Eber: California overcome by class warfare

The Left has a surefire way to end “income inequality”.  Elizabeth Warren wants to add a massive tax on executives that get salaries significantly higher than supervisors and blue collar workers.  Of course, why would anyone want to work 15 hour days, if they reward goes to government, not them?

“Chick-fil-A in being denied permits to open up their restaurants in California based upon their ownership’s Christian Pro Life and anti-gay marriage political beliefs.  Apparently thwarting them from opening  franchises is deemed to be acceptable public policy in Progressive circles

This same mentality has been used as a tool in the #Me Too movement to intimidate the accused and force removal from positions in Government and private business because of unproven allegations that garner conviction’s in the court of public opinion

Obsession with LGBTQ issues beyond the numbers. Placing transgender individuals in the same sentence with Rosa Parks being forced to sit in the back of the bus is a disservice to the Civil Rights movement.  No one in public office would dare say this because of fear of being branded as a racist/bigot.”

Democrats are pitting men vs. women, people of color vs. people of color, young vs. old—and in the process making economic survivor a real problem in California.  Why have the Democrats declared war against all of the American people?  To get votes.

California overcome by class warfare  By Richard Eber

Richard Eber, Exclusive to the California Political News and Views,  11/11/19  

Last week the media was inundated with stories about the horrendous massacre of 9 American citizens including 6 children in Mexico near the border with the United States. President Trump last Tuesday offered U.S. assistance as he called on our Southern neighbor to:

“Wage war” against the country’s murderous drug cartel “monsters” in response to the brutal killing of multiple Americans a day earlier. “If Mexico needs or requests help in cleaning out these monsters, the United States stands ready, willing & able to get involved and do the job quickly and effectively,” Trump tweeted. 

To this distressing news, a progressive hater of Trump I know responded:

While the killings of the people in northern Mexico have to be seen as a tragedy, those killed are not “Americans.”   They are Mexicans.   They live in Mexico.  Most were born in Mexico.   Why the news stories stress the American part is puzzling.    They have American passports because their parents have been Americans; thus, the kids can become American citizens, automatically. 

 I replied by email “Even if what you said is true, by virtue of having an American passport, the individuals are Americans and are entitled to be treated as such.  To me it looks like innocent people were attacked by scumbag drug traffickers. Ironically,  Democrats in Washington D.C. who oppose stringent control of the Southern border and building a wall, are allowing  these cartels relatively free access to ply their trade in the USA

I say Donald Trump in rightfully calling these murdering serial killers “terrorists”.  It is OK by me to utilize our military resources in destroying them. How can you down play the status of these victims as not being true Americans while insisting those who cross our border illegally are entitled to being given rights (especially in California)  of  citizens?”

We seem to have a double standard that exists in The Peoples’ Republic of California” and elsewhere in progressive circles throughout the United States.  While in one breath such individuals vehemently oppose a border wall while saying no pressing crisis exists. They seem to ignore the Mexican drug cartels thatare able import heroin, fentanyl, and other dangerous products with virtual immunity.

Concerning the crime and impact on our health from the importation of these illegal substances, all we hear is more substance abuse programs are needed. At the same time the corrupt Mexican government is left to deal with the cartels.  During in the last 36 months, approximated 69.000 people per year overdosed from illegal drugs in the USA. Our government seems more interested in letting criminals out of jail than preventing these unnecessary deaths.

Meanwhile, in case anyone has noticed it, we are in a state of class warfare in the United States. This battle is especially true in California where our constitutional form of government for past millennium is being challenged by a Progressive onslaught.

Where we live, the state government openly defies the laws that apply to other states with our Sanctuary Cities and over bearing environmental regulations. As an intricate part of the “Left Coast” playbook is the insistence of affirmative action is applied to almost every aspect of our lives.

Even though such policy was outlawed by the Supreme Court in 1978’s Baake decision, the practice goes on unabated. Racial quotas and gender are pervasive factors in determining promotions in civil service and the corporate world.

Diversity is a license to exclude Caucasians to fill management and ownership positions in and out of government.  White males in particular are prominent in “do not fly” lists for filling positions of responsibility.  It is thought that women and those of color are more qualified to assume leadership in an ex-officio type of way. The idea is that experience and education are secondary to other factors.

Isn’t such thinking racist and sexist by definition or am I some kind of a White Supremist who is biding his time until the next Klan meeting?

Free speech is being threatened each day by politically correct government officials and their allies in the media who attempt to impose their values on society. Examples include:

  • Chick-fil-A in being denied permits to open up their restaurants in California based upon their ownership’s Christian Pro Life and anti-gay marriage political beliefs.  Apparently thwarting them from opening  franchises is deemed to be acceptable public policy in Progressive circles
  • This same mentality has been used as a tool in the #Me Too movement to intimidate the accused and force removal from positions in Government and private business because of unproven allegations that garner conviction’s in the court of public opinion
  • Obsession with LGBTQ issues beyond the numbers. Placing transgender individuals in the same sentence with Rosa Parks being forced to sit in the back of the bus is a disservice to the Civil Rights movement.  No one in public office would dare say this because of fear of being branded as a racist/bigot.

Many good people in public or private life are being asked to resign or be fired for violating the unwritten rules of PC behavior. This kind of cultural environment is little different than citizens in China, Russia, and other totalitarian states face in trying to exercise their human rights.

Such bullying is a cornerstone Progressive strategy in California and with most of the Democratic Party hopefuls.  Just place the word “Big” in any sentence and the subject being discussed is considered to be evil be it banks, insurance, tobacco, pharmaceuticals and Oil.

Typical is Elizabeth Warren’s proposal of a draconian wealth tax to finance her Medicare for all health plans. This along with her idea to regulate banks and Corporations with governmental controls would likely be cause for Karl Marx endorses Warren’s presidential campaign from his grave.

Gavin Newsom has indicated hope the Senator from Massachusetts or someone like her will be elected President.  Were this to take place his Sanctuary City policies would be the law of the land. Along with these open borders, more taxes on the rich, governmental takeover of all utilities, and housing policies being determined by leftist social planners in Sacramento, would follow.

To put the cherry on top of the Sundae, Progressives in the White House will push an immigration bill thru Congress that would allow undocumented residents to become citizens regardless of economic or criminal status. The Electoral College will be outlawed by Executive Order (with approval of the Supreme Court) and Homelessness will allegedly be ended by Federal decree.

In such a “brave new world” the middle class would shrink in the United States to be replaced by a new social order of privileged government union workers that would fill similar shoes of Communist Party membership in the old Soviet Union.

Individuals such as the family that was murdered in Mexico would have their passports revoked.  The “American Dream” may find itself on life support and become an afterthought in new history books yet to be written.

1 in 3 San Fran Residents Thinking of Leaving, New City Survey Finds

I am shocked that one in three San Fran residents want to leave.  The rest are either very, very rich, very poor or illegal aliens.  Otherwise they, too, would want to leave a decaying, expensive city.  High costs, filthy streets, a massive petty crime wave that cops and government ALLOW, this is a dangerous town. Oh, they are closing off the downtown area on 1/1/2020 to cars—just to make it more difficult to do business and make a living.

More than a third of San Francisco residents are considering skipping town in the near future, according to a report released by the city this week.

In the survey, conducted by San Francisco’s Office of the Controller, 35% of respondents said they were “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to move away from the city in the next three years, with younger respondents and recent arrivals most likely to leave.

Not surprisingly, it also found that renters are almost twice as likely as homeowners to consider leaving the city.”

This is a mass suicide—while some would consider it a massacre by government.  Either way, this is a city with more dogs than children—for good reason.

1 in 3 San Francisco Residents Thinking of Leaving, New City Survey Finds

Matthew Green, KQED,  11/8/19    

More than a third of San Francisco residents are considering skipping town in the near future, according to a report released by the city this week.

In the survey, conducted by San Francisco’s Office of the Controller, 35% of respondents said they were “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to move away from the city in the next three years, with younger respondents and recent arrivals most likely to leave.

Not surprisingly, it also found that renters are almost twice as likely as homeowners to consider leaving the city.

The survey shows a slight uptick since 2013 in the percentage of residents who are thinking of packing it up, although the rate has remained relatively steady since the city began asking the question 14 years ago.

“We weren’t particularly surprised,” said Glynis Startz, an analyst in the controller’s office, noting that the percentage of residents thinking about leaving the city decreased to its lowest level after the recession ended. “I think the idea that young people are more likely to move tracks with what we understand and are likely to predict.”

Startz also noted that, based on historical U.S. Census data, it’s unlikely that the number of residents who say they are thinking of leaving will actually do so.

“It doesn’t look like a third of people are leaving,” she said.

And many people who do leave San Francisco don’t go far. In the past five years, roughly half of those who moved away from the city stayed in the Bay Area, according to census data, with the largest number heading across the bay to Alameda County.

The analysis, part of San Francisco’s larger biennial City Survey, included interviews in multiple languages with more than 2,200 San Franciscans.

The biggest concern among residents was homelessness, with 75% of respondents saying the problem had gotten worse. Affordability and displacement, as well as cleanliness, infrastructure and public safety, were also top concerns.

Sponsored

A report card released earlier this year, based on those survey results, found public transit to be the lowest-rated city service among residents, while the public library system was ranked highest.

University of California heads to Supreme Court to defend protections for undocumented immigrants

I bet you thought your tax dollars were to build a college system in California for our children.  I bet you thought honest students would be able to attend a tax financed university?  In California tens of millions of dollars, now the attorneys for law breakers, are arguing the illegal aliens have the same rights as honest students.

“The court hearing is the final match over Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which currently provides temporary protection from deportation and permission to work for about 660,000 people who came to the U.S. as children, according to the most recent data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Just over 200,000 DACA recipients live in California, by far the largest number of any state, according to the Migration Policy Institute.

After the Trump administration announced a decision to end the protection in 2017, the University of California and several other plaintiffs sued to keep it in place. Several lower courts have upheld UC’s lawsuit and it was eventually appealed to the Supreme Court. The case will be heard on Nov. 12, with a final decision expected by June 2020.”

At stake is nothing less than honest government.  Either the laws have meaning and can be enforced or we have chaos.  Sadly, tax dollars are being used to promote an end of laws some do not like.  Instead of repealing them, them break the law, then go to court to get judges to approved law breaking.  Tuesday will be an important date in America history—do we stay a nation of laws or are we a Banana Republic?

Maria Ortiz, at left, a Mexican immigrant has been living in the United States for 23 years. “I am single. I work so hard to stay. I never needed support from the government,” Ortiz said. She is not a citizen and works as a janitor, she said during an immigration protest outside Rep. Ed Royce’s office in Brea. ///ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: – MINDY SCHAUER, ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER – Shot 111713 – immig.fast.11.19 Advocates for immigration reform will camp our near the office of Rep. Ed Royce for five days, where they will stage a fast. They are asking OC’s Republican leaders in Congress to publicly support an overhaul to the nation’s immigration laws, including the so-called pathway to citizenship that would create a process for some 11 million people living in the U.S. illegally the right to become citizens.

University of California heads to Supreme Court to defend protections for undocumented immigrants

Zaidee Stavely, EdSource,   11/8/19 

The University of California will take its fight to protect immigrant students all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court next week.

The court hearing is the final match over Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which currently provides temporary protection from deportation and permission to work for about 660,000 people who came to the U.S. as children, according to the most recent data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Just over 200,000 DACA recipients live in California, by far the largest number of any state, according to the Migration Policy Institute.

After the Trump administration announced a decision to end the protection in 2017, the University of California and several other plaintiffs sued to keep it in place. Several lower courts have upheld UC’s lawsuit and it was eventually appealed to the Supreme Court. The case will be heard on Nov. 12, with a final decision expected by June 2020.

“What I hope the court understands is that behind the legal arguments are 700,000 lives who will be affected, in a damaging and frankly unnecessary way,” said UC president Janet Napolitano. “So what the Supreme Court does has a real human impact.”

Napolitano authorized DACA in 2012 while serving as secretary of homeland security in the Obama administration. Under her leadership, the University of California has argued that the Trump administration’s decision to end the program was illegal, arbitrary and without justification.

“These students are not a risk to our communities. Many of them are leaders on our campuses. The employees are making positive impacts for the university,” said Carrie Rieth, assistant vice chancellor and chief counsel of external affairs for the California State University system.

President Donald Trump has said that the Supreme Court should end DACA and that he believes that Congress will come up with immigration legislation to replace it.

“If the Supreme Court upholds DACA, it gives the President extraordinary powers, far greater than ever thought,” Trump tweeted in October. “If they do what is right and do not let DACA stand, with all of its negative legal implications, the Republicans and Democrats will have a DEAL to let them stay in our Country, in very short order.”

There are an estimated 1,700 students with DACA status enrolled in the 10-campus UC system. There are an estimated 50,000 to 70,000 undocumented students enrolled in the state’s 115 community colleges and about 9,500 at California State University’s 23 campuses. About half of those students are estimated to have DACA status.

If students’ DACA status is rescinded, Napolitano said they would not only lose their ability to be legally employed, but they would also live in fear of deportation.

“As we know in the current administration, ICE hasn’t set real priorities in terms of who it enforces the law against, so they would treat a young person who grew up in this country, is going to school and has no criminal record the same as they would somebody who has been convicted of a violent crime,” Napolitano said.

The California State University trustees and the California Community Colleges Board of Governors signed on to a brief filed in the Supreme Court by 165 colleges and universities nationwide in favor of continuing DACA.

“We have thousands of students and hundreds of employees that are benefiting from DACA,” said Carrie Rieth, assistant vice chancellor and chief counsel of external affairs for the California State University system. “These students are not a risk to our communities. Many of them are leaders on our campuses. The employees are making positive impacts for the university.”

A national survey of a sample of DACA recipients conducted in August and September 2019 found that the vast majority were employed or in school and 93 percent of those currently in school said that because of DACA, they “pursued educational opportunities that [they] previously could not.”

A recent graduate of CSU Dominguez Hills, Alejandro Campos, said having DACA changed his life, allowing him to work and go to college.

“I think education could be my only safe space,” Campos said. “I think the more educated I get, the more doors open.”

Campos is 34; he came to the U.S. from Mexico with his family when he was about 8 years old and overstayed his visa. He didn’t realize he was undocumented until he was a senior in high school and tried to join the Army.

After Campos received DACA status, he was able to work as a waiter and bartender to support himself and he enrolled in college. He graduated in June from CSU Dominguez Hills with a bachelor’s degree in kinesiology. He is now preparing to apply for a master’s program. His dream is to become an occupational therapist.

Campos says if he loses his DACA status, it wouldn’t just hurt him, but also his daughter, who is now 11.

“I haven’t been to Mexico since I came here. I don’t think I have a life over there,” Campos said. “I have my daughter here. I’m her No. 1 provider. She means everything to me. I think that’s the reason I continue to push and go to school because I don’t want her to go through the things I did. Every time I don’t want to study late at night, I remind myself, I’m doing this for a purpose.”

Liliana Iglesias, program director of the Undocumented Student Program at UC Berkeley, said undocumented students are feeling vulnerable and unsure of how to proceed. The Undocumented Student Program provides academic counseling, mental health services and legal assistance to undocumented students.

“Some students feel like, ‘Because it’s up in the air, should I pause my time at the university and go work and earn money in different ways so I can save and help my family no matter what happens?’” Iglesias said.

One incoming freshman Iglesias spoke with is set to begin college classes in January, but because of the uncertainty of what will happen with DACA, her parents are fearful about her filing a California Dream Act application that will allow her to receive financial aid and are doubting whether she should even go to college.

The University of California has started a social media campaign asking people to sign a pledge supporting DACA and to share photos of themselves with small whiteboards or chalkboards with a sentence beginning “I stand with undocumented students because….” UC Davis Chancellor Gary S. May finished that sentence with the words “…they deserve justice and the opportunities all Americans enjoy.”

“We really want to make it clear that we support all of our undocumented students regardless of whether they have DACA or not,” Iglesias said. “This is just an example of the anti-immigrant climate that is in place right now, that is even beyond DACA.”

Iglesias said on the day of the Supreme Court hearing, the Undocumented Student Program at UC Berkeley will be providing extra hours of drop-in mental health counseling. Staff also are organizing a presentation about immigrant rights and a workshop to help students and staff renew their DACA status. Iglesias said university attorneys are recommending DACA recipients renew their protected status now, if it is set to expire before March 2021.

The leaders of all three California college and university systems also have written to members of Congress, asking them to support legislation to provide permanent protection for immigrants who were brought to the United States as children.

Even if the Supreme Court allows DACA to be terminated, California will still allow undocumented students who have attended at least three years of high school in the state and earned a California high school diploma or equivalent to attend colleges and universities, to pay in-state tuition and to receive state financial aid.

“The outcome of the decision will not have an impact on our ability to educate any individual, nor will it have an impact on the ability of the state of California to fund these students,” said Rieth. “No matter what the outcome is, we will continue to provide and vigorously pursue our commitment to advance and extend knowledge and learning to all Californians.”

Frost: Why I voted against the emergency eviction ordinance

Government thinks it is doing well for the people.  Instead, it harms those they are trying to help.  Sacramento Democrats passed a rent control/no eviction policy to go into effect on 1/1/2020.  Now, tens of thousands of people are being evicted before the bill becomes law.  Hundreds of thousands are getting rent increases, before the bill becomes laws.  And, if you mention this to others, you are made out to be a bad person.  Just ask Sacramento Supervisor Sue Frost.

“This proposal, as well as state-wide Rent Control that is coming January 1st, both suffer from the same misguided notion that renters will be better off with government controls on rent. Nothing is further from the truth.

Economists across the world, as well as everyone with basic knowledge of economics, understand that this is simply not the case. While price controls do hold down costs in the short-run for current tenants, in the long-run, it decreases rent inventory and affordability and creates blight in the surrounding neighborhood. In short, it increases housing costs, discourages construction of more affordable units, and reduces housing options.

Laws like rent control and bans on “no-fault evictions” are barriers to building the housing and apartments we desperately need. They create economic pressure for landlords to convert their properties to different uses entirely.”

Housing disaster in California—the cause is known, government.

Why I voted against the emergency eviction ordinance
 
From Sacramento County Supervisor Sue Frost, 11/8/19  
 
Friends,
I voted against the proposed Sacramento County emergency ordinance that would have blocked landlords from legally evicting tenants – and I wanted you to know why.
I voted against the ban on “no fault eviction” because it’s a false promise that does nothing to address the core problem and actually might make it worse.
The problem is simple – we don’t have enough housing, and scarcity drives up costs and reduces options.
The situation has received a lot of media attention about the emotion involved – and I do not diminish the stress a person who needs to find a new place to live must feel. But the coverage hasn’t done an outstanding job of explaining the facts.
What they are terming “no fault eviction” is actually when a property owner doesn’t offer a renewal at the end of a tenant’s lease. Typically the property owners give tenants two months’ notice – and most of the time, the tenant chooses to leave and find a new place to live. But sometimes they refuse to move out, and the owner is forced to evict them.
So why is there so much fervor? Because one apartment complex decided not to renew lessees for a large group of tenants that were on month-to-month leases.
I have great sympathy and compassion for the renters who were impacted by this isolated situation, and I do not condone the actions of this particular apartment owner. After this incident happened, financial assistance was negotiated for the tenants who received termination notices. These tenants will receive $2,500 in relocation or rent assistance plus the return of their full security deposit from the current owners. In addition, several tenants with Housing Choice Vouchers may be able to stay at the property after its sale to the new owners.
This proposal, as well as state-wide Rent Control that is coming January 1st, both suffer from the same misguided notion that renters will be better off with government controls on rent. Nothing is further from the truth.
Economists across the world, as well as everyone with basic knowledge of economics, understand that this is simply not the case. While price controls do hold down costs in the short-run for current tenants, in the long-run, it decreases rent inventory and affordability and creates blight in the surrounding neighborhood. In short, it increases housing costs, discourages construction of more affordable units, and reduces housing options.
Laws like rent control and bans on “no-fault evictions” are barriers to building the housing and apartments we desperately need. They create economic pressure for landlords to convert their properties to different uses entirely.
My supervisorial colleague, who has been so publicly critical of my vote, should review the results of similar policies in areas like San Francisco and Los Angeles. Then he needs to ask himself if he would consider either of those cities affordable.
In 2019 the National Apartment Association conducted a survey of firms that build multifamily housing. The results showed that the Sacramento metropolitan area is one of the hardest places to build multifamily housing in the entire country. Nationally, our region ranked 56 out of 58 for the most barriers to building multifamily housing. Meaning it is more difficult to build apartments in the Sacramento area than the surrounding areas of Honolulu, New York, or San Diego.
This is unacceptable to me – and for anyone who honestly wants to deal with the housing shortage and price inflation. We have to do better. That’s why I will hold a series of meetings with county staff, apartment owners, builders, and tenants’ rights groups. Together, we will find out what can actually be done to solve the problem and reduce barriers preventing us from building new multifamily and affordable housing in our County.
I want real solutions, like offering tax incentives to property owners who keep rent low and build new units. Or allowing housing projects to get the same incentives and environmental exemptions sports facilities get.
I do not have all the answers; however, it is clear to me that we cannot continue to pass half-baked policies that feel good but in reality, make the situation significantly worse.

Thank you for reading – and as always, if you want to contact me call me at 916-874-5491, or just hit “reply” to this e-mail.

In a sign of changing California economy, an iconic flower company closes its doors

Another California government created disaster.  In Half Moon Bay 200 people have lost their jobs because of government taxes and policies.  Yes, it is the changing times—from when government wanted lots of jobs to the time government demands we promote those that sue government to live or to become rich.

“But on this October morning, the trip to work is one of her last. On Nov. 10, the family-owned flower operation will close its doors for good, marking the end of an era for a company, started 110 years ago by a Japanese immigrant, that survived the Great Depression and the family’s internment during World War II, and grew into one of the largest employers in Half Moon Bay.

Many area residents fear that the closure, which the company attributes in part to rising labor and production costs, is an ominous sign for the remaining nurseries in San Mateo County, which in recent years have struggled to keep up with a changing economy and the global flower market.”

The rising labor costs are due to government mandated benefits, health care costs due to government interference and wage rates set by government, not the employees and employer.    I wonder how many other small businesses are closing and the media does not make a story about it?  As Guv Newsom said, California is heading into a recession—not caused by natural economics—but by government policies.  It is not a murder, it is a suicide.

In a sign of changing economy, an iconic flower company closes its doors

Erica Hellerstein, CalMatters,  11/7/19 

In Summary

The company will close after 110 years, leaving its nearly 200 employees without jobs, which mostly pay minimum wage. Labor cost is the main reason, owner says.

Each morning, just after the sun lights up the shores of Half Moon Bay, Rosa Manrriquez steps out her door, walks past the neatly manicured flowers lining her walkway, and drives to the Bay City Flower Company, a place she has called a second home since 1979, when she began working there.

For those who work there, the end of Bay City means the loss not just of a steady paycheck in a coastal community that has seen steep cost of living increases but of a sense of belonging. Nearly 200 workers — on average, the flower company’s employees have worked there for 21 years — will lose their jobs.

“It feels like a milestone in the community is going away,” says Judith Guerrero, the executive director of the nonprofit Coastside Hope. “There are people who have been working in that nursery since they were 16 years old.”

Manrriquez’s history with the company spans 4 decades and 3 generations of company leadership. During that time, she learned how to cultivate plants from hydrangeas to calla lilies, lived through the boom and bust of the flower industry, had 3 children, and earned enough money to buy a house a short drive from the beach.

In just a week, though, she will walk into the white domed greenhouse where she has spent so much time over the years, and say goodbye to it forever.

“I liked the work, I liked the whole situation,” Manrriquez says. “[Bay City] recognized our abilities. They gave us opportunities to grow. Bay City in the community meant a lot.”

In 1910, the company’s founder, Nobuo Higaki, immigrated to the United States from Japan and started a nursery in Redwood City. His was one of a number of influential Japanese-owned nurseries in the Bay Area at the time. But the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor brought a harsh new chapter for the Higakis. They were forced into internment and Nobuo was separated from the family and sent to a camp in North Dakota.

Thanks to a local grower who leased their greenhouses while they were gone and looked after their crops, the Higaki’s nursery survived, and after the war, the family came back to it. Nobuo’s son, Harry, became president of the Bay City. In 1960, the nursery moved to Half Moon Bay and Harry was later succeeded by his son, Harrison, the company’s current president.

“When I first started my job, it was one of the first farms that I heard beautiful stories about,” says Krystlyn Giedt, the president and CEO of the Half Moon Bay Coastside Chamber of Commerce and Visitors’ Bureau. “About how they made it through the war. So to hear about them closing and knowing how it had been a family legacy for them for so long, it’s really sad.”

Workers got word of the closure on Sept. 10, when Higaki announced that the company, which primarily sells potted plants and distributes them nationally, would send out its final flower shipment next month. About 50 employees were laid off, said Victor Gaitan, a management analyst with the city of Half Moon Bay, who is leading job recovery efforts for the workers. In total,195 employees will lose their jobs when the nursery closes, according to paperwork filed with the California Employment Development Department.

In an email, Higaki said the family convened earlier this year. “We realized that it was the time to bring closure to the flower business,” he said. “We prayed that God would provide a buyer for our nursery that would employ more than half our associates, most that have worked with the company for 10-40 years. We also prayed that we could pay off all of the debt owed to our wonderful & loyal vendors.

“With this vision in our hearts,” he added, “we have been actively marketing our properties.”

Higaki said the decision to close was based on a number of factors, but pointed to the cost of labor as the primary driver. The minimum wage in California for employers with at least 26 employees is $12 per hour and is slated to rise to $15 by January 2022.

“Labor is our single highest expense category,” he said. “The writing was on the wall.”

The Half Moon Bay region was once one of the world’s top flower producers, said San Mateo County Agricultural Commissioner Fred Crowder. But beginning in the 1990s, the once thriving industry began to falter. In 1991, to discourage the cultivation of coca plants, used to make cocaine, the US government removed tariffs on Colombian flowers, opening up the market to competition. Then, in 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, went into effect, which lowered tariffs and removed trade restrictions between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, making it even harder for local producers to compete.

“With NAFTA and the dropping of the tariffs on South American flowers, that whole industry just got destroyed,” Crowder said. By 2000, he said, the industry “started to decline. And it has declined ever since.”

From 2001 to 2011, the production value of floral and nursery crops in San Mateo County decreased by 45 % when adjusted for inflation, according to a 2015 report by the County Department of Agriculture, the most recent analysis available.

Crowder cited the introduction of online flower vendors and the move away from agriculture and toward tourism on the San Mateo coastline as additional challenges.

“The price of land, labor, commodities, everything goes up,” he says. “So you start losing your irrigation supplier, your tractor repair guy, your farm supplies. Now you have to go to Salinas or Watsonville in order to get services to supply your farm.”

With Bay City’s closure imminent, Teresa Covarrubias, a gregarious employee who has been with the company since 1994, is on the hunt for another job. But she is sad to leave it behind, she said.

Covarrubias said she is “grateful” that the company hired her as a single mom and allowed her to leave work during the day to pick up her three children from school and bring them to appointments. Now, with an uncertain future on the horizon, Covarrubias says she and other workers are feeling tense.

“Rent doesn’t wait, bills don’t wait,” she says. “People are stressed. It’s very hard.”

When Higaki told employees the operation would wind down, she said, “All the workers dropped their heads when he made the announcement. “It was a very sad day.”

working there in 1979. After more than 100 years in business, the company will be closing, leaving Marriquez out of work. Photo by Randy Vazquez/Bay Area News Group

The city of Half Moon Bay is rallying behind the affected workers and recently hosted a job and resource fair, which included leads from local employers and booths staffed by service agencies. But many concede it will be hard for all of them to find agricultural jobs nearby.

“Because our agriculture has slipped down so much it’s very difficult to find jobs in the areas that they are the most skilled,” Giedt says. “I think a lot of them are going to have to go out there a little bit on a wing and a prayer and learn some new things.”

Covarrubias would like to stay in Half Moon Bay but knows she may have to relocate if she finds work elsewhere.

For now, though, she’s cautiously optimistic.

“We’ll move forward,” she says. “I think we will be OK but it will be a slow process.”

Mexico Is Urging The Supreme Court To Stop Trump’s Bid To End DACA

The Mexican government is run by the drug cartels.  Past Mexican presidents went into office as poor and left, six years later as billionaires.  The drug cartels use illegal alien smuggler to bring women into the U.S. to be sex slaves.  They bring children into our nation with drugs—and kidnap kids to be shipped to the United States—all for money.

Now the openly corrupt Mexican government wants US to violate our own laws and allow their law breakers to break our laws.  In Mississippi ICE raided a chicken factory—of the 650 criminals arrested, now awaiting deportation, more than 400 had stolen the ID’s of U.S. citizens.  Mexican wants us to have criminals that belong to them.

“The justices will hear arguments over President Donald Trump’s bid to terminate DACA on Tuesday. Mexico filed an amicus (or “friend of the court”) brief in the case, saying it has a “legitimate, substantial and compelling interest to protect the rights of its citizens.”

“Mexico’s government has supported DACA beneficiaries and Mexican nationals living in the United States by holding clinics, providing funding and access to competent legal counsel in connection to the application process under DACA,” the brief reads. It goes on to note that Mexican consular officials have assisted approximately 30,000 DACA recipients with “obtaining the necessary documents and, in some cases, providing economic assistance to apply for DACA.”

Approximately 80% of DACA’s 800,000 recipients are Mexican nationals.

The brief offers an array of policy-based justifications for maintaining DACA. For example, the Mexican government noted that DACA helps its nationals and their U.S.-born children access needed social services.”

Mexico Is Urging The Supreme Court To Stop Trump’s Bid To End DACA

Keven Daley, Daily Caller,   11/8/19  

  • The government of Mexico filed an amicus (or “friend of the court”) brief urging the Supreme Court to stop President Donald Trump’s attempt to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. 
  • Mexican consular officials have helped many of its nationals obtain protected status under DACA, according to the brief.
  • The justices will hear arguments in the dispute Tuesday.

The Mexican government is urging the Supreme Court to protect the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, telling the justices that supporting DACA recipients is an important goal of Mexican foreign policy.

The justices will hear arguments over President Donald Trump’s bid to terminate DACA on Tuesday. Mexico filed an amicus (or “friend of the court”) brief in the case, saying it has a “legitimate, substantial and compelling interest to protect the rights of its citizens.”

“Mexico’s government has supported DACA beneficiaries and Mexican nationals living in the United States by holding clinics, providing funding and access to competent legal counsel in connection to the application process under DACA,” the brief reads. It goes on to note that Mexican consular officials have assisted approximately 30,000 DACA recipients with “obtaining the necessary documents and, in some cases, providing economic assistance to apply for DACA.”

Approximately 80% of DACA’s 800,000 recipients are Mexican nationals.

The brief offers an array of policy-based justifications for maintaining DACA. For example, the Mexican government noted that DACA helps its nationals and their U.S.-born children access needed social services.

“DACA recipients are over 12% more likely to ensure that their U.S. citizen children access resources to which U.S. citizens are entitled, such as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), than parents without DACA protections,” the brief reads, citing a Johns Hopkins study. “WIC is considered one of the most successful anti-poverty programs for children in the United States.”

It went on to warn the program’s cancellation would diminish Social Security contributions, national GDP, and cultural ties between the U.S. and Mexico of the sort embodied in the “Dreamers Without Borders” program, an educational exchange initiative that allows DACA recipients to visit Mexican universities for studies and networking. Without DACA, so-called “Dreamers” are ineligible to apply for student visas.

In that vein, Mexico suggests that as many as 20,000 DACA recipients are work-authorized as teachers pursuant to the program. Removing them from the classroom would “undercut the bi-cultural diversity that DACA teachers bring to their schools,” Mexico says.

Elsewhere the brief suggests terminating DACA would conflict with American obligations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a foundational international human rights treaty. The Obama administration cited DACA in a 2015 report detailing continued American compliance with the ICCPR.

Mexican diplomatic officers expect a surge of requests for consular services if DACA is rescinded, and warned a ruling for the Trump administration will place unprecedented strain on their consular network in the U.S. 

 Foreign governments and the Supreme Court

Between 1978 and 2013 foreign governments filed 68 amicus briefs in the Supreme Court expounding their views on a legal controversy, according to a 2016 study by Professor Kristen Eichensehr in the Virginia Law Review.

Eichensehr found that foreign governments have important but under-appreciated influence over the Court’s decisions on cases touching foreign policy. The study found the justices cite a foreign sovereign’s brief in about half of all cases in which other countries intervene. Even the conservative justices, who are sometimes skeptical of reliance on foreign law sources, will reference foreign sovereign amicus briefs in their opinions.

“In 18 of the 39 merits cases since 1978 where at least one foreign sovereign filed an amicus brief, one or more of the briefs is cited in an opinion in the case, a rate of 46%. In 15 of these 18 cases, the majority opinion cites a foreign sovereign amicus brief,” Eichensehr wrote.

The high court is loathe to create foreign relations problems for the executive branch. As such, the government’s views are granted a degree of deference when a case implicates foreign affairs concerns. When foreign sovereigns and the U.S. government differ — as in the DACA case — over possible consequences for international relations, Eichensehr suggested the Court might conduct a more thorough review of the issues.

“Foreign sovereign filings that argue, contrary to the U.S. government, that foreign relations harms will result from a particular outcome may embolden the Court to do a more searching inquiry into and have a less deferential approach to filings by the United States on international facts,” the study reads.

A decision in Tuesday’s DACA cases, Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California No. 18-587, is expected by June 2020.

Taxpayers Finance “Free” Bus Rides in Sacramento

The socialists running the Sacramento government transportation system are crowing that ridership has increased on the tax subsidized system.  But, understand the reason for the growth is that for many it is FREE.  Not mentioned is the massive increase in the DEFICITS of the system.  Added costs and no revenues.  You do not make up the losses in volume.

“SacRT says youth ridership has increased by 40 percent in the first month of the program — called Ryde Free RT— and that it’s not too late for students to sign up.

“All schools received a blue sticker that can go right on their student ID,” said RT spokeswoman Jessica Gonzalez. “For some of those schools that don’t have student IDs, we did provide a special Ryde Free RT card which also has that blue sticker.”  

There are about 1,950 more students riding during the week. There has also been increased ridership on weekends, especially Sunday, which had an increase of 73 percent.”

Nothing is free.  Why does the media pretend that the laws of economics are exempted by socialist government?

Ridership Increases With Free Fares For Students On Sacramento Transit

 Bob Moffitt, Capitol Public Radio,  11/8/19 

Sacramento Regional Transit has been providing free rides to school kids in grades transitional kindergarten-to-12th since Oct. 1.

SacRT says youth ridership has increased by 40 percent in the first month of the program — called Ryde Free RT— and that it’s not too late for students to sign up.

“All schools received a blue sticker that can go right on their student ID,” said RT spokeswoman Jessica Gonzalez. “For some of those schools that don’t have student IDs, we did provide a special Ryde Free RT card which also has that blue sticker.”  

Gonzalez said that for students whose schools aren’t participating, stickers and cards are available at all public libraries and the SacRT customer service center at the 13th Street light rail station.

There are about 1,950 more students riding during the week. There has also been increased ridership on weekends, especially Sunday, which had an increase of 73 percent.

SacRT says the increase could mean more outside funding sources in the future.

“To show that we have more ridership is helpful to be able to get some more federal state local funding to be able to expand our services,” Gonzalez said.  

City Councilmember Jay Schenirer says the million dollars the council approved for the program was worth it. 

“More kids are in school. Schools do better. They can’t learn if they’re not in their seats and schools aren’t paid for kids if they’re not there,” Schenirer said. 

The cities of Folsom, Rancho Cordova and Citrus Heights also put $35,000 toward offsetting the money SacRT would have collected had the kids paid. Local school districts contributed about $100,000.  

SacRT says it plans to continue the program next year. It is set to expire Sept. 30.

Sacramento Taxpayers to Loan Billionaires $27 Million for Soccer Field!

Sacramento has homeless everywhere, the city has significant traffic problems and not enough money to fill potholes.  This is a city where drug use is epidemic and open.  Sacramento suffers from low self esteem.  It decided that having a major league soccer team would solve their emotional problems.

“Sacramento’s new Major League Soccer stadium will be financed mostly with private money. The city’s contribution of approximately $33 million will be in incentives, such as helping pay for new streets and police officers to oversee traffic during games. 

But a revised plan before City Council on Tuesday would instead loan the Republic FC up to $27 million in advance.

The loan though might not be repaid like a typical one; the team will use increased property tax revenues generated by the stadium and proposed nearby development for repayment. 

Note the “loan” might not even be repaid.  Lets get serious, if you can afford one billion for a stadium, why stick the taxpayers with a $27 million loan.  Either you can afford the project or not.  My guess is that this is just the first of “loans” to help the self-esteem of city government.  The losers?  The homeless, the addicted, the drivers and the community.

Sacramento City Council To Consider Up-Front Loan Of $27 Million To Republic FC As Part Of Soccer Stadium Deal

 Bob Moffitt, Capitol Public Radio,   11/8/19 

Sacramento’s new Major League Soccer stadium will be financed mostly with private money. The city’s contribution of approximately $33 million will be in incentives, such as helping pay for new streets and police officers to oversee traffic during games. 

But a revised plan before City Council on Tuesday would instead loan the Republic FC up to $27 million in advance.

The loan though might not be repaid like a typical one; the team will use increased property tax revenues generated by the stadium and proposed nearby development for repayment. 

City leaders say these revenues wouldn’t exist without the new projects.

Ben Gumpert, the Republic FC’s president and chief operating officer, noted that the total dollar amount of $33 million from the city hasn’t changed. “That was always the plan,” Gumpert said. “But this way, we bring more cash and capital forward as soon as possible to develop the railyards as quickly as possible.” 

The Republic has said it will likely cost at least a billion dollars to build the stadium and also develop the surrounding 17 acres. 

The Republic scored an MLS franchise last month, and the city approved the framework for a stadium deal earlier this year. 

As Bay Area exodus builds momentum, latest census data shows Texas is a big winner

Congrats to the government of the State of Texas.  They have schools that work, transportation systems that are working, low housing costs, very low taxes—gas on Sunday, November 10 in Dallas was $2.40 a gallon.  This is a State with jobs for everyone—and more.

California lost an estimated 190,000 residents in 2018, a 38% increase from a year earlier, according to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which finds that foreign immigration of about 284,000 people into California offset the loss of California residents in 2018.

Texas continues to be the most popular destination for Californians choosing to live in another state, with 86,200 Golden State residents moving there in 2018, according to the American Community Survey data released Oct. 31.

The latest census data show 691,145 Californians moved to other states in 2018, marking the largest loss nationally — up 4.6% from 2017 and the seventh consecutive annual increase. Changes in 2018 federal tax law limiting the deduction for state and local taxes paid was expected to spur more California residents to move to states with low or no state income tax.”

Once we hit the Rose Bowl game and tens of thousands lose their jobs due to AB 5, the reality that property taxes on commercial and industrial property explodes, parents wanting education nor a government take away of their children, the number of Californians, especially in the Bay Area will explode.  As Guv Newsom said, California is headed into a recession—many will get out as soon as they can.

As Bay Area exodus builds momentum, latest census data shows Texas is a big winner 

Texas was the top state for California residents moving to another state in 2018. The headquarters of two Bay Area Fortune 500 companies moved to the Dallas area this year.

By Mark Calvey , San Francisco Business Times, 11/4/19 

No one’s posting billboards urging the last Bay Area resident leaving the state to turn out the lights, at least not yet. But the latest census data supports growing anecdotal evidence that an exodus is gaining momentum as more California residents vote with their feet and head to Texas and other states.

California lost an estimated 190,000 residents in 2018, a 38% increase from a year earlier, according to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which finds that foreign immigration of about 284,000 people into California offset the loss of California residents in 2018.

Texas continues to be the most popular destination for Californians choosing to live in another state, with 86,200 Golden State residents moving there in 2018, according to the American Community Survey data released Oct. 31.

The latest census data show 691,145 Californians moved to other states in 2018, marking the largest loss nationally — up 4.6% from 2017 and the seventh consecutive annual increase. Changes in 2018 federal tax law limiting the deduction for state and local taxes paid was expected to spur more California residents to move to states with low or no state income tax.

To put California’s population loss in perspective, The Orange County Register notes that the number of Californians leaving the Golden State is just 1.8 percent of the state’s population. Only two states — Michigan and Texas — have lower departure rates.

For Americans choosing to move to California, residents from Washington state were at the top of the list, with 38,000 coming to the Golden State. Texas was a close second, with 37,800 residents moving to California in 2018.

The state-to-state migration patterns are closely followed, since they signal which areas are likely to gain more congressional representatives and political clout in Washington, based on the 2020 Census. 

Another census report released earlier this year paints an even bleaker picture: The report, featuring a smaller margin of error than the American Community Survey and covering the 12 months ended July 1, 2018, shows that California lost 38,000 residents in that period even after accounting for international immigration. That marked the first time in years that this data shows international immigration didn’t more than make up for Californians leaving the state.

Census data showing migration patterns by region, such as the Bay Area, are expected to be released in December.

Anecdotal evidence suggests out-migration is spurring an exodus from the Bay Area, which has seen the headquarters of several startups and two Fortune 500 companies leave this year. Fortune 500 No. 7, McKesson Corp. (NYSE: MCK) and fellow Fortune 500 Core-Mark Holding Co. (NASDAQ: CORE) both headed to the Dallas-Fort Worth area. After this year’s annual meeting, Charles Schwab (NYSE: SCHW) founder Chuck Schwab said his company’s headquarters could one day leave San Francisco.

Some observers see a sorting-out process occurring with those seen as more liberal, highly educated and earning higher salaries coming to California and those who are more conservative exiting the Golden State. A report in Monday’s Los Angeles Times titled, “California conservatives leaving the state for ‘redder pastures’” featured a Modesto couple moving to suburban Dallas.

But talk at Bay Area business lunches and cocktail parties suggests more than politics is at play. Key players in the Bay Area’s business community point to the state’s top personal income tax rate of 13.3%, with no lower tax on capital gains, as one key concern. Plus there’s the high housing costs and growing traffic congestion that have some pondering life in other states.

“I frequently hear about investors and entrepreneurs who are leaving California for states that have friendlier tax policies. But who can blame them? They’ve worked hard and taken significant bets over many years and now they need to protect their gains,” said Ryan Gilbert, a serial entrepreneur-turned-venture-capitalist at Propel Venture Partners. “California should adopt incentives that mirror the federal incentives to keep these entrepreneurs and investors in the state.”

But for now, it appears California might be heading in the opposite direction. One measure seeking signatures for a spot on California’s November 2020 ballot would raise the top individual income tax rate to 16.3 percent.

Bay Area exodus: Companies leaving the region

These companies moved or are about to move their headquarters out of the Bay Area.

 

VIEW SLIDESHOW
20 photos

Citing Economic Concerns, California’s Oldest Dairy Closes Its Doors

Guv Newsom does not have to sign a bill to outlaw dairy farms in California.  He can do it for plastic cups, plastic spoons, the use of coal, and quality education.  For dairy farmers—and others in the ranching and agriculture industrial, all he and the Democrats have to do is make farming/ranching too expensive and take away any possibility of profits.

“Why the change? Giacomazzi says he’s had a tough time staying afloat. It’s tough to keep such an old facility running efficiently, he says, but he also points to the state’s increasing regulations and the tight international milk market California dairy producers now find themselves competing in.

For decades, milk prices have practically stagnated, not even keeping up with inflation, while the costs of production and labor have steadily risen. It’s the smaller farms that have suffered: Over the past 20 years, nearly a third of the state’s dairies have shuttered, while the average herd size has more than doubled. “[Cailfornia]’s just become a very difficult place to be in ag in general, but being in dairy more specifically,” Giacomazzi says.

Although many farmers blame legislators or environmental groups—or both—for leaving them high and dry, Giacomazzi blames apathy. “The fact is that we’ve just shrunk to such an insignificant percentage of the population, it’s not necessarily that people are against us, it’s that they just don’t consider us,” he says.”

Enjoy you glass of milk—in the future it will be imported from other States—at a higher cost, thanks to Democrats and Sacramento.  Still voting for the Democrats?

Citing Economic Concerns, California’s Oldest Dairy Closes Its Doors

By Kerry Klein, Valley Public Radio News, 11/5/19 

After more than a century of milk production, California’s oldest dairy is closing. The owner isn’t getting out of agriculture altogether, however—he’s switching out cows for trees.

Dino Giacomazzi is a fourth-generation dairy farmer in Hanford. Having produced milk since 1893, he suspects Giacomazzi Dairy may be the oldest west of the Rockies—or at least it was. In late October, Giacomazzi sold his 2,000-odd cattle off at auction, a decision he says wasn’t easy. “When you’re doing one thing for over 100 years, there’s a lot of identity in that and a lot of emotion built around that decision,” he says.

Giacomazzi says it was actually in 2013, slammed with the west’s historic drought, when he decided to begin transitioning from dairy to almonds. On a different property, he planted a few hundred acres of the trees, which he estimates should reach maturity in a few more years.

Why the change? Giacomazzi says he’s had a tough time staying afloat. It’s tough to keep such an old facility running efficiently, he says, but he also points to the state’s increasing regulations and the tight international milk market California dairy producers now find themselves competing in.

For decades, milk prices have practically stagnated, not even keeping up with inflation, while the costs of production and labor have steadily risen. It’s the smaller farms that have suffered: Over the past 20 years, nearly a third of the state’s dairies have shuttered, while the average herd size has more than doubled. “[Cailfornia]’s just become a very difficult place to be in ag in general, but being in dairy more specifically,” Giacomazzi says.

Although many farmers blame legislators or environmental groups—or both—for leaving them high and dry, Giacomazzi blames apathy. “The fact is that we’ve just shrunk to such an insignificant percentage of the population, it’s not necessarily that people are against us, it’s that they just don’t consider us,” he says.

Only after his 105-year-old grandmother died last year, Giacomazzi says, did he feel it was the right time to finally pull out of the dairy business. This week, he began enrolling his employees in almond production courses.