Eber: SB-330: Another Socialist plot to destroy California

While we were all watching and working the defeat of SB 50, a similar bill, SB 330 by Democrat State Senator Nancy Skinner was moving forward.

“The latest piece of legislation being considered is SB-330 AKA the “Housing Crisis Act of 2019.”  According to its author  Senator Nancy Skinner (D) Berkeley “The Bill would suspend, for a 10-year period, specific local rules and regulations that are recognized as obstacles to housing production, and it would establish reasonable time periods for processing housing permits”

Taken at face value we are to assume that by taking charge, the state would increase the supply of needed housing and make things more affordable.  Looking at such public works projects as the recent San Francisco the Bay Bridge tower, The Bullet Train, and new highway improvements, it is difficult to imagine of even one instance where government agencies in California ever completed anything on time or on budget

We need to fight this one as hard as we did SB 50.  If passed, it will accomplish even more than SB 50 hoped for.  Why isn’t the media reporting on this bill?  Why does it take the California Political News and Views to expose it?

SB-330: Another Socialist plot to destroy California by Richard Eber

Richard Eber, Exclusive to the California Political News and Views, 5/20/19


As the state of California experiences a shortage of affordable housing, the Progressives in Sacramento continue to make absurd proposals to remedy the situation that would make Comrades Lenin, Stalin, or Chairman Mao proud.

As the state of California experiences a shortage of affordable housing, the Progressives in Sacramento continue to make absurd proposals to remedy the situation that would make Comrades Lenin, Stalin, or Chairman Mao proud.

The latest piece of legislation being considered is SB-330 AKA the “Housing Crisis Act of 2019.”  According to its author  Senator Nancy Skinner (D) Berkeley “The Bill would suspend, for a 10-year period, specific local rules and regulations that are recognized as obstacles to housing production, and it would establish reasonable time periods for processing housing permits”

Taken at face value we are to assume that by taking charge, the state would increase the supply of needed housing and make things more affordable.  Looking at such public works projects as the Eastern Span replacement of the San Francisco Bay Bridge, the Bullet Train, and expansion of lanes on freeways throughout the State, it is difficult to imagine of even one instance where government agencies in California ever completed anything on time or on budget

While introducing SB-330 Skinner claims, “Overly cumbersome housing restrictions, parking requirements, and red tape have, in turn, helped make housing very expensive to build.”   The new law would speed up the approval process for these needed projects she thinks.

Nowhere in this equation is there consideration that escalating construction expenses could possibly be attributed to:

  • The high cost of land exasperated by unrealistic urban boundaries that have reduced acreage that can be developed while not taking into account projected population growth in the future.
  • So called red tape and duplicate CEQA requirements along with court battles which have resulted  in additional costs that only mega crony capitalist builders can afford  to pay
  • Project Labor Agreements (PLA) which requires union labor workers on large developments involving subsidies or use of State bond funds. This additional outlay of about 20% more does not make anything more affordable.

Also to be considered is the effect SB-330 might have on city services such as water, law enforcement, fire districts, schools, sewers recreation etc… In bypassing local government zoning concerns, the State does not apparently care how these vital services are to be provided for additional residents.  Big Brother in Sacramento feels their “Build and they will come” methodology occurs without consequences for the affected communities

Another wild card that SB-330 does not address is traffic and parking.  While Skinner opposes all down zoning and providing fewer parking spaces for residents, there is little concern for how these folks will get around. 

Instead unaccountable regional planning agencies propped up by bureaucrats in Sacramento are certain those families occupying these new Project Development Areas will gladly abandon their cars in favor of public transportation and bicycles. While such policies might work in cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Jose, there is no evidence that Californians want to abandon use of their 4 wheel conveyances of choice quite yet.

I am waiting for one of the lame brain Progressive legislators from San Francisco to introduce bills to give tax breaks to purchase self driving bicycles and solar powered shopping carts. Of course there would be subsidies for low income folks who would reside in affordable new State approved projects lacking parking spaces.

To make things even worse Nancy Skinner and her associates have other provisions in SB-330 that would “ban the demolition of rent-controlled or Section 8 housing. And it would prohibit the demolition of affordable housing units, unless they offer tenants relocation assistance and the first right of refusal to units in the new housing development at commensurate rents to what the tenants had been paying.”

Just think what such a provision would mean to developers.  They would have to provide subsidies to existing tenants that are living where these new buildings would be constructed.  Of course the cost of doing this would need to be passed on to market rate housing that is being built.  In the end such subsidies discourage new housing starts which exasperate the problems Skinner is trying to alleviate.

Such social engineering concepts can only lead to an outcome where “The operation was success but the patient died.  The flawed reasoning of SB-330 is just another example of the shortcomings of leftist political philosophy in action.  It is more reminiscent of the failed Five Year Plans in the old Soviet Union than the capitalistic spirit that has made California what it is today.

AB-330 is merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the assault on local government from the Left. Currently debate rages on in the legislature over Senator Scott Weiner’s (D- San Francisco SB-50 which is another attempt to resurrect failed legislation from 2018 to force local government to expand housing regardless of what the consequences might be.

Thus far this bill has received opposition from such diverse organizations as the California League of Cities to Susan Kirsch’s Livable California.  This has resulted in the Senate Appropriations Committee putting SB-50 in “suspense” which likely means it is being put aside during the current legislation session this year.

However, as we know in Sacramento bills such as this can be resurrected just before the body adjourns.  It is also possible that a compromise package can be worked out among Democrats that might put a so called “SB-50 Lite” version together.   In reality, with less than one third of seats, Republicans can do little more than be cheer leaders in opposing bills such as this.

Before we break out the bubbly, there are also other equally troubling housing bills being proposed by Socialistic forces in Sacramento. Assemblyman David Chiu (D-San Francisco) has several of them the hopper including:

Assembly Bill 1487 would address the housing crisis in the Bay Area by creating yet another unaccountable regional agency. Its intent is to stifle local control and impose the State’s will on residents.

Assembly Bill 11 would allow cities and counties to create agencies that would use tax increment financing to fund affordable housing and infrastructure projects. This is an attempt to bring back the disbanded State redevelopment agency to cities and have property taxes used to redistribute wealth thru financing so called affordable housing.  How affordable this housing might be is a mute point.

Assembly Bill 1763 is supposed to boost affordable housing production in California. In doing so, money would be spent more efficiently constructing taller and more populated structures. As a result of increased density discounts given developers to build additional units, costs are supposed come down. Of course this looks good on paper except for the fact that Chiu’s proposed legislation completely ignores the effects this added congestion will have on surrounding areas.

This move by the left promoting increasing housing construction via mega projects continues every week. While public outcry might temporarily delay SB-50 from being enacted, there are new Draconian proposals being conjured up almost every month?

Progressive politicians will not stop until they have all decision making authority under their dictatorial control or voters kick them out of office.  For the rest of us this will mean we need to fight back or “Tears shall drown the wind” for the California of tomorrow.

The latest piece of legislation being considered is SB-330 AKA the “Housing Crisis Act of 2019.”  According to its author  Senator Nancy Skinner (D) Berkeley “The Bill would suspend, for a 10-year period, specific local rules and regulations that are recognized as obstacles to housing production, and it would establish reasonable time periods for processing housing permits”

Taken at face value we are to assume that by taking charge, the state would increase the supply of needed housing and make things more affordable.  Looking at such public works projects as the recent San Francisco the Bay Bridge tower, The Bullet Train, and new highway improvements, it is difficult to imagine of even one instance where government agencies in California ever completed anything on time or on budget

While introducing SB-330 Skinner claims that in addition to banning down zoning, “Overly cumbersome housing restrictions, parking requirements, and red tape have, in turn, helped make housing very expensive to build.”   The new law would speed up the approval process for these projects she thinks.

Nowhere in this equation is there consideration that escalating construction expenses could possibly be attributed to:

  • The high cost of land exasperated by unrealistic urban boundaries that have reduced acreage that can be developed and has not taken into account projected growth in the future.
  • So called red tape and duplicate CEQA requirements and court battles which result in additional costs that only mega crony capitalist builders can afford pay.
  • Project Labor Agreements (PLA”S) which require union labor workers on large developments involving subsidies or use of State bond funds. This additional outlay of about 20% more does not make anything more affordable.

Also to be considered is the effect SB-330 might have on city services such as water, law enforcement, fire districts, schools, sewers recreation etc… In bypassing local government zoning concerns, the State does not apparently care how these vital services are to be provided for additional residents.  Big Brother in Sacramento feels their “Build and they will come” methodology occurs without consequences for the effected communities

Another wild card that SB-330 does not address is traffic and parking.  While Skinner opposes all down zoning and providing fewer parking spaces for residents, there is little concern for how these folks will get around. 

Instead regional planning agencies propped up by bureaucrats in Sacramento are certain those families occupying these new Project Development Areas will gladly abandon their cars in favor of public transportation and bicycles. While such policies might work in cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Jose, there is no evidence that Californians want to abandon use of their 4 wheel conveyances of choice quite yet.

I am waiting for one of the lame brain Progressive legislators from San Francisco to introduce bills to give tax breaks to buy self driving bicycles and solar powered shopping carts. Of course there would be subsidies for low income folks who would reside in affordable new State approved projects that lack for parking facilities.

To make things even worse Nancy Skinner and her associates have other provisions in SB-330 that would “ban the demolition of rent-controlled or Section 8 housing. And it would prohibit the demolition of affordable housing units, unless they offer tenants relocation assistance and the first right of refusal to units in the new housing development at commensurate rents to what the tenants had been paying.”

Just think what such a provision would mean to developers.  They would have to provide subsidies to existing tenants that are living where these new buildings would be constructed.  Of course the cost of doing this would need to be passed on to market rate housing that is being built.  In the end such subsidies discourage new housing starts which exasperates the problems Skinner is trying to alleviate.

Such social engineering concepts can only lead to an outcome where “The operation was success but the patient died.  The flawed reasoning of SB-330 is just another example of the shortcomings of leftist political philosophy in action.  It is more reminiscent of the failed Five Year Plans in the old Soviet Union than the capitalistic spirit that has made California what it is today.

AB-330 is merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the assault on local government from the Left. Currently debate rages on in the legislature over Senator Scott Weiner’s (D- San Francisco SB-50 which is another attempt to resurrect failed legislation from 2018 to force local government to expand housing regardless of what the consequences might be in their communities.

Thus far this bill has received opposition from such diverse organizations as the California League of Cities to Susan Kirsch’s Livable California.  This has resulted in the Senate Appropriations Committee putting SB-50 in “suspense” which likely means it is being put aside during the current legislation session this year.

However, as we know in Sacramento bills such as this can be resurrected just before the body adjourns.  It is also possible that a compromise package can be worked out among Democrats that might put a so called “SB-50 Lite” version together.   In reality, with less than one third of seats, Republicans can do little more than be cheer leaders in opposing bills such as this.

Before we break out the bubbly, there are also other equally troubling housing bills being proposed by Socialistic forces in Sacramento.  David Chiu (D-San Francisco) has several of them the hopper that have moved to the Housing Committee including:

Assembly Bill 1487 would address the housing crisis in the Bay Area by creating yet another regional agency. In reality this would be an unaccountable government bureaucratic tool that faces no public scrutiny. Its intent is to stifle local control and impose the State’s will on residents.

Assembly Bill 11 would allow cities and counties to create agencies that would use tax increment financing to fund affordable housing and infrastructure projects. This is an attempt to bring back the disbanded State redevelopment agency to cities and have property taxes used to redistribute wealth thru so called affordable housing.  How affordable this housing might be is open to question as only union workers would be allowed to be involved with the construction process.

Assembly Bill 1763 is supposed to boost affordable housing production in California. In doing so, money would be spent more efficiently constructing taller and more populated structures. As a result of increased density discounts given developers to build additional units, costs are supposed come down. Of course this looks good on paper except for the fact that Chiu’s proposed legislation completely ignores the effects this added congestion will have on affected areas.

This move by the left promoting increasing housing construction via mega projects, continues every week. While public outcry might temporarily delay SB-50, from being enacted, there are new Draconian proposals being conjured up almost every month?

Progressive politicians will not stop until they have all decision making authority wrested from the voters or be defeated at the polls.  For the rest of us this will mean we need to fight back or “Tears shall drown the wind” for the California of tomorrow.

Colman: The ghost of Herbert Hoover lives on.

In politics and policy the past IS the present.  What happened 500 years ago in Europe—how Italy and Germany became todays modern day States, the difference, from generations ago that caused the First and Second World Wars—still with us today.  The legacy of the Viet Nam War is with us in both military and foreign policy.  And, of course, is campus riots, bullying and hatred.  Economically, no one wants another Depression—we think we remember what caused it—tariffs and bad economic policy.

 In 1930, Congress passed and President Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff.  The tariff imposed protectionist policies. 

 The Great Depression, which began in 1929 and lasted for 10 years, was a time of massive unemployment in the U.S.  The Smoot-Hawley tariffs, which imposed tariffs on more than 20,000 imported goods, was supposed to help save American jobs.  As the Great Depression deepened, unemployment kept rising right through 1932.

 Foreign countries retaliated against Smoot-Hawley, making American exports more expensive overseas.  Jobs in America were lost.

 In 1930, American unemployment was at eight percent.  By 1931, the rate doubled to 16 percent.  By 1931-32, unemployment reached 25 percent.

 Smoot-Hawley was only one element aggravating the Great Depression.  During the Hoover years, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates, making the purchase of homes and cars more expensive.  As demand declined, American jobs were lost.

This is what we were taught and what guides current political/economic policy.  We need a better understanding of caused the Great Depression, not just look at the headlines.

The ghost of Herbert Hoover lives on. 

Richard Colman, Exckusive to California Political News and Views  5/20/19 

Mr. Hoover, president of the United States from 1929 to 1933, died in 1964.  However, Mr. Hoover’s ghost continues to influence both the Republican and Democratic Parties.

 On May 17, 2019, President Donald Trump announced that he would, for 180 days, delay any decision to impose tariffs on vehicles imported into the U.S.

America imports vehicles mostly from Japan, South Korea, and Europe.  Some of these so-called imported vehicles are made in such American states as Tennessee, South Carolina, and Alabama.

 Nissan has a plant in Tennessee.  BMW has one in South Carolina.  Mercedes-Benz manufactures vehicles in Alabama.

 If America imposes tariffs on imported vehicles, foreign nations could retaliate by imposing tariffs on such American exports as agricultural products, technological devices (like smartphones), petroleum, natural gas, and many other products.

 International trade often involves complex supply chains.  With some General Motors vehicles, the transmissions are made in South Korea and the engines in Japan.

 If one were to examine the supply chain of an iPhone, one would find that many nations  contribute to this must-have item. 

 According to a December 2018 report by CNBC, the financial news network, Apple, the company responsible for the iPhone, works with suppliers in 43 different countries on six continents to produce the iPhone.  The supply chain becomes even more complex when raw materials are factored into the iPhone’s production.

 When tariffs are imposed, prices of imports rise, creating inflation.  Also, restrictions on imports will produce a decline in product quality and prop up inefficient American manufacturers.  Many Americans can remember the 1970’s when Americans began to see a perceived decline in cars made domestically by such companies as General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler.

 Americans should ask themselves how many Chevrolet Volts they see on the road compared with the number of Toyota Priuses.

 In 1930, Congress passed and President Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff.  The tariff imposed protectionist policies. 

 The Great Depression, which began in 1929 and lasted for 10 years, was a time of massive unemployment in the U.S.  The Smoot-Hawley tariffs, which imposed tariffs on more than 20,000 imported goods, was supposed to help save American jobs.  As the Great Depression deepened, unemployment kept rising right through 1932.

 Foreign countries retaliated against Smoot-Hawley, making American exports more expensive overseas.  Jobs in America were lost.

 In 1930, American unemployment was at eight percent.  By 1931, the rate doubled to 16 percent.  By 1931-32, unemployment reached 25 percent.

 Smoot-Hawley was only one element aggravating the Great Depression.  During the Hoover years, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates, making the purchase of homes and cars more expensive.  As demand declined, American jobs were lost.

 In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt, the Democratic candidate for president, campaigned against Smoot-Hawley.

 Perhaps President Trump is bluffing.  His threat to impose tariffs may be a way of negotiating better international trade agreements.

 But if Mr. Trump is not bluffing, the U.S. could be headed for a severe recession or even a depression.

 Moreover, the Democratic Party is no help.  Democrats are, like Mr. Trump, also protectionist-minded.  Didn’t Democrats learn anything from Franklin Roosevelt and his internationalist successors like Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton?

 Mr. Trump graduated from the prestigious Wharton School of Finance at the University of Pennsylvania.  The big question is:  Did he learn anything about international economics?

San Fran: The More They Spend $$–The More Homeless in the City!

San Fran, like government everywhere, is incompetent.  After spending tens of millions of dollars to end the homeless problem—there are more homeless.  And more government employees and more non profits trying to end the problem.  The harder they work, the greater the failure.

“Either way, the Department of Homelessness’s new initial figures, released Thursday, revealed a high 2019 count of 8,011 persons, a disastrous increase of between 6.8 and 16.8 percent, depending on which 2017 figure its compared to.

The 2015 count was 7,539 persons, and 2013’s was 7,350.

There was a little good news: The department found a 10 percent reduction in homeless youths compared to 2017, as well as a 14 percent decline in homeless veterans on SF streets.”

Stop the spending.  Change the policies and maybe that will help—spending the taxpayers into bankruptcy only makes more poor people. 

SF’s homeless population breaks 8,000

Mayor announces new funding plan in face of grim tally

By Adam Brinklow, SF Curbed,  5/17/19 

The initial estimate of San Francisco’s most recent Homelessness Point-in-Time Count, conducted in January, reveals that SF’s homeless population swelled by more than 500 persons since 2017, for an overall estimate of more than 8,000.

The last count two years ago yielded a homeless population estimate of 7,499—6,986 adults and 513 minors.

SF reported a smaller figure of 6,585 to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 2017, owing to the fact that the federal government employs a more narrow definition of homelessness than the city.

Either way, the Department of Homelessness’s new initial figures, released Thursday, revealed a high 2019 count of 8,011 persons, a disastrous increase of between 6.8 and 16.8 percent, depending on which 2017 figure its compared to.

The 2015 count was 7,539 persons, and 2013’s was 7,350.

There was a little good news: The department found a 10 percent reduction in homeless youths compared to 2017, as well as a 14 percent decline in homeless veterans on SF streets.

“While I am pleased that we saw reductions in Veteran and youth homelessness, we are saddened that there are more people living without housing in San Francisco,” said Director of the Department of Homelessness Jeff Kositsky on Thursday.

Two years ago, Kositsky predicted that the 2019 count would “see a noticeable decrease.”

In response to the figures, Mayor London Breed announced that she will commit another $5 million in “homelessness prevention investments” in this year’s budget plans.

A full report on the homeless count won’t be available until July.

The biennial Point In Time Count employs hundreds of volunteers who travel San Francisco streets on one night and record how many apparently unsheltered residents they observe.

This is not necessarily the most reliable way to estimate the homeless population, but Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] mandates it every two years, and the results, for better or worse, significantly shape homeless policy.

L.A. Congestion TAX: Only Rich Will Afford to Drive in Los Angeles

Mayor Garcetti who wants income equality, higher pay for minimum wage workers, wants to take all that money back—for government use.

“In addition, the congestion tax will be needed to pay for the billions in cost overruns and time delays associated with many of Metro’s projects, including the Regional Connector in DTLA that was featured on the front page of Sunday’s Los Angeles Times.  

There are also other expensive cost overruns and delays, including those associated with the Expo Line, the Purple Line extension from Western to La Cienega, and the extension of the Gold Line. 

Metro appears to be a bumbling bureaucracy, characterized by cost overruns, delayed completion dates, and declining ridership, all financed by a 2% sales tax that provides the agency with over $3 billion of our money. 

The poor will not afford to drive in L.A.  They might leave.  The middle class is already fleeing, this new tax will get many more to leave.  The rich do not care—they are rich.  Progressives are elitists—using the tax codes to get rid of the “inferior” people.  Elections have consequences—in L.A. that means either being rich, getting poor or leaving.

Metro Congestion Tax to Fund Massive Cost Overruns

Jack Humphreville, City Watch LA,   5/16/19 

16 May 2019

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is considering three alternative congestion taxes that would raise between $12 billion and $103 billion over the next ten years. 

On the low end, there is the Cordon tax scheme that kicks in when you cross a boundary into the congested area like DTLA, Hollywood, Century City, or the Westside.  On the high end is the Vehicle Miles Travel (VMT) tax that dings motorists for miles travelled.  In between, at $52 billion over ten years, is the Corridor tax for driving on congested freeways and streets. 

Mayor Eric Garcetti has said that this proposed levy is “about congestion relief, not revenue.” 

According to Garcetti, Metro’s “congestion relief pricing” plan is not designed to raise money to finance his $26 billion “28 for ’28” initiative that calls for Metro to complete eight additional projects in addition to the twenty designated in Measure M (the 2016 half cent increase in our sales tax) in time for the 2028 Olympics. 

But we all know that is pure baloney as Garcetti does not have any problem in hitting us up for more of our cash.  

According to Metro CEO Philip Washington, the proceeds from the congestion tax will be used to fund the $26 billion “28 by 28” initiative (assuming no cost overruns) and free fares for all transit riders.  These funds will also be used to fund Metro’s growing bureaucracy, higher salaries and benefits for its nearly 10,000 employees, and ever increasing pension and medical contributions. 

In addition, the congestion tax will be needed to pay for the billions in cost overruns and time delays associated with many of Metro’s projects, including the Regional Connector in DTLA that was featured on the front page of Sunday’s Los Angeles Times.  

There are also other expensive cost overruns and delays, including those associated with the Expo Line, the Purple Line extension from Western to La Cienega, and the extension of the Gold Line. 

Metro appears to be a bumbling bureaucracy, characterized by cost overruns, delayed completion dates, and declining ridership, all financed by a 2% sales tax that provides the agency with over $3 billion of our money. 

Before Metro and its politically appointed Board of Directors approve a congestion tax, Metro must become a more transparent organization that uses our tax dollars efficiently.  

We should also demand that Garcetti and the Metro Board of Directors back up the statement, “This is about congestion relief, not revenue,” by including a reduction in our taxes equal to the amount of the congestion tax.  

For example, if the congestion tax were to raise $1.5 billion a year, this amount at would be offset by a reduction is our sales tax of 1%, an amount equal to $1.5 billion. 

Of course, asking a politician to honor his word may be too much to ask, especially when it comes to picking our pockets. 

 (Jack Humphreville writes LA Watchdog for CityWatch. He is the President of the DWP Advocacy Committee and is the Budget and DWP representative for the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council. 

Shock!! Sacramento Democrats Turn DOWN Firearms Tax

Who would expect that a Democrat bill to tax firearms could not get out of Committee?  Last Thursday the DEMOCRATS killed the bill for this year.  Previously the Newsom water tax bill was killed—along with the killing of the rights of local government when SB 50 was thrown out for this year.

“We can start with Assembly Bill 18, Marc’s new bill to tax all handgun and semiautomatic rifle sales.

AB 18 will increase funding for the California Violence Intervention and Prevention Program (CalVIP), a grant for community-based programs that help prevent the root causes of gun violence in the neighborhoods most affected by it.

This effort by has state has proven to be exceedingly effective, but it’s remained dramatically underfunded in recent years. Assembly Bill 18 could bring in enough revenue to double or triple grant funding for communities across California.

California laws been effective?  Only because two years ago over one million guns were sold in the State—Heck, even Kamala Harris who wants to take over YOUR gun, owns one.  No, it is not government that has made you safer—it is the citizen gun owner.

In the wake of horrific gun violence, we can make a difference in California.

Assemblyman Marc Levine, 

2018 was a year of hope and heartbreak for those of us sickened by the crisis of gun violence in the US and in California. The March for Our Lives inspired us to take action and vote for change. And the tragedy in Thousand Oaks reminded us of the horrific consequences if we continue to do nothing.

This year, it is more important than ever to take the kinds of actions we promised voters to reduce gun violence and protect our children. If our federal government refuses to take action, then something must be done here in California.

We can start with Assembly Bill 18, Marc’s new bill to tax all handgun and semiautomatic rifle sales.

AB 18 will increase funding for the California Violence Intervention and Prevention Program (CalVIP), a grant for community-based programs that help prevent the root causes of gun violence in the neighborhoods most affected by it.

This effort by has state has proven to be exceedingly effective, but it’s remained dramatically underfunded in recent years. Assembly Bill 18 could bring in enough revenue to double or triple grant funding for communities across California.

Passing AB 18 will not be easy. Under California law, it will require 2/3rds majorities in the Assembly and State Senate, and the NRA will no doubt fight it tooth and nail. But this is a fight we can win. Californians made their voices heard loud and clear in November. It’s time to honor their wishes and take real action to reduce the gun violence that’s taken too many from us. AB 18 will do just that, and we hope you will sign our petition in support.

Sacramento Democrats Surprise Illegal Aliens

Water tax was shot down.  Giving the State control of zoning in your city—gone.  A firearms tax, was killed.  Now the Democrats realize they can’t take all the money from honest elderly citizens and give it to illegal aliens for free health care—as a reward for breaking the law.

“Both SB 29 and AB 4, which would expand Medi-Cal to income-eligible adults regardless of immigration status, are moving forward after clearing their respective appropriations committees. The Senate bill, by Sen. Maria Elena Durazo, D-Los Angeles, passed on the condition that it conform to the chamber’s budget proposal.

But the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review is setting aside funding for just two groups within the state’s undocumented population — young adults ages 19 to 25 at a cost of $98 million, and seniors ages 65 and over at a cost of $62.5 million.

The Senate bill will be scaled back to match the financial allocations. The Assembly budget subcommittee has not released its proposal yet.”

Be careful—while the Democrats are killing the small taxes, watch out for the big ones.  The California Political News and Views will give you the most comprehensive reports on legislation. 

Health Care Plans For Undocumented Californians May Be Scaled Back

 Sammy Caiola, Capitol Public Radio,  5/16/19 

Two proposals to offer health coverage to all undocumented residents passed major hurdles at the Capitol on Thursday, but they may not have the financial backing to cross the finish line.

Both SB 29 and AB 4, which would expand Medi-Cal to income-eligible adults regardless of immigration status, are moving forward after clearing their respective appropriations committees. The Senate bill, by Sen. Maria Elena Durazo, D-Los Angeles, passed on the condition that it conform to the chamber’s budget proposal.

But the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review is setting aside funding for just two groups within the state’s undocumented population — young adults ages 19 to 25 at a cost of $98 million, and seniors ages 65 and over at a cost of $62.5 million.

The Senate bill will be scaled back to match the financial allocations. The Assembly budget subcommittee has not released its proposal yet.

Undocumented children in California became eligible for full-scope Medi-Cal in 2016. People over age 18 are currently eligible for a limited version of the program that covers only emergencies and pregnancy-related care.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is proposing expanding comprehensive coverage to young adults up to age 26. He estimates the cost of covering the entire undocumented population at $3.4 billion, and said earlier this month that taking that step would be a major financial challenge.

Anthony Wright, executive director of consumer group Health Access and a leading universal health care advocate, says the movement has always had to work in steps.

“Some of these expansions are hard to do all at once,” he said. “We do want to get to the goal of all.”

Also in the Senate budget proposal is a plan to increase eligibility for Medi-Cal by one year every fiscal year, beginning with expansion to people age 26 in 2020. After a year, the program would be open to people up to age 27, the next year up to age 28, and so on, in an effort to prevent enrollees from aging out.

Young adults have been the focus this year, but they make up a mere 8% of the state’s undocumented population, according to a report from the University of California, Los Angeles. Just 2% are seniors, and 82% are working-age adults. The rest are kids.

Advocates for expansion say giving everyone access to preventive care would save money spent in the emergency room, while some conservative groups say those who are not living in the country legally don’t have a right to public health care programs.

This project results from an innovative reporting venture – the USC Center for Health Journalism News Collaborative – which involves print and broadcast outlets across California, all reporting together on the state’s uninsured.

Plastic Grocery Bags Banned? No Problem—Sales of Plastic Garbage Bags UP 120%

No matter what the Left wants to “help”, they mess it up and it gets worse.  Common Core, destroyed government education.  Billions for government transportation only helped the unions and special interest, the public is fleeing from the crime ridden, unreliable, filthy buses and trains.  Homeless?  We spend billions and there are more homeless today than before it was declared a crisis.  Add to that the saving of the Earth by banning plastic garbage bags.  Instead, small plastic garbage bags have had a 120% increase.

“Taylor found these bag bans did what they were supposed to do. People in the cities with the bans used fewer plastic bags, which led to about 40 million fewer pounds of plastic trash per year. But people who used to reuse their shopping bags for other purposes, like picking up dog poop or lining trash bins, still needed bags. “What I found was that sales of garbage bags actually skyrocketed after plastic grocery bags were banned,” she says. This was particularly the case for small, 4-gallon bags, which saw a 120 percent increase in sales after bans went into effect.

Trash bags are thick and use more plastic than typical shopping bags. “So about 30 percent of the plastic that was eliminated by the ban comes back in the form of thicker garbage bags,” Taylor says. On top of that, cities that banned plastic bags saw a surge in the use of paper bags, which she estimates resulted in about 80 million pounds of extra paper trash per year.”

Note the environmentalists and scammers like Al Gore conveniently forget this part of the story.  Why has the media been silent?

Are Plastic Bag Bans Garbage?

Greg Rosalsky | NPR | April 9, 2019  


Editor’s note: This is an excerpt of Planet Money’s newsletter. You can sign up here.

It was only about 40 years ago that plastic bags became standard at U.S. grocery stores. This also made them standard in sewers, landfills, rivers and the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. They clog drains and cause floods, litter landscapes and kill wildlife. The national movement to get rid of them is gaining steam — with more than 240 cities and counties passing laws that ban or tax them since 2007. New York recently became the second U.S. state to ban them. But these bans may be hurting the environment more than helping it.

University of Sydney economist Rebecca Taylor started studying bag regulations because it seemed as though every time she moved for a new job — from Washington, D.C., to California, to Australia — bag restrictions were implemented shortly after. “Yeah, these policies might be following me,” she jokes. Taylor recently published a study of bag regulations in California. It’s a classic tale of unintended consequences.

Paper or plastic?

Before California banned plastic shopping bags statewide in late 2016, a wave of 139 Californian cities and counties implemented the policy themselves. Taylor and colleagues compared bag use in cities with bans to those without them. For six months, they spent weekends in grocery stores tallying the types of bags people carried out (she admits these weren’t her wildest weekends). She also analyzed these stores’ sales data.

Taylor found these bag bans did what they were supposed to do. People in the cities with the bans used fewer plastic bags, which led to about 40 million fewer pounds of plastic trash per year. But people who used to reuse their shopping bags for other purposes, like picking up dog poop or lining trash bins, still needed bags. “What I found was that sales of garbage bags actually skyrocketed after plastic grocery bags were banned,” she says. This was particularly the case for small, 4-gallon bags, which saw a 120 percent increase in sales after bans went into effect.

Trash bags are thick and use more plastic than typical shopping bags. “So about 30 percent of the plastic that was eliminated by the ban comes back in the form of thicker garbage bags,” Taylor says. On top of that, cities that banned plastic bags saw a surge in the use of paper bags, which she estimates resulted in about 80 million pounds of extra paper trash per year.

Plastic haters, it’s time to brace yourselves. A bunch of studies find that paper bags are actually worse for the environment. They require cutting down and processing trees, which involves lots of water, toxic chemicals, fuel and heavy machinery. While paper is biodegradable and avoids some of the problems of plastic, Taylor says, the huge increase of paper, together with the uptick in plastic trash bags, means banning plastic shopping bags increases greenhouse gas emissions. That said, these bans do reduce nonbiodegradable litter.

Are tote bags killing us?

What about reusable cloth bags? We know die-hard public radio fans love them! They’ve got to be great, right?

Nope. They can be even worse.

A 2011 study by the U.K. government found a person would have to reuse their cotton tote bag 131 times before it was better for climate change than using a plastic grocery bag once. The Danish government recently did a study that took into account environmental impacts beyond simply greenhouse gas emissions, including water use, damage to ecosystems and air pollution. These factors make cloth bags even worse. They estimate you would have to use an organic cotton bag 20,000 times more than a plastic grocery bag to make using it better for the environment.

That said, the Danish government’s estimate doesn’t take into account the effects of bags littering land and sea, where plastic is clearly the worst offender.

Stop depressing me. What should we do?

The most environment-friendly way to carry groceries is to use the same bag over and over again. According to the Danish study, the best reusable ones are made from polyester or plastics like polypropylene. Those still have to be used dozens and dozens of times to be greener than plastic grocery bags, which have the smallest carbon footprint for a single use.

As for bag policies, Taylor says a fee is smarter than a ban. She has a second paper showing a small fee for bags is just as effective as a ban when it comes to encouraging use of reusable bags. But a fee offers flexibility for people who reuse plastic bags for garbage disposal or dog walking.

Taylor believes the recent legislation passed in New York is a bad version of the policy. It bans only plastic bags and gives free rein to using paper ones (counties have the option to impose a 5-cent fee on them). Taylor is concerned this will drive up paper use. The best policy, Taylor says, imposes a fee on both paper and plastic bags and encourages reuse.

This bag research makes public radio’s love for tote bags awkward, doesn’t it? It might be weird though if we started giving out plastic grocery bags.

Malibu Socialists/Hypocrites: We Will Build WALL to Protect US—And Guard Tower 24/7

If it wasn’t for double standards, Democrats/socialists /Progressives/Hypocrites would have no standards.  The very same community that begs Trump to open the borders (so they can hire illegal aliens to landscape for them) want to live in $04-60 million homes—with a wall and guard tower to protect them—from the criminals in Los Angeles.

“Yet, in 2020, Malibu’s first gated community in more than 20 years will be completed. According to The Hollywood Reporter, “The Case,” a five-residence enclave, with new homes priced between $40 million and $60 million, will feature a six-foot-tall fire-retardant wall, 24-hour guard tower, a fire hydrant and state-of-the-art sprinkler system, and following the Malibu fires last year, an option for homeowners to have their own fire-fighting service.

The Case development isn’t just in response to the devastating Malibu fires.

“Data from the LAPD’s West L.A. Division, which covers Brentwood and Pacific Palisades, reports that burglaries are up 14 percent over the same period in 2017, and up 41 percent over 2016, and the prospect of a 24-hour guard gains appeal,” The Hollywood Reporter found.

Pelosi calls walls immoral—for our nation—though she has one around her home—and has not opposed her donors in Malibu having one.  Lets start calling Malibu “The Walled City”. Hypocrites.

Build the Wall (in Malibu): Development To Feature 6′ Barrier and 24-Hour Guard Tower

Hollywood elite concerned about rising crime spike and the ‘Nextdoor Effect’

By Katy Grimes, California Political News and Views,  1/16/19

Recently, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, “A wall is an immorality. It’s not who we are as a nation.”

Yet, in 2020, Malibu’s first gated community in more than 20 years will be completed. According to The Hollywood Reporter, “The Case,” a five-residence enclave, with new homes priced between $40 million and $60 million, will feature a six-foot-tall fire-retardant wall, 24-hour guard tower, a fire hydrant and state-of-the-art sprinkler system, and following the Malibu fires last year, an option for homeowners to have their own fire-fighting service.

The Case development isn’t just in response to the devastating Malibu fires.

“Data from the LAPD’s West L.A. Division, which covers Brentwood and Pacific Palisades, reports that burglaries are up 14 percent over the same period in 2017, and up 41 percent over 2016, and the prospect of a 24-hour guard gains appeal,” The Hollywood Reporter found.

There are other new gated communities developing in California: The Mountain in Beverly Hills; Park Bel Air across from the Beverly Hills Hotel and Beverly Park, which is home to Mark Wahlberg, Denzel Washington and Sumner Redstone; Brentwood Country Estates where action movie star and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger lives.

What about the rest of California? Crime is on the rise in East L.A., South Central L.A, the Central Valley, Sacramento, and throughout all cities in California, according to the California Department of Justice. Urban and suburban neighborhoods throughout the state have formed community non-profit associations solely for the purpose of hiring private security companies because local police departments cannot respond to all of the crime calls, and can no longer arrest thieves for petty theft, according to news articles.

Law enforcement attributes the crime spike to two ballot initiatives, which were the result of Assembly Bill 109, Gov. Jerry Brown’s “prison realignment” legislation to reduce prison overcrowding: Proposition 47 and Proposition 57.

AB 109 transferred some “low level” felons to county prisons.

Prop. 47 reduced sentences for drug possession and thefts under $950.

Prop. 57 now allows the early release of state prison inmates and created tougher rules to get juveniles charged as adults, according to Michelle Hanisee, President of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys.

Proposition 47 passed in November 2014, was designed to lower criminal penalties for many property and drug offenses, to decrease the state’s prison overcrowding. Prop. 47 reduced penalties for many “nonviolent, low-level” offenses from felonies to misdemeanors in an effort to free up prison and jail cells. While this has led to early inmate releases and decreased jail overcrowding, Prop. 47 also erased felony charges for date-rape drugs and other drugs, by including them in the definition of recreational drugs.

Prop. 47 also tied judges’ hands and decimated drug courts where prior to passage of Prop. 47, those arrested on drug charges could avoid being charged with a felony in exchange for completing a drug treatment program.

However, while decreasing prison population by transferring inmates to county jails, and letting “low-level” convicts out of county jails, unintended consequences resulted: a significant increase in property crimes, vehicle break-ins and shoplifting, particularly in densely populated cities.

According to the Association of Deputy District Attorneys, the Constitutional rights of victims have been unlawfully reduced because of these new laws.

The result? “Fire fears from Malibu to Bel Air are adding to the allure of self-contained neighborhoods for A-listers — from Arnold Schwarzenegger to the Kardashians — who are already concerned about rising crime and the “Nextdoor effect” on anxiety,” says the Hollywood Reporter.

“The Agency co-founder Mauricio Umansky and his wife, Real Housewives of Beverly Hills star Kyle Richards, were the victims of crime. ‘Last year, thieves made off with more than $1 million in goods from their Encino home while they were on vacation,’” the Hollywood Reporter said. “‘We’ve since discussed moving into a gated community,’ he says.”

“In recent months, Dodgers star Yasiel Puig’s Encino home was robbed multiple times; Rihanna‘s Hollywood Hills home and Christina Milian’s in the Valley also were burgled. In October, when the LAPD reportedly arrested a group of teenagers suspected in those robberies, authorities found a list of other actors and athletes thought to be future targets.”

“One critical and fundamental flaw with Prop. 47 is that repeat offenders do not get any enhanced punishment – or, for that matter, treatment,” said Marc Debbaudt, former President of the Association of  Deputy District Attorneys. “Moreover, without the threat of incarceration, those addicted to drugs who steal to support their habits have no incentive to enter into drug treatment programs.”

California Globe asked Assemblyman Richard Bloom (D-Santa Monica), who represents Malibu, to weigh in, but he declined.

Maxine Waters: Speaking English is RACIST—Not Institutionalized, YET

California is once again embarrassed by a very sick member of Congress.  She lies, she misrepresents—she loves attention.  Now she is claiming that “forcing” immigrants to speak English is racist.  Since she speaks ONLY English, is she calling herself a racist.  I would not.  She is mentally and emotionally challenged and needs in patient help.

“Waters said, “There should be comprehensive immigration reform and not immigration reform that is based on exciting and inciting those people who have negative thoughts about others coming across our border. And basically working to use that information to promote himself in a campaign. I think it is—some of that is very racist. It is not keeping with what this country is supposed to be all about.”

Poor lady needs help not another interview.  What do you think?

Maxine Waters: Trump’s Immigration Policy Favoring Skilled, English-Speaking Workers Is ‘Racist’

PAM KEY, Breitbart,  5/17/19 

Friday on CNN’s “New Day,” Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) called President Donald Trump’s immigration policy “racist.”

Thursday the president called for immigration reform that would favor skilled, English-speaking workers.

Waters said, “There should be comprehensive immigration reform and not immigration reform that is based on exciting and inciting those people who have negative thoughts about others coming across our border. And basically working to use that information to promote himself in a campaign. I think it is—some of that is very racist. It is not keeping with what this country is supposed to be all about.”

When asked what specifically was racist, Waters said, “Well, you know, this business about you must speak English or we’re going to give you points for speaking English. We don’t want poor people, we only want those people who are earning substantial wages already. All of those things are not keeping in step with the way that we treat human beings. And even the fact that, you know he used to talk about chain migration, when you were able to help others in the family come, he’s going to limit that. I think that some of those policies are racist.”

Pepperdine gives embattled Christopher Columbus statue to neighboring Catholic college

Pepperdine University was once a school of intellect, diversity, tolerance and respect for history.  Today it is just another Leftist campus promoting feel good policies and hatred of history.

“In response to repeated inquiries over the last week regarding the statue’s status, the Pepperdine public relations department finally responded to The College Fix late Wednesday.

“Last year Pepperdine announced a plan to relocate a statue of Christopher Columbus from the Malibu campus to the University’s campus in Florence, Italy. As preparations were being made for the relocation, Pepperdine was presented with an opportunity for the statue to be donated to Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula, California,” according to the statement.

“After much consideration, Pepperdine accepted the offer, and the statue is now located on the Thomas Aquinas campus. The University is grateful for our friendship with Thomas Aquinas, and we remain committed to nurturing a campus community that welcomes a variety of perspectives and the free exchange of ideas.”

This is why college is not for everyone.  College today is indoctrination, not education and Pepperdine is as open as Cal, UCLA or UC Santa Cruz—an affiliate of the radical Left.  Sad. 

S

Pepperdine gives embattled Christopher Columbus statue to neighboring Catholic college

Graham Piro, The College Fix,  5/16/19 

A little over two years ago, Pepperdine University made the decision to take down a statue of Christopher Columbus after student outcry, with its president at the time calling the monument a “painful reminder” of the past.

The private, Malibu-based university said it would relocate the statue to its campus in Florence, Italy.

But somewhat quietly last fall, Pepperdine officials gave the statue to its Catholic neighbor up the road. The 25-year-old monument now calls Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula, California, home. The Catholic campus is about 50 miles north of Pepperdine, roughly a 90-minute drive.

In response to repeated inquiries over the last week regarding the statue’s status, the Pepperdine public relations department finally responded to The College Fix late Wednesday.

“Last year Pepperdine announced a plan to relocate a statue of Christopher Columbus from the Malibu campus to the University’s campus in Florence, Italy. As preparations were being made for the relocation, Pepperdine was presented with an opportunity for the statue to be donated to Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula, California,” according to the statement.

“After much consideration, Pepperdine accepted the offer, and the statue is now located on the Thomas Aquinas campus. The University is grateful for our friendship with Thomas Aquinas, and we remain committed to nurturing a campus community that welcomes a variety of perspectives and the free exchange of ideas.”

In contrast to Pepperdine leaders washing their hands of the statue after student activists said it represented white supremacy, genocide and oppression, Thomas Aquinas College officials have embraced Columbus and put criticism of the explorer in context.

In welcoming the statue to campus in October, Aquinas officials declared it would be the “centerpiece” of a new garden under construction on campus.

“Only a college like this college, which understands history, which reads the books of the past as very instructive to what we should be and how we should be,” would be a good fit for the statue, College Governor Robert Barbera said at the time.

Added Thomas Aquinas College President Michael McLean: “Mr. Barbera’s statue needed a worthy home, and we are happy to provide one. Columbus was both a great explorer and devoted to the Catholic faith. So we placed his statue next to the Albertus Magnus Science Building (that’s the explorer part), and it points toward the Chapel (that’s the Catholic faith part).”

According to a news release from the college on the ceremony held to welcome the statue, Thomas Aquinas College officials added more praise and context to Columbus:

At a luncheon following the blessing ceremony, Dr. McLean explained that, whatever Columbus’ shortcomings, his accomplishments merit celebration. “We honor Columbus for his achievements, just as we at Thomas Aquinas College honor the authors of the great books, or the composers of great music, for their achievements,” he said. “Opening the New World, and opening a way for the Gospel, were works of Columbus and also works of God. These are great works, indeed, and Columbus is great for having done them.”

Dr. McLean also cited the words of Pope Leo XIII, who said of Columbus:

… to him far before all human considerations was the consideration of his ancient faith, which without question endowed him with strength of mind and will, and often strengthened and consoled him in the midst of the greatest difficulties. This view and aim is known to have possessed his mind above all; namely, to open a way for the Gospel over new lands and seas.

Thomas Aquinas College officials’ comments stand in stark contrast to another Catholic school that recently grappled with its Columbus imagery.

Earlier this year, Notre Dame made the decision to cover up and relocate a series of historic Columbus murals on its campus. The school’s president cited the “exploitation, expropriation of land, repression of vibrant cultures, enslavement, and new diseases causing epidemics that killed millions” that occurred as a result of Columbus’s arrival.

As for the Pepperdine saga, in February 2017 The College Fix reported that Pepperdine made the decision to give in to student demands and remove the statue of the controversial explorer from campus with plans to relocate it to the school’s Florence campus. At the time, President Andrew Benton cited “a different view” of the controversial explorer’s legacy.

“In 1992 a group of men and women representing the Columbus 500 Congress presented a statue of Christopher Columbus to Pepperdine University,” Benton wrote in an email.

“Later, as the impact of the arrival of explorers was assessed more fully, especially as those impacts related to indigenous people, a different view formed. Today, for many, including those within our campus community, stories of conquest and the art associated therewith are painful reminders of loss and human tragedy,” he continued.

In the fall of 2017, a campus official told The Fix the monument was in the university’s “safekeeping.” The university did not provide a timetable for the statue’s relocation, and critics suggested Columbus was now under “house arrest.”

In August 2018, attempts to follow up on the statue’s status were met with silence as the university did not respond to multiple inquiries from The College Fix. Emails to President Benton, Provost Rick Marrs, and Ronald Cox, the associate dean of international programs, went ignored.