Ventura Airgas employees have successfully broken free from the unwanted Teamsters labor union following a significant litigation process involving the National Labor Relations Board and the National Right to Work Foundation. The employees at the Airgas Ventura, CA location were the drivers of the union decertification.

Airgas, an Air Liquide company, is a leading single-source supplier of gases, welding equipment and supplies, and safety products, with 1,400 locations nationwide.

The Globe spoke with National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix, who said after filing a petition for a vote to remove the union with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, Teamsters officials filed unfair labor practice charges against Airgas soon after in an attempt to retain power over the employees at the facility despite the employees’ overwhelming opposition to the union.

Airgas Ventura employees’ effort began in 2020, when they submitted a petition asking Airgas management to rescind recognition of Teamsters Local 848. Though Airgas management prepared to withdraw recognition as the majority of employees had requested, that is when the teamsters filed the unfair labor practices claim, Mix said.

The NRTW Foundation explained:

Angel Herrera and his fellow Airgas employees endured months of litigation in support of their push to end Teamsters Local 848’s power at their workplace, an effort they began in 2020. Finally, after Herrera and his colleagues submitted a majority-backed petition in August asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to administer a vote to decertify the union, Teamsters officials filed documents ending their reign at the facility.

Following Herrera’s and his coworkers’ yearlong effort seeking to end the union’s control at their workplace, Teamsters Local 848 officials have filed documents with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ending their monopoly bargaining power over all workers at the Airgas Glass Welding and Safety Products facility in Ventura. Herrera and his colleagues received free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in filing a petition for a vote to oust Teamsters union officials.

But this took months and months of litigation. Mix explained that labor unions usually will file unfair labor practices charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which often extends the process out. “Then these employees have paid union dues another year, and have to wait for their next window to challenge the union.”

Mix said it was months of litigation at the NLRB, the federal agency charged with enforcing most private sector labor law. Ultimately the NLRB forced Airgas to recognize the Teamsters union and the union’s “representation” was imposed back on the employees.

Herrera and his coworkers tried again to get Teamsters union chiefs out of their workplace this summer by filing a “decertification petition” with the NLRB. Herrera’s petition, filed on August 30, contained signatures from enough of his coworkers to trigger an NLRB-supervised “decertification election,” a secret-ballot election after which union officials lose monopoly bargaining power if a majority of workers vote to remove them.

After the Airgas employees’ second petition to end the Teamsters’ union representation, and the impending decertification election, Mix said the union picked up its ball and went home.

Before a decertification election was scheduled, however, Teamsters officials instead disclaimed interest in maintaining control over the workplace on September 13, in an apparent attempt to spare themselves the embarrassment of an overwhelming vote by workers to reject the union’s so-called “representation.”

And this is the game of getting rid of an unwanted labor union. It is time consuming and costly, and doesn’t always work in favor of the employees seeking to rid their workplace of the unwanted labor union.

Recently, the Biden Administration fired and replaced NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb, who still had nearly a year before his term was set to expire. According to the Employers Lawyers Blog, “the move was a marked departure from the norm whereby most newly elected presidents would allow the GC to serve out the term.”

“Immediately after Robb’s removal, new NLRB GC Peter Sung Ohr issued 10 separate directives aimed at rolling back Trump-era changes to the Board’s enforcement policies.”

The Airgas employees are fortunate to have broken free from the Teamsters union given the political changes at the NLRB.

“We at the Foundation are proud to have helped Mr. Herrera and his colleagues in the exercise of their workplace rights, but no American workers should have to file multiple petitions and endure protracted litigation just so they can exercise this basic right of free association,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “This is more important than ever given the Biden Administration’s focus on further empowering union officials at the expense of rank-and-file workers’ individual rights.”

“Foundation staff attorneys will not waiver in their defense of workers’ right to dispense with unwanted union so-called ‘representation,’ regardless of which way the political winds blow,” Mix added.

This is the decertification petition the workers at the Airgas facility filed right before union bosses declared they were abandoning the plant:

The post Ventura Airgas Employees Break Free from Unwanted Teamsters Labor Union appeared first on California Globe.

Late last week, Katrina Schmidt’s home was attacked following her personal address being included in an ad by Bonin’s anti-recall organization. Schmidt is one of the activists leading the recall against Los Angeles Councilman Mike Bonin.

Earlier this year, several disaffected Democrats, including Schmidt and Nico Ruderman, started up the recall petition against Bonin. According to Recall Bonin 2021, the recall effort was formulated due to years of alleged inactivity and broken promises by Bonin since his election to the City Council in 2013, centered around the homeless crisis, public safety situation, and the trash buildup in the city and in his district, which covers many high profile neighborhoods such as Brentwood, Pacific Palisades, and Venice. Despite Bonin’s opposition, the recall was approved by the city clerk in July, with the recall effort having until November 4th to get 27,405 signatures from voters in LA’s 11th district.

With support growing, Bonin ramped up his anti-recall campaign, including adding more ads. In one such video, his anti-recall committee showed a document with some recall campaign proponents addresses on it. The committee, Stop The Right-Wing Recalls, soon sent a tweet on Twitter that prominently showed the Venice address of Schmidt, as well as others, like Ruderman’s.

This led to the incident Thursday night. At 8:30 P.M. that night, Schmidt was in her condo when her front glass door was smashed. She quickly called the LAPD, who responded to the attack. While police vowed to look for who did it, Schmidt immediately called out the anti-recall committee for giving out her home address and leaving her open to attacks like this.

“Their posting of my home address was intentionally reckless,” noted Schmidt during the weekend. “I think they’re intentionally trying to intimidate us and putting us in danger.”

However, the anti-recall campaign has denied any intent, saying that the address being highlighted in the ad in that manner was an error, as they had simply been trying to get documents together to try and find any right-wing funding behind the effort. Jesse Zwick, a spokesman for the anti-recall campaign, even pointed out that they had pulled the tweet days ago and put out a new one apologizing for disclosing personal information.

This thread was deleted and reposted because the original version inadvertently disclosed personal information. We regret the error.

— Stop the Right-Wing Recalls (@stop_recalls) September 15, 2021

The latest recall attempt in LA

The effort to recall Bonin is only the latest of numerous attempts to recall officials and lawmakers across California this year. Signature drives to recall Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon, San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin, and LA Councilwoman Nithya Raman were all defeated this year. However, recall proponents have kept hope alive due to Governor Gavin Newsom’s recall effort managing to make it to a statewide vote before being losing last week and 3 members of the San Francisco school board clinching enough signatures to go on the ballot sometime later this year or early next year.

Recent past successes, such as the 2020 recall against 2 Santa Cruz Council members for work misconduct, the 2018 recall of Senator Josh Newman over his support of a gas tax, and the 2018 recall of Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky for his lenient sentencing of rapists, have also helped push supporters to keep the effort alive.

“California is fortunate enough to let people decide if someone is doing a bad enough job whenever to boot them out of office before they can do more damage,” explained Alan Capshaw, a signature petition gathering advisor, to the Globe on Monday. “But when it gets personal rather than being kept political, like with the anti-recall effort putting their opponents addresses out in the open like that, bad things happen. We’re lucky it was a broken window this time. It could have been much, much worse.”

“We can’t say it was definitely because of it, because we honestly don’t know. But it would have been the easiest way to get the address, and the timing of the ad being out and the attack is suspect. Either way, it’s not a good look for Bonin.”

As of Monday, the LAPD are still looking for the suspect. They have also not determined if the attack was directly linked to the recall effort.

The post Leading Recall Proponent Against LA Councilman Mike Bonin Home Attacked appeared first on California Globe.

From the first state in the nation to offer prison inmates an all-vegan menu, California voters passed a ballot measure in 2018 mandating more living space for veal calves, cows and pigs, and banned the confinement of egg-laying hens in cages.

“America’s farmers and livestock producers have had enough of left-wing states like California imposing their radically clueless ideas on them and they’re taking their fight to Congress,” PJ Media reported.

They explain how:

“Senators Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-Kan.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), John Cornyn (R-Texas), and Cindy Hyde-Smith, (R-Miss.) were motivated to introduce new legislation called the Exposing Agricultural Trade Suppression Act (EATS Act) in order to counter California’s Proposition 12 (Prop 12).”

“Protect the Harvest reports the congressional legislation was ‘introduced in the U.S. Senate aimed at preventing states and local governments from interfering with agricultural interstate commerce.’ The EATS Act protects agricultural producers across the country from acts like California’s Prop 12, which requires livestock producers outside of California to conform to animal housing and other standards set by radical animal rights activists under the guise of ‘public health.’”

“It shouldn’t be up to California to tell other states how they should be producing their agricultural products,” Grassley told WNAX in an interview. “California is not only being unfair to its own consumers but to producers in other states and is likely violating the U.S. Constitution with Proposition 12.”

Yahoo reported in July that bacon may actually disappear in California because pork farmers can’t retool farms very easily to provide more space for hogs.

With Californians consuming more than 15% of all pork produced in the U.S., the “ban” could drive the cost of pork way up.

“It’s no surprise other states don’t like being forced to adhere to California’s left-wing laws,” PJ Media reported. “Mississippians don’t like the idea of liberal states like California imposing their radical ideas on us or dictating how our farmers and ranchers do their jobs,” said Hyde-Smith, who serves on the Senate Agriculture Committee. “I’m sure that’s the case from coast to coast.”

This latest ban clearly is not endearing Californians to the rest of the country. One commenter said, “Enjoy your Beggin Strips!” Another commenter went even further: “Enjoy your Beyond Meat fake bacon with cat-food ingredients.”

The post California’s War on Bacon Has Tempers Sizzling in Farming States appeared first on California Globe.

Another large “public safety power shutoff” spanning 10 counties was announced was announced by utility company Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) on Sunday, raising more questions about the company’s increased planned blackout plans and what they mean for residents.

According to the press release, the shutoff even will begin early Monday and will continue for as long as there is a major wildfire risk in the respective counties caused by high winds and dry conditions. In total, at least 10,000 will be affected in the counties of Colusa, Glenn, Kern, Lake, Napa, Santa Barbara, Shasta, Solano, Tehama, and Yolo, all located in Northern and Central California.

“The safety shutoff is due to dynamic weather conditions despite earlier rain activity,” read the PG&E press release on Sunday. “Due to changing weather conditions Sunday morning, PG&E was able to decrease customer impact, removing 10,000 customers from the Public Safety Power Shutoff scope.

“As a result of this wind event, combined with extreme to exceptional drought conditions and extremely dry vegetation, PG&E began sending one-day advance notifications on Sunday to customers in areas where PG&E may need to proactively turn off power for safety to reduce the risk of wildfire from energized power lines.”

Monday’s outage has become only the latest mass power outage to be caused by PG&E in the last several years. Ever since a faulty PG&E utility equipment started the Camp Fire in November 2018, causing the deaths of 85 people in the town of Paradise in Butte County and costing the company tens of billions in settlements and fines, PG&E has not been willing to risk another disastrous and costly fire caused by their equipment.

Power outage only latest in large planned blackouts since 2018

Large planned blackout across California in 2019 affected millions, left critical communication lines cut off, and left many vulnerable people alone without power. While PG&E quickly found fixes for many issues, such as allowing more emergency power equipment to be held at critical infrastructure hubs such as cell phone towers, large blackouts affected millions continued in 2020 as one of the companies main anti-wildfire measures. However, PG&E has continued to be blamed for many wildfires in the region, including the 2020 Kincade Fire.

In June, PG&E warned of even more planned power outage events than previous years due to the increasing fire risk. For many in Northern California, the outages this year have come at such a frequency that it is disrupting life numerous times a week. Many businesses across Northern California are also now struggling to stay open due to the increased power outages.

Michael Duncan, a local business leader who heads a small business coalition in a small town in San Mateo County, told the Globe on Monday that they cannot take much more of the outages.

“Power has become unreliable here,” explained Duncan. “They say that it is about wildfire reduction, but if the company did their job we wouldn’t have to worry as much about higher risk. But we do. And since we can’t stay open for long without power, we’re dealing with this fallout of having to close or not stay in contact long enough to function correctly. When the power is off, computers go down, most equipment can’t be used, and even if phones work, not enough business can really be done over them. We’re on the edge here.”

The California Globe contacted PG&E for comments, but the utility company did not reply back.

Affected residents, as well as those wanting to find out if they will be among those affected, can go to the PG&E alerts website. Power is expected to be returned to most affected places in the most recent outage sometime Monday afternoon or evening.

The post PG&E Declares Another Large-Scale Planned Power Outage for Monday appeared first on California Globe.

Last month, California ranked in 3-way tie for second worst of the 50 states in highest unemployment ranking in the United States, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. This month California ranks at 50th for highest unemployment in the U.S, only ahead of Nevada.

While most states remained fairly static from last month, California did improve very slightly from 7.6% to 7.5% unemployment.

The ten states with the highest unemployment are Democrat-run States:

The ten states with the lowest unemployment are Republican-led States:

Newly released data for August from the Bureau of Labor Statistics demonstrated that Republican Governors and legislatures are doing a more effective job of getting Americans back to work. The top states have very low unemployment, with Nebraska at the lowest at 2.2%.

The unemployment rates in Nebraska, South Dakota, Georgia, and Montana are lower or at the same level they were when the pandemic began. Seven states—Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming—did not issue orders directing residents to stay at home from nonessential activities in response to the coronavirus pandemic, Ballotpedia reported.

Jobs are rising and unemployment is lower in states with Red states largely because these states reopened early from the COVID lockdowns, or did not shut everything down. And these states are not paying residents to sit home and collect unemployment or welfare checks as California has done, right up to the recall election.

The RNC boiled down the BLS statistics even more:

• 2 Republican-led states – Idaho and Utah – have more jobs than when the pandemic hit.
• 22 Republican-led states have recovered at least two-thirds of their lost jobs.
• 2 Democrat-run states – Louisiana and Hawaii – have failed to recover even half the jobs lost due to the coronavirus pandemic.
• 17 Republican-led states have recovered at least three-fourths of their lost jobs.
• Only 5 Democrat-run states have recovered at least three-fourths of their lost jobs.

Only 14 Democrat-run states have recovered at least two-thirds of their lost jobs, according to BLS data, and the Foundation for Economic Freedom. “The system has offered many unemployed households the equivalent of $25/hour in benefits for staying home. As FEE reported, many conservative-leaning states that canceled the benefits early.

The post California Unemployment Rate Still Ranks Highest in U.S. appeared first on California Globe.

Recall gubernatorial candidate Larry Elder just issued a “thank you” video vowing he may be “bloody” but it “unbowed.”

Elder thanked everybody on his campaign team, the volunteers, and the people who showed up to his rallies.

Elder is a class act, and from the sound of his message, is undeterred and will be back. After all, “we have a state to save,” as he is known for saying.

The thank you video is also on his campaign website:

Video: Thank You from Larry

The post Larry Elder: ‘Bloody but Unbowed’ appeared first on California Globe.

According to a new report from the State Auditor’s office released on Thursday, California has been so slow in releasing federal pandemic rental aid that they may lose up to $337 million if more money isn’t obligated to renters at the end of the month.

The report, submitted directly by State Auditor Elaine Howle, pointed directly to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) not divesting Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) funds fast enough. ERAP, which was approved by Congress in December of last year, established 2 rounds of funding for states in 2021. Rules for the funding means that the money needs to be obligated for rental assistance programs that help eliminate existing debt and future rent and utility payments.

However, federal law states that non-obligated funds can be “recaptured” by the U.S. Treasury, with those funds then given to other federal grantees. All funds then must be spent by September 30, 2022.

According to the state auditor’s office, The HCD only has obligated around $1.4 billion of it’s federal round 1 funding, or 81% in total. $337 million is currently being left on the table, with the obligation due date of September 30, 2021 rapidly approaching. Even more dire is that the delays mean that the state may also miss the next round of funding, which is specified by ERAP to help renters avoid eviction.

“HCD remains at risk of losing federal funds, and it must employ every effort possible to increase its amount of funds obligated before the federal deadline of September 30, 2021,” the Auditor’s report found. “Since its first report to the Legislature on June 4, 2021, HCD’s data indicate substantial progress in the amount it has obligated and the amount paid for rental assistance. Through September 8, 2021, HCD’s data show that it has increased its obligated amount to more than $1.4 billion, or 81 percent of its $1.8 billion in allocated funds from Treasury.

“Therefore, HCD is eligible for reallocated funds from Treasury after September 30, 2021. However, it continues to be important that HCD obligate as much of the $1.8 billion as possible so that the State is in the best position to potentially receive additional federal funds for rental assistance. Specifically, if HCD does not obligate any funds beyond this 81 percent by September 30, 2021, it may lose up to $337 million of its remaining unobligated funds.”

“Because it interprets federal law differently, HCD disagrees with our conclusion that there is risk that Treasury will recapture any of its Round 1 ERAP funds beginning September 30, 2021.”

HCD Director Gustavo Velasquez responded to the audit saying that the HCD is unlikely to lose such funding because it has already allocated at least 65% of the funding and that it allows them to get back reallocated funds and that it has appropriately been in discussion with the Treasury. However, the HCD also asked the State Auditor’s not to release the report until October 1st.

In response, the State Auditor’s office has maintained that the HCD is still in serious risk of losing the $337 million in unspent funds. Auditor Howle also wrote to Governor Gavin Newsom, advising him of the probable loss of housing assistance funds.

“Given the narrow time frame set by the federal government, we wanted to impress upon you the need for continued attention in order to minimize the risk and the amount of funds the state could lose beginning September 30, 2021,” Howle said in a letter to the Governor.

Experts have noted that the delays are very worrisome, as the $337 million left untouched could hurt California and Californians in both the short and long term.

“The HCD is acting like this is no big deal, but the Auditor’s Office is absolutely right that this is worrisome,” explained corporate financial advisor Jim Dunhill to the Globe on Friday. “They’re leaving money on the table and expecting it to still be there when they get back to it. It doesn’t work like that. It needs to be allocated now or else California loses out on a lot of needed money.”

Allocation of round 1 funding is due by September 30th.

The post California May Lose As Much As $337 Million In Federal Pandemic Rental Aid According To State Auditor’s Office appeared first on California Globe.

In a new report from Sacramento’s ABC10 News, business owners along the Broadway corridor in downtown Sacramento were interviewed about the daily crime and vandalism by homeless vagrants. The report is really devastating.

“’They s*** all over the place. Right here, right in front of my door,’ explained liquor store owner Dharmendra Ram, pointing to various areas on the sidewalk in front of the store.”

The most recent Monthly Sacramento Police Department Chief’s Report from August supports the ABC10 report. “The statistics show us that violence continues to be a major concern,” SacPD Lieutenant Brian Kinney said in his report to the city and residents. “It should be noted these increased trends are not unique to Sacramento. Most, if not all, major cities throughout the country have seen increases in violent crime.”

Here’s just the August numbers:

Shooting Reports: 43.6 % Increase

Number of Victims Shot: 35.2 % Increase

Our officers continue to do great work and make proactive arrests.

Arrests for Possession of Firearm: 68.5 % Increase

Numbers of Reports with Firearm Seized: 58.7 % Increase

Total Number of Firearms Seized: 46 % Increase

Kinney included several notable investigations and arrests by the officers working in the community:

On 8/30/21, in response to thefts in the area, bait equipment was deployed in the 900 block of Broadway. Shortly after deployment, the bait was stolen. Officers were able to locate the subject and safely take him into custody and recover the bait equipment.

On 9/6/21, officers responded to the 3800 block of Franklin Blvd on the report of a subject waving a firearm. Based on a description provided by witnesses, responding officers located the subject in the area. Officers attempted to stop the vehicle the subject was in, however, the subject failed to pull over and led officers on a lengthy pursuit. The subject ultimately pulled over after losing a wheel and officers were able to take him into custody without further incident. A search incident to arrest revealed a loaded handgun.

On 9/9/21, officers from the Gang Enforcement Team served a search warrant at a location in the 5900 block of Lake Crest Way. During the search, officers located four firearms, multiple high capacity magazines and illegal narcotics to include cocaine, methamphetamine, and oxy pills. One person was arrested in connection with the illegal items seized.

Housing First Rather than Diagnosis and Treatment

“Currently, the largest challenge facing Sacramento is homelessness. District 4 has responded by opening a fully staffed Safe Ground site for tent camping along with safe parking at WX, as well as another Safe Parking site nearby at Miller Park,” City Councilwoman Katie Valenzuela reports this on her Council District 4 website. “These sites are certainly a tremendous step in the right direction, but we are looking for other sites as well to accommodate the significant demand for these kinds of services.”

The Sacramento City Council is focused solely on the “Right to Housing” for the homeless rather than working on the causes. There is no talk of the serious drug addiction and mental illness that lands the homeless vagrants on the streets and what they suffer from, and how to get them off the streets into treatment. The Safe Ground tent camps Councilwoman Valenzuela names are located in residential areas, near businesses.

A friend and neighbor who lives in the Land Park neighborhood near Broadway says she and her neighbors are subjected to nearly nightly break-ins, violent encounters, thefts, robberies, car thefts, and murders, and now suffer from PTSD, never knowing when and where the next violent encounter will take place.

Home prices in the Land Park neighborhood range from $500,000 up to over $2 million.

The Sacramento Police Department issues a weekly report for the City Council (below). “The information provided allows for a timely snapshot of significant events in our community,” the report says. “The crimes reported here are preliminary investigations, taken in the field by patrol officers, and may or may not be assigned to a Detective for further investigation.”

These are rough numbers of the incidents included in this week’s report:

1 Homicide

6 Shooting investigations

17 Gun arrests

3 Death Investigations

4 Incidents of resisting arrest or assault on a peace officer

1 Demonstration

1 Fatal vehicle collision

SacPD includes photos of the weapons, drugs and cash with the reports.

In my own COUNCIL DISTRICT 4, which includes downtown Sacramento continuing to immediately south of downtown, these are just a few of the crime and arrest reports for one week:

• Thursday, September 9, 2021 – 500 Block of Capitol Ave – Demonstration Officers monitored a demonstration of approximately 50 subjects. No incidents were reported.
• Friday, September 10, 2021 – K St and 16th St – Traffic Stop and Vehicle Collision An officer attempted to conduct an enforcement stop on a vehicle. The vehicle fled and collided into multiple parked vehicles and eventually a building. The driver sustained serious injuries and was transported to a hospital for treatment. Due to the treatment needed, an arrest warrant will be sought for the driver.
• Saturday, September 11, 2021 – J St and 2nd St – Traffic Stop and Gun Arrest An officer conducted an enforcement stop on a vehicle. During the investigation, a firearm was located. The occupant was arrested for weapons violations.
• Saturday, September 11, 2021 – 400 Block of I St – Disturbance and Resisting Arrest Officers responded to a report of a subject causing a disturbance in the area. Officers contacted the described subject who was found to have a felony warrant. As officers attempted to take the subject into custody into custody, he physically resisted. Eventually officers were able to detain the subject who was arrested for the warrant and resisting officers. One officer sustained minor injuries during the incident.
• Sunday, September 12, 2021 – 6000 Block of Riverside Blvd – Shooting Investigation Officers responded to a report of a shooting. There were residences in the area that appeared to have been struck by gunfire however no injuries were reported. Officers canvassed the area for evidence and witnesses. A crime report was generated.

The post Sacramento Crime Stats Soar as Violent Homeless Crimes Push Business Owners to Brink appeared first on California Globe.

On September 16, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 9 by Sen. Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), which would extend the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. It is Chapter 162.

Section One of the bill adds Section 65852.21 to the Government Code to specify that a proposed housing development containing no more than two residential units within a single-family residential zone is considered ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing, if the proposed housing development meets all of the following requirements:

• The parcel subject to the proposed housing development is located within a city, the boundaries of which include some portion of either an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, or, for unincorporated areas, a legal parcel wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau.
• The parcel satisfies certain requirements specified in existing law.
• The proposed housing development would not require demolition or alteration of housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income; housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power; or housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.
• The parcel subject to the proposed housing development is not a parcel on which an owner of residential real property has exercised the owner’s rights to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease within 15 years before the date that the development proponent submits an application.
• The proposed housing development does not allow the demolition of more than 25 percent of the existing exterior structural walls, unless a local ordinance so allows or the site has not been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.
• The development is not located within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance.

In addition, a local agency may impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards that do not conflict with this section. However, the local agency is prohibited from imposing objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of up to two units or that would physically preclude either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area.

Moreover, no setback can be required for an existing structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure. However, a local agency may require a setback of up to four feet from the side and rear lot lines.

A local agency may require certain conditions when considering an application for two residential units, such as off-street parking of up to one space per unit or a percolation test for units connected to an onsite wastewater treatment system. Moreover, a local agency may deny a proposed housing development project if the building official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. A local agency is required to ensure that a rental of any unit created pursuant to this section be for a term longer than 30 days.

Section Two of the bill adds Section 66411.7 to the Government Code to require a local agency to ministerially approve, as set forth in this section, a parcel map for an urban lot split only if the local agency determines that the parcel map for the urban lot split meets all the following requirements:

• The parcel map subdivides an existing parcel to create no more than two new parcels of approximately equal lot area provided that one parcel is not be smaller than 40 percent of the lot area of the original parcel proposed for subdivision.
• Both newly created parcels are no smaller than 1,200 square feet; however, a local agency may by ordinance adopt a smaller minimum lot size subject to ministerial approval under this subdivision.
• The parcel being subdivided meets all the following requirements:
  • The parcel is located within a single-family residential zone.
  • The parcel subject to the proposed urban lot split is located within a city, the boundaries of which include some portion of either an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, or, for unincorporated areas, a legal parcel wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau.
  • The parcel satisfies the specified requirements of existing law.
  • The proposed urban lot split would not require demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing:
    • Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income.
    • Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.
    • A parcel or parcels on which an owner of residential real property has exercised the owner’s rights to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease within 15 years before the date that the development proponent submits an application.
    • Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.
  • The parcel is not located within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance.
  • The parcel has not been established through prior exercise of an urban lot split as provided for in this section.
  • Neither the owner of the parcel being subdivided nor any person acting in concert with the owner has previously subdivided an adjacent parcel using an urban lot split as provided for in this section.

In addition, an application for a parcel map for an urban lot split must be approved in accordance with specified requirements including:

• A local agency must approve or deny an application for a parcel map for an urban lot split ministerially without discretionary review.
• A local agency must approve an urban lot split only if it conforms to all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
• A local agency cannot impose regulations that require dedications of rights-of-way or the construction of offsite improvements for the parcels being created as a condition of issuing a parcel map for an urban lot split pursuant to this section.

Nonetheless, a local agency may impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards applicable to a parcel created by an urban lot split that do not conflict with this section. However, a local agency cannot impose standards that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of two units on either of the resulting parcels or that would result in a unit size of less than 800 square feet.

In addition, not setback can be required for an existing structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure. In specified instances, however, a local agency may require a setback of up to four feet from the side and rear lot lines.

A local agency may deny an urban lot split if the building official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.

In addition to any conditions established in accordance with this section, a local agency may require any of the following conditions when considering an application for a parcel map for an urban lot split:

• Easements required for the provision of public services and facilities.
• A requirement that the parcels have access to, provide access to, or adjoin the public right-of-way.
• Off-street parking of up to one space per unit, except that a local agency cannot impose parking requirements in specified instances.

A local agency must require that the uses allowed on a lot created by this section be limited to residential uses. A local agency must also require an applicant for an urban lot split to sign an affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of three years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split.

These provisions do not apply to an applicant that is a “community land trust,” or a “qualified nonprofit corporation.” A local agency is prohibited from imposing additional owner occupancy standards, other than provided for in this subdivision, on an urban lot split. A local agency must require that a rental of any unit created pursuant to this section be for a term longer than 30 days. A local agency is prohibited from requiring, as a condition for ministerial approval of a parcel map application for the creation of an urban lot split, the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions.

Nonetheless, a local agency cannot be required to permit more than two units on a parcel created through the exercise of the authority contained within this section. This section also defines the terms “unit,” “objective zoning standards,” “objective subdivision standards,” “objective design review standards,” and “local agency.”

Section Three of the bill amends Section 66452.6 of the Government Code to double to 24 months the amount of an additional period of time by a local ordinance for an approved or conditionally approved tentative map’s expiration after its approval.

Section Four of the bill make a legislative finding and declaration that ensuring access to affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern and not a municipal affair therefore provisions of this act apply to all cities, including charter cities.

The post Housing Development Zoning Under SB 9 appeared first on California Globe.

On September 16, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 8 by Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), which would extend the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. It is Chapter 161.

Section One of the bill amends Section 65589.5 of the Government Code to extend from 2025 to 2030 the definitions of “deemed complete, “objective,” and “determined to be complete.” It also extends from 2025 to 2030 the provision related to a local agency requiring or attempting to requiring a housing development project to comply with an ordinance, policy, or standard not adopted and in effect when a preliminary application was submitted.

In addition, the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) is amended to specify that it does not prohibit a housing development project for affordable housing from being subject to ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the preliminary application was submitted if the project has not commenced construction within 3.5 years. “Affordable housing project” is defined as a housing development that satisfies these requirements: Units within the development are subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years, and all of the units within the development, excluding managers’ units, are dedicated to lower income households. Finally, it extends the HAA from 2025 to 2034.

Section Two of the bill amends Section 65905.5 of the Government Code to expand the definition of “hearing” to include any appeals. The bill also adds the following definitions of “housing development project” to the existing single definition of the term: Includes, but is not limited to, projects that involve no discretionary approvals and projects that involve both discretionary and nondiscretionary approvals, as well as a proposal to construct a single dwelling unit.

In addition, the bill adds that the receipt of a density bonus including any incentives, concessions, or waivers do not constitute a valid basis on which to find that a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.

This section of the law also specifies that it applies to a housing development project that submits a preliminary application before January 1, 2030. Finally, the bill says that these amendments do not constitute a change in, but are declaratory of, existing law. However, the amendments to this section do not affect a project for which an application was submitted to the city, county, or city and county before January 1, 2022.

Section Three of the bill amends Section 65913.10 of the Government Code to extend this section of law from 2025 to 2030.

Sections Four and Five of the bill amends Section 65940 of the Government Code to clarify that a “development project” includes a housing development project.

Section Six of the bill amends Section 65941.1 of the Government Code to extend this section of law from 2025 to 2030.

Section Seven of the bill amends Section 65943 of the Government Code to clarify that a “development project” includes a housing development project and to extend this section of law from 2025 to 2030.

Section Nine of the bill amends Section 65950 of the Government Code to extend this section of law from 2025 to 2030.

Section Eleven of the bill amends Section 66300 of the Government Code to modify the prohibition on an affected county or affected city from reducing the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land use designation by changing “less intensive” to “reducing the intensity of land use” and by changing “lessen the intensity of housing” to “individually or cumulatively reduce the site’s residential development capacity.”

This section also provides that any existing occupants that are required to leave their units must be allowed to return at their prior rental rate if the demolition does not proceed and the property is returned to the rental market. Moreover, the right of first refusal for comparable units does not apply to (1) a development project that consists of a single residential unit located on a site where a single protected unit is being demolished and (2) units in a housing development in which 100 percent of the units, exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, are reserved for lower income households. It also defines the term “comparable unit.”

In addition, this section adds the following definitions: “affordable housing cost,” “affordable rent,” “persons and families of low or moderate income,” and “lower income households” by cross-referencing the definitions already contained in specified sections of the Health and Safety Code. This subdivision also does not apply to a housing development project for which an application was submitted after January 1, 2019, but prior to January 1, 2020, in a jurisdiction with a population of under 31,000 as of the 2020 United States Census that has a rent or price control ordinance. The term “concurrently” is also defined as the action being approved at the same meeting of the legislative body.

Section Twelve of the bill amends Section 66301 of the Government Code to specify that the chapter only applies to a housing development project that submits a preliminary application before January 1, 2030. It also extends the effective date of the chapter from 2025 to 2034, and provides a legislative intent statement that this section is intended to ensure that a housing development project that submits a preliminary application before January 1, 2030 remains subject to this chapter after January 1, 2030.

Section Thirteen of the bill amends Chapter 654 of the Statutes of 2019 to amend the legislative findings and declarations to extend the declaration of a statewide housing emergency to be in effect until January 1, 2030.

Sections Fourteen, Fifteen and Sixteen contain double-jointing language regarding several sections of the bill.

The post Extending the ‘Housing Crisis Act’ with SB 8 appeared first on California Globe.

California Supreme Court Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar announced on Thursday that he will be leaving next month following Governor Gavin Newsom’s recall election victory earlier this month.

Due to leave on October 31st, Cuellar announced that he will become president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace  international affairs think tank in Washington, D.C.

Cuellar was born in Matamoros, Mexico in 1972. His family immigrated into the U.S. early in his life, with Cuellar becoming a naturalized citizen while in Calexico, California. Following graduating with a Baccalaureate from Harvard University in 1993, A law degree from Yale in 1997, and a Doctorate from Stanford in 2000, as well as short stints working for U.S. Senators and for the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, Cuellar began clerking for Appellate Court Judge Mary Schroeder. In 2001, Cuellar then joined the faculty of Stanford University, where he worked for the next 14 years, minus a few short stints working for the Obama administration in Washington.

In 2015, then-Governor Jerry Brown elevated him to the State Supreme Court, replacing outgoing Justice Martin Baxter. Seen as an unusual choice due to his purely academic background, Cuellar nonetheless received high recommendation remarks from nomination committees. For the last 6 years, he has been among the more liberal judges on the Supreme Court and has been seen as something of a reliable vote for lefter-leaning judicial interpretations.

“I have been fortunate to serve the people of California for nearly seven years on our highest court, a distinction I could not have imagined when I first arrived here as a high school student in the Imperial Valley,” said Justice Cuellar in a statement on Thursday. “The court has tried to provide impartial justice in a vast and diverse state while safeguarding freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. I plan to apply some of the insights rooted in my experience in California as it endeavors to address our most pressing global challenges to the Carnegie Endowment.”

Governor Newsom also gave a statement of his own on Thursday, thanking the Justice for his time as well as outlining who he may be picking in the next few months.

“I’ll be looking forward to considering several highly qualified candidates in the coming months,” noted Governor Newsom in a statement thanking Cuellar for his service. “I’ll be drawing from a broad, experienced pool of candidates that reflects all aspects of the state’s diversity – a core tenet the administration works to advance at all levels of state government.”

Cuellar leaving the Court for a think tank

Experts note that, despite the Endowment search for a new President likely having been in the works for several months, the timing of the Justice’s announcement shortly after the Governor’s recall victory on Tuesday was likely not a coincidence.

“Cuellar was waiting on seeing who was going to win in the recall,” said San Francisco lawyer Judith Bledsoe to the Globe on Friday. “If Elder had won, he would have picked someone more right-leaning, and Cuellar, who is very liberal, would not have stood for that.”

“Newsom will likely be picking another Latino to replace him, that or another left-leaning judge in California. So with the court now ‘safe,’ Cuellar found a way out. It always seemed like he didn’t want to be on the court and had preferred academia. You see this with a lot of law professors who make a foray into courts, get elected or appointed as a judge and shortly afterwards realize that it was nothing like they expected. Six years was on the longer side of a decision like that, but his term wasn’t ending until 2027 either, so it wasn’t like he was always planning to stay through it all. Just another judge who got selected in directly from a University who couldn’t hack it and wanted to get back into the more comfortable world.”

Governor is expected to start reviewing possible candidates soon. It will be his second appointment to the California Supreme Court following the appointment of Justice Martin Jenkins last year.

The post State Supreme Court Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar To Leave Court On October 31st appeared first on California Globe.

Yet another elected politician who has issued mask wearing and vaccination mandates has violated her own policy. “Music fans at San Francisco’s Black Cat nightclub in the Tenderloin, many of them maskless — including Mayor London Breed — were treated to a surprise reunion by one of the Bay Area’s most popular R&B acts on Wednesday, Sept. 15,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Yet another politician is failing at her own political theater. Mayor Breed has mandated “the wearing of well-fitted masks for all individuals, including fully vaccinated persons, Proof of full vaccination at restaurants, bars, clubs, theaters, and entertainment venues, gyms, recreation facilities, yoga studios, dance studios, and large indoor events and indoor mega events.”

Who can forget Salongate in September 2020 when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was caught on security cameras visiting a San Francisco hair salon for a wash and blow-out, despite Gov. Gavin Newsom’s statewide business lockdown orders, and strict local ordinances specifically targeting hair and nail salon closures, as well as other “non-essential” businesses during the coronavirus pandemic.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom still has not lived down being caught mask-less attending a birthday dinner in November 2020 at the famed Michelin-starred restaurant, The French Laundry in Yountville, while he locked the state down, ordered businesses and schools closed, social distancing and mask mandates, California Globe reported.

Proving just how arbitrary his lock downs were, the governor allowed strip clubs and bath houses to remain open.

More recently, former President Barack Obama threw himself a huge 60th birthday bash at his Martha’s Vineyard estate, entertaining 300-400 guests, despite haranguing Americans to mask-up, get the vaccine and stay away from large events. The Daily Mail reported 74 people on Martha’s Vineyard tested positive for COVID-19 following the former President’s bash, which some have nicknamed “the Obama variant.”

A viral video was shared thousands of times in Late August of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at a large Napa Valley Democrat fundraiser. Only the servers and waiters were wearing masks. “The footage appeared to show dozens of unmasked people seated elbow to elbow at long luncheon tables as Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave a speech and masked waiters ambled between the listeners,” the New York Post reported. Guests wined and dined while Pelosi spoke. They sat mask-less at long tables close to each other as masked waiters served them.

Stay home. Close your business. Avoid family and friends. Keep your kids home. No socializing. Wear a mask at all times. Those were the orders from California’s political class to the state’s residents last year. And keep your “non-essential” business closed.

London Breed also dined at the French Laundry, but it was the night after Newsom’s infamous, ill-advised, mid-pandemic soiree at the three-star Michelin restaurant in Yountville, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton last year violated state and county COVID-19 regulations when she hosted a wedding at her home. The dozens of people from different households violated local and state gathering laws, especially since Contra Costa County was being specifically monitored for higher COVID-19 rates in early August 2020.

San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo broke similar restrictions in November 2020 over a Thanksgiving meal when he spent Thanksgiving with 7 relatives from 5 households at an outdoor gathering in Saratoga, despite California Department of Public Health mandates prohibiting all gatherings with more than three households. “This is a private event – not public,” said Jim Reed, Liccardo’s Chief of Staff.  “We are going to redraw the line between what is personal and what is public because that line has become blurred.”

Even the strict total indoor and outdoor restaurant dining ban that stretched from November 2020 until January 2021 caught some notable violators like Los Angeles County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl. The former Senator had no problem fear mongering earlier in the day: “This is a serious health emergency and we must take it seriously,” Kuehl said. “The servers are not protected from us, and they’re not protected from their other tables that they’re serving at that particular time, plus all the hours in which they’re working.” Keuhl was dining at a Santa Monica restraunt.

We learned last year gyms located inside of government buildings in San Francisco were kept open for months early in the lockdown, despite privately owned gyms and fitness centers ordered closed because of Gov. Newsom’s business lockdown over coronavirus.

Central Coast Congressional Candidate Andy Caldwell reported to the Globe during the same period of time in 2020, that the Santa Barbara Unified School District allowed the children of teachers and district employees to return to in-class learning, in a secret carve-out exemption at Franklin, McKinley, and other elementary schools in the district.

None of the politicians telling you to worry about coronavirus are actually worried about coronavirus; their actions tell us so. It is evident that politicians aren’t that concerned with COVID, but are interested in returning to life before lockdowns, masks and social distancing. But not for the people.

Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, after demanding people wear two masks, admitted in an interview recently with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos “even being a fully vaccinated person, the chances of my getting infected in an indoor setting is extremely low, and that’s the reason why in indoor settings now I feel comfortable about not wearing a mask because I’m fully vaccinated.”

“You’ve been vaccinated and you parade around in two masks for show. You can’t get it again,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said in a hearing to Fauci, calling Fauci’s masking and double masking “theater.”

“There’s virtually 0% percent chance you’re going to get it, and you’re telling people that have had the vaccine who have immunity — you’re defying everything we know about immunity by telling people to wear masks who have been vaccinated,” Paul said.

As for Mayor Breed, she “emphasized, however, that she tests for COVID-19 often and said ‘at the end of the day, everyone who comes in here has to show proof of vaccination. That gives me a lot of reassurance,’” the Chronicle reported.

“I’ve been very careful, not just because I want to set an example but because I don’t want to get COVID. I also want to make sure that I’m not someone transmitting COVID to other people,” she said. “This entire pandemic has been focused on keeping people safe.”

Never mind that her own orders require “well-fitted masks for all individuals, including fully vaccinated persons.”

The post Maskless S.F. Mayor London Breed Caught at Indoor Jazz Club with Maskless Fans appeared first on California Globe.

Governor Gavin Newsom signed several bills on Thursday designed to increase housing, speed up the process to approve multi-family housing, and to alter the approval process for new housing.

In total, Newsom signed the following 4 bills:

Senate Bill 8 – Authored by Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) – Extends the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 for more housing production. SB 8 also drastically limits relocation benefits for residents from units whose buildings are being demolished or vacated in certain districts. Numerous building exemptions are also given in favor of lower-cost housing units.

Senate Bill 9 – Authored by Senator Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) – Makes it easier for large lots to be split for new housing, including being exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and California Coastal Act hearings, as well as more easily conforming to local zoning laws.

Senate Bill 10 – Authored by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) – Will allow multiple unit housing to be placed on single-family and other zoned areas without CEQA approval as long as they are near transit or high traffic areas. Not all land would be covered under the bill for development, with the bill specifically prohibiting development on publicly owned land or re-designated publicly owned land for park or recreational purposes.

Assembly Bill 1174 – (Authored by Assemblyman Tim Grayson (D-Concord) – Makes changes to the existing streamlined, ministerial approval process for housing development in jurisdictions that have not yet made enough progress towards their allocation of their regional housing needs, especially with permit applications.

Support for, Opposition against the housing bills

Support for and opposition against the housing bills varied wildly. While AB 1174 had unanimous support for it, SB 8,9, and 10 had  Republicans and Democrats both joining each other in favor and against the bills, being bipartisan on both sides. In the end, the greater need for affordable housing and the reduced number of regulations won most lawmakers over, including Governor Newsom who ultimately passed the bill.

“The housing affordability crisis is undermining the California Dream for families across the state, and threatens our long-term growth and prosperity,” said Governor Newsom in a statement on Thursday. “Making a meaningful impact on this crisis will take bold investments, strong collaboration across sectors and political courage from our leaders and communities to do the right thing and build housing for all.”

While each author celebrated their bill being passed, Senator Wiener  was perhaps most excited due to trying to pass his bill for the last several years, including last years controversial, and ultimately failed, SB 50. While SB 10 was an extremely watered down version of SB 50 to appease both Democratic and Republican opponents, he still chalked it up as a win on Thursday.

“California’s severe housing shortage is badly damaging our state, and we need many approaches to tackle it,” noted Senator Wiener on Thursday. “SB 10 provides one important approach: making it dramatically easier and faster for cities to zone for more housing. It shouldn’t take five or 10 years for cities to re-zone, and SB 10 gives cities a powerful new tool to get the job done quickly. I want to thank the Governor for signing this essential bill and for continuing to lead on housing.”

Gov. @GavinNewsom just signed our housing legislation — #SB10 — to make it much easier/faster for cities to zone for small multi-unit homes.

SB 10 streamlines the process for cities to re-zone for density in non-sprawl areas.

Big step in our fight for housing.

Thx, Governor!

— Senator Scott Wiener (@Scott_Wiener) September 16, 2021

Groups in favor of more housing also noted their approval of all the passed bills, including many YIMBY groups who had been pushing for more housing legislation since the housing crisis first began to become apparent last decade.

“Governor Newsom came into office with a strong commitment to ending California’s housing shortage and affordability crisis, and with his signature on this package of bills today, he has made major progress toward honoring that commitment,” said Brian Hanlon, CEO of California YIMBY. “The end of exclusionary, single-unit zoning in California is a historic moment — we’ve taken a huge step toward making California a more affordable, equitable, and inclusive state.”

However, while largely seen as positive, many warned that the bills could have several negative factors and that developers and cities could easily skirt around the new laws and keep large parts of their cities firmly single-family.

New bills may not have as large an impact as supports say they will

“It looks like a sweeping change, but if you know California, it really isn’t,” explained Martin Schules, a housing and mixed-use developer who left California two years ago to focus on developments in Nevada,  Arizona, and New Mexico.  “CEQA is down for a lot of these projects, which is a good start, but the real trouble are local laws. Los Angeles alone has a ton of local laws that really makes it hard to build affordable multi-family developments. Laws on the books require parking spots, common space, and green space. Even if you build parking underground, which is very expensive, you still have a lot of wasted development space. This bill does nothing to address those.”

“Basically the state legislature is putting in all of these laws aiming to be more public transit friendly, but local laws keep allowing for cars. The state legislature is thinking like New York City and is assuming everyone wants to take the metro or bus or other service like that, but aren’t even looking at the laws that require parking, that encourage cars, and other similar factors. So it just makes the entire situation more messy. No one is coordinating on this.”

“It’s why the only things being built have been higher end apartments. It’s because it’s the only way developers could make back their money with all of those local regulations in place. Even with these new laws, developers lose money with most lower-cost unit focused developments.”

“What we’re are going to see are single family lot owners and homeowners grow more bold and try and declare more places historical,” Schules said. “This is something they mentioned in the bills as being exempted, but really cities have known about this for decades to discourage new developments. Every wonder why Californian cities have so many protected historical districts, have so many individual houses and districts on protected lists, and have so many town hall debates over the historical status of properties? It isn’t all about preservation and history. If your home is protected, it’s safe from redevelopment.”

“There have been a lot of arguments over preserving two story business flats from the 70’s, and architectural dead age, just to stop developments. At the very least, historical reasons can delay projects for years. If you have gone to any city council meeting in a larger city in the last few years, you have likely seen at least a few of these come up, especially on historical status. These bills just made building new developments 100% worse because of the historical building exemptions and the loopholes for them remaining in place. It’s pushing any low-cost, multifamily housing to either in poorer areas of the city near mass transit lines, which Wiener wanted anyway, or makes it even easier to not have low-cost housing in the city as much. Anything built in the strong NIMBY cities will be mostly high-income units with a few affordable thrown in to appease the city government and local laws.”

“These bills did not stop NIMBY cities. If anything, it strengthened them today.”

Other bills awaiting approval by the Governor are expected to be decided on soon.

The post Governor Newsom Signs 4 Bills Designed To Boost Housing Numbers appeared first on California Globe.

On September 16, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 10 (D- San Francisco) related to housing development and local zoning ordinances. It is Chapter 163.

Section One of the bill adds Section 65913.5 to the Government Code to provide that, despite any local restrictions on adopting zoning ordinances enacted by the jurisdiction that limit the legislative body’s ability to adopt zoning ordinances, a local government may adopt an ordinance to zone a parcel for up to 10 units of residential density per parcel, at a height specified by the local government in the ordinance, if the parcel is located in either a transit-rich area or an urban infill site.

However, a local government is prohibited from adopting an ordinance pursuant to this new law on or after January 1, 2029. An ordinance adopted in accordance with this new law, as well as any resolution to amend the jurisdiction’s General Plan, does not constitute a project under CEQA.

Nonetheless, this new section of law does not apply to parcels located within a very high fire hazard severity zone or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone. Nor does it apply to any local restriction enacted or approved by a local initiative that designates publicly owned land as open-space land, or for park or recreational purposes.

This new section of law requires a legislative body to comply with the following provisions when adopting a zoning ordinance under this new statute:

• The zoning ordinance must include a declaration that the zoning ordinance is adopted pursuant to this section.
• The zoning ordinance must clearly demarcate the areas that are zoned pursuant to this section.
• The legislative body must make a finding that the increased density authorized by the ordinance is consistent with the city or county’s obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.
• If the ordinance supersedes any zoning restriction established by a local initiative, the ordinance can only take effect if adopted by a two-thirds vote of the members of the legislative body.

In addition, a residential or mixed-use residential project consisting of more than 10 new residential units on one or more parcels that are zoned pursuant to an ordinance adopted under this section cannot be approved ministerially or by right and is not be exempt from CEQA.

Moreover, this new provision of law does not apply to a project located on a parcel or parcels that are zoned pursuant to an ordinance adopted under this section, but subsequently rezoned without regard to this section. The creation of up to two accessory dwelling units and two junior accessory dwelling units per parcel does not count towards the total number of units of a residential or mixed-use residential project when determining if the project may be approved ministerially or by right.

Additionally, a project may not be divided into smaller projects in order to exclude the project from the prohibition in this subdivision. And, an ordinance adopted pursuant to this section cannot reduce the density of any parcel subject to the ordinance, nor can a legislative body that adopts a zoning ordinance pursuant to this section subsequently reduce the density of any parcel subject to the ordinance.

This new section of law also defines the following terms: “high-quality bus corridor” (meaning a corridor with fixed route bus service that meets specified criteria), “transit-rich area” (meaning a parcel within one-half mile of a major transit stop or a parcel on a high-quality bus corridor), “urban infill site” that meets specified criteria.

Finally, the Legislature finds and declares that provision of adequate housing, in light of the severe shortage of housing at all income levels in this state, is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair and, as a result, this section applies to all cities, including charter cities.

The post Gov. Newsom Signs Sen. Wiener’s Housing Density Legislation appeared first on California Globe.

Rose McGowan changed America. In a country of 330 million people, a select few will be remembered for having had a profound effect on the culture we live in and how America treats various injustices. Rose is already affectionately remembered by her fans in her various Hollywood roles, whether as the witch Paige Matthews in Charmed, Tatum Riley in Wes Craven’s slasher classic Scream or the villainous and vapid Courtney Shayne in Jawbreaker.

But Rose’s reality will be remembered long after her performances become relics of Hollywood’s past. Rose has been and continues to fight the Hollywood establishment that fostered her own trauma.

In 2017, McGowan broke her silence regarding her rape and helped land a kill shot on Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein. The details of Rose’s experience have been chronicled extensively. Her traumatic experience allegedly occurred in 1997 at the Sundance Film Festival in Weinstein’s suite, a situation which Rose describes in her memoir Brave as a nightmare with “The Pig Monster.” After 20 years of relative silence, her rejection of Hollywood brewing in the meantime, Rose sat down with ABC’s nightline. The interview, occurring mere months after the bombshell reporting of Ronan Farrow and just days after the 2018 Golden Globes, found McGowan targeting not only her assailant, but the machine in Hollywood that supported him. When ABC noted the people Rose was fighting against were powerful, she memorably replied, “So am I.” She continues this fight against Hollywood today, telling the Globe “Hollywood is finished. No one in the outside world glorifies or likes it.”

More than ninety other women joined Rose in accusing Weinstein. Due to the statute of limitations, Weinstein cannot be held criminally liable for what happened with McGowan but she has received near unanimous support in the court of public opinion, save some Hollywood production elites.

McGowan became one of the most crucial people in changing the way society looks at workplace sexual harassment and assault, which ultimately led to a slew of other powerful men being held accountable for their actions. However, the most profound thing Rose was able to accomplish was the apocalypse she unleashed on Hollywood and the American obsession that glorifies it. While commonly misunderstood as some “fiery doomsday”, the word apocalypse originates with the meaning of “Lifting the veil”, which is exactly what McGowan accomplished. As she told the Globe, “When the Oscars flopped this year, I congratulated myself on a job well done.” As this column has pointed out dozens of times, Hollywood is full of sycophant hypocrites. People are realizing it and ratings of insufferable self-congratulatory ego fests like the awards shows reflect that reality.

Juxtaposing these hypocrites in Hollywood, who attach their names to various causes in order to promote themselves, with a true activist like Rose McGowan paints a stark contrast. McGowan channeled her trauma into genuine activism. This activism came at great personal cost which real activism typically does. She took out her bullhorn and refuses to shut up no matter the cost. “I’m a deprogrammer. That’s what I do. I’m live hacking their system. Using their airwaves.”

Rose is unafraid to call out her peers and label things for exactly what they are. She has lambasted her Charmed co-star Alyssa Milano and others such as Oprah Winfrey and Meryl Streep. After the 75^th Golden Globe Awards in 2018, Rose’s comments to Nightline perfectly encapsulated her opinion of Hollywood’s faux activism: “I feel like people are dancing on our graves. People in fancy dresses. Posing. Living it up on the red carpet. And the black stupid cloths the stupid men wore. It’s a lie. And I knew they would trot the activists out there for PR.”

Not only this, but Rose targets the organizations these actorvists support as well, namely Times Up! This organization sponsored the 75^th Golden Globes and has recently imploded amid the revelation that Times Up Chairwoman Robert Kaplan had advised Andrew Cuomo as accusers lined up to accuse the disgraced former New York governor, even reviewing a draft of an op-ed that disparaged one of the accusers.

How’s your day Tina? How’s your day Alyssa? pic.twitter.com/Ksc4p4wurN

— RoseMcGowan (@rosemcgowan) August 5, 2021

Rose took to Insta and Twitter to blast the hypocrisy: “Remember when Hollywood actresses and paid-off activists wore stupid black dresses at the Oscars? That was sponsored by Time’s Up who were meant to help abuse victims. I told the world they are a lie 3+ years ago. Wake up. Hard truths are inconvenient & uncomfortable. Alyssa, it’s lizard people like you, SDK Knickerbocker, Gov Cuomo, the Pres, Tina Chen (sic) who hurt people. Your time is up. Exit stage left.”

Rose also distinguishes herself from the rest of Hollywood by reaching across political lines. She has twice in the past year given interviews with Fox News, something her former peers simply do not do. Her first appearance was this April with Tammy Bruce. While media outlets nitpicked her comments for rage bait, the message Rose delivered was clear – “Your personal freedom does come at the price of you realizing how you’re being controlled and where its coming from. Figure out in your belief system what is organic and what has been implanted by Hollywood and the media. We have to examine what we believe and why.”

Rose’s interview a few months later with Tucker Carlson further justifies the existence of this column. “I’ve made it my life’s mission to tell all you out there what so many of you know deep down: That fame and Hollywood and the media machine are rotten to the core. They do hurt and they do damage.”

Fast forward to this past month with the California recall election of Gavin Newsom. In an interview with classical liberal host Dave Rubin, McGowan dropped a bombshell about Jennifer Newsom, Gavin’s wife.

The former actress shared that three months before Rose’s Weinstein story broke back in 2017, the Ms. Newsom sought Rose out in order to squash her story. She asked Rose, “What would it take to make you happy?”

The Globe asked the outspoken performer why she did not come forward sooner, instead waiting until the final week of the recall election. She replied “I didn’t hold the Jennifer story. I totally forgot about her actually until I was on Dave’s show and was only vaguely aware of the recall. That’s how little that blonde basic evil lady occupied my mind.” Jennifer Newsom does not occupy the media’s mind much either, as almost every mainstream establishment media outlet has declined to cover the story of Rose’s experience, which is documented.

She reminded the Globe to remember the context of her own situation at the time during 2017 when Jennifer Newsom reached out. “Mossad spies terrorizing me hired by Boies Schiller [Weinstein’s lawyer], that’s what she was a part of. That’s who she is. And if people are dumb enough to think Gavin Newsom wasn’t in on it then they definitely deserve him to be their Governor and moral leader.” And given the results of the recall, it appears California is that dumb. To Rose’s credit, once she recalled the actions of the First Lady of California, she did everything she could to speak out against Newsom and urged people to vote yes on the recall, endorsing Larry Elder.

Much more could be written about the former actress turned author, director, businesswoman, entrepreneur, Time’s Person of the Year and staunch human rights activist. While the other stars of Hollywood will continue their hypocrisy by offering political tropes at the MET Gala, Rose has taken the path of genuine activism. She is a thoughtful, strong and brave woman who spent years considering her options before speaking out. As she told the Globe in closing “It’s been my plan all along.”

The post EXCLUSIVE: Rose McGowan Details Jennifer Newsom Attempt to Silence Her appeared first on California Globe.

And the beat goes on.

With Governor Gavin Newsom handily turning back the recall challenge Tuesday a bit of a post-mortem of the effort seems in order.

First, as to the media response (see yesterday’s item), it was eerily as expected.  A Los Angeles Times headline breathed a “Sigh of Relief” and the overwhelming majority of the other coverage played off of themes surrounding the need to reform the recall system, that Newsom now has a “broad and renewed mandate” for his policies, that this “humbling” experience means he will not face a serious Democrat challenger in next June’s primary and that, should he be re-elected governor, the now battle-hardened political heavyweight is very well positioned to run a strong campaign for the White House in the near future.

True, many stories mentioned that the state is still facing “huge policy challenges” like crime, homelessness, water and power infrastructure, and wildfires; of course, these are the very same challenges that were not mentioned by the media during the campaign.

It has been clear from the beginning of the recall process – and well, well before that – that California’s legacy media is utterly in the tank for Newsom.  But this time the coverage was beyond compliant, biased, slanted, propagandistic, and complicit – it was actively collaborationist and that is meant in the same sense that it was meant in World War II.  (It may behoove the citizens of California to convene a “De-Newsomfication Tribunal” once he has left the governor’s mansion.)

The coverage of the issues was non-existent in a way that was clearly deliberate and knowingly, purposefully, and intentionally following, echoing, aiding, and abetting the exact campaign strategy the governor needed to work in order to win.

Even a minor deviance from this pattern could have opened up the door to actual debate about the issues facing the state but that could not be allowed to happen.  Newsom was able, without changing anything else in his campaign, to simply replace the word “Trump” with the word “Elder;” just as Cartman in “South Park” did when he thought it would be easier to make more money by creating a Christian rather than a mainstream pop band – “It’s easy.  When you write the songs, you just change ‘baby’ to ‘Jesus.’”

Cartman got rich – at least for a while – and Gavin got re-elected – at least for a while.

Looking at Tuesday’s numbers is, to be blunt, gloomy and somewhat surprising.  It appears Newsom held more than 90 percent of the Democrat vote, a number even his campaign may not have expected.

It also appears – rather stunningly – that his message of “Vote NO, Don’t Vote” may have worked after a fashion.  There was a 40 percent drop between the number of votes cast on the recall question itself and in the replacement candidate category. (All of the numbers referenced in this article are referring to the latest available figures which will not be the exact final figures).

While clearly a winner strategically, it does not exactly translate into a showing of personal support for Newsom and his policies but a more general party loyalty.  Considering that of his main five campaign messages – Trump is bad, Elder is Trump, the recall is a scam, Senator Feinstein is going to bust a rivet soon, and you will die of COVID if you vote YES – none of them actually involved any mention of Newsom himself or his “progressive” policies.  So claims that this was a win for him personally and that the state wants to keep heading in the same direction are something of a stretch.

There were other numbers last night that should give Newsom pause going forward (of course they won’t –  “emboldened” narcissists with very rich friends who provide for their every need are not known for their introspection).

First, he had to spend – not even including the value of the adorative free media coverage – more than five times what every other recall-related entity – combined – had at its disposal.

Second, and more importantly, Newsom does not appear to have won the No Party Preference (independent) vote.  Pending the final outcome it seems the best he could possibly hope for with that quarter of the electorate is a tie.  Depending upon the candidate(s) who will challenge him next year, that is a significant – and exploitable – weakness.

While the “nationalization” of the campaign may now be over, one aspect of Tuesday’s vote will get attention across the country.  That is the very different results between the walk-in (traditional) numbers and the mass mail-in figures.  NO on the recall garnered about 68 percent of the mail-in vote but only about 40 percent of the walk-in tally – a staggering difference.  The YES campaign clearly and handily won the traditional vote.

What that number does is very specifically confirm the lesson Democrats learned from the 2020 presidential campaign – the party’s edge in the mail-in voting universe is very real, very big, and must be protected and increased at all costs.  Already existing movements to expand that voter base – everyone gets a ballot, no one has to show ID, more ballot harvesting, etc. – will intensify around the nation and at the state level.  In DC, one can be assured that Speaker Pelosi has already used this new data to shore up support for the egregious “For the People” act.

It is interesting – and not all hypocritical – that it seems that those in power who have placed such onerous COVID-related restrictions on the public in the name of the common safety and security also do everything in their power to make sure that the beating heart of our democracy – the ballot box – is as unsafe and insecure as it can possibly be.

And now on to June!

The post Commentary: Non-Existent Coverage of Issues Aided and Abetted Governor’s Recall Campaign Strategy appeared first on California Globe.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously 5-0 on Wednesday on a motion that prohibits all new oil wells and drilling operations in unincorporated parts of the county, as well as starts to look into closing some of the more than 1,600 active and idle oil and gas wells in the area.

According to the motion authored by Supervisors Holly Mitchell and Sheila Kuehl, all new oil and gas extraction wells, including those already allowed for or planned for, would be prohibited. All current oil and gas extraction activities, most notably all wells in the 1,000 acre Inglewood oil field, would be reclassified as legal nonconforming use, allowing the county to legally revoke drilling permits.

The motion also details a 120 day plan in which oil and gas experts help find the most accelerated way to guide in a phase out process. The 5-year phase out program in the Culver City amortization program would specifically be looked at as a model. Health and environmental groups, including the California Air Resources Board and the California Environmental Protection Agency, would also be coordinated with to help monitor the pull out there, make sure the area is monitored and inspected to ensure an environmental turnaround, and help vision what the future land reuses of these areas would be.

Supervisor Mitchell explained the need for a halt and phase out on wells in the motion by pointing out the numerous health risks for people living nearby, the environmental dangers that the wells pose, and how LA County would be in line to follow Govern Gavin Newsom’s executive action banning all oil and gas wells in California by 2045.

“We have an opportunity and responsibility as the home of the largest urban oil field in the nation to lead by example in creating an equitable path for phasing out oil drilling,” said Michell in a statement on Wednesday. “Collectively, the motions that passed today center the needs of the communities and workers most impacted by oil drilling and build on LA County’s momentum in fighting climate change and sunsetting oil and gas operations. I applaud the Board for continuing to move the County forward on this critical issue and the countless advocates that have helped get us to this point. Our work is far from done but this is a promising step for environmental justice.”

Mitchell went even further in a later statement, adding that “My goal is complete, comprehensive cleanup of the site, with the oil companies paying for it, not taxpayers.”

Strong opposition against the Board’s motion

While applauded by environmentalists and many community leaders, many business leaders, energy leaders, and oil and gas producers were up in arms over the motion. The California Independent Petroleum Association sent a letter to the Board before the vote highlighting how gas prices would drastically increase, local economies would be hit, California would be more reliant on foreign oil, and the number of jobs would go down without the wells. The CEO of the Association, Rock Zierman, also expressed that companies should be compensated if their wells are shut down by this motion.

Other oil and gas representatives agreed with Zierman.

“They obviously want us out,” added Nick Lugo, an investor with several small oil companies in Los Angeles who used to work in oil fields in the counties. “100 years ago, oil wells were all over Los Angeles, especially around the area of the La Brea Tar Pits. And the city never had oil companies pay for anything when they were forced off again and again. Now, not only are they saying you’ll be removed, but that they will “help” decide what the land goes towards and that we have to pay for it all.”

“I think the Board just lost it with this one. They don’t care about all the jobs lost, the higher price of gas for consumers, or punishing companies that have given a lot to the local economies over the years.  They just want to look like the good guys and bring big projects to win voter favor. How much do you want to bet that Mitchell will have one of these areas named after her too?”

“She has no idea what she [Mitchell] is talking about and it’s obvious she has no idea how the economy works down here. Hopefully we’ll get competent leaders soon.”

More details of the phase out are expected early next year.

The post LA County Board of Supervisors Votes To Halt All New Oil, Gas Drilling appeared first on California Globe.

California has all three forms of direct democracy embodied in its state Constitution in Article II. The initiative, referendum and recall were adopted by the voters 110 years ago in 1911. Section 13 of Article II defines the recall as “the power of the electorate to remove an elective officer.” This article briefly describes several changes that could be considered to improve the recall process in this state, addressing only the constitutional provisions.

Increased Percentage for Petition Signatures

Section 14 of Article II specifies that a recall of a state officer is initiated by delivering a petition to the Secretary of State and that the proponents have 160 days to file signed petitions. Subdivision (b), which provides the voter signature percentages, could be changed for purposes of the statewide officers so that it is the same percentage as that required for all other state elected officials.

While the current amount is 12% for statewide officers, the state with the lowest signature amount is 10% and the highest of any state is 40%. Using the same 20% for all state officials also places California roughly in the middle of the 19 states that allow recalls. This proposed change could be done by amending subdivision (b) as follows:

(b) A petition to recall a statewide officer must be signed by electors equal in number to 12 20 percent of the last vote for the office, with signatures from each of 5 counties equal in number to 1 percent of the last vote for the office in the county. Signatures to recall Senators, members of the Assembly, members of the Board of Equalization, and judges of courts of appeal and trial courts must equal in number 20 percent of the last vote for the office.

Lt. Governor Takes Over for a Recalled Governor

Section 15 of Article II provides for the timing of the recall election and when it can be called and conducted. In addition, this section provides for the two-part question we have experienced with the successful replacement candidate being elected by a plurality of votes on the second question.

This proposal is to have the Lt. Governor automatically succeed to the highest state office if the Governor is recalled. For the remaining state officers, there would not be a change as there is not a statewide elected official elected by the people for the purpose of taking over any other office except governor. This proposed change could be done by amending subdivision (c) as follows:

(c) If the majority vote on the question is to recall, the officer is removed and, if there is a candidate, the candidate who receives a plurality is the successor, except in the case of the Governor, in which case the Lt. Governor is the successor. The officer may not be a candidate, nor shall there be any candidacy for an office filled pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 16 of Article VI.

Expense Reimbursement and No Additional Recalls for Same Officer

Section 18 of Article II provides ambiguous language regarding the ability of a state officer who is not recalled to be reimbursed for expenses. The first proposal is to clarify which types of expenses would be subject to taxpayer reimbursement. Another provision of Section 18 deals with when another recall of the same officer can be initiated. The second proposal is to eliminate this provision for the remainder of the state officer’s term, which means an officer would be subject to only one recall per term of office.

The third proposal is to preclude a recall for a state officer if that officer has served more than half of his or her term of office. In other words, if the State Senator is in the third year of her four-year term of office, then there would not be any recall available; rather, the electorate could vote in the upcoming election just a year later. These three proposed changes could be done by amending Section 18 as follows:

A state officer who is not recalled shall be reimbursed by the State for the officer’s recall election expenses legally and personally incurred by the officer, not including expenses paid by contributions received by the officer’s candidate committee. A state officer shall not be subject to recall if the officer has served more than half of the officer’s current term of office. Another recall may not be initiated against the officer until six months after the election for the remainder of the officer’s term of office.

There are undoubtedly other proposals that have been made and will be made in the months ahead in order to improve California’s recall process. The Chairpersons of the Senate and Assembly policy committees announced earlier this week that they plan to conduct multiple informational hearings to consider reform proposals with the goal of placing a measure on the November 2022 ballot for the electorate’s consideration.

While very few recalls have made it to the ballot, it has now occurred twice in just 18 years for governor after no recalls had qualified for over 90 years. While we should not improperly limit individuals’ right to vote in elections, recalls and other forms of direct democracy should be used sparingly and our state constitution should reflect that. No form of direct democracy should be taken from the people, but those three forms need to have more safeguards put into place.

The post Pondering Some Changes to California’s Recall Process appeared first on California Globe.

A new report from Majority Strategies breaking down digital online advertising spending in the California Recall Election by the two political parties, various “advertisers” supporting candidates, and individual candidates, shows a great divide. Most evident of this divide was online advertising spending on Google and YouTube ads showing a huge gap of more than $3.2 million in spending, with Democrats buying more than $3.5 million of ads on Google and youtube, and Republicans spending only $241,000.

Chris Faulkner, Senior National Strategist with Majority Strategies said what is so interesting is that even in this digital age, only about 10% to 15% of total Recall Election advertising was spent online. “Spending continues to be skewed toward large broadcasters on television,” Faulkner said. “But at some point the political ad saturation on television gets to a an ineffective point. You can keep spending, but are not getting more of the effect.”

“In the military we use the expression ‘bouncing the rubble;’ you can bomb the shit out of something but you won’t get more of the effect,” Faulkner said.

However, Faulkner says “at the end of the day, people are going to go with the devil they know. You can never underestimate the power of self-satisfaction of politicians seeing their faces on television.”

Notably, Faulkner said Republicans has many small donors, and Democrats counted on large donors and labor to contribute.

“Anyone who tells you there is just one reason a campaign wins or loses is full of shit,” Faulkner said. “There are always a multitude of things that affect the outcome. Over simplified answers are for Twitter and cocktail parties.”

The largest digital recall spending involves the overall online advertising spending the last three months:

• In the last 3 months, Republicans have spent $1,364,609.00.
• In the last 3 months, Democrats have spent $5,381,625.00.

Republicans Latest Monthly overall spending: $696,651

Democrats Latest Monthly overall spending:  $3,579,183

The latest weekly overall spending “by advertiser” shows the top six are:

• Gavin Newsom $734,100
• Larry Elder $108,735
• Stop the Republican Recall $89,946
• Democratic Governors Association $43,176
• Rescue California $35,106
• Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO $16,864

The latest monthly overall spending “by advertiser” shows the top six are:

• Gavin Newsom $2,689,600
• Stop the Republican Recall $598,251
• Larry Elder $330,103
• Kevin Kiley $238,892
• Rescue California $139,421
• Democratic Governors Association $111,809

Majority Strategies broke the spending/advertising down by ad venue.

• In the last 3 months, Republicans has spent $1,123,589.00 on Facebook.
• In the last 3 months, Democrats have spent $1,858,325.00 on Facebook.

Republicans Latest Monthly Spend on Facebook: $551,460

Democrats Latest Monthly Spend on Facebook: $889,583

The latest daily spending “by advertiser” on Facebook shows the top six are:

• Rescue California $29,795
• Larry Elder $10,205
• Democratic Governors Association $7,996
• Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO $5,000
• Stop the Republican Recall $4,783
• Jenny Rae Le Roux $1,303

The latest weekly spending “by advertiser” on Facebook shows the top six are:

• Stop the Republican Recall $89,946
• Larry Elder $49,035
• Democratic Governors Association $43,176
• Rescue California $35,106
• Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO $16,864
• Jenny Rae Le Roux $7,354

The latest monthly spending “by advertiser” on Facebook shows the top six are:

• Stop the Republican Recall $598,251
• Kevin Kiley $238,892
• Larry Elder $214,003
• Rescue California $139,421
• Democratic Governors Association $111,809
• Jenny Rae Le Roux $51,096

The latest 3-month spending “by advertiser” on Facebook shows the top six are:

• Stop the Republican Recall $1,101,729
• Kevin Kiley $538,510
• Democratic Governors Association $422,720
• Larry Elder $374,154
• Rescue California $212,833
• Jenny Rae Le Roux $145,712

Spending on Google and YouTube ads showed a huge gap:

• In the last 3 months, Republicans have spent less than $250,000 on Google.
• In the last 3 months, Democrats have spent more than $3,5 million on Google.

The largest daily spending “by advertiser” on Google/Youtube shows the top spenders:

• Gavin Newsom $50,000
• Larry Elder $5,000
• Anthony Trimino $1,000

The largest weekly spending “by advertiser” on Google/Youtube shows the top spenders:

• Gavin Newsom $734,100
• Larry Elder $59,700
• Anthony Trimino $9,700
• Kevin Faulconer $1,000

The largest monthly spending “by advertiser” on Google/Youtube shows the top spenders:

• Gavin Newsom $2,689,600
• Larry Elder $116,100
• Anthony Trimino $18,300
• Kevin Faulconer $10,791

The largest 3-month spending “by advertiser” on Google/Youtube shows the top spenders:

• Gavin Newsom $3,523,300
• Larry Elder $205,300
• Anthony Trimino $22,600
• Kevin Faulconer $13,120

The post Recall Digital Spending Report Shows Democrats Spent $3.5M on Google Ads in 3 Months appeared first on California Globe.

On Wednesday, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health announced that, due to the recent surge of COVID-19 cases within the county and the continued transmission risk, vaccination mandates would be expanded to include workers and customers at all bars and night clubs and large outdoor events like concerts and sporting events.

Specifically, the updated mandate would fall under the vaccination lines set by President Joe Biden’s vaccination policy plan released last week. Under the new LA County mandate, all outdoor mega-events with more than 10,000 people, such as sporting events, concerts, and theme parks, will require either a full vaccination or a negative COVID-19 test within the last 72 hours before going by October 7th.

The modified Health Officer Order would also require all workers and customers at indoor bars, breweries, wineries, night clubs, and lounges to have at least one dose of the vaccine by October 7th and both doses by November 4th. While not under the mandate, vaccine verification at indoor restaurants was also highly recommended.

The updated health order also expands more recent additions to the Health Order, such as the indoor mega event mandate that requires proof of vaccination or a negative test.

Public Health to Modify Health Officer Order Adding Vaccination Verification Requirements at Select High-Risk Settings. 37 New Deaths and 1,930 New Confirmed Cases of COVID-19 in Los Angeles County. View https://t.co/vEPcjxbBEM pic.twitter.com/P2xPTtCII7

— LA Public Health (@lapublichealth) September 15, 2021

“We in public health believe that targeted vaccination mandates are an important strategy for quickly raising vaccination coverage in our county and ending the pandemic, and we applaud our President, our Governor, our Board of Supervisors, our cities and school districts, and business establishments across the county for creating additional safety in spaces where people are intermingling with the use of targeted vaccination mandates,” said Los Angeles County Director of Public Health Barbara Ferrer on Wednesday. “As evidence mounts affirming the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, vaccination mandates are an increasingly important tool to prevent future COVID surges that cause widespread suffering. The modified Health Officer Order aligns with the continued need to reduce risk for transmission and increase vaccination coverage; this is a reasonable path forward that can position us to be better able to break the cycle of surges.”

However, the new mandate addition has brought out significant opposition.

“They’re closing off more and more things to people choosing to not get the vaccine or those who can’t get it,” said Madeline Price, a Southern California paralegal whose firm has been one of several challenging the recent upswing of vaccination mandates. “This isn’t going to help convince people. It’s just going to make people more upset and it means more lawsuits and challenges to cities and counties and states against this. Mandates are already hurting a lot of businesses across the state. And it’s continuing today. A lot of people are going to be turned away from businesses because of this, and right now, that’s the last thing many of them need.”

More mandates in LA County and other counties in the state are expected soon as the most recent COVID-19 surge continues.

The post LA County Updates Vaccination Mandates To Include Workers, Customers At Large Outdoor Events, Bars appeared first on California Globe.