Newsom BRIBING Businesses to Force Customers to Take Vaccine

Since government cannot demand you use the vaccine, it can bribe/extort private businesses into allowing only those vaccinated as customers.  Newsom wants to make businesses be the bad actor and blackmail customers.

“The state Department of Public Health last week unveiled little-noticed revisions that allow conferences, live events and performances, stadiums, family entertainment centers and other gatherings to reopen at higher capacity if all guests show proof of a negative COVID-19 test result or of full vaccination. Doing so would permit stadiums in the orange tier, for example, to reopen at 67% instead of 33%, and people in the fully vaccinated sections wouldn’t have to physically distance. The new guidelines also allow fully vaccinated out-of-state visitors to attend events that would otherwise be restricted to Californians.

What right does a concert organizer or a basket team have to know anything about my medical history or medicines that I take?  Looks to me like the attorneys will win and the people, once again lose.  This is extortion and Newsom knows it.

Controversy remains

Emily Hoeven, Calmatters,  4/20/21 

California is incentivizing businesses to require customers show proof of vaccination, suggesting that the Golden State is moving toward a “vaccine passport” system despite health officials’ comments to the contrary.

The state Department of Public Health last week unveiled little-noticed revisions that allow conferences, live events and performances, stadiums, family entertainment centers and other gatherings to reopen at higher capacity if all guests show proof of a negative COVID-19 test result or of full vaccination. Doing so would permit stadiums in the orange tier, for example, to reopen at 67% instead of 33%, and people in the fully vaccinated sections wouldn’t have to physically distance. The new guidelines also allow fully vaccinated out-of-state visitors to attend events that would otherwise be restricted to Californians.

Yet thorny logistical, ethical and legal questions remain. Citing privacy and civil liberty concerns, Assemblymember Kevin Kiley, a Rocklin Republican, recently introduced a bill that would ban state and local governments, as well as entities that receive state money, from using vaccine passports. Other advocates are concerned such a system could reinforce racial and economic inequities. And the UC and CSU systems appear unlikely to require students get the COVID-19 vaccine — doing so could raise legal issues, as it’s only received emergency use authorization so far.

Experts say the policy around vaccine passports will likely be driven by the market.

The market appears to be heading in that direction. Salesforce, San Francisco’s largest private employer, announced earlier this month that it would require proof of vaccination for the first employees returning to the office. The San Francisco Giants and Golden State Warriors are also requiring attendees to show proof of vaccination or a negative test result.

  • State Sen. Richard Pan, a Sacramento Democrat: Banning vaccine passports would mean “what we’re basically telling businesses is, ‘Sorry, we’re denying you a piece of information that could allow you to reopen safely.’ Why would we want to stand in their way?”

Coca-Cola’s Craven Cockwomble Capitulates (Racist BRITISH CEO Tells U.S. to Run Corrupt Elections!!)

Here is a joke.  A guy who is a British citizen told Americans and people in Georgia that showing a photo ID to vote is racist—then as CEO of Coke has his employees take classes in being LESS WHITE.  Maybe he should show by example how to be less white—does it take a bleach, paint, surgery, a lobotomy?

“Just this month, Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey decided that he, a British subject, would unilaterally take a stand in the name of the iconic American company he runs and inveigh headlong against Georgia’s newly passed voter integrity law. 

Quincey is an engineer and a marketing guy. A guest in this country. When did he suddenly acquire such enormous political acumen on American domestic politics? 

Save for his green card and his King’s English, Quincey is not that far removed from those tattooed MS-13 punks who slip across the southern border to exploit the economics of America.

A person loyal to the Queen had the gall to use the outstanding reputation of his very American company to bash the living hell out of his host country’s and host state’s proper legislative process. .”

Maybe he should run for Parliament, if he wants to set policy to run fraudulent elections—leave us alone.

Coca-Cola’s Craven Cockwomble Capitulates

Coke CEO and British subject James Quincey reconsiders his woke ramblings about American laws.

By Chuck de Caro.  American Greatness, 4/19/21   

What a difference a couple of weeks can make to a simpering corporate clown with a penchant for rodomontade.

Just this month, Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey decided that he, a British subject, would unilaterally take a stand in the name of the iconic American company he runs and inveigh headlong against Georgia’s newly passed voter integrity law. 

Quincey is an engineer and a marketing guy. A guest in this country. When did he suddenly acquire such enormous political acumen on American domestic politics? 

Save for his green card and his King’s English, Quincey is not that far removed from those tattooed MS-13 punks who slip across the southern border to exploit the economics of America.

A person loyal to the Queen had the gall to use the outstanding reputation of his very American company to bash the living hell out of his host country’s and host state’s proper legislative process. 

If Quincey is so woke, why didn’t he start by hacking away at his own country’s allegedly racist royal family—and do so on his own nickel?

That would seem a more appropriate initiative for hin to pursue, in lieu of dragging down the whole of Coca-Cola’s legacy in his impetuous, quixotic, woke somersault worthy only of Monty Python.

In a high-handed manner not seen in the American South since Banastre Tarleton, Quincey unilaterally declared—(declared!):

Let me be crystal clear and unequivocal, this legislation is unacceptable, it is a step backward and it does not promote principles we have stood for in Georgia, around broad access to voting, around voter convenience, about ensuring election integrity, and this is frankly just a step backwards.

Funny thing though . . . this week when the leftist New York Times asked Quincey to lend his company’s name to the paper’s list of woke companies, he demurred and the Coca-Cola company issued the following statement:    

We believe the best way to make progress now is for everyone to come together to listen, respectfully share concerns and collaborate on a path forward. We remain open to productive conversations with advocacy groups and lawmakers who may have differing views . . . It’s time to find common ground. In the end, we all want the same thing—free and fair elections, the cornerstone of our democracy.

So what happened there, Jimbo? 

Did you suddenly get situational awareness of what perturbed Americans are like? 

Did your woke testicular fortitude suddenly sublimate? You know, like when Daniel Morgan surprised that other high-handed Brit, Tarleton, at Cowpens and sent him fleeing the battlefield in his cute bespoke green uniform, likely squealing like a little girl,  as Captain William Washington and his ragtag Yankee Doodle dragoons were galloping in, hot on his derriere. 

Could it be that the real possibility of a boycott got your attention in the same way?

God forbid, a sales plunge resulting from your woke, preening CEO posturing might affect your annual bonus! (That would be a step backwards!)

So Jimbo, now that we know what your character is really like, why don’t you just go back to making that popular sweet, ice-cold, brown fizzy stuff in a nonpolitical manner

If it’s not too late, Coca-Cola won’t be boycotted and many of us will simply order “Coke with Limey.”

New Boudin recall effort seeks to reframe narrative (Democrats Join Recall Effort!)

This is great—now even the Progressives in San Fran are disgusted with the son of terrorists and murderers who “serve as District Attorney in San Fran.  Now Progressives want to start their own Recall of Boudin. So you have the Left and Right against him.  It does not matter the reason, as long as they sign the Recall petition and then vote to throw him out of office.

“Local Democrats seeking to prevent the recall effort against District Attorney Chesa Boudin from being framed as a conservative power grab have launched a new campaign to unseat the progressive top prosecutor.

The campaign, called San Franciscans for Public Safety, makes a similar argument against Boudin for “failing to keep San Franciscans safe” as an earlier group pushing for his recall, but is fronted by Democrats Mary Jung and Andrea Shorter instead of former Republican mayoral candidate Richie Greenberg.

Reached by phone Monday, Shorter said the new campaign is meant to cast a broader net for San Franciscans who may be interested in recalling Boudin but do not want to be “affiliated” with the earlier effort. She said she supports criminal justice reform, but not at the expense of public safety.

Imagine, there are still Democrats that believe in public safety!  This is good news.

New Boudin recall effort seeks to reframe narrative

Michael Barba, SF Examiner,  4/19/21

Local Democrats seeking to prevent the recall effort against District Attorney Chesa Boudin from being framed as a conservative power grab have launched a new campaign to unseat the progressive top prosecutor.

The campaign, called San Franciscans for Public Safety, makes a similar argument against Boudin for “failing to keep San Franciscans safe” as an earlier group pushing for his recall, but is fronted by Democrats Mary Jung and Andrea Shorter instead of former Republican mayoral candidate Richie Greenberg.

Reached by phone Monday, Shorter said the new campaign is meant to cast a broader net for San Franciscans who may be interested in recalling Boudin but do not want to be “affiliated” with the earlier effort. She said she supports criminal justice reform, but not at the expense of public safety.

“What we are finding is that there are a great many more San Franciscans that are very interested in recalling this district attorney,” Shorter said. “The way it’s been framed is there’s this ‘conservatives versus progressives’ thing going on, when in fact the inconvenient truth of the matter is no, it’s not that.”

Jung and Shorter fall more on the “moderate” end of the political spectrum among Democrats in San Francisco, having supported candidates in past elections such as Mayor London Breed and district attorney hopeful Suzy Loftus, who lost against Boudin. Jung is the former chair of the local Democratic Party, while Shorter is a longtime member of the Commission on the Status of Women.

Boudin has faced the threat of a recall since Greenberg started an online petition against him in January following the arrest of a parolee who authorities say killed two pedestrians after being released from custody without charges. Greenberg and 28 others, including Democrats, secured approval to begin circulating their petition to recall Boudin in March and have until Aug. 11 to collect 51,325 signatures.

Campaign finance records show the committee has collected nearly $140,000 to support its effort as of the end of March, including $50,000 from Chicago-based investor David O’Keefe and $25,000 from tech entrepreneur David Sacks. Two committees opposing the recall, meanwhile, have brought in about $201,000, including one with major funding from Real Justice PAC, a political action committee seeking to elect “reform-minded prosecutors.”

Shorter said the new recall effort does not currently have any major funding. She said it would be independent of the other recall campaign and plans to circulate its own petition on a different timeline. She also said the old campaign “seems to be lagging behind” in terms of gathering signatures.

Julie Edwards, a spokesperson for the pro-Boudin committee with funding from Real Justice PAC, slammed the latest campaign as simply an effort to “get away from a toxic far-right brand.”

“It’s obvious that this first effort was in serious trouble,” Edwards said. “The reality is this is all part and parcel of the same effort.”

Edwards said she expects to see “big money special interests” attacking Boudin with fear-mongering and misinformation.

In a recent interview, Greenberg said he was “extremely confident” the first campaign would be able to gather enough signatures to bring the recall before voters in a future election. The group said it had collected more than 7,000 signatures as of Monday. Greenberg also disputed the notion that his campaign was Republican-led, saying a Democrat has replaced him as the lead proponent of the effort.

“We are nothing but growing, the whole movement is growing every day, every weekend as more people realize what is happening,” Greenberg said. “We have a whole city voter base that understands and sees that we have a crime problem.”

Jung and Shorter cite “rampant property crimes, car break-ins, drug dealing on the streets, and homicides” as cause for the recall.

While San Francisco did see an increase in homicides in 2020, like other cities around the nation, there have been 10 so far in 2021 as of last week compared to 11 at this time in 2020, police data shows. Larceny thefts, which includes car break-ins, have also fallen by nearly 35 percent as of Sunday, according to police.

Home and commercial burglaries, however, have surged dramatically since the pandemic began, with a 36 percent jump from 1,713 to 2,335 so far in 2021 compared to this time last year. There has also been a significant uptick in non-fatal shootings.

Vaccine makers destroy COVID vaccine safety studies

We already know that doctors do not know the effects of the vaccine in the long term.  We know that 2249 people have died taking the vaccine—and it is still be given.  There are 104 reported cases of miscarriages and over 10,000 hospitalized.  But, when six women get blood clots, that vaccine is taken off the market.  Something is fishy here—people are dead, lots of people and Biden/Newsom does not care.

  • “Getting the active vaccine comes with risk, not merely benefit. This is particularly true for the novel mRNA technology used in COVID-19 vaccines
    As of April 1, 2021, VAERS had received 56,869 adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, including 7,971 serious injuries and 2,342 deaths. Of those deaths, 28% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. The youngest person to die was 18 years old

While reports of side effects from COVID-19 gene therapies, including life-threatening effects and deaths, continue to climb at breakneck speed,1 a one-sided narrative of safety and effectiveness permeates mainstream media and medical news.”

We are being conned—and it is our lives that are at stake.

Vaccine makers destroy COVID vaccine safety studies

by Dr. Joseph Mercola, American Conservative Movement, 4/20/21  

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Makers of COVID-19 vaccines are now destroying long-term safety studies by unblinding their trials and giving the control groups the active vaccine, claiming it is “unethical” to withhold an effective vaccine
  • In so doing, they make it virtually impossible to assess any long-term safety and effectiveness, and the true benefit versus cost
  • It’s ironic, because vaccine mandates are being justified on the premise that the benefit to the community is more important than an individual’s risk of harm. Yet vaccine manufacturers are saying that participants in the control groups are harmed by not getting the vaccine, and saving the individual is more important than securing the data needed to make public health decisions
  • Getting the active vaccine comes with risk, not merely benefit. This is particularly true for the novel mRNA technology used in COVID-19 vaccines
    As of April 1, 2021, VAERS had received 56,869 adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, including 7,971 serious injuries and 2,342 deaths. Of those deaths, 28% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. The youngest person to die was 18 years old

While reports of side effects from COVID-19 gene therapies, including life-threatening effects and deaths, continue to climb at breakneck speed,1 a one-sided narrative of safety and effectiveness permeates mainstream media and medical news.

These “vaccines” are so safe and so effective, according to this narrative, that keeping control groups intact for long-term study and comparison of outcomes is now being derided as “unethical,” despite the fact that there is absolutely no non-fraudulent data to support their perverse assertions. Truly, what we’re watching is the active destruction of basic medical science in a surreal dystopian nightmare.

Vaccine Makers to Ditch Control Groups

Consider this report in JAMA by Rita Rubin, senior writer for JAMA medical news and perspectives, for example.2 According to Rubin, the launch of “two highly efficacious” COVID-19 vaccines has “spurred debate about the ethics, let alone the feasibility, of continuing or launching blinded, placebo-controlled trials …”

Rubin recounts how Moderna representatives told a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel that rather than letting thousands of vaccine doses to go to waste, they planned to offer them to trial participants who had received placebo.

Pfizer representatives made a similar announcement to the advisory panel. According to a news analysis published in The BMJ,3 the FDA and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are both onboard with this plan, as is the World Health Organization.4

In the JAMA report by Rubin, Moncref Slaoui, Ph.D., chief scientific adviser for Operation Warp Speed, is quoted saying he thinks “it’s very important that we unblind the trial at once and offer the placebo group vaccines” because trial participants “should be rewarded” for their participation.

All of these statements violate the very basics of what a safety trial needs, which is a control group against which you can compare the effects of the drug or vaccine in question over the long term. I find it inconceivable that unblinding is even a consideration at this point, seeing how the core studies have not even concluded yet. The only purpose of this unblinding is to conceal the fraud that these vaccines are safe.

None of the COVID-19 vaccines currently on the market are actually licensed. They only have emergency use authorization — which, incidentally, also forbids them from being mandated, although this is being widely and conveniently ignored — as trials are still ongoing.

At the earliest, they may be licensed two years from now, at the completion of the follow-up studies.5 This is why those in the military are allowed to refuse it, and refuse they have. Among Marines, the refusal rate is nearly 40%.6

So, before the initial studies are even completed, vaccine makers and regulatory agencies are now deciding to forgo long-term safety evaluations altogether by giving placebo recipients the real McCoy, and so-called bioethicists are actually supporting this madness. As reported in The BMJ:7

“Although the FDA has granted the vaccines emergency use authorization, to get full license approval two years of follow-up data are needed. The data are now likely to be scanty and less reliable given that the trials are effectively being unblinded.”

Hypocrisy Abounds

It’s ironic in the extreme, because vaccine mandates are being justified on the premise that the benefit to the community supersedes the risk of individual harm. In other words, it’s OK if some people are harmed by the vaccine because the overall benefit to society is more important.

Yet here they’re saying that participants in the control groups are being harmed by not getting the vaccine, so therefore vaccine makers have an obligation to give it to them before the long-term studies are completed. This is the complete opposite argument used for mandatory vaccination.

If we are to accept the “greater good” justification for vaccination, then people who agree to participate in a study, and end up getting a placebo, need to roll the dice and potentially sacrifice their health “for the greater good.” Here, the greater good is the study itself, the results of which are of crucial importance for public health decisions.

Mercer U. Theology Prof’s Prayer: ‘Dear God, Please Help Me to Hate White People’

Systemic racism is alive and well in America.  Here is an example.

“Mercer University theology professor Chanequa Walker-Barnes wrote a prayer in which she asks God to help her “hate white people,” specifically, “the nice ones,” such as “the Fox News-loving, Trump-supporting voters” who “don’t see color.” She published the “Prayer of a Weary Black Woman” in the book A Rhythm of Prayer: A Collection of Meditations for Renewal.

“Dear God, Please help me to hate White people,” the professor began in her prayer, titled, “Prayer of a Weary Black Woman,” which was published in A Rhythm of Prayer: A Collection of Meditations for Renewal edited by Sarah Bessey.”

But the racism is from the Left, not the Right.  Kamala Harris claimed in 2020 that Joe Biden was a racist.  In fact as a young Senator, he opposed much of integration of the schools.

Mercer U. Theology Prof’s Prayer: ‘Dear God, Please Help Me to Hate White People’

Alana Mastrangelo, Breitbart,  4/17/21 

Mercer University theology professor Chanequa Walker-Barnes wrote a prayer in which she asks God to help her “hate white people,” specifically, “the nice ones,” such as “the Fox News-loving, Trump-supporting voters” who “don’t see color.” She published the “Prayer of a Weary Black Woman” in the book A Rhythm of Prayer: A Collection of Meditations for Renewal.

“Dear God, Please help me to hate White people,” the professor began in her prayer, titled, “Prayer of a Weary Black Woman,” which was published in A Rhythm of Prayer: A Collection of Meditations for Renewal edited by Sarah Bessey.

“I want to stop caring about them, individually and collectively,” Walker-Barnes continued. “I want to stop caring about their misguided, racist souls, to stop believing that they can be better, that they can stop being racist.”

The professor went on to clarify that she is “not talking about the White antiracist allies who have taken up this struggle against racism with their whole lives,” nor is she even referring to “the ardent racists” who “plot acts of racial terrorism hoping to start a race war.”

“Those people are already in hell,” she wrote. “There’s no need to waste hatred on them.”

Walker-Barnes explained in her prayer that she specifically wants to hate “the nice ones,” who “don’t see color.”

“My prayer is that you would help me to hate the other White people — you know, the nice ones. The Fox News-loving, Trump-supporting voters who ‘don’t see color’ but who make thinly veiled racist comments about ‘those people,’” the professor wrote.

Walker-Barnes continued:

The people who are happy to have me over for dinner but alert the neighborhood watch anytime an unrecognized person of color passes their house. The people who welcome Black people in their churches and small groups but brand us as heretics if we suggest that Christianity is concerned with the poor and the oppressed. The people who who politely tell us that we can leave when we call out the racial microaggressions we experience in their ministries.

“But since I don’t have many relationships with people like that, perhaps they are not a good use of hatred either,” added the professor, who went on to ask God to instead help her “hate the White people who claim the progressive label but who are really wolves in sheep’s clothing.”

“Lord, if you can’t make me hate them, at least spare me from their perennial gaslighting, whitemansplaining, and White woman tears,” she continued.

 “Grant me a Get Out of Judgement Free card if I make White people the exception to your commandment to love our neighbors as we love ourselves,” Walker-Barnes wrote.

Walker-Barnes is an associate professor of practical theology at Mercer University, according to the school’s website.

Mercer University did not respond to a Breitbart News request for comment.

Wealth Tax Proposal In California Splits Progressive, Moderate Lawmakers

As expected, moderate Democrats, Socialist, are concerned that radical Progressive Democrats will cause voters to defeat them—because the real radicals want to confiscate money from those who are successful and investors—creating jobs.  The fight is not between Democrats who do not want to raise taxes and those who do.  No, it is between those that want to raise taxes and those who want to confiscate earnings.

Progressive lawmakers in California are pushing for an ambitious wealth tax on the ultra-rich, but moderate Democrats have chafed at the idea. 

Assembly Bill 310, dubbed The California Tax on Extreme Wealth, would impose an annual 1% tax on net worth over $50 million, and a 1.5% tax on net worth over $1 billion. It would also require a constitutional amendment to increase the state’s current wealth tax cap. 

A UC Berkeley study found the proposal would generate an estimated $22.3 billion a year.

That is $22 billion taken from investor and job creators—given to government to waste and use as payoffs to donors and unions.  The question is not is taxes are going to be raised—the question is how much.

Wealth Tax Proposal In California Splits Progressive, Moderate Lawmakers

Scott Rodd, Capitol Public Radio, 4/20/21 

Progressive lawmakers in California are pushing for an ambitious wealth tax on the ultra-rich, but moderate Democrats have chafed at the idea. 

Assembly Bill 310, dubbed The California Tax on Extreme Wealth, would impose an annual 1% tax on net worth over $50 million, and a 1.5% tax on net worth over $1 billion. It would also require a constitutional amendment to increase the state’s current wealth tax cap. 

A UC Berkeley study found the proposal would generate an estimated $22.3 billion a year.

Moderate lawmakers warn California’s wealthiest already pay a significant share of the state’s income tax, and additional tax burdens could drive them out. Progressives, meanwhile, say a wealth tax is the best way to close California’s yawning economic equality gap. 

“We have seen that the rich get hideously richer, and that has not bated even during a global pandemic,” said Assemblymember Alex Lee of San Jose, the bill’s lead author. 

“So, we’re really asking, who can pay their fair share?”

Governor Gavin Newsom has previously indicated he would not support a wealth tax. 

Income and wealth taxes are different. The former is a tax on an individual’s annual earnings; the latter is applied to the money and assets an individual owns. 

The bill would not apply to real estate, since California already has a property tax. But the state would calculate a person’s wealth based on “worldwide net worth.” That means residents could not simply avoid the tax by parking money overseas. 

A more modest wealth tax proposal died in the Legislature last year.

Assemblywoman Cottie Petrie-Norris (D–Laguna Beach) is one of several moderate Democrats who say the proposal is unworkable. 

“There is a narrative that the rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes, but in California, largely they do,” she said.

She notes that nearly half of California’s income tax revenue comes from the top 1% of earners. 

“That is billions of dollars for schools, for health care — for programs that help all Californians,” she added.

Moderate Democrats say imposing a wealth tax could drive out ultra-rich residents, and as a result drive down tax revenues. They point to high-profile figures who decamped from the Golden State in recent months, including Elon Musk. However, it appears he won’t be moving Tesla out of state.

It’s an argument that progressives reject. According to the UC Berkeley study, California has increased its already disproportionate share of the country’s millionaires and billionaires since 2011, in spite of some recent high-profile departures. 

Assemblymember Lee said the bill would allow the state to continue collecting taxes on an individual’s wealth for a few years after they move out of the state.

He also notes that the tax would not apply to wealthy people who move to California during their first year of residency. Instead, it would be applied gradually over five years. 

San Fran Ordinance Requires Property Owners to Make Lifetime Rental Offer to Tenants — for Real

If you just bought a condo complex in San Fran, you have made a bad, bad, financial decision.  Those who are renting, can under a new ordinance must rent to the current people for LIFE!  Theirs, not yours!!  So if you made an investment in an apartment building, to turn it into a condo, you will lose your shirt.

“After purchasing your interest, but before the date comes for the condominium conversion, the City Council in this cosmopolitan city amends its condo conversion ordinance, and now requires that a property owner converting a rental apartment to a condominium must offer a lifetime lease to the current resident of the unit being converted.

Just like that, the renter of your soon-to-be-condo has a legal right to live in your retirement home for the duration of his life which might be longer than your lifetime.

This is a city working hard on suicide.  Between becoming a Tent City for the homeless, drug sales not stopped, a crime wave, with the criminals protected by the DA—and the illegal aliens protected by the Governor.  San Fran is what happens when second hand marijuana eats into your brain.

San Francisco Ordinance Requires Property Owners to Make Lifetime Rental Offer to Tenants — for Real

By Shipwreckedcrew, Red State,   4/18/21   

So, you and your spouse are living in a medium-sized middle American community and after coming into a little extra money you decided you want to do some planning for your retirement. You come across an investment opportunity in a cosmopolitan city in another state — a six-unit apartment building where you can purchase a co-ownership interest with a plan to move into that building when you retire. The purchase agreement includes a provision that the co-owners will convert the six-unit building into separately owned condominium units by a specified date, and you and your spouse will obtain the right to own and occupy one of those condominium units.

At the time you invest you are still living and working in a different city and state, and the unit that will eventually be yours to occupy is rented to a tenant.

After purchasing your interest, but before the date comes for the condominium conversion, the City Council in this cosmopolitan city amends its condo conversion ordinance, and now requires that a property owner converting a rental apartment to a condominium must offer a lifetime lease to the current resident of the unit being converted.

Just like that, the renter of your soon-to-be-condo has a legal right to live in your retirement home for the duration of his life which might be longer than your lifetime.

If this happened to you, your last name is probably Pakdel and you purchased a condo for your retirement in the City of San Francisco.

I read about this story at the Cato Institute website.

Pakdel sued San Francisco, claiming the amendment to the ordinance violated the Fifth Amendment’s “Takings Clause” which prohibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation.

Pakdel lost in both the district court and the appeals court, and the proceedings at the administrative level in the City and County of San Francisco are more complicated than the simplified description I have set forth above.

The City and County defended against Pakdel’s complaint in federal court by pointing to various agreements made by Pakdel, and failures by Pakdel to assert certain claims as part of the conversion process on a timely basis.  Thus, Pakdel’s hands are not completely “clean” with respect to the way he went about seeking to vindicate his rights as the property owner.

In the federal courts, the question of whether this amounted to an unconstitutional “takings” was never actually considered.  Pakdel lost in the district court based on that court’s determination that his “takings” claim wasn’t yet “ripe” — that at the time he filed his lawsuit the decision by San Francisco with regard to enforcement of the ordinance wasn’t yet final, and there was still the possibility that Pakdel could obtain a waiver of the ordinance’s tenant lease requirement.

The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s dismissal of the action but then went further by making it a matter of the record that Pakdel had, in fact, waived many of his rights to contest the requirements of the ordinance by failing to follow the time deadlines in the ordinance for filing applications for variances, and taking advantage of other provisions that might have exempted him from the lifetime lease offer requirement.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, and it appears that all the merits briefs have been filed.  Here is the brief filed on behalf of Pakdel and his wife. The issues raised are pretty far afield from my practice area, and it’s a little bit late in the evening for me to try to break down the legal arguments set forth.  I’m going to opt for watching the new season of Top Chef instead.

But, one lesson you might take from this is that if you are living in Dayton, Ohio, look for someplace other than San Francisco to invest in a retirement condo — that is if you want to actually live in your retirement condo.

Sand: Los Angeles Schools Kowtow to Union Demands,

If you are a teacher in LAUSD you have it made—you run the place via the union.  No need to worry about voters, parents, taxpayers, the law or common sense.  You want $500 a month for child care or you do not teach—you get it.  Even though the parents of the students are struggling.  Other teachers have decided not to work in the classroom—even though that is where the students are going to be.  In fact, it appears LAUSD has lost 60% of its students—only 40% of those eligible to return have decided to let a union rep babysit them for a few weeks.

“Public schools are finally opening in Los Angeles, but education will be unlike anything the kids have ever seen. Elementary students will attend school just half the time – groups of students will have in-person instruction either in the morning or the afternoon. Middle and high school students return to the classroom just two or three days a week on a staggered schedule. But, instead of going from class to class as usual, they will spend the entire day in one classroom with an advisory teacher, whose job is essentially that of a baby sitter. The students will have their subject teachers instructing them online, just as they did during the lockdown.

Pretend education.  That is why so few kids are back—they are smarter than the adults—why waste the time.  Another reason to give us Education Choice.  If a teacher does not want to abide by their contract, no problem, the students can go elsewhere, places where the teachers are professional educators, not union folks with a college degree.

Los Angeles Schools Kowtow to Union Demands,

Larry Sand, California Policy Center,  4/20/21 

Children in L.A. are suffering at the hands of the school district and its “labor partner.”

Public schools are finally opening in Los Angeles, but education will be unlike anything the kids have ever seen. Elementary students will attend school just half the time – groups of students will have in-person instruction either in the morning or the afternoon. Middle and high school students return to the classroom just two or three days a week on a staggered schedule. But, instead of going from class to class as usual, they will spend the entire day in one classroom with an advisory teacher, whose job is essentially that of a baby sitter. The students will have their subject teachers instructing them online, just as they did during the lockdown.

Hence, the damage that has been done to children will be somewhat mitigated, but certainly not eliminated. And make no mistake about it, there has been damage. A study by the non-profit Great Public Schools Now shows that in L.A. over 13,000 middle and high school students were consistently disengaged in fall 2020, and another 56,000 did not actively participate on a daily basis. Also, two out of three students are falling behind in literacy and math, with black and Latino students disproportionately affected. The study also maintains that graduation rates will plummet. As things stand now, 43 percent of the class of 2022, 37 percent of the class of 2023, and 30 percent of the class of 2024 will not graduate.

While much of the educational disaster can be attributed to the fact that many students are not cut out for computer-based learning, those who thrive in such a circumstance were clearly cheated also. The report notes that while students in Long Beach received 255 minutes of “synchronous” instruction each day, and those in San Diego got 240 minutes, kids in L.A. received just 114 minutes with their teacher. (According to a deal struck in April, the official teacher workday was to go from 9 a.m. to 2:15 p.m. But obviously most of that time was not spent on instructing students.)

If there is any good news to this seemingly unending abuse, it is that parents are angry and legally fighting back. In fact, three lawsuits have been filed in L.A. so far.

The first action came in September 2020 when L.A. public school parents sued, alleging that the school district failed its students by offering less instructional time compared with other large districts in California, and cutting the hours that teachers are required to work.

The second lawsuit, filed on March 31st, importantly included the United Teachers of Los Angeles as defendants—the union truly is the dog that wags the Los Angeles Unified School District tail. This litigation does not focus on learning loss, but rather on the psychological damage that’s been done to the students. The plaintiffs claim that their children have variously become suicidal, isolated, depressed, addicted, clinically obese, and had their future prosperity needlessly imperiled. The lawsuit calls out UTLA president Cecily Myart-Cruz, who has an advanced degree in gaslighting. From the onset of the Covid mess, she has insisted that opening schools would propagate “structural racism” and accused “wealthy white and Middle Eastern parents” of stalking union members on social media regarding the parents’ desire to see their children return to physical classrooms.” Among other things, the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages equal to the annual per-pupil cost to educate a student in LAUSD – about $15,920 per child – “to be used to satisfy tuition at an institution that does provide in-person learning.” It is worth noting that the parents represented in the case are going by their initials instead of by their full names, because they fear retaliation by UTLA.

Then, on April 7th, a third group of parents – who claim their children have been illegally shortchanged by LAUSD’s return-to-school plan – announced they are seeking a court order to force the district to reopen “to the greatest extent possible” within seven days. This litigation targets LAUSD and Superintendent Austin Beutner. The parents claim that the present reopening plan “violates legal requirements,” and denies students their “constitutional right” to a public education.

As the lawsuits pile up, there is one other example of LAUSD fecklessness. UTLA recently insisted that teachers and other district employees with children under five years old receive a $500 monthly child care stipend when they return to classrooms. In no time, LAUSD rolled over and agreed with the union’s demand. Critics have jumped on this, pointing out that essential workers like healthcare and grocery store employees who never stopped working in-person are also parents of children. They get nada, however. But then again, they don’t work for UTLAUSD.

Austin Beutner often uses the term “labor partner’ when talking about the teachers union. But he is wrong; there is no partnership. UTLA is the boss. Only in this case, the boss doesn’t pay the employees. That task belongs to the taxpayers, who are at the mercy of the ravenous union and the kowtowing school district. Teachers in L.A. have logged in far fewer hours than before the pandemic, yet their pay and very generous benefits have not suffered one iota. Perhaps if teachers took a pay hit, they may be willing to actually do the job they were hired to do. But that would require a school district that really cared about the needs of children and had respect for taxpayers. Maybe the next lawsuit will take on this issue.

*   *   *

Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers and the general public with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues.

Canada: No Country for Young Men (Nor is California)

While this article is about Canada—it is really about California.  Canada is fighting about two languages, we fight about dozens of languages.  They use government to censor people—as does Sacramento.  Canada is trying to kill it energy and oil industry—so is Gavin Newsom and his Democrat buddies.

“Under the younger Trudeau’s administrations, a perfect storm of destabilizing factors has struck the country. Rampant immigration from third-world nations, predominantly Muslim, has led to sporadic terror attacks, ghettoization, and a depletion of public funds. A punitive and unnecessary carbon tax looks likely to eviscerate the farming community, hamstring commerce and industry, and severely impact ordinary households. Radical feminism has taken root not only in public schools and universities but in the governing cabinet as well, leading to decisions based on ideology rather than pragmatism. 

The son has bought into an exorbitant and unworkable fantasy of Green technology, in the process carrying out the father’s scheme to sabotage the energy sector that once sustained the nation. The carbon-net-zero Bill C-12, written by a cabal of radical environmentalists, will impoverish Canadians who depend on energy production and delivery, including the many spin-off businesses. Bill C-48, which imposes a moratorium on oil tankers and landlocks Alberta and neighboring Saskatchewan, and Bill C-69, which focuses on the controversial issue of “climate change” at the expense of proven economic development, threaten to become nation-killers.”

Oh, and both Newsom and Trudeau have a real affection for women and the good life.

Canada: No Country for Young Men

David Solway, Ruthfully Yours,  4/18/21   

Canada has signed away its future. A country that once had a great deal going for it—abundant natural resources; a vibrant energy sector; a viable debt-to-GDP ratio; a tradition of civic decorum maintained even during a brief period of Quebec-secessionist discord; an aversion to foreign adventures; and a commendable standard of living, among the highest in the world—has squandered its many advantages and blessings in an excess of poor electoral decisions and civic indifference to its national welfare. 

Of course, like any country, Canada has had its share of problems—language issues between French and English, a much-abused, asymmetrical equalizationor fund-transferring formula between provinces, the Native victimhood industry—but it had managed to deal with them without protracted or endemic violence such as one sees in many other nations.

But there is no doubt that the country is dying. One has watched a steady disintegration of national unity and prosperity over the last generation. Some place the shipwreck of the country’s prospects with Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s National Energy Program in 1980, the first move in the gradual destruction of Canada’s oil and gas producing regions, located primarily in the province of Alberta. Others target a dreary succession of incompetent, high-taxing prime ministers, culminating in the electoral victories of Justin Trudeau, inarguably the least qualified and most unpriministerial holder of high office in the entire history of Confederation.

The list of his misdemeanors, spendthrift excesses, and corrupt practices, circulated by Gordon Miller, a director of Canadians for Language Fairness, is unparalleled. We’ve had eccentrics in office many times, dating from the Father of Confederation John A. MacDonald, who was often in his cupsWilliam Lyon MacKenzie King was a table rapper who communed with the spirits of his mother and his dog (though Michael Bliss in Right Honorable Men praises King as “Canada’s most highly-educated prime minister”). Pierre Trudeau posed as a sandal-wearing swinger and used his “swashbuckling hippie style” to advantage, effectively polarizing the nation. But nothing like the political reprobate and misfit Justin Trudeau has ever befallen this nation before. One recalls Canada’s 13th prime minister John Diefenbaker’s remark that “You can’t stand up for Canada with a banana for a backbone.” Nor with a banana anywhere else on your anatomy.

Under the younger Trudeau’s administrations, a perfect storm of destabilizing factors has struck the country. Rampant immigration from third-world nations, predominantly Muslim, has led to sporadic terror attacks, ghettoization, and a depletion of public funds. A punitive and unnecessary carbon tax looks likely to eviscerate the farming community, hamstring commerce and industry, and severely impact ordinary households. Radical feminism has taken root not only in public schools and universities but in the governing cabinet as well, leading to decisions based on ideology rather than pragmatism. 

The son has bought into an exorbitant and unworkable fantasy of Green technology, in the process carrying out the father’s scheme to sabotage the energy sector that once sustained the nation. The carbon-net-zero Bill C-12, written by a cabal of radical environmentalists, will impoverish Canadians who depend on energy production and delivery, including the many spin-off businesses. Bill C-48, which imposes a moratorium on oil tankers and landlocks Alberta and neighboring Saskatchewan, and Bill C-69, which focuses on the controversial issue of “climate change” at the expense of proven economic development, threaten to become nation-killers.

Under the current Trudeau, Canada’s deficit has risen incommensurably, yielding the first credit rating downgrade in 25 years. Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper had cut the deficit to $0.8 billion. Trudeau has hiked it into the $400 billion range. Pleading COVID is no excuse—the deficit was already riding the escalator. The scale of the national debt is equally if not more discouraging. From a figure of approximately $1 billion when Harper left office, it has now soared to $1.4 trillion and counting.

Compounding the problem, capital investment is fleeing the country. As Asia Pacific Post notes, “Canada has plummeted in ‘competitiveness’ report cards such as the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business report where [Canada] dropped from fourth place in 2007 to 23rd in 2020…The bottom line is that Canada is viewed by Canadian and foreign investors as an inhospitable place to invest…That’s the tragedy of Canada.” Clearly, the economic trajectory is unsustainable.

The travesty shows no sign of ending, especially as foreign policy has become subservient to Communist China’s interests, to the point of training the Chinese military in the tactics of winter warfare. Under Trudeau, who is on record saying he admires China’s “basic dictatorship,” Canada has progressively become a CCP client and a Marxist quasi-garrison state. As Jordan Schachtel writes in theAmerican Institute for Economic Research (AIER), Canada “has mutilated the free press while simultaneously transforming into a Chinese state colony.”

The response to the COVID pandemic has been to follow the edicts of the W.H.O., which serves the interests of Beijing. Thus, we are saddled with surging mask mandates and increasingly harsh lockdowns resembling those in America’s blue states, producing economic suffering and what we might call cultural recession as citizens turn against one another, children lose years of education, and the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence are further weakened. In the words of political historian Conrad Black, “Trudeau’s promise of a green COVID government ‘reset’ is a terrifying idiocy as a sequel to his insane, lugubrious and authoritarian bungling of the COVID problem.” 

But perhaps the bungling is deliberate. Canadians returning from abroad, even if vaccinated, are herded into commandeered Radissons and Mariotts at personal expense, up to several thousands of dollars for a three-day stay. According to reports, travelers who subsequently test negative will be sent home to continue the mandatory 14-day quarantine and remain under increased surveillance. Those who test positive will be immediately quarantined in government-designated facilities. Such measures—among others—are an excellent way to tame a country’s citizens and make them think twice before planning a prison break. In fact, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been routinely violated by the Liberal government, leaving ordinary people helpless before illegal coercion reminiscent of a police state. One thinks of the Cormac McCarthy novel (and Coen brothers’ film), No Country for Old Men, in which the sheriff-protagonist, a decent and principled man, feels that crime and corruption have reached a level where it can no longer be contained or resisted. 

Meanwhile, the fire sale of the national patrimony proceeds apace. The re-interpretation of Canadian history as a series of colonial predations, an unchecked despoliation of the environment, a reign of settler incontinence, and a spectacle of unbridled racism is indicative of a political and intellectual elite that has lost faith in the country and of a largely compliant and ignorant electorate willing to sell their country cheaply. The ubiquitous mask may as well be covering the eyes. The problems, fiscal and cultural, are mounting by the day but far too many people are willing to kick Canada down the road, believing that the plexiform bubble we live in will protect us from the virus of civil and economic collapse. 

Trudeau has boasted that Canada is the world’s first “post-national state,” a country with “no core identity.” A country that is apparently not a country and that has no core identity is surely a country without a future. Which is to say, Canada is no country for young men. Americans need to take a good look up north. Should there be no course correction in the conduct of public affairs and the extravagance of economic policy now bedeviling the Republic, it’s their tomorrow they are witnessing.

San Fran Declares Itself “Tent City U.S.A.” for the Homeless

Huntington Beach is known as “Surf City USA”.  San Fran wants to be known as “Tent City USA”.  They are packing the homeless into fleabag hotels, public facilities, but mainly they are on the streets.  Now San Fran wants them “orderly” on the streets, parking lots, empty lots, throughout the city.  Government want to make sure you can not go to your doorstep for the newspaper, without seeing the homeless.

“San Francisco would have to provide every unsheltered homeless person a sanctioned area to live in a tent known as safe sleeping sites under a proposal up for a vote Wednesday. Homeless advocates are arguing it’s not the right approach.

The legislation, introduced by Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, would require that within 18 months The City open a sufficient number of safe sleeping sites to accommodate all unsheltered homeless persons “who are willing to accept a referral to such sites.”

This also means the city will be littered with porta-potties and mobile showers—to go along with thw human and dog feces on the streets—plus the homeless that like to sleep on Market Street at the entrances of buildings and stores.  San Fran will take the title away from New Jersey for being the smelliest spot in the nation.

City would create sites for hundreds of tents under new homeless shelter proposal

Tents from a homeless encampment line a street in downtown Los Angeles on Tuesday, Jan. 26, 2016. Some 7,000 volunteers will fan out as part of a three-night effort to count homeless people in most of Los Angeles County. Naomi Goldman, a spokeswoman of the organizer the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, said the goal is to “paint a picture about the state of homelessness.” (AP Photo/Richard Vogel)

Advocates say funding better spent on permanent housing

Joshua Sabatini, SF Examiner,  4/19/21  

San Francisco would have to provide every unsheltered homeless person a sanctioned area to live in a tent known as safe sleeping sites under a proposal up for a vote Wednesday. Homeless advocates are arguing it’s not the right approach.

The legislation, introduced by Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, would require that within 18 months The City open a sufficient number of safe sleeping sites to accommodate all unsheltered homeless persons “who are willing to accept a referral to such sites.”

The effort would be overseen by the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, whose new director starts next month. If the legislation is adopted, the department would initially have to provide within 60 days a plan to open enough safe sleeping sites to accommodate 500 people within nine months. A possible amendment may extend that time to 120 days.

The proposal is being heard for the first time Wednesday by the Board of Supervisors Budget and Finance Committee, on which sits Supervisors Matt Haney, Ahsha Safai and Gordon Mar.

It has drawn opposition from the Coalition on Homelessness, whose executive director Jennifer Friedenbach argued in a recent letter to the board that the money and the department’s time would be better spent on solutions to homelessness like rental subsidies and supportive housing. She also raised concerns it could lead to a ramp up of enforcement against homeless residents who may not agree to use the sites.

Mandelman argues that while he supports funding for housing, he thinks The City should also fund an expansion in safe sleeping sites to improve the conditions of residential and commercial corridors by reducing street encampments.

The coalition’s argument, “doesn’t answer the question: What about the people who are out on the street tonight?” he told the San Francisco Examiner.

“We cannot continue to, as a city, invest in housing, but leave it to the unhoused folks we cannot house to figure out where they are supposed to be,” Mandelman said.

While his proposal “is silent on enforcement,” Mandelman said, “I think it is reasonable to ask folks to move — to either accept that placement or to find another place to be.”

It may be a challenge for Mandelman to pass the legislation, however; he currently has no co-sponsors.

Haney told the Examiner Monday that he has yet to take a position on the legislation.

“I haven’t taken a position yet,” Haney said. “I’m still meeting with people about it and expect a robust discussion in committee.”

Mar said he was still considering it, as did Safai, but he said he was concerned about the costs.

RescueSF, a group co-founded by Marina resident Mark Nagel, Cow Hollow Association President Lori Brooke and Dolores Heights Improvement Club chair Carolyn Kenady, has been drumming up support for the proposal, which would represent a significant policy shift in how The City addresses the thousands living on the street.

“Without interim shelter, they are sliding further into chronic homelessness (especially deadly substance abuse and behavioral health issues),” the group wrote in an email Sunday asking people to call into the meeting to voice their support.

The Council of District Merchants Associations, a coalition of small business groups from a number of San Francisco neighbors, recently endorsed it.

“Letting people live on the street is inhumane,” Maryo Mogannam, president of the council, told the Examiner. “We’re a first class city in a first world country. People deserve better.”

But Friedenbach argued that focusing on temporary shelter like tents is just the wrong strategy. She said places like New York City that have a “shelter for all policy” spend too much of their funding on emergency shelter, where people get stuck, and not enough on permanent housing.

“We think the legislation should be killed,” Friedenbach told the Examiner. “We can continue having an appropriate number of safe sleeping villages without putting all our eggs in the tent basket, while using available dollars instead for housing at a cheaper per person cost.”

The exact cost of Mandelman’s proposal is hard to pin down.

In the midst of the pandemic, The City has is operating six so-called “Safe Sleeping Villages,” which annually would cost about $18.2 million, according to a new financial report on the proposal by the budget analyst. That breaks down to an average of about $190 per night per tent or $69,374 per year per tent. Costs vary by site from between $131 to $271 per person per night, the report said.

Mandelman’s legislation does not require the sites to come with all the services the existing sites do, such as on-site clinical, medical, or social services. Without those onsite services his proposal is estimated to cost an average of $93 per tent per night, or $2,778 per person per month, the report said. However, a lack of services could result in a poorly run site that would need to be closed, as happened in some trials, city officials said.

Another variable is how many people the sites would need to serve. The department has previously estimated it could range from 500 to as many as 5,000.

That would mean Mandelman’s proposal could cost anywhere between $16.9 million for 500 people to $169 million for 5,000 persons, the report found. And that’s not including items like transportation to the sites, harm reduction and other on-site support services. The current model being used for Safe Sleeping Villages, with the services included, would range from about $34.7 million to $346.9 million.

“We need more analysis from HSH about how to do this,” Mandelman said.

He believes that The City could figure out a successful model inclusive of some services with per night per tent costs at around $100. And he said creating a network of sites for a capacity of 1,000 would improve conditions on the streets, putting the estimate at about $40 million annually.

A city tally of homeless tents and structures as of February found there were 501 across San Francisco.

Mandelman said it would be “well worth tens of millions of dollars to actually have shelter options for people and be able to end street camping.”

“This is a goal that San Francisco has never set for itself,” he said.