming on the field. And that’s amazing. They proved they could do the job and broke the glass. But transgender athletes in sports under a certain gender is a different animal, one where being a different gender or having been a different gender can prove to be a big advantage.

“California is overreacting to it. Again, these state laws were put in for equality, and California is saying that equality isn’t equal enough.”

After September 28th, California will have 22 states on the state-sponsored travel ban list, barring others from joining by then.

The post AG Bonta Restricts Four More States for State-Funded Travel Over Anti-LGBTQ Policies appeared first on California Globe.

Unsurprisingly, every top search result for “Senate Bill 1383 food waste” yields links to propitious, upbeat summaries of what’s coming to every household kitchen in California.

For example, from CalRecycle, under the heading “Recycling Organic Materials into New Products,” there is a photo of two women in the kitchen, one of them preparing to dump a plate full of food scraps into a special new container. Both of them appear to be deliriously happy. From RethinkWaste, under “residents,” there is a photo of a smiling woman pouring “organics” out of her special kitchen collection bucket into the large “compost only” can that she will roll out to the curb.

Happiness, apparently, is intimately connected with reducing “short lived climate pollutants,” and so to further our collective happiness, the state is going to turn our kitchen scraps into “biogas” (good), before it can degrade and release methane (bad). How much biogas? How much methane? Compared to what? And at what cost?

Don’t ask. Be happy.

But as usual, our state lawmakers have abandoned common sense. As it is today, most people already either throw their banana peels and apple cores into a “green waste” bin, or pulverize them with the garbage disposal in their sink. But bones and meat scraps typically go into a trash can that’s lined with a plastic bag, which is tied off when it’s filled and dumped in a garbage bin. That’s sanitary. It’s also efficient.

Do people really want to pour every festering bit of scum scraped off their frying pans and every half gnawed chicken bone into a state-issued “organics” bucket that takes up space on their counter, then periodically empty that bucket into their compost bin which has previously only contained grass clippings and hedge cuttings? Who is going to clean up the smelly, putrescent dead animal fluids that will inevitably migrate to the bottom of these buckets and bins and accumulate, week after week? That’s unsanitary. It’s also an intrusive nuisance.

When you consider the new requirements as specified by SB 1383, what households already do ought to be good enough. Because these “organics,” i.e., garden waste enhanced with banana peels, half eaten ribs, bacon grease, chicken bones, etc., are now going to either be delivered to an “anaerobic digestion facility” that generates biogas, or they’ll continue to be delivered to existing composting facilities. Since California’s composting facilities are already well established, most of this modified waste stream will continue to be composted, and they will release greenhouse gas as they break down. As for the anaerobic digesters, they will need to be built at taxpayer expense and cannot possibly be built at sufficient scale to handle all of California’s residential yard waste and food scraps without spending hundreds of millions if not billions. They will then produce fabulously expensive biogas, which will then be burned to generate fabulously expensive energy, still releasing CO2 in the process.

At some point, millions of Californians have to wake up and demand sanity from their legislators and bureaucrats. If greenhouse gasses are truly an existential threat, and if the world is really going to be so impressed by California’s example that they emulate everything we do, can’t we at least still indulge in honest carbon accounting? How much energy will be expended constructing anaerobic digesters big enough to accommodate the garden clippings and kitchen waste of 40 million Californians? Can’t much of this methane from kitchen scraps just get harvested from existing landfills? And if not, what percentage of California’s total methane emissions come from household food scraps?

There might be legitimate answers to these questions. But then again, remember these are the same politicians who have regulated California’s timber industry nearly out of existence. If you’re serious about sequestering CO2, there is nothing more effective than lumber. California’s timber industry used to harvest 6 billion board feet of lumber per year as recently as the 1990s. Now California’s annual timber harvest is less than one-quarter that much. Instead of the CO2 embodied in harvested trees being sequestered as lumber, these unharvested, overcrowded and unhealthy trees burn like hell every summer. But let the forests burn, fouling the air year after year with more greenhouse gas than kitchen scraps from California’s households would emit in a hundred thousand years. Then blame it on climate change, instead of forest mismanagement, and use that to justify doing anything you want.

These are the politicians who are now coming into your kitchen.

Who Supported the Politicians That Sponsored SB 1383?

It is always useful to follow the money when evaluating legislation. After all, complying with SB 1383 will require more government spending. More government employees will need to be hired. More employees at every public waste management agency will need to be hired. So did government unions and unions representing government contractors – whose membership will grow thanks to SB 1383 – contribute to the campaigns of SB 1383’s sponsors in the state senate? Yes they did.

SB 1383 was passed in 2016 and is taking effect this year. The two main sponsors of the bill were Senators Benjamin Allen and Loni Hancock.

Allen is running for reelection this November. He has four donors so far who each gave the maximum $9,700 contribution. They are the California Teachers Association, the SEIU Small Contributor Committee, the SEIU Local 721, and the California Association of Realtors. Three out of four are unions. Back in 2014, when Allen was running for Senate, he had five donors that contributed what at that time was the maximum, $8,200. Along with the realtors, they were AFSCME, the California Association of Electrical Workers, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the California State Council of Laborers, and the United Nurses Association. Four out of five were unions. And back in 2018, Allen’s campaign had six donors who contributed $8,800, the maximum in that year. They were four SEIU affiliates, along with the California Federation of Teachers and the State Building and Construction Trades Council. Six for six.

What about Loni Hancock? Hancock ran for reelection in 2012, before retiring in 2016 after co-sponsoring SB 1383 during her final session in the Senate. The maximum allowable contribution in 2012 was $7,800, and for that amount, Hancock had five donors. They were the IBEW Local No. 302, the Electrical Workers Local 595, AFSCME, the California Teachers Association, and the California Federation of Teachers. Five for five.

These maximum donations are indicative. On the links above that point to the contributions received by these politicians, download the spreadsheets and sort by amount. From the top down, the dominant source of contributions are either public sector unions or public sector contractors. Why the teachers union? How do they benefit? Because these public sector unions support each other. That’s why the firefighters union marched with the United Teachers of Los Angeles in January 2019, instead of using their political clout to lobby to revive the timber industry – which is the only practical way to dramatically reduce wildfires.

Loni Hancock was beholden to public sector unions for her political career. Benjamin Allen is beholden to public sector unions for his political career, as are scores of politicians that currently wield a supermajority in both houses of the California state legislature. What these unions want, these unions get. Their agenda, naturally enough, is more pay, more benefits, more hires, and more contracts. That agenda may or may not be in the interest of all Californians. Sometimes, it will reach right into your kitchen.

This isn’t just about food scraps. Climate change is a convenient excuse for politicians and their benefactors to profitably interfere with just about every activity we engage in that produces a scrap of greenhouse gas. Anywhere. Everywhere. No matter what the cost, or the inconvenience, our legislators are going to demand “mitigation.” They’ll claim it’s to save the planet. Only a cynical “denier” might think it’s actually just to create more jobs for public sector employees and contractors.

The tragedy is that intrusive, expensive schemes like this, of marginal if not counterproductive utility, are how taxpayer money is wasted in California, when there are practical and urgently needed public works – water supply projects come immediately to mind – that remain unfunded. Everyone, certainly including those union members and leaders who still care about this state, should think carefully about what they’re going to do next.

Meanwhile, and from now on, Californians are now compelled to periodically clean rotting, rancid, liquified detritus of food scraps from their compost buckets and bins. Be happy.

The post The California Nanny State Invades Household Kitchens appeared first on California Globe.

Last week the Supreme Court issued a decision striking down a New York gun law that puts unconstitutional restrictions on concealed carry of a gun out in public, as the Globe reported.

Less than one week later, the California Attorney General leaked the state database of names and addresses of the state’s legal gun owners and concealed carry permit holders.

Gun groups across the state immediately called for an investigation into the AG leak, and some demanded the Attorney General’s impeachment, resignation or removal.

Gun Owners of California Executive Director Sam Paredes responded: “Attorney General Rob Bonta is either grossly negligent, completely incompetent or criminally liable. If this is his idea of increasing public trust, we’re screwed. For endangering the lives of 100s of thousands of law-abiding Californians, Bonta should resign.”

Paredes also notes “CCW holders are among the most law-abiding subsection of people in the entire country. This is a fact, however, that is routinely ignored by Leftist politicians and the media. According to California’s Department of Justice, the leak impacted applications from 2011 to 2021 and includes ‘names, date of  birth, gender, race, driver’s license number, addresses, and criminal history.'”

It wasn’t a good week for California gun owners, even with the landmark Supreme Court decision.

And that is because of the Democrat-dominated California Legislature, pushing 16 radical gun control bills through at breakneck speed.

Many or most of the gun control bills proposed defy the Supreme Court decision and the 2nd Amendment.

Fortunately, only half of those bills will be on the governor’s desk by Friday morning.

The following bills have been sent to the Governor to sign prior to both houses adjourning until the afternoon of 1 August 2022. He is expected to sign the following:

AB 311 – Del Mar Fairgrounds

AB 1594 – Civil Suits

AB 1621 – Unserialized Firearms

AB 1769 – Ventura Fairgrounds

AB 2156 –50 firearms per year to 4 for mandatory licensing as a manufacturer

AB 2239 – Prohibited Persons (Watch Bill)

SB 915 – No Events on State Property statewide (End of Crossroads)

SB 1327 – Private rights of Action Lawsuit bill

Several of these bills make it illegal for any gun shows to be held any more at state fairgrounds.

SB 1327 allows for private citizens to sue anyone who makes or sell specific “illegal” weapons in California, including “ghost guns (not traceable), specific gun parts, and California’s version of assault weapons (scary looking guns).

As Sam Paredes noted about the AG gun owner’s leak, “It’s important to note that judges, prosecutors and reserve law enforcement officers are among those whose private identifying information has been made public; such high-profile people have every reason to protect their addresses from vindictive criminals. We must not, however, ignore that there are thousands of vulnerable individuals who have now been potentially exposed to their abusers.”

“Regardless of whether someone is high profile or not, everyone has the same right of privacy and must be equally protected under the law.”

And as an added benefit, Gun Owners of California offers this:

TO EXPRESS YOUR OUTRAGE AT THIS LEAK OF PRIVATE DATA, CONSIDER CALLING:

Attorney General Rob Bonta | Department of Justice:  (800) 952-5225  Press “4” or call (916) 445-9555

Governor Gavin Newsom: Phone: (916) 445-2841 Press “6”

Your Legislator: Click HERE to “Find My Legislator”

The Globe will follow up on the AG leak, all of these bills, as well as those which didn’t make the cut – yet.

And as an added bonus, to fully understand Democrats’ irrational obsession with gun control, never forget this: “Bullets, the very thing that make guns deadly,” said then-Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner in a hearing in 2013 I reported on. Assembly Bill 48 by Skinner (D-Berkeley), bans the sale of magazine parts kits that can hold more than 10 cartridges, and requires mandatory reporting of law-abiding citizens who purchase more than 3,000 rounds of ammunition within a five-day period. However her bill expanded the definition of “large-capacity magazine” to include disassembled parts even if the parts only “appear” to hold more than 10 rounds. It was really a bill about scary looking guns to the Assemblywoman from Berkeley. Gov. Jerry Brown signed AB 48 into law.

The post In Defiance of Supreme Court Decision, Calif. Lawmakers Pass 8 Radical Gun Control Bills appeared first on California Globe.

Now that the June 30 deadline has passed for measures to be placed (or removed) on the November 8, 2022 ballot, what are the measures that California’s voters will decide? According to the California Secretary of State, the following seven measures will be voted on by the statewide electorate in just over four months:

Prop. 1

ACA 10 (Atkins) Resolution Chapter 97, Statutes of 2022

Reproductive Freedom

This measure would amend the California Constitution to prohibit the state from denying or interfering with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.

1886. (19-0029A1)
AUTHORIZES NEW TYPES OF GAMBLING. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY AMENDMENT.

This measure would allow federally recognized Native American tribes to operate roulette, dice games, and sports wagering on tribal lands, subject to compacts negotiated by the Governor and ratified by the Legislature. Beginning in 2022, allows on-site sports wagering at only privately operated horse-racing tracks in four specified counties for persons 21 years or older. Imposes 10% tax on sports-wagering profits at horse-racing tracks; directs portion of revenues to enforcement and problem-gambling programs. Prohibits marketing of sports wagering to persons under 21. Authorizes private lawsuits to enforce other gambling laws. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased state revenues, potentially reaching the tens of millions of dollars annually, from payments made by facilities offering sports wagering and new civil penalties authorized by this measure. Some portion of these revenues would reflect a shift from other existing state and local revenues. Increased state regulatory costs, potentially reaching the low tens of millions of dollars annually. Some or all of these costs would be offset by the increased revenue or reimbursements to the state. Increased state enforcement costs, not likely to exceed several million dollars annually, related to a new civil enforcement tool for enforcing certain gaming laws.

1930. (21-0036A1) 
PROVIDES ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ARTS AND MUSIC EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

This measure would provide additional funding for arts and music education in all K-12 public schools (including charter schools) by annually allocating from state General Fund an amount equaling 1% of required state and local funding for public schools. Allocates greater proportion of the funds to schools serving more economically disadvantaged students. Schools with 500 or more students must spend at least 80% of funding to employ teachers and remainder on training, supplies, and education partnerships. Requires audits and limits administrative costs to 1% of funding. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased spending likely in the range of $800 million to $1 billion annually, beginning in 2023-24, for arts education in schools.

1907. (21-0013)
REQUIRES ON-SITE LICENSED MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL AT KIDNEY DIALYSIS CLINICS AND ESTABLISHES OTHER STATE REQUIREMENTS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

This measure would require physicians, nurse practitioners, or physician assistants, with six months’ relevant experience, on site during treatment at outpatient kidney dialysis clinics; authorizes exemption for staffing shortage if qualified medical professional is available through telehealth. Requires clinics to disclose to patients all physicians with clinic ownership interests of five percent or more. Requires clinics to report dialysis-related infection data to state. Prohibits clinics from closing or substantially reducing services without state approval. Prohibits clinics from refusing to treat patients based on source of payment. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased state and local government costs likely in the low tens of millions of dollars annually.

1911. (21-0017A1)
ALLOWS ONLINE AND MOBILE SPORTS WAGERING. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.

This measure would legalize online and mobile sports wagering, which currently is prohibited, for persons 21 years and older. Such wagering may be offered only by federally recognized Indian tribes and eligible businesses that contract with them. Individuals placing bets must be in California and not located on Indian lands. Imposes 10% tax on sports-wagering revenues and licensing fees. Directs tax and licensing revenues first to regulatory costs, then remainder to: 85% to homelessness programs; 15% to nonparticipating tribes. Specifies licensing, regulatory, consumer-protection, and betting-integrity standards for sports wagering. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased state revenues, potentially reaching the mid-hundreds of millions of dollars annually, from online sports wagering-related taxes, licensing fees, and penalties. Some portion of these revenues would reflect a shift from other existing state and local revenues. Increased state regulatory costs, potentially reaching the mid-tens of millions of dollars annually, that would be fully or partially offset by the increased revenues.

1931. (21-0037A1)
PROVIDES FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY INCREASING TAX ON PERSONAL INCOME OVER $2 MILLION. INITIATIVE STATUTE. 

This measure would increase the tax on personal income over $2 million by 1.75% for individuals and married couples and allocates new tax revenues as follows: (1) 45% for rebates and other incentives for zero-emission vehicle purchases and 35% for charging stations for zero-emission vehicles, with at least half of this funding directed to low-income households and communities; and (2) 20% for wildfire prevention and suppression programs, with priority given to hiring and training firefighters. Requires audits of programs and expenditures. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased annual state tax revenue ranging from $3 billion to $4.5 billion, with the additional revenue used to support zero-emission vehicle programs and wildfire-related activities. Potential increased state administrative costs paid from other funding sources that could reach tens of millions to the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Net decrease in state and local transportation revenue of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually in the initial years, and growing to up to a few hundreds of millions of dollars annually after several years.

1892. (20-0003)
REFERENDUM CHALLENGING A 2020 LAW PROHIBITING RETAIL SALE OF CERTAIN FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS.

This is a referendum challenging a 2020 law on the next statewide ballot after the November 3, 2020 general election. The challenged law prohibits the retail sale of certain flavored tobacco products and tobacco flavor enhancers. The referendum would require a majority of voters to approve the 2020 state law before it can take effect.

The post What Will Be on the November 2022 Statewide Ballot? appeared first on California Globe.

California has a number of formal acts in statute. Public Utilities Code Division 2.5 provides The Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006, which is contained in Section 5800 to 5970. Division 2.5 was added in 2006 by Chapter 700. Section 5800 names the Act.

Section 5810 provides numerous legislative findings and declarations including that increasing competition for video and broadband services is a matter of statewide concern for four main reasons. Moreover, legislation to develop this new process should adhere to specified principles.

In addition, the public interest is best served when sufficient funds are appropriated to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to provide adequate staff and resources to appropriately and timely process applications of video service providers and to ensure full compliance with the requirements of this division.

Finally, it is the intent of the Legislature that a video service provider must pay as rent a franchise fee to the local entity in whose jurisdiction service is being provided for the continued use of streets, public facilities, and other rights-of-way of the local entity in order to provide service. It is the intent of the Legislature that collective bargaining agreements be respected. And, it is the intent of the Legislature that the definition of gross revenues in this division must result in local entities maintaining their existing level of revenue from franchise fees.

Section 5820 provides that nothing in this division is deemed to create a vested right in a state-issued franchise by the franchise holder or its affiliates that would preclude the state from amending the provisions that establish the terms and conditions of a franchise. And, the holder of a state franchise is not deemed a public utility as a result of providing video service under this division.

Section 5830 provides definitions for the following terms: “broadband”; “cable operator”; “cable service”; “cable system”; “commission”; “franchise”; “franchise fee”; “holder”; “holder of a state franchise”; “incumbent cable operator”; “local entity”; “local franchising entity”; “network”; “open-video system”; “OVS operator”; “public rights-of-way”; “state franchise”; “subscriber”; “video programming”; “video service”; and, “video service provider.”

Section 5840 provides that the PUC is the sole franchising authority for a state franchise to provide video service under this division. The application for a state franchise must be made on a form prescribed by the PUC and must include specified information. The state franchise issued by the PUC must contain specified information. It is unlawful to provide video service without a state or locally issued franchise. There is a state franchise fee payable as rent or a toll for the use of the public rights-of-way by holders of the state franchise issued pursuant to this division. The state franchise fee must apply equally to all video service providers in the local entity’s jurisdiction.

Section 5850 provides that a state-issued franchise is only valid for 10 years after the date of issuance, and the holder must apply for a renewal of the state franchise for an additional 10-year period if it wishes to continue to provide video services in the area covered by the franchise after the expiration of the franchise.

Section 5860 provides that the holder of a state franchise that offers video service within the jurisdiction of the local entity must calculate and remit to the local entity a state franchise fee. The state franchise fee is a percentage of the holder’s gross revenues. No local entity or any other political subdivision of this state may demand any additional fees or charges or other remuneration of any kind from the holder of a state franchise based solely on its status as a provider of video or cable services other than as set forth in this division and may not demand the use of any other calculation method or definition of gross revenues.

In addition, the term “gross revenues” is defined and does not include specified items. Not more than once annually, a local entity may examine the business records of a holder of a state franchise to the extent reasonably necessary to ensure compensation in accordance with this section.

Section 5870 requires the holder of a state franchise to designate a sufficient amount of capacity on its network to allow the provision of the same number of public, educational, and governmental access (PEG) channels, as are activated and provided by the incumbent cable operator that has simultaneously activated and provided the greatest number of PEG channels within the local entity under the terms of any franchise in effect in the local entity as of January 1, 2007.

In addition, the PEG channels are for the exclusive use of the local entity or its designee to provide public, educational, and governmental channels. The PEG channels can be used only for noncommercial purposes. The local entity is required to ensure that all transmissions, content, or programming to be transmitted by a holder of a state franchise are provided or submitted in a manner or form that is compatible with the holder’s network, if the local entity produces or maintains the PEG programming in that manner or form.

Finally, a local entity may, by ordinance, establish a fee to support PEG channel facilities consistent with federal law that would become effective subsequent to the expiration of any fee imposed. The fee cannot exceed 1 percent of the holder’s gross revenues.

Section 5880 requires holders of state franchises to comply with the Emergency Alert System requirements of the Federal Communications Commission in order that emergency messages may be distributed over the holder’s network.

Section 5885 requires the local entity to allow the holder of a state franchise under this division to install, construct, and maintain a network within public rights-of-way under the same time, place, and manner as the provisions governing telephone corporations under applicable state and federal law. The term “encroachment permit” is defined.

Section 5890 provides that a cable operator or video service provider that has been granted a state franchise under this division may not discriminate against or deny access to service to any group of potential residential subscribers because of the income of the residents in the local area in which the group resides.

Section 5895 requires the PUC to collect granular data on the actual locations served by the holder of a state franchise.

Section 5900 requires the holder of a state franchise to comply with specified sections of the Government Code, and any other customer service standards pertaining to the provision of video service established by federal law or regulation or adopted by subsequent enactment of the Legislature. All customer service and consumer protection standards under this section must be interpreted and applied to accommodate newer or different technologies while meeting or exceeding the goals of the standards.

Section 5910 requires the holder of a state franchise to perform background checks of applicants for employment, according to current business practices.

Section 5920 requires a holder of a state franchise employing more than 750 total employees in California to annually report to the PUC specified information.

Section 5930 provides that any video service provider that currently holds a franchise with a local franchising entity in a county that is a party, either alone or in conjunction with any other local franchising entity located in that county, to a stipulation and consent judgment executed by the parties thereto and approved by a federal district court must neither be entitled to seek a state franchise in any area of that county, including any unincorporated area and any incorporated city of that county, nor abrogate any existing franchise before July 1, 2014.

Section 5940 provides that the holder of a state franchise under this division who also provides stand-alone, residential, primary line, basic telephone service cannot increase this rate to finance the cost of deploying a network to provide video service.

Section 5950 prohibits the PUC from permitting a telephone corporation that is providing video service directly or through its affiliates pursuant to a state-issued franchise as an incumbent local exchange carrier to increase rates for residential, primary line, basic telephone service above the rate as of July 1, 2006, until January 1, 2009, unless that telephone corporation is regulated under rate of return regulation.

Section 5970 provides that a state franchise may be transferred to any successor in interest of the holder to which the certificate originally is granted, whether this transfer is by merger, sale, assignment, bankruptcy, restructuring, or any other type of transaction, provided that specified conditions are met.

The post The California Digital Infrastructure Act appeared first on California Globe.

The Los Angeles City Council gave a final vote on an ordinance Wednesday to increase the minimum wage for workers at private hospitals to $25 an hour throughout the city.

The increase, which will affect all workers in the hospital and not just healthcare workers, has been under discussion since the early days of the pandemic. Due to the increased risk of COVID-19, many leaving positions during the great resignation, as well as the increased difficulty of hiring and retaining employees due to many feeling washed out and under appreciated during the pandemic, the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers (SEIU-UHW) union began collecting signatures for a ballot initiative to increase the minimum wage for workers at private hospitals to $25 an hour last year.

The goal was to bring the minimum wage increase to a vote this November. However, once enough signatures were collected and confirmed, the L.A. City Council  had the choice to either send it to voters in November or approve the measure themselves. They opted for the latter, leading up to a vote last week. However, the Council did not unanimously pass it.  Councilmen Paul Krekorian and Joe Buscaino voted no, leading to a 10-2 vote that triggered a second vote this week due to City Council rules.

With a few Council members pulling out of the vote this week either in protest or because of a conflict of interest due to being on a hospital board, it passed 10-0 on Wednesday, sending the ordinance to Mayor Eric Garcetti to sign. Supporters cheered the vote, saying that a vote for the raise was needed due to the increased risk of employees and the bump acting as sort of a ‘hazard pay’, not having more set wage increases like public hospitals, workers needing an incentive to stay due to staffing shortages, and wanting to keep up healthcare levels throughout the city.

“We applaud the Los Angeles City Council for leading the way toward protecting public health and addressing a staffing shortage that threatens Angelenos’ care,” said SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West president Dave Regan on Wednesday, the head of a union that pushed for the ordinance to pass. “By ensuring healthcare workers earn a fair wage that reflects the vital work they do, Los Angeles can retain and attract the workers needed to ensure the quality of healthcare doesn’t decline in the city.”

Last week, the SEIU-UHW released a similar statement for the ordinance, saying that “Burned out and traumatized from the pandemic, many feel disrespected and undervalued and have left the profession, and more are considering leaving soon. Raising the minimum wage helps acknowledge their vital, life-saving work and retain workers for Los Angeles’ future healthcare needs.”

Many in LA still oppose ordinance

However, many, such as hospital groups and administrators, decried the passing of the measure. They noted that many jobs in hospitals have considerably less risk and that hospitals will now have to choose between hiring more people, or hiring less with the increased wage. Others noted that the hikes were unfair, as they wouldn’t cover public hospitals, with private hospitals possibly poaching employees due to the higher wages. Also pointed out was a lack of a public vote on the matter, with many being upset at the LA City Council for not allowing city voters to vote on the issue as had been originally intended.

“This wasn’t a wage increase, it was dooming the healthcare system,” said wage advocate Carmine Spencer to the Globe on Thursday. “Most people are usually for higher wages, but raising them this high means that hospitals are in for a rough choice between having more people or less with an increased wage. It’s not going to lead to better care. Care levels are going to worsen with few people on board. Especially in public hospitals, where many might be poached by the better paying private hospital.”

“And that’s not even getting into the fact that voters had absolutely no say in this. They were supposed to vote on it in November, but the City Council thought it was better that they take care of it. Shameful on their part. Legal, but shameful.”

The ordinance is expected to be signed into law by Mayor Garcetti soon, with the ordinance coming into effect by the end of the year.

The post LA City Council Gives Final Approval of $25 Hour Wage Increase For All Private Hospital Workers appeared first on California Globe.

California’s statutes are contained in 29 separate codes. The twenty-second alphabetically is the Public Resources Code. All 29 Codes have general provisions applicable to reading and interpreting that Code’s sections. The following are selected general provisions of the Public Resources Code:

Section 1 – This Act is known as the Public Resources Code.

Section 2 – The provisions of this Code, in so far as they are substantially the same as existing provisions relating to the same subject matter, are to be construed as restatements and continuations and not as new enactments.

Section 5 – Unless the context otherwise requires, the general provisions set forth govern the construction of this Code.

Section 6 – Division, part, chapter, article, and section headings contained are not to be deemed to govern, limit, modify or in any manner affect the scope, meaning, or intent of the provisions of any division, part, chapter, article, or section.

Section 7 – Whenever, by the provisions of this Code, an administrative power is granted to a public officer or a duty imposed upon an officer, the power may be exercised or the duty performed by a deputy of the officer or by a person authorized pursuant to law.

Section 8 – Writing includes any form of recorded message capable of comprehension by ordinary visual means. Whenever any notice, report, statement or record is required by this Code, it must be made in writing in the English language.

Section 9 – Whenever any reference is made to any portion of this Code or of any other law of this State, the reference applies to all amendments and additions now or later made.

Section 11 – The present tense includes the past and future tenses; and the future tense includes the present.

Section 12 – The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter.

Section 12.2 – The term “spouse” includes “registered domestic partner.

Section 13 – The singular number includes the plural, and the plural the singular.

Section 15 – The term “shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.

Section 16 – The term “oath” includes affirmation.

Section 18 – If any provision of this Code, or its application to any person or circumstances, is held invalid, the remainder of the Code, and the application of its provisions to other persons or circumstances, is not be affected.

The post General Guidance in Reading the Public Resources Code appeared first on California Globe.

In his first interview after being recalled earlier this month, former San Francisco District Attorney told the San Francisco Chronicle earlier this week that he won’t rule out another run for office either in November or in 2023.

Despite Boudin being in his final days as DA, with only 10 days following final vote certification by the SF Board of Supervisors, he has already said that he may run again. According to Boudin in the Chronicle interview, many Democratic groups and clubs have urged him to run for DA again either in the special election in November or, more likely, next year. Boudin, while not saying he will run with the continued support, also did not deny it either, opting for a more middle of the road statement of wanting to continue to develop solutions to crime in the coming years.

“My fear is that the person appointed with no mandate, having not gone through the traditional vetting of a normal election where they’re asked for a specific policy commitment, will not publicly reverse course, but instead quietly, slowly undermine the work that we’ve done these last 2½ years,” continued Boudin.

Opposition still strong against Boudin less than a month after the recall election

Opponents of Boudin said on Wednesday and Thursday they believe voters gave Boudin a clear message that they don’t want him in office, with the successful recall earlier this month.

“It’s a free country, but Chesa will be soundly rejected by voters again if he chooses to run for the office he was just ousted from,” said Safer SF Without Boudin Chairwoman Mary Jung. “Voters just sent a clear message that they want a new District Attorney who will chart a better and safer path forward for San Francisco.”

Bay Area political issue consultant Hannah Reed concurred in a Globe interview on Thursday, adding, “They said no. Voters will remember this. And not only that, they’ll remember the crime rise under him, how he gave criminals no or little jail time, allowed mass robberies to happen, and essentially helped nosedive the city into the ground. Former supporters voted against him.”

“If he runs again, and I believe that to be a big if, his opponent will have a field day and would just have to ask voters if they wanted to bring back the guy who didn’t want to lock up criminals despite crime being the worst it has been in the city in a good, long while. Democrats would be wiser to support a DA who brings back arrests and consequences for crimes. Putting Boudin back in would be seen as a major step back by most.”

San Francisco Mayor London Breed is due to select an interim DA in the coming weeks to fill the spot until the special election in November to fill out Boudin’s term. An election next year would then end the current term started by Boudin in 2019.

The post Former SF DA Chesa Boudin Says He My Run For DA Post-Recall appeared first on California Globe.

The Supreme Court on Thursday curtailed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to set standards on climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions for existing power plants.

The court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA says that government doesn’t have the power to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

While many in the U.S. are celebrating the decision curtailing unelected bureaucrats from making energy policy, California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued a defiant press statement:

“The Supreme Court sided with the fossil fuel industry, kneecapping the federal government’s basic ability to tackle climate change. Today’s ruling makes it even more imperative that California and other states succeed in our efforts to combat the climate crisis. While the court has once again turned back the clock, California refuses to go backward – we’re just getting started. California will remain the tentpole for this movement with record investments and aggressive policies to reduce pollution, to protect people from extreme weather, and to leave our children and grandchildren a world that’s better off than we found it.”

Gov. Newsom, who is making moves for a possible Presidential bid in 2024, doubled down on California’s government-led “forward-thinking climate policies,” claiming full credit.

“Under Governor Newsom’s leadership, California is taking bold action to further advance California’s progress toward an oil-free future and bolster the state’s clean energy economy.”

• $53.9 billion California Climate Commitment
• Booming ZEV market that leads the nation in every category
• Driving toward 100% ZEV sales by 2035
• Preventing harmful oil production in communities and moving to phase out oil drilling and fracking
• International climate partnerships with Canada, Japan, China and New Zealand
• Innovative nature-based solutions to tackle climate change, protect biodiversity and expand access to nature

Nearly every poll taken on American voters’ concerns and priorities shows climate change at the bottom of the list next to abortion. Yet Democrat politicians continue to push their agenda.

The Supreme Court decision summary explains the issue which stems from Obama administration era EPA rules:

“In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated the Clean Power Plan rule, which addressed carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants. For authority, the Agency cited Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, which, although known as the New Source Performance Standards program, also authorizes regulation of certain pollutants from existing sources under Section 111(d). 42 U. S. C. §7411(d). Prior to the Clean Power Plan, EPA had used Section 111(d) only a handful of times since its enactment in 1970.”

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion:

“Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,” Justice Roberts said. “But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.”

It will be interesting to see how this decision impacts the CalEPA.

You can read the Supreme Court decision here.

The post Supreme Court Deals Blow to U.S. Climate Agenda with EPA Decision appeared first on California Globe.

The California gas tax jumps up again on July 1. While the State has a nearly $100 billion budget, the ruling party has repeatedly failed to offer any meaningful relief to taxpayers who have been overtaxed to create this enormous surplus. Now, Gov. Gavin Newsom has a proposal masquerading as gas tax relief that ensures those who actually pay the tax at the pump do not get the supposed “relief.” It represents everything wrong with Sacramento.

The governor’s current proposal rebates $9 billion, a paltry amount of the surplus, to only some California residents based on their income levels. The rebate is entirely unrelated to the gas tax or the level of any individual’s “contribution” to the $100 billion surplus. In other words, the governor’s scheme is essentially a subsidy which risks further stoking the cash consuming fire of inflation.

A better proposal for immediate relief at the pump: cut the gas tax at the pump. It is obvious, simple, and bypasses the bureaucratic challenges and expenses inherent in the governor’s scheme of identifying the privileged taxpayers entitled in Sacramento’s mind to relief, verifying income levels, and making the “rebate” payments.

All Californians who drive pay the gas tax upon filling up. But if Gov. Newsom gets his way, only some Californians will get a rebate at a future date, regardless of whether they drive or otherwise pay the tax. Moreover, of those permitted a token rebate, the more money they have paid to the state, the less money they will get back.

Often Sacramento comes up with inefficient, counter-productive proposals. However, in this case, the mismatch between taxpayers and those who will get “relief” is actually not a “bug” in the program, but a feature. Sacramento can pretend to help taxpayers. The headlines Newsom wants as the general election campaign season heats up almost write themselves. In reality though, surprisingly few actual taxpayers benefit in any measurable way, the state will not reform its rapacious and confiscatory gas tax program, and the unrelenting pressure Sacramento wants on fuel prices – imposed to further its climate goals – in fact just will not relent.

Pain at the pump is very real, and residents here in Orange County know it all too well. When the OC Board of Supervisors unanimously approved an item I brought forward, requesting the CA legislature provides tax relief for residents by suspending the $0.51 per gallon gas tax for six months, hundreds of constituents wrote me to share how they were feeling the financial burn from CA’s tax hikes.

Unfortunately, immediate relief for California’s pain at the gas pump could have come months ago. But because Sacramento did not want it then or now, Gov. Newsom insists on slow walking his scheme, little campaign advertisements for him, until we get closer to the election.

It is a win-win proposal for Newsom and Sacramento’s tax and spend crowd. But taxpayers do not share in the win.

The post Give us a Break — From the Gas Tax  appeared first on California Globe.

Electric car and energy company Tesla announced on Wednesday that 200 Autopilot workers will be laid off, with the company’s San Mateo office also to close.

In the last few years, Tesla and CEO, Elon Musk have had largely mixed feeling towards California. While the company has backed the continued operation of the Fremont factory and is currently building a Megafactory in Lathrop, Musk himself left the state in 2020 for Texas, with Tesla’s headquarters following him from Palo Alto to Austin the very next year, both largely due to the business climate and high taxes of California.

However, years of high growth and continued hiring slowed down during the pandemic, with Musk saying late last year that the company needed to curb hiring and reduce the current workforce by 10% in three months, although overall hiring should be back up within a year. Continued worldwide supply-chain issues, as well as financial issues at the new plants in Germany and Texas, hastened cuts. While employees at the San Mateo facility, who labeled videos from Tesla cars to improve Autopilot, the driver assistance system, had expected to move to facilities in Palo Alto or Buffalo, continued company issues, as well as the lease expiring in San Mateo, led to the layoffs on Wednesday.

“Both Berlin and Austin factories are gigantic money furnaces right now,” Musk said last month in an interview. “It should be like a giant roaring sound which is the sound of money on fire.”

Auto and tech experts told the Globe on Wednesday that moves on smaller facilities were expected industry-wide as car companies continue to build themselves up in the current economic climate, with Tesla in particular harming California due to them being the only car company with a major factory and office presence in the state outside of dealerships and other similar places.

“Buffalo is cheaper than San Mateo in terms of how much people make, and they don’t want to give up Palo Alto,” explained  James Kelly, a Bay Area tech advisor, to the Globe on Wednesday. “San Mateo’s lease was also up, and the company needs to make cuts. It was a perfect storm for that Autopilot office.

“For once, it isn’t completely California’s fault though. There’s growing inflation, supply-chain issues, and car companies facing a lot of challenges. Tesla has some problems with factories in Berlin and Austin right now too. If anything, it will make them to want to hold on to their current factory in Fremont, with close access to rail and ports, all the more. If we hit a recession, people won’t be spending as much, and that includes on higher ticket items like electric cars.

“All together, this sadly made the decision to close San Mateo a reality. Tesla never really hit a wall before like all the other car companies, with them being the new kid on the block, so we’ll see how they deal with this. They rumbled through the pandemic, but a prolonged recession, they made it through the Great Recession, but they were also much smaller then. They had only one type of car. Now, they’re huge. We’ll see where this goes.”

June 28th was the employees last working day, with benefits expected to go through October.

The post Tesla to Close Autopilot Office in San Mateo, Lay Off 200 Workers appeared first on California Globe.

California has a number of formal acts in statute. In Health and Safety Code Division 10.2, there is the “Drug Dealer Liability Act” contained in Sections 11700 to 11717. It was added in 1996 by Chapter 867. Section 11700 names the Act. Section 11701 provides that the purpose of the Act is to provide a civil remedy for damages to persons in a community injured as a result of the use of an illegal controlled substance. These persons include parents, employers, insurers, governmental entities, and others who pay for drug treatment or employee assistance programs, as well as infants injured as a result of exposure to controlled substances in utero.

In addition, Division 10.2 provides that the Act will enable the above persons to recover damages from those individuals in the community who have joined the marketing of illegal controlled substances. The further purpose of this division is to establish the prospect of substantial monetary loss as a deterrent to those who have not yet entered into the distribution market for illegal controlled substances.

Section 11702 provides three legislative findings and declarations including that the civil justice system can provide an avenue of compensation for those who have suffered harm as a result of the marketing and distribution of illegal controlled substances. In addition, the threat of liability under this division serves as an additional deterrent to a recognizable segment of the network for illegal controlled substances. 

Section 11703 defines the following terms: “marketing of illegal controlled substances,” “individual user of an illegal controlled substance,” “Level 1 offense,” “Level 2 offense,” “Level 3 offense,” “Level 4 offense,” “participant in the marketing of illegal controlled substances,” “person,” “period of illegal use,” “place of illegal activity,” “place of participation,” and “specified illegal controlled substance.”

Section 11704 provides that a person who knowingly participates in the marketing of illegal controlled substances within this state is liable for civil damages and that a person may recover damages under this division for injury resulting from an individual’s use of an illegal controlled substance.

Section 11705 provides that any one or more of the following persons may bring an action for damages caused by an individual’s use of an illegal controlled substance:

• A parent, legal guardian, child, spouse, or sibling of the individual controlled substance user.
• An individual who was exposed to an illegal controlled substance in utero.
• An employer of the individual user of an illegal controlled substance.
• A medical facility, insurer, employer, or other nongovernmental entity that funds a drug treatment program or employee assistance program for the individual user of an illegal controlled substance or that otherwise expended money on behalf of the individual user of an illegal controlled substance. No public agency other than a public agency medical facility has a cause of action under this division.
• A person injured as a result of the willful, reckless, or negligent actions of an individual user of an illegal controlled substance.

In addition, a person entitled to bring an action under this section may seek damages from one or more of the following:

• A person who sold, administered, or furnished an illegal controlled substance to the individual user of the illegal controlled substance.
• A person who knowingly participated in the marketing of illegal controlled substances, if specified conditions apply.

Finally, a person entitled to bring an action under this section may recover all of the following damages: economic; noneconomic; exemplary; reasonably attorney fees; and costs of suit.

Section 11706 provides that an user of an illegal controlled substance may bring an action for damages caused by the use of an illegal controlled substance only if all of the following conditions are met:

• The individual personally discloses to narcotics enforcement authorities all of the information known to the individual regarding all that individual’s sources of illegal controlled substances.
• The individual has not used an illegal controlled substance within the 30 days before filing the action.
• The individual continues to remain free of the use of an illegal controlled substance throughout the pendency of the action.

In addition, a person entitled to bring an action under this section may seek damages only from a person who manufactured, transported, imported into this state, sold, possessed with intent to sell, furnished, administered, or gave away the specified illegal controlled substance actually used by the individual user of an illegal controlled substance.

Section 11707 prohibits a third party from paying damages awarded under this division, or provide a defense or money for a defense, on behalf of an insured under a contract of insurance or indemnification.

Section 11708 provides that a person, whose participation in the marketing of illegal controlled substances constitutes the following level offense, is to be rebuttably presumed to be responsible in the following amounts:

• For a level 1 offense, 25 percent of the damages.
• For a level 2 offense, 50 percent of the damages.
• For a level 3 offense, 75 percent of the damages.
• For a level 4 offense, 100 percent of the damages.

Section 11709 provides that two or more persons may join in one action under this division as plaintiffs if their respective actions have at least one market for illegal controlled substances in common and if any portion of the period of use of an illegal controlled substance overlaps with the period of use of an illegal controlled substance for every other plaintiff.

Section 11710 provides that an action by an individual user of an illegal controlled substance is governed by the principles of comparative responsibility. Comparative responsibility attributed to the plaintiff does not bar recovery but diminishes the award of compensatory damages proportionally, according to the measure of responsibility attributed to the plaintiff.

Section 11711 provides that a person subject to liability under this division has a right of action for contribution against another person subject to liability under this division. Contribution may be enforced either in the original action or by a separate action brought for that purpose.

Section 11712 provides that proof of liability in an action brought under this division must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. In addition, a person against whom recovery is sought who has a criminal conviction pursuant to state laws prohibiting the illegal sale of controlled substances is estopped from denying participation in the illegal market for controlled substances.

Section 11713 provides that a plaintiff under this division may request an ex parte prejudgment attachment order from the court against all assets of a defendant sufficient to satisfy a potential award.

Section 11714 provides that, unless other provided, a claim under this division cannot be brought more than one year after the defendant furnishes the specified illegal controlled substance.

Section 11715 provides that, on motion by a governmental agency involved in an investigation or prosecution involving an illegal controlled substance, an action brought under this division must be stayed until the completion of the criminal investigation or prosecution that gave rise to the motion for a stay of the action.

Section 11717 provides that, if any provision of this division or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this division and the application of such provision to any other person or circumstance is not affected by that invalidation.

The post California’s Drug Dealer Liability Act appeared first on California Globe.