HEARD ON THE TOM/TOMS

HEARD ON THE TOM/TOMS

Stephen Frank, California Political News and Views, 2/6/23 

California Federation of Republican Women Torn Apart by Rogue Nine

ROGUE NINE CONTINUE DESTRUCTION OF CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF REPUBLICAN WOMEN

In a recent email, the rogue Nine warned that unless you pay your “per capita” your CFRW club will be decharted—and the money you earned and raised will go to them—and to the attorneys who are working to keep the Rogue Nine in power..  From their email blast to CFRW clubs on record:

“Non-payment of dues for the total membership.

In accordance with CFRW Bylaws Article IV. Membership, the CFRW Executive Committee may recommend that a club’s charter be revoked for failure to pay dues. When a club’s charter is revoked all of its assets shall be distributed to the superior body, CFRW. None of the assets shall be distributed to any individual officer or member of the club. The right to use of the name of the club shall revert to its superior body, CFRW.”

 How will this money be used?  To pay attorneys.  Maybe that is why clubs are not paying—they want their money used to defeat Democrats and to build the Republican Party—not to destroy what is left of the CFRW.

Oh, they are also holding a meeting on February 11.  When you read the notice, it takes several clicks to find out that it is by ZOOM—but they are NOT inviting all of the CRP candidates.  Plus, the notice does not say this is an endorsing meeting—but even then, they get it wrong.  By not inviting all the candidates they can claim there is only one candidate for the office, so they can get the endorsement.  Two years ago the Rogue Nine wanted a CFRW endorsement for Jessica Patterson—instead it went to me, Steve Frank.  This time they are taking no chances—they are ignoring Mike Cargile, candidate for CRP Chair—so they can claim Jessica is the only candidate.  No, this is NOT the California Federation of Democrat Women—it purports to be the CFRW.  Any wonder clubs are not paying per capita.

Also note they will take away our money.  As I have watched this, clubs leaving or being forced out of the CFRW are donating their money to other political clubs—so their money is not used for attorneys.  Doubt if the clubs leaving will have a dime left for the CFRW to take.

Worse, the National Federation of Republican Women apparently do not trust checks sent to them by a California club.  They are now insisting on CERTIFIED CHECKS.  Guess they do not want the checks cancelled as more clubs and members realize the CFRW has a legitimately elected President and a Group that claims it is President.  The new group has a new website.  Go to the “new” website” https://californiarepublicanwomenfederated.com/leadership-1  Click on leadership. 

No it does not list the Board or officers.  It does not talk about building the Republican Party in California or defeating Democrats.  Instead it talks about how they are the “real” Women’s Fed.—and they do not note the use of per capita to hire attorneys to fight Republicans—instead of fighting Democrats.  In the end, they will have ended the great tradition, and history of the CFRW.  In its place, clubs will go to other organizations, go independent and cause thousands to leave politics. We are already seeing that.

  1. Several months ago, the County Chairman’s Association removed Dwight Williams as its Interim Chairman.  One of the reasons was his lack of actions or activities while in office.  Similar to how he runs the San Joaquin Central Committee—few meetings with any programs or actions.  Yet the California Republican Party, leadership built on proxies, not people, refuses to recognize the vote of the Chairs, still recognize Williams as Interim Chair.

Just to make sure he doesn’t do anything, he CANCELLED the remaining County Chairs meetings—at a time when they need to be unified in building. Toward the March, 2024 Primary.

He has decided that he no longer wants to do nothing as Chair—so he is running for First Vice Chair, and do nothing from that post.  But, he is supporting someone for Chair who has done LESS then he has—San Francisco Chair, John Dennis—arguably the least effective Chair in the State.  You have to go back at least 30 years to find an elected Republican from San Fran—and the number of Republicans on Commissions?  You need a microscope to find.  Voter Registration?  As of the November, 2022 Secretary of State report—6.74%–yet the committee has NO voter registration program, no get out the vote program (they may have “written” programs”, but they have never been implemented).  Dennis himself runs for Congress, a lot—just because there is no one else willing to do so in this non-existent GOP County.

2.  The Los Angeles Times has decided being against Jews and Israel is a qualifier to be on a House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee.  That could explain why they have no problem with the Biden Crime Family and its relationship to China—anti-Americanism is a good thing to the Times.

Abcarian: What got Rep. Ilhan Omar kicked off that House committee? Payback and prejudice, not antisemitism — The idea that House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who has essentially given aid and comfort to those who supported an insurrection against the United States government, would accuse anyone of being un-American is as rich as it is Orwellian. Robin Abcarian in the Los Angeles Times$ — 2/5/23

3.  We have a drought—but the lack of water is due to government, not the climate.  This is another story about how the whack jobs make water a scarce commodity.

San Francisco’s Hetch Hetchy water system is almost full for the first time in years. Is that a good thing? — San Francisco’s brimming reservoirs are a boon for the city and its suburbs after three years of drought. But they’re a concern for environmentalists who want to see more water left in rivers for fish. Kurtis Alexander in the San Francisco Chronicle$ — 2/5/23

4.  What are they smoking at the L.A. Times—they approve of hating Jews and Israel.  Now they believe that jobs are degrading our environment.  The only jobs that do that are at the Times itself.  We need jobs.  Period.  The Times wants to ship jobs to Nevada and Arizona.  Without real people there are not enough drug using, elitists to buy the Times—or buy products advertised in the Times.  Here is another story—NOT SATIRE.

Warehouse boom transformed Inland Empire. Are jobs worth the environmental degradation? — As toxic emissions from diesel traffic choke the air, activists are calling for a moratorium on new warehouses and for the governor to declare a state of emergency. Rachel Uranga in the Los Angeles Times$ — 2/5/23

(Periodically the California Political News and Views will publish tidbits of political news, to keep you in the loop of what the pooh bahs know.  The phrase “tom/tom’s” comes from my mentor, Lorelei Kinder who never passed a rumor, just called to tell me what she heard on the “TomTom’s”.  This column is named in her honor.)

California housing politics enters uncharted waters (Community Colleges=Housing NOT Education)

As we all know enrollment in k-12, community, State colleges and State Universities is dropping rapidly.  We also know that campuses, at any grade level are used for political and sexual indoctrination—education for your future is no longer a priority.  So it should not be a surprise that several dozen community colleges have already spent over half a billion dollars on housing—NOT education.

Of course nothing stops the community colleges in the future to use these “student housing” for the community.  This is how socialism works—you take money for education, turn into a college problem (housing) then you turn that into solving the community problem.

“But there’s some progress: A dozen community colleges have been awarded $500 million (with hundreds of millions more on the way) to build new dorms and expand existing ones. Andrea Madison and Katherine Bent with CalMatters’ College Journalism Network reported on two new projects that offer different possible versions of the future for California’s student housing.”

California housing politics enters uncharted waters

WhatMatters,  2/3/23   

For northern California housing politics, judgment day has come.

Cities across the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area had until Wednesday to show state regulators how they plan to approve a sufficient quantity of housing over the next decade. 

Some submitted their plans on time. Most did not. Some made an earnest effort to comply. Others not so much. Some will have their plans accepted. Others have already had theirs rejected. Suburbanites viscerally opposed to new construction and density in their neighborhoods are incensed. Pro-development activists are celebrating a “Zoning Holiday.”

As of Thursday afternoon, of the 109 cities and counties in the region, 66 have either had their plans rejected, or failed to submit one at all. Two have had their plans approved and finalized: San Francisco, which approved a plan for 82,000 additional units, and the city of Alameda, which agreed to make room for another 5,000 homes and apartments. Emeryville and Redwood City have both gotten tentative thumbs- ups, too.

While Gov. Gavin Newsom celebrated the San Francisco approval, 82,000 units in eight years is a far cry from his statewide goal of 2.5 million, which itself is a big cut from the 3.5 million he campaigned on in 2018.

With housing scofflaws abounding, the question remains: What’s the state going to do about it?

First, a brief primer on how we got here:

Advocates on both sides of the issue have been alternately clamoring for, and dreading, a “builder’s remedy” bonanza. But housing experts note that we’re in uncharted waters.

Southern California may provide some glimpse of the Bay Area’s future. The state has been slow-rolling its housing plan deadlines, region by region, and much of Southern California fell out of compliance in mid-October. The legal battles are on: Huntington Beach has vowed to “unleash” its city attorney against the state’s mandates and housing groups are suing Beverly Hills to see whether the builder’s remedy applies there.

Top of mind: In a statewide survey this week from the Public Policy Institute of California, 60% of respondents said they were “very concerned” that the cost of housing will prevent younger members of their family from buying a home in their part of the state. 

That’s compared to 4% who reported being not at all concerned. Lucky them.

But there’s some progress: A dozen community colleges have been awarded $500 million (with hundreds of millions more on the way) to build new dorms and expand existing ones. Andrea Madison and Katherine Bent with CalMatters’ College Journalism Network reported on two new projects that offer different possible versions of the future for California’s student housing.

New Bill Could Bring Amsterdam-Style Cannabis Cafes to California

Years ago the Beatles wrote a song, “No Where Man”.  It was about a person who went through life without a point of view or care about society.  It looks like Sacramento is going to make it real easy for us to forgot the hatred and bigotry of AOC, the financial disaster of Newsom and the sexual grooming of our kids by Educrats.  How?  Instead of going into a Starbucks for an expensive cup of bad coffee, they can go into marijuana café and dream their life away.  You will be able to put aside the racism of our society, the failures of government education, the lack of freedom in America—just smoke pot.  Will these “cafes” be as ubiquitous as Starbucks?  Will people even care to vote any more?

“Assemblymember Matt Haney thinks he might have a new way to lure visitors to San Francisco and other places in California: cannabis cafes, like the ones that draw thousands of tourists to Amsterdam each year.

On Friday, Haney introduced legislation to make it easier for cannabis dispensaries to sell food and beverages.

“If an authorized cannabis retail store wants to sell someone cannabis, a cup of tea and a sandwich, we should allow cities to make that possible and stop holding back our economy and a service that people want. Those things are all illegal under state law now,” Haney told KQED.”

New Bill Could Bring Amsterdam-Style Cannabis Cafes to California

Scott Shafer, KQED,   2/3/23  

Assemblymember Matt Haney thinks he might have a new way to lure visitors to San Francisco and other places in California: cannabis cafes, like the ones that draw thousands of tourists to Amsterdam each year.

On Friday, Haney introduced legislation to make it easier for cannabis dispensaries to sell food and beverages.

“If an authorized cannabis retail store wants to sell someone cannabis, a cup of tea and a sandwich, we should allow cities to make that possible and stop holding back our economy and a service that people want. Those things are all illegal under state law now,” Haney told KQED.

‘I hope that the governor, as a small-business owner himself in the past who has been involved in the hospitality industry, can now see this as an opportunity.’Assemblymember Matt Haney

The bill comes as California’s cannabis industry is struggling — some say collapsing — under the weight of high taxation and other factors that make buying pot on the illegal market more attractive than walking into a dispensary.

Haney’s legislation would simply change state law to allow licensed cannabis stores to also sell food, nonalcoholic beverages and tickets for entertainment events — if local governments want that.

“Many people want to consume cannabis legally while socializing with others, and many want to do it while drinking coffee, eating a muffin or listening to music,” Haney said. “And there is absolutely no good reason from an economic, health, safety or fairness standpoint that the state should make those things illegal.”

Haney sees the diversification of cannabis businesses as a way to shore up struggling dispensaries by luring visitors for a unique experience they can’t find at home, while also helping to fill vacant storefronts and downtown corridors hollowed out by the pandemic.

Haney’s bill wouldn’t require this — it would simply allow local governments to decide whether to expand the range of products existing operators could offer. In San Francisco, Supervisor Rafael Mandelman is already on board.

On Tuesday, he plans to introduce local legislation to allow cannabis lounges — where using pot is currently permitted — to also sell food, beverages and tickets to events, such as music or comedy.

 “I think those (current) restrictions don’t make sense and they’re not helpful to the lounges,” Mandelman said. “And I think that in terms of making those more enjoyable spaces and building out our local cannabis industry, tourism and economic developments — for all those reasons, it makes sense to take advantage of what Assemblyman Haney is putting forward.”

West Hollywood and desert towns like Palm Springs and Cathedral City have already written local ordinances to allow cannabis cafes if the state permits them, according to Haney’s office.

Despite the proliferation of dispensaries, the current economic and regulatory environments pose serious hurdles for them.

“We hear from our operators that it’s a very challenging time to be in the cannabis space,” said Nikesh Patel, director of San Francisco’s Office of Cannabis. “And some of the reasons are reduced foot traffic on the streets and higher tax burdens on cannabis businesses.

“There is still competition with the illicit market, and the cost of flower (the unprocessed cannabis “bud”) as a whole has gone down, and that’s had a trickle effect on the entire supply chain.”

Patel would not take a position on Haney’s legislation, but he emphasized that, in the current market, cannabis businesses need some kind of help if they are to survive competition from illegal sellers.

By passing Proposition 64 in 2016, California voters legalized recreational use of marijuana in the state. More than a dozen other states have done the same.

But Prop. 64 left licensing up to local governments. California has more than 700 legally permitted dispensaries. San Francisco alone has more than 40, while Oakland has at least 15.

But more than half of California cities and counties haven’t allowed cannabis businesses to operate in their jurisdictions — and taxation and competition from cheaper marijuana on the illegal market has pushed some operators out of business.

Haney’s bill could help address some of those challenges by opening up new opportunities for revenue generation by cannabis sellers.

Using Amsterdam as a model for San Francisco could be somewhat problematic. While the Netherlands officially “tolerates” personal use of marijuana, the mayor of Amsterdam is reportedly tired of tourists on a “moral vacation” and wants to at least temporarily ban nonresidents from using its pot cafes.

Haney’s office noted that his bill would do nothing to interfere with local law enforcement or other agencies monitoring the operation of these establishments — if they in fact open. If the bill passes the Legislature, the Assemblymember does not know whether Gov. Gavin Newsom would sign it.

“I hope that the governor, as a small-business owner himself in the past who has been involved in the hospitality industry, can now see this as an opportunity,” Haney said.

January’s ‘too good to be true’ jobs report was based on ‘adjustments’ (Actually LOST 2.5 million REAL Jobs)

Biden Lied and Economy Died—We LOST 2.5 Million Jobs, NOT Gained 517,000

If you manipulate the data, using algorithms, January saw 517,000 new jobs created.  On the other hand if you live in the real world and counted heads, we LOST 2.5 million jobs in January.  No wonder Biden likes algorithms, in elections or counting jobless.  In one, he gets to be President, regardless of the votes.  In the other he gets to claim to be a great job creator.  Yet, 2.5 million people know he and the government are liars.

Bloomberg, which exists to serve active traders on Wall Street, is throwing shade on the January jobs report that “surprised” a lot of people with its positive numbers. Before addressing the technical factors used to produce the rosy numbers, consider the buried lede hundreds of words into the piece: Stripped of all the technical jargon is this stark reality:

On an unadjusted basis, payrolls actually fell by 2.5 million last month.

 Molly Smith writes:

Employers added 517,000 jobs in January — nearly double the prior month’s advance and above all estimates in a Bloomberg survey. The unemployment rate also unexpectedly retreated to 3.4%, the lowest since 1969, according to Labor Department data released Friday.

January’s ‘too good to be true’ jobs report was based on ‘adjustments’

By Thomas Lifson, American Thinker,  2/3/23 

Bloomberg, which exists to serve active traders on Wall Street, is throwing shade on the January jobs report that “surprised” a lot of people with its positive numbers. Before addressing the technical factors used to produce the rosy numbers, consider the buried lede hundreds of words into the piece: Stripped of all the technical jargon is this stark reality:

On an unadjusted basis, payrolls actually fell by 2.5 million last month.

 Molly Smith writes:

Employers added 517,000 jobs in January — nearly double the prior month’s advance and above all estimates in a Bloomberg survey. The unemployment rate also unexpectedly retreated to 3.4%, the lowest since 1969, according to Labor Department data released Friday.

Those are the numbers that grabbed headlines and enabled Team Biden to claim credit for what they want to bamboozle the public into thinking we have a great economy.  But it turns out that there were changes in the way the data were gathered and reported that made things look rosier:

“Seasonal adjustment factors appear to have flattered the headline as smaller-than-usual post-holiday layoffs bolstered the payrolls numbers,” Wells Fargo & Co. economists Sarah House and Michael Pugliese said in a note. 

“We suspect members of the FOMC will take January’s blowout employment report with somewhat of a grain of salt,” they said, referring to the Federal Open Market Committee that sets monetary policy.

What Bloomberg Economics Says…

“If it seems too good to be true, that’s because it is too good to be true — the gain is mostly due to seasonal factors and revisions to past data. Still, it can’t be denied that the labor
market remains tight. The Fed won’t place too much weight on this headline jobs number when formulating policy.”
— Anna Wong and Eliza Winger, economists

Poll: Two-Thirds of CA Adults Say Gun Control More Important than Gun Rights

How does a society come under the boot of criminals and totalitarians?  By taking guns away from honest citizens.  Then, listening to folks like AOC, Schiff and Katie Porter, taking guns away from cops.  Then, only criminals will have guns—would you feel safe?  If you like that, go to Mexico and live under the drug cartels.

“A survey released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California shows two-thirds of California adults believe gun control is more important than gun rights.

The survey was conducted January 13-20, 2023, and 1,539 California adults were surveyed.

Question 65 of the survey asked, “What do you think is more important—[rotate] (1) to protect the right of Americans to own guns, [or] (2) to control gun ownership?”

The responses: 65 percent of respondents said it is more important “to control gun ownership” while 34 percent said it is more important “to protect the right of Americans to own guns.”

Poll: Two-Thirds of CA Adults Say Gun Control More Important than Gun Rights

AWR HAWKINS, Breitbart,  2/3/23   

A survey released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California shows two-thirds of California adults believe gun control is more important than gun rights.

The survey was conducted January 13-20, 2023, and 1,539 California adults were surveyed.

Question 65 of the survey asked, “What do you think is more important—[rotate] (1) to protect the right of Americans to own guns, [or] (2) to control gun ownership?”

The responses: 65 percent of respondents said it is more important “to control gun ownership” while 34 percent said it is more important “to protect the right of Americans to own guns.”

One percent of respondents did not know what they thought in response to the question.

Upon release of the PPIC survey, the Los Angeles Times noted Californians’ overwhelming support for gun laws “partially explains why gun control bills are proliferating in the new Legislature — some of them good, some goofy.”

The main gun control push in the state centers on concealed carry permit holders; on placing further restrictions on the age at which concealed carry is allowable and where concealed carry permit holders can carry guns for self defense.

On February 2, 2023, Breitbart News reported that Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) response to recent mass shootings in California was to rally behind Senate Bill 2, which targets concealed carry.

On June 5, 2022, Breitbart News observed that  Mike Bloomberg-affiliated Everytown for Gun Safety ranked  California number one for gun control while FBI data showed the state to be number one for “active shooter incidents.”

LA Council Signs Off on Marriott Hotel in South LA Over Housing Concerns

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.  Here we have the L.A. City Council agreeing to allow a Marriott Hotel to be built in south Central Los Angeles.  The Marriott is taking a risk.  This is an area where riots break out.  One of the reason South Central has almost NO chain grocery stores is the crime problem.

Yet, some are opposed to the idea of a quality hotel, with lots of jobs coming to their community.  These folks prefer government programs to real jobs.

“Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, a tenants advocacy group, called the council’s decision a disappointment.

“We spent over 10 years advocating to ensure this public land is used for public good,” the organization said on Twitter. “Simply put, this corporate hotel development does not meet the needs and desires of the community.”

Councilman Marqueece Harris-Dawson, who represents the area and is chair of the committee, introduced the motion asking the council to “assert jurisdiction” over the local planning commission’s action.

My guess is that they wanted the City to create a homeless encampment on the site—or a drug market to allow addicts to overdose under the eyes of nurses and doctors. In effect, this is called a “suicide zone” promoted by government—like they have in San Fran.  The concept of jobs is foreign to these radicals.

LA Council Signs Off on Marriott Hotel in South LA Over Housing Concerns

by Contributing Editor, My News LA,   2/3/23   

The City Council signed off on a proposed 168-room Marriott hotel in South Los Angeles Friday, reversing a decision by the local planning commission that had initially denied a permit for the development over concerns that the city-owned land should be used instead for affordable housing.

The proposed seven-story building would be located on a 34,000-square-foot, city-owned site that has been vacant since 2010. It was formerly the site of the Bethune Library, and is located near USC.

The council voted Jan. 17 to override the denial of a permit for the hotel by the South Los Angeles Area Planning Commission. On Tuesday, the council’s planning committee sided with the developer in providing the permit and the full council voted 10-1 in favor on Friday.

The Marriott would be the first union hotel in Council District Eight. It would provide up to 60 permanent jobs and 1,000 construction jobs, according to the city’s economic and workforce development department. Department officials noted that there is only one other three-star hotel located within a two-mile radius of the USC campus.

The hotel is projected to bring $1.6 million of annual revenue to the city, according to the department.

In 2019, the City Council entered into an agreement with a developer to build the Marriott on the site. But the local planning commission last month sided with the city’s zoning administrator in denying a conditional use permit and site plan review amid concerns that the lot should be used to provide affordable housing.

Several public speakers addressed the council two weeks ago and again at Tuesday’s committee meeting opposing the hotel. But on Friday, several speakers showed up to the chamber to voice support for the project.

Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, a tenants advocacy group, called the council’s decision a disappointment.

“We spent over 10 years advocating to ensure this public land is used for public good,” the organization said on Twitter. “Simply put, this corporate hotel development does not meet the needs and desires of the community.”

Councilman Marqueece Harris-Dawson, who represents the area and is chair of the committee, introduced the motion asking the council to “assert jurisdiction” over the local planning commission’s action.

On Tuesday, Harris-Dawson called the project one of “much controversy” but said the Eighth District “needs to be able to participate in the economy of Los Angeles.”

“When the World Cup comes to L.A., were we to go along with the folks opposed to this project, what the district would get out of that economic activity is increased traffic, people parking all through their neighborhoods, trash and everything else — and not get one dollar of benefit from that economic activity,” Harris-Dawson said.

Inside the Long, Uphill Battle to Unionize Workers at One Large Bay Area Nonprofit

Were it not for American unions, the European and Asian car manufacturers would be a small part of the automotive sales.  But, thanks to the union ownership of GM, Ford and Chrysler, we now have Toyota, Nissan and Kia.  The unions took over the American steel industry and ran it into the ground, Now they are after non profits—to make sure folks in the Homeless Industrial Complex continue to fail in helping the poor and homeless.

“That comes as more than 70% of Americans say they approve of labor unions, the highest rate since 1965, according to a 2022 Gallup poll. But even so, only about 10% of U.S. workers currently belong to labor unions, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

More than three years into their unionization bid, organizers at Felton are still trying to secure support from a majority of workers.

The protracted effort at Felton highlights just how challenging labor organizing can be at a sprawling, mission-driven nonprofit.

‘I knew that a boss never likes the idea of a union, but the extent that upper management has gone to suppress the union campaign has really shocked me.’ Ayla Lorraine, clinical case manager, Felton Institute.

The unions do not get it.  The workers do not want to trade one boss for a union boss—and pay extortion money for the “right” to work.  They are tired of being harassed.  You can count me in on the 70% that support the right of unions to exist.  But until they start representing the workers, not radical economy killing politicians and policies—I will not be part of the 10%–and dropping—that agree to be harassed and extorted. 

Inside the Long, Uphill Battle to Unionize Workers at One Large Bay Area Nonprofit

Holly McDede, KQED,  2/3/23  

Eva Cisneros loves her job at the Felton Institute, a nonprofit that has provided a range of mental health and social services across the Bay Area for more than 130 years.

“It gives me a lot of joy when [my clients] reach a milestone. Even when we finish a Social Security application, that’s a huge accomplishment,” said Cisneros, an employment and education specialist at the organization’s early psychosis program. “I always call it ‘the little wins.’ You have to get those little wins.”

But high turnover, staffing shortages, unsustainable caseloads and low pay are undermining crucial services and relationships with clients, she said.

Cisneros notes that she’s been at Felton for less than three years, and is already one of the longest-serving members of her team.

“We, as the frontline workers, need more of a voice,” she said. “Every month I just hope I can pay the rent, pay the bills, feed the cats and keep my car running so I can get to work, go to the field and meet my clients.”

In a push to boost workers’ wages and bargaining power, Cisneros and a contingent of her colleagues have been waging a prolonged campaign to join the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1021, which currently represents only about 50 of the organization’s roughly 500 workers.

Felton workers watched over the last year as their counterparts at several Bay Area social services nonprofits — including the Glide Foundation and Compass Family Services — voted to unionize because of similar workplace concerns. Workers in those agencies are now, for the first time, preparing to bargain for their new contracts.

That comes as more than 70% of Americans say they approve of labor unions, the highest rate since 1965, according to a 2022 Gallup poll. But even so, only about 10% of U.S. workers currently belong to labor unions, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

More than three years into their unionization bid, organizers at Felton are still trying to secure support from a majority of workers.

The protracted effort at Felton highlights just how challenging labor organizing can be at a sprawling, mission-driven nonprofit.

‘I knew that a boss never likes the idea of a union, but the extent that upper management has gone to suppress the union campaign has really shocked me.’Ayla Lorraine, clinical case manager, Felton Institute

Some Felton workers say they’ve been threatened and retaliated against for their union activity.

“I knew that a boss never likes the idea of a union, but the extent that upper management has gone to suppress the union campaign has really shocked me,” said Ayla Lorraine, a clinical case manager at Felton who works with older adults. “I’ve talked to so, so many different colleagues. Easily a broad majority of people I’ve talked to are in support of a union, and also terrified to be public about it.”

SEIU Local 1021 has filed 10 unfair labor practice charges against Felton with the National Labor Relations Board, including claims that its management surveilled staff by taking their pictures or recording videos of them, and fired an employee for supporting the union. (The union has since dropped one of the 10 charges.)

In a neutrality agreement with Felton that went into effect in 2019, the nonprofit agreed to remain neutral on the organizing campaign and not to retaliate against workers involved in union activity.

Felton also pledged to provide contact information to allow the union to speak to workers about joining, an agreement the SEIU said Felton has violated.

“Felton has also been waging one of the most intense and comprehensive anti-worker campaign we’ve seen from an employer in San Francisco in decades,” Mariya Semeit, a Felton head teacher and member of the SEIU 1021 bargaining team, said in an email statement. “Their goal is to intimidate workers who are not yet members of the union and to distract and delay efforts by SEIU 1021 to provide representation and assistance to current members who are seeking to improve their workplace.”

Felton flatly denies those claims.

When asked during a San Francisco Board of Supervisors committee hearing last October to respond to the charges, Sarah Richardson Baker, Felton’s director of communications, refuted the allegations and said that Felton has followed all “contractual obligations.” She noted that over the last five years, Felton increased the wages of all of its employees by over 25%. She declined, however, to answer questions from supervisors.

Tenderloin Housing Clinic Workers Strike in Demand for Higher Wages

“I just find that totally unacceptable,” Supervisor Myrna Melgar responded. “The goal, as I told you when I met with you, was to get to a place where we can have labor peace. And it doesn’t seem to me that by not engaging, we can get to a place of understanding.”

In an interview with KQED, Felton CEO and President Al Gilbert said he had been advised that saying anything during the hearing could be perceived as anti-union.

Gilbert also said that some Felton employees have raised concerns with management about those campaigning for the union visiting employees’ homes after hours.

“It can feel frightening if someone comes to your house and says your name and knocks on your door and it’s nighttime,” he said. “You don’t feel safe. You don’t know why they’re there, you don’t know if you’re in trouble with the law. Many staff have said they’re concerned about that, and they actually asked for our support.”

Gilbert acknowledged that Felton, like many other nonprofits dependent on public funding, has faced challenges paying employees enough to afford to live in the Bay Area.

That claim is backed by a report last year from the San Francisco City Controller’s Office, which found that nonprofits face “extreme inflationary and market pressures, which often exceed contract budget increases” and that “low wage levels led to difficulty hiring and high turnover, impacting client services and service provider stability.”

Nonetheless, Gilbert contended that Felton’s workforce has remained “relatively stable” considering the many pandemic-related disruptions it’s faced in recent years.

The union’s complaints against Felton have been a distraction from the necessary and difficult work the nonprofit should be focusing on, Gilbert added, noting that he worries the recent strife is also undermining worker camaraderie and morale.

“The work is really complicated and we know we’re all in it for the right reasons. And now we’re spending time talking about something that, to us, should be a nonissue,” Gilbert said. “If the employees want to join the union, please do. Call a vote, do something.”

Ahide Palomera, administrative manager in Felton’s early psychosis program, pointed to the rift that the union organizing campaign has fomented among workers.

“It’s upsetting because it’s now snowballed into something it shouldn’t have been,” Palomera said. “I feel like it’s a lot of bullying and a lot of pressuring folks.”

Palomera is not new to union involvement at Felton: She joined SEIU Local 1021 in 2011. During that time, Palomera said, she generally felt misled and unsupported, and remembers finding the union hard to get ahold of when she or her co-workers sought help.

“I got really upset. I was like, ‘Why are you guys not helping these employees?'” Palomera said. “I was like, ‘I can’t do this anymore.’ I’m paying [dues for] something that is not benefiting me. No one was hearing me.”

‘It’s upsetting because it’s now snowballed into something it shouldn’t have been. I feel like it’s a lot of bullying and a lot of pressuring folks.’Ahide Palomera, administrative manager, Felton Institute

Palomera now works at a different Felton location in Alameda, where employees are not unionized.

“We pride ourselves on being a member-led union, but people come up short sometimes,” Semeit, the bargaining team member, said in her email. “We have worked hard in the decade since the issues raised by that member to be better, and we continue to do the difficult but necessary work of building a strong, member-led organization.”

Another employee, Milagro Castro, said she was so frustrated by pressure to support the union at the Bryant location that she transferred to another site.

“The environment is too toxic,” said Castro, a teaching assistant who works with young children. “Too much pressure. I said, ‘No, no, no. I need to move.'”

But Cisneros, the union proponent, said workers involved in the campaign need to be able to hear from their colleagues directly. She noted door-to-door campaigning is a normal part of democracy.

“It’s not necessarily that [workers] have to support a union, but we want [their] input,” Cisneros said. “If we’re going to form a union — if we’re going to try to form a union — we need people’s thoughts who work there.”

The state of California is screwing San Fran on housing–and rest of us

With extortionist CEQA rules, unions suing to stop non union projects, politicians creating costly mandates—and even trying to get rid of gas stove, the State of California is screwing not just San Fran—but the whole State.  So responsible people are fleeing California for Free States.

“Nevertheless, if San Francisco doesn’t show progress toward meeting those goals, the city could lose out on transportation and housing money (imagine: if we don’t have enough money to fund enough affordable housing, they will take away affordable housing money; what a brilliant, effective plan.)

More: If the state decides to decertify the city’s Housing Element, which could happen four years from now, then San Francisco in effect loses all control over local development and developers can build anything they want, almost anywhere they want, with very little public input or oversight.

That’s what’s called the “Builder’s Option”—and it’s a very real threat to San Francisco.

Who makes the decision if a city has not made “substantial progress”?  The State.  In other words, in four years all pretense of local zoning and permitting control is gone.  Instead developers will become the largest donors to Assembly, State Senate and Governor’s race—because it is cheaper, and easier to buy off Sacramento than 58 counties and hundreds of cities.  Get ready for the economic and political disaster.

The state of California is screwing San Francisco on housing

Thanks to Sen. Wiener and our own delegation, San Francisco may be in serious trouble in four years—and it won’t be the city’s fault.

By TIM REDMOND, 48 Hills,  1/30/23   

I have been talking to folks at the City Planning Department to follow up on my analysis of the numbers in the Housing Element, and after a good amount of research, I think can fairly conclude the following:

The state, thanks to the likes of Sen. Scott Wiener, has totally screwed San Francisco.

Here’s what’s really going on:

Under Wiener’s state law, every city has to submit a plan, which in SF has become part of the Housing Element, that shows how the community is going to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment goals. The RHNA process is ridiculous and the goals are a farce.

Nevertheless, if San Francisco doesn’t show progress toward meeting those goals, the city could lose out on transportation and housing money (imagine: if we don’t have enough money to fund enough affordable housing, they will take away affordable housing money; what a brilliant, effective plan.)

More: If the state decides to decertify the city’s Housing Element, which could happen four years from now, then San Francisco in effect loses all control over local development and developers can build anything they want, almost anywhere they want, with very little public input or oversight.

That’s what’s called the “Builder’s Option”—and it’s a very real threat to San Francisco.

Here’s why:

Sponsored link

Help us save local journalism!

Every tax-deductible donation helps us grow to cover the issues that mean the most to our community. Become a 48 Hills Hero and support the only daily progressive news source in the Bay Area.

Learn more

The RHNA goals call for San Francisco to zone for, make room for, and approve about 82,000 new housing units in the next eight years, 46,000 of them affordable.

In theory, Miriam Chion, director of community equity for the department, told me, the private market could build housing that meets the affordability standards. But she agreed that’s never going to happen, so the city, with whatever resources it can find, is supposed to subsidize 46,000 units, at a cost of about $19 billion. Nobody in any position in City Hall has any idea where that money will come from. (If the city relies entirely on inclusionary housing from private developers, it will require massive demolition of existing housing and neighborhoods.)

The RHNA goals call for about 36,000 new units of market-rate housing. The city has already approved and entitled some 45,000 units, about 35,000 of them market rate.

In other words, San Francisco has already essentially met the bar for approving luxury housing, without any additional upzoning or streamlining at all. Chion and Planner James Pappas, who has done a lot of the analysis for the Housing Element, both agreed with me that in terms of approvals, San Francisco doesn’t lack for market-rate housing.

But that’s only half of the story.

When the clock starts ticking on the city’s new Housing Element Feb. 1, the state is going to look beyond approvals and start demanding building permits. “They will want to know how many of these approved developments get permits,” Chion told me.

But that’s a huge problem, because the city can’t force private developers to build anything—and right now, because of circumstances way beyond the city’s control (including the cost of construction materials and the Federal Reserve’s hike in interest rates), none of those developers are building. There’s not enough profit in it.

So if private developers don’t decide to build in San Francisco—even when they have already gone through all of the allegedly obstructive process and have their entitlements—the state will blame the city.

Because of various complex numbers in the Housing Element, Pappas said, the state is going to mandate building permits for 29,000 units by 2027. About half will need to be affordable housing.

If that doesn’t happen—and I don’t know any reasonable person who thinks this is remotely possible in today’s market and with existing resources—then there are two possible outcomes:

The city could even further open up zoning rules and further remove “obstacles” like public hearings and community input, in the desperate hope that developers would then start building. Among the obstacles that the city could remove are the affordable-housing inclusionary rules, meaning even less affordable housing would be built. The city could be forced to allow more development in more areas, which could mean demolitions of existing housing and neighborhoods.

(For the record, I am not against density, and I agree that the West Side of town should have more housing, but it’s clear that density doesn’t always means affordability. This is, in the end, all about developer profits.)

Or the state could decertify the Housing Element, at which point all local rules are off, and the Builder’s Option will take effect.

Pappas and Chion told me they don’t think the Builder’s Option is likely. I hope they’re right. But it’s exactly what state legislation allows.

Oh, and the planners didn’t suggest this, but at least one developer has: The private developers could demand city subsidies for their profit-making housing, and threaten not to build if we all don’t go along.

So let’s sum this up: The state Legislature, led by the city’s own delegation, has set an impossible bar for San Francisco to meet, and is prepared to impose severe penalties if the city doesn’t meet it—even if that failure is due to factors entirely beyond the city’s control.

I am not a conspiracy theorist; really, I’m not. But I do believe that powerful political players often have plans and schemes that they keep secret.

If I were a big developer in San Francisco today, and I had some entitled projects ready to break ground, I could see a really strong argument for holding off, waiting a few years, and forcing the city to fail in its RHNA goals—so that I could make more money in the future by building housing with no local oversight at all.

If I were thinking that way, I would encourage the mayor to support Wiener’s Yimby approach, which she has. I would be thrilled to see a Housing Element with ambitious goals that I would encourage the mayor to make sure the city can’t meet.     

Then in four years, either I would get public subsidies, or be exempt from any affordable-housing requirements—or San Francisco would become the equivalent of Houston, with no local controls on building housing, and I could go to town. (San Francisco could still have zoning, but no other requirements for housing—and the state would push back on any zoning that it finds to be an “obstruction.”)

But that sort of thing doesn’t really happen. Right?

Smittcamp fires back Newsom: listen to real prosecutors, not “imposter DAs”

Newsom releases tens of thousands of Criminals From Prison—fights With DA instead.

Newsom has unleashed a massive crime wave in California.  First by opening our borders to criminals from foreign countries.  Then by opening our prisons, allowing vicious criminals—some serving only six months on a five year sentence, back on the street.  Who does he blame?  Guns!  Instead of blaming those holding the guns in the commission of a crime, he blames the gun—without noting that honest citizens use guns every day to STOP crime—since the police in many cases are not allowed to do so.

The pair traded barbs this week following the tragic death of Selma Police Officer Gonzalo Carrasco Jr., 24, in the line of duty, and Smittcamp issued her latest response Wednesday night after the governor took aim at her during a press conference earlier in the day. 

The backstory: Following Carrasco’s death at the hands of gang member and convicted felon Nathaniel Dixon, Smittcamp issued a statement saying Newsom and state legislators who have passed various laws that result in the early release of prisoners have “the blood of this officer on their hands.” 

  • Smittcamp focused her criticism on the accelerated time credits that criminals such as Dixon are able to receive. In Dixon’s case, he was released from prison six months after a 2022 sentencing despite having a five-year sentence. 
  • Newsom fired back at a pre-planned press conference to promote further gun control, saying Smittcamp “should be ashamed of herself.” 


Smittcamp fires back Newsom: listen to real prosecutors, not “imposter DAs”

While tendering a fresh round of barbs aimed at the Governor, Fresno County’s top cop invited Newsom to discuss the ramifications of his policies.

BYDANIEL GLIGICH, The Sun,  2/2/23 

Fresno County District Attorney Lisa Smittcamp is not backing down in her war of words with California Gov. Gavin Newsom. 

The pair traded barbs this week following the tragic death of Selma Police Officer Gonzalo Carrasco Jr., 24, in the line of duty, and Smittcamp issued her latest response Wednesday night after the governor took aim at her during a press conference earlier in the day. 

The backstory: Following Carrasco’s death at the hands of gang member and convicted felon Nathaniel Dixon, Smittcamp issued a statement saying Newsom and state legislators who have passed various laws that result in the early release of prisoners have “the blood of this officer on their hands.” 

  • Smittcamp focused her criticism on the accelerated time credits that criminals such as Dixon are able to receive. In Dixon’s case, he was released from prison six months after a 2022 sentencing despite having a five-year sentence. 
  • Newsom fired back at a pre-planned press conference to promote further gun control, saying Smittcamp “should be ashamed of herself.” 

The latest from Smittcamp: In her latest statement issued Wednesday night, Smittcamp said Newsom continues to demonstrate his ignorance and lack of understanding of how the criminal justice system works, and she accused him of trying to deflect responsibility for his failed policies. 

  • “He is the biggest proponent of the early release of criminals, and enhanced time credits for inmates and regulations allowing additional accelerated time credits to be arbitrarily granted to inmates when they are sentenced to prison,” Smittcamp said. 
  • The DA invited Newsom to her office to discuss his policies, saying that if he listened to “real prosecutors, instead of supporting imposter DAs,” he might learn the true ramifications of his policies. 
  • Smittcamp also expressed her support for Assembly Bill 15, which would make the records pertaining to an inmate’s release date and their early release credits public record, saying it is time to “shine a bright light” on the credits and early release laws so people can see how Newsom and some legislators “are endangering the safety of all Californians.” 
  • “The Fresno County District Attorney’s Office is committed to pursuing justice and improving public safety for the people of the County of Fresno,” Smittcamp said. “Despite our best efforts, police and prosecutors can only do that if we have state laws and policies that are centered around accountability and responsibility for criminals. We need reform to promote public safety. Our state deserves better, and we must continue to demand that those with the authority to implement change do so with public safety as their highest priority.”

Biden Says He’ll Shoot Down Chinese Spy Balloon As Soon As He’s Done Letting It Spy

While this story is on Babylon Bee, a newsletter dedicated to satire—THIS IS NOT SATIRE.  THIS IS THE TRUTH.

The Chinese Communist Party owned Biden Crime Family allowed a Chinese SPY balloon fly over major areas of the United States, transmit information to China.  Then when the mission was finished, to make it look good, Biden had the balloon shot down.  It is like after the barn burned, he banned matches.

What more evidence do we need to ask if Biden is a traitor?  Trade agreement, selling OUR strategic oil to China and more.  Hunter and the “Big Guy” get the payoff and Americans get the shaft.  This spy balloon incident shows how neither Biden or the CCP care if we know we are being sold out.

“According to anonymous sources, several Pentagon officials asked how soon they would be able to knock the balloon out of the sky, insisting it was a matter of national security.

“Come on, man! I’ll let you shoot it down. Just let me check to make sure the Chinese have what they need and that the million-dollar check for Hunter’s painting came through from my buddy Xi. Then, have at it, boys!”

At publishing time, Eric Swalwell had been seen approaching the spy balloon and asking for its number.

Biden Says He’ll Shoot Down Chinese Spy Balloon As Soon As He’s Done Letting It Spy

BabylonBee.com2/4/23 

U.S. — Americans are up in arms after a Chinese high-altitude spy balloon was seen hovering over sensitive nuclear sites in Montana. Biden was quick to quell fears, vowing to shoot down the hostile balloon as soon as he’s done letting it spy.

“Listen folks, that balloon came a long way to do a little spyin’,” said Biden in a meeting with military leaders. “Would be a shame to shoot the poor thing down before it even gets a chance to take some pictures! I remember when me and the boys used to spy on Suzie Anne McGillicutty through her bedroom window after a long day of protesting the civil rights movement. It’s all in good fun, folks!”

According to anonymous sources, several Pentagon officials asked how soon they would be able to knock the balloon out of the sky, insisting it was a matter of national security.

“Come on, man! I’ll let you shoot it down. Just let me check to make sure the Chinese have what they need and that the million-dollar check for Hunter’s painting came through from my buddy Xi. Then, have at it, boys!”

At publishing time, Eric Swalwell had been seen approaching the spy balloon and asking for its number.


Watch as a fired Twitter employee applies for her first *actual* job: