California ALLOWS Illegal Aliens to be Attorneys—to Defend Illegal Aliens

Did you really think California attorneys need to be honest and non-lawbreaking in order to be admitted to the Bar?  Nope, criminals from foreign countries that violate our laws everyday are being allowed to practice law.  Of course, the law many of these criminals practice is defending other illegal illegals.  While American citizens that want to become attorneys have to be non-lawbreakers—illegal aliens are given special rights, Americans are not.

““[N]ew lawyers must take an oath to ‘support the Constitution of the United States” and must also pass an ethics exam. The California Supreme Court explained in its holding that it “assumes’ that a licensed illegal alien ‘will make all necessary inquiries and take appropriate steps to comply with applicable legal restrictions.’ The Committee of Bar Examiners explained that ‘there is no reason to believe’ Garcia [the illegal alien applicant seeking approval to practice law] ‘cannot take the oath and faithfully uphold his duties as an attorney.’

“It is unclear why the court and the bar examiners would assume such things. Illegal immigrants regularly fail to comply with a whole host of laws. Within Garcia’s own circle of family and friends one can identify a variety of potential legal violations, if media reports are accurate.

“Garcia admits to working a number of jobs prior to law school, and depending on how he obtained the work, he may be liable under False Personation of a U.S. Citizen (18 U.S.C. § 911), Fraud and False Statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001), and Social Security Fraud (42 U.S.C. § 408), just to name a few examples.”

Even our legal system has been infected with corruption and criminals.  When will the people of California demand honest government?  And, an honest Bar.  If I were an attorney I would be demanding the highest standards in the profession—not the corruption of the present system.

court gavel

New York, California Moving to Permit Illegal Aliens to Practice Law?

 

By Dan Cadman, cnsnews.com,  7/21/17

 

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., delivers remarks following President Barack Obama’s statement announcing Holder’s departure, in the State Dining Room of the White House, Sept. 25, 2014. Attorney General Holder will remain at the Department of Justice until his post is filled. (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)

Sapna Rampersaud has written an article for National Review Online’s The Corner titled “Illegal Immigrants Can Now Defend the Laws They Break,” detailing how the states of New York and California have moved to permit illegal aliens to practice law. This is the kind of thing one might expect to see as a headline on the satirical website The Onion, but, sadly, it’s true.

Actually, they’ve been headed that way for some time. John Feere, previously a legal policy analyst here at the Center, wrote about California’s efforts clear back in January of 2014, and commented on the back flips achieved by the California Supreme Court in deciding that permitting illegal aliens to practice law was copacetic:

“[N]ew lawyers must take an oath to ‘support the Constitution of the United States” and must also pass an ethics exam. The California Supreme Court explained in its holding that it “assumes’ that a licensed illegal alien ‘will make all necessary inquiries and take appropriate steps to comply with applicable legal restrictions.’ The Committee of Bar Examiners explained that ‘there is no reason to believe’ Garcia [the illegal alien applicant seeking approval to practice law] ‘cannot take the oath and faithfully uphold his duties as an attorney.’

“It is unclear why the court and the bar examiners would assume such things. Illegal immigrants regularly fail to comply with a whole host of laws. Within Garcia’s own circle of family and friends one can identify a variety of potential legal violations, if media reports are accurate.

“Garcia admits to working a number of jobs prior to law school, and depending on how he obtained the work, he may be liable under False Personation of a U.S. Citizen (18 U.S.C. § 911), Fraud and False Statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001), and Social Security Fraud (42 U.S.C. § 408), just to name a few examples. We estimate that nearly half of working illegal aliens have filled out I-9 Forms and are likely in violation of these statutes. If the Obama administration decided to enforce federal immigration law, Garcia could potentially face many years in jail and significant fines. It is important to remember that these crimes often create real victims.”

In addition to Feere’s very cogent observations, I’m also wondering how, exactly, an attorney who is illegally in the United States can be deemed an “officer of the court.” Aren’t the two things, when put together, inherently oxymoronic? An alien who has no lawful status must inevitably engage in deception and subterfuge in order to remain in the United States without being apprehended. That doesn’t sound like the kind of upright behavior required of officers of the court.

Moving back to the article on The Corner, Rampersaud has her own version of the “Mr. Garcia” described above:

“One such lawyer is Lizbeth Mateo. Born in Mexico, Mateo and her family illegally crossed the border when she was 14 and have been residing in California ever since. In 2013, Mateo returned to Mexico knowing she had no legal visa to come back and, as part of what became known as the Bring Them Home Campaign, returned to the U.S. border with eight other children and demanded unauthorized reentry into the U.S. — which she was granted. Having graduated from Santa Clara University School of Law and working jobs that required the use of a stolen Social Security number, Mateo now spends her time as an immigration lawyer ‘preparing legal strategies to help undocumented immigrants stay in the country’ — all while flaunting her own undocumented status.”

As Rampersaud goes on to remark:

“This example illustrates the extent to which certain states both accept and encourage illegal immigration. Mateo is praised for being a ‘leader’ and a ‘bold advocate’ but should instead be described as what she is: a lawbreaker. Mateo has taken an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, but breaks federal law every day. Square that circle.”

She’s right. You can’t square that circle. But one thing I can say for certain is this: It takes more than just a state license to practice immigration law because, of course, immigration laws are federal in nature. Attorneys who wish to represent aliens before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the Justice Department division that handles the immigration courts and Board of Immigration Appeals, must register with and be approved by the EOIR director.

While I don’t see any particular prohibition of illegal aliens in the provision of the federal regulations governing such registration, at 8 CFR Section 1292.1, it would defy logic and make a mockery of the immigration courts for the director to approve such an application for registration.

There is also the issue of fairness to the illegal alien being represented by another illegal alien: What happens if his lawyer is arrested before his hearing is completed, thus leaving him high and dry? For EOIR to permit such a situation to occur would be tantamount to malfeasance. On the other hand, it defies logic that certain states have already taken that step-too-far, and that, too, seems to me to smack of malfeasance.

Maybe it’s time that Attorney General Jeff Sessions steps in to require his new EOIR director to amend the regulation and make the prohibition against illegal alien lawyers representing other illegal aliens in the immigration courts crystal clear.

Meantime, if an illegal alien attorney shows up in court to represent an alien respondent in removal proceedings, perhaps the presiding immigration judge will have the good sense to summon immigration agents to arrest the attorney and place him or her into proceedings as well. After all, they’re fair game. Being a lawyer shouldn’t intrinsically place anyone above the law, should it?

 

Not a Joke: UC Berkeley to Cover Laser Hair Removal in Student Health Care Plan

Only in California would you find a student health care plan that covers laser hair removal and fertility preservation for students that consider themselves transgender.  Why is the cost of education is high in California?  Even health care plans must be politically correct.

“The University of California, Berkeley will soon add “laser hair removal” and “fertility preservation” to the list of “transgender student services” covered by its student health insurance plan.

According to The Daily Californian, the two new services will be officially added on August 1, complementing existing services for transgender students that are already covered, including “gender confirmation (reassignment) surgery,” “breast augmentation (MTF top surgery),” “female to male top surgery,” “hormone therapy,” and more.

“Less than 0.3% of utilizing members currently receive transgender surgery.”

Why is California considered the “Quake and Flake State”?  This is just another reason to question the sanity of those running our government education.

UC Berkeley

UC-Berkeley adds ‘laser hair removal’ to student health plan

 

Adam Sabes, Campus Reform, 7/21/17

 

  The University of California, Berkeley will soon add “laser hair removal” and “fertility preservation” to the list of “transgender student services” covered by its student health insurance plan.

  The services will also be available to students with other medical needs, such as ovarian cancer, but were added specifically as treatments for “gender dysphoria.”

The University of California, Berkeley will soon add “laser hair removal” and “fertility preservation” to the list of “transgender student services” covered by its student health insurance plan.

According to The Daily Californian, the two new services will be officially added on August 1, complementing existing services for transgender students that are already covered, including “gender confirmation (reassignment) surgery,” “breast augmentation (MTF top surgery),” “female to male top surgery,” “hormone therapy,” and more.

“Less than 0.3% of utilizing members currently receive transgender surgery.”

Bahar Navab, who manages the Student Health Insurance Plan (SHIP) for University Health Services, explained that fertility damage is a common side-effect of the hormones that some transgender individuals take, and that fertility preservation treatments enable those individuals to become pregnant or produce sperm without having to stop taking the hormones.

Navab also pointed out that most health insurance plans do not cover services such as “male-to-female top surgery” and hair removal because they consider them cosmetic procedures, whereas Berkeley’s plan views them as treatments for “gender dysphoria,” though they will also be offered to student with other medical necessities.

“Our Student Health Insurance Advisory Committee (SHIAC) had discussed adding these benefits for transgender patients two years ago,” Kim LaPean, communications manager at University Health Services Tang Center, told Campus Reform. “When we brought the benefit additions back up for discussion with SHIAC this past year, the student representatives expressed their support and requested to expand the benefits to anyone with medical necessity as well (e.g. a patient with ovarian cancer may who may also want fertility preservation).”

LaPean acknowledged that “less than 0.3% of utilizing members currently receive transgender surgery,” a figure that university officials do not expect to increase significantly, but said “it’s important to reiterate that the expanded benefits apply to anyone with medical necessity as well (e.g. a patient with ovarian cancer may who may also want fertility preservation).”

“There are an infinite number of ways that someone can identify in regard to gender,” asserted Laura Alie, chair of the Transgender Care Team at the UHS Tang Center, told Berkeley’s News department. “It’s our goal to make sure trans or gender-nonconforming students feel completely at home in the Tang Center, no matter what department they go to.”

Recently-elected student senator Juniperangelica Cordova, however, told The Daily Cal that while she thinks the university has been doing “a good job” of accommodating transgender students such as herself, she plans to work with the Tang Center to go even further.

“It’s a matter of making sure that everyone who works at Tang is up-to-date in terms of using our names and our pronouns,” she said. “I’m excited to see new procedures and new coverage being added and I’m looking forward to working with Tang this year in making sure trans folks are healthy.”

Navab indicated openness to Cordova’s goals, saying, “Future benefit additions will be considered if they are requested by our clients and SHIAC.”

According to an updated health insurance plan, which was revised in 2016 to incorporate several services for transgender students, students can pay as little as 10 percent of the cost of most transgender services, including “top surgery,” “bottom surgery,” and hormone therapy.

McClatchy (Bee Newspapers) Continue to Lose Circulation and Revenues

Dead tree newspapers continue to go the way of the buggy whip and black and white TV shows.  The Internet provides numerous sources of information for free.  Cable TV news channels provide 24/7 updated news and stories.  By the time you go to your driveway for the morning paper, it is old news.  Then you have the bias of the newspapers, so it not surprising the parent company of the Modesto, Fresno and Sacramento Bee is losing money and circulation.  In fact, almost all newspapers are in the same boat.  This is not just a Bee problem.

“In the second quarter of 2016 McClatchy reported a net loss of $14.7 million, or $1.89 per share.

The company says it had an “adjusted net loss” of $6.1 million, which excludes severance and certain other items in the second quarter of 2017, compared to an adjusted net loss of $1.5 million in the second quarter of 2016.

“As we focus forward at McClatchy, the mantra of accelerating our pace and cadence is being embraced across the organization. And our changes are being well-received by customers — both long-tenured and new. In the second quarter, we moved forward by regionalizing our publisher structure, centralizing our audience department, expanding our accelerating digital marketing business, hastening our product release cycles and diligently working to close on our strategic real estate transactions.”

The world is changing—the disruptive Internet has taken its toll on the dead tree industry.

price cost expensive money

 

McClatchy sees a bigger quarterly loss

Central Valley Business Times,  7/21/17

Dear tree newspapers continue to go the way of the buggy whip and black and white TV shows.  The Internet provides numerous sources of information for free.  Cable TV news channels provide 24/7 updated news and stories.  By the time you go to your driveway for the morning paper, it is old news.  Then you have the bias of the newspapers, so it not surprising the parent company of the Modesto, Fresno and Sacramento Bee is losing money and circulation.  In fact, almost all newspapers are in the same boat.  This is not just a Bee problem.

“In the second quarter of 2016 McClatchy reported a net loss of $14.7 million, or $1.89 per share.

The company says it had an “adjusted net loss” of $6.1 million, which excludes severance and certain other items in the second quarter of 2017, compared to an adjusted net loss of $1.5 million in the second quarter of 2016.

, said, “As we focus forward at McClatchy, the mantra of accelerating our pace and cadence is being embraced across the organization. And our changes are being well-received by customers — both long-tenured and new. In the second quarter, we moved forward by regionalizing our publisher structure, centralizing our audience department, expanding our exceleratetm digital marketing business, hastening our product release cycles and diligently working to close on our strategic real estate transactions.”

The world is changing—the disruptive Internet has taken its toll on the dead tree industry.

 

 

 

 

 

McClatchy sees a bigger quarterly loss

Central Valley Business Times,  7/21/17  http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=32993

 

•  Print advertising, circulation drops

•  “We continue to see strong headwinds in print advertising”

 
Is the McClatchy Company still a newspaper publisher? Looking at where it’s getting money, one might think it’s anything but.

In its report Friday on second quarter financial performance, the Sacramento-based company says that it “grew revenue categories other than print newspaper advertising to 74.7 percent of total revenues.”

That might be indicative of where the company hopes to be going. But where it is now may not be a happy place.

McClatchy (NYSE: MNI) says it had a net loss in the second quarter of $37.4 million, or $4.91 per share.

That includes after-tax non-cash impairments totaling $28.8 million on the carrying value of the company’s interest in CareerBuilder LLC and other equity investments.

In the second quarter of 2016 McClatchy reported a net loss of $14.7 million, or $1.89 per share.

The company says it had an “adjusted net loss” of $6.1 million, which excludes severance and certain other items in the second quarter of 2017, compared to an adjusted net loss of $1.5 million in the second quarter of 2016.

, said, “As we focus forward at McClatchy, the mantra of accelerating our pace and cadence is being embraced across the organization. And our changes are being well-received by customers — both long-tenured and new. In the second quarter, we moved forward by regionalizing our publisher structure, centralizing our audience department, expanding our exceleratetm digital marketing business, hastening our product release cycles and diligently working to close on our strategic real estate transactions.

“As I have mentioned before, achieving a normalized operating environment takes some time in digital transitions.

“While we continue to see strong headwinds in print advertising, we also are seeing our digital efforts in all aspects of the business moderate those headwinds,” says Craig Forman, McClatchy’s president and CEO.

“Our commitment to journalism that matters is an area of focus that is unremitting,” he says. “And reaching greater audiences with that journalism is at the core of what we do,.”

He says two measurements of success are growth in digital subscriptions and in unique visitors. Digital subscriptions grew by 13.8 percent over the same quarter last year and unique visitors grew by 14.6 percent over the same period.

“We plan to continue our digital audience growth in the second half of the year by providing relevant journalism to our readers and viewers while explaining the benefits of subscribing to our digital products,” Mr. Forman says.

In the Central Valley, McClatchy publishes the Sacramento, Modesto and Fresno Bee newspapers and the Merced Sun-Star.

 

 

 

JOBS

 

 

•  Print advertising, circulation drops

•  “We continue to see strong headwinds in print advertising”

 
Is the McClatchy Company still a newspaper publisher? Looking at where it’s getting money, one might think it’s anything but.

In its report Friday on second quarter financial performance, the Sacramento-based company says that it “grew revenue categories other than print newspaper advertising to 74.7 percent of total revenues.”

That might be indicative of where the company hopes to be going. But where it is now may not be a happy place.

McClatchy (NYSE: MNI) says it had a net loss in the second quarter of $37.4 million, or $4.91 per share.

That includes after-tax non-cash impairments totaling $28.8 million on the carrying value of the company’s interest in CareerBuilder LLC and other equity investments.

In the second quarter of 2016 McClatchy reported a net loss of $14.7 million, or $1.89 per share.

The company says it had an “adjusted net loss” of $6.1 million, which excludes severance and certain other items in the second quarter of 2017, compared to an adjusted net loss of $1.5 million in the second quarter of 2016.

, said, “As we focus forward at McClatchy, the mantra of accelerating our pace and cadence is being embraced across the organization. And our changes are being well-received by customers — both long-tenured and new. In the second quarter, we moved forward by regionalizing our publisher structure, centralizing our audience department, expanding our exceleratetm digital marketing business, hastening our product release cycles and diligently working to close on our strategic real estate transactions.

“As I have mentioned before, achieving a normalized operating environment takes some time in digital transitions.

“While we continue to see strong headwinds in print advertising, we also are seeing our digital efforts in all aspects of the business moderate those headwinds,” says Craig Forman, McClatchy’s president and CEO.

“Our commitment to journalism that matters is an area of focus that is unremitting,” he says. “And reaching greater audiences with that journalism is at the core of what we do,.”

He says two measurements of success are growth in digital subscriptions and in unique visitors. Digital subscriptions grew by 13.8 percent over the same quarter last year and unique visitors grew by 14.6 percent over the same period.

“We plan to continue our digital audience growth in the second half of the year by providing relevant journalism to our readers and viewers while explaining the benefits of subscribing to our digital products,” Mr. Forman says.

In the Central Valley, McClatchy publishes the Sacramento, Modesto and Fresno Bee newspapers and the Merced Sun-Star.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

·

·

·

·

 

·

California REALLY HATES Texas: Bans State Travel to Free State!

Toyota and many other major firms have moved to Texas.  People in Texas, unlike California, are allowed to protect themselves from criminals.  This is a State that believe s criminals, even from foreign countries, should be detained, arrested and if appropriate, deported.  Texas allows utilities to compete for customers, unlike California where you are forced by government to accept a utility.  Gas prices are cheaper—and Texas does not have an income tax.  No wonder Guv Brown, obviously confused is not allowing State funds used for travel to Texas—he fears even government employees would see the difference between a totalitarian State and a Free State.

“On Thursday, California banned all state-funded travel to Texas, citing recently enacted laws that allow discrimination against LGBT people. The move spells trouble for ASHE, as well as the American College Personnel Association — College Student Educators International, which also has an upcoming conference scheduled in Texas, since public California institutions won’t be able to pay for travel costs for their professors or administrators. The California travel ban also complicates athletic events scheduled between California teams and those in other states falling under the ban.

Last year, 12 percent of ASHE’s membership at the conference was from California, Harper said, although members from private institutions wouldn’t be affected. If Californians don’t come, that’s a huge financial hit for the conference, and that doesn’t take into account any members who also agree to boycott the conference, standing in solidarity with California and LGBT individuals in Texas.

In fact, the Laws discriminating against LGBT people actually makes rights available for ALL citizens, not just a segregated community.  California opposes equal rights—that is why the ban is in place.  Thought you should know that California is jealous of Texas—and freedom.

Laffer1

Ethics, Money and Academic Meetings

California’s ban on using state funds to travel to Texas highlights the dilemma facing national groups with meetings scheduled to take place there.

By Nick Roll, Inside Higher Ed,  6/26/17

When Shaun Harper assumed the presidency of the Association for the Study of Higher Education in November 2016, the group had already started planning its 2017 annual conference, which was to be held in Houston. These things are planned out long in advance; ASHE’s website already lists conference locations through 2019.

“We had not been to Texas before, so we were thinking this could be an exciting opportunity to take the ASHE annual meeting to a state where it had never been,” said Harper, a professor at the University of Southern California.

Over the past couple of months, however, Harper’s confidence in holding ASHE’s conference in Texas has eroded. The board is currently “scrambling” trying to figure out if it’s going to hold its conference, scheduled for Nov. 9-11, in Houston or not.

On Thursday, California banned all state-funded travel to Texas, citing recently enacted laws that allow discrimination against LGBT people. The move spells trouble for ASHE, as well as the American College Personnel Association — College Student Educators International, which also has an upcoming conference scheduled in Texas, since public California institutions won’t be able to pay for travel costs for their professors or administrators. The California travel ban also complicates athletic events scheduled between California teams and those in other states falling under the ban.

Last year, 12 percent of ASHE’s membership at the conference was from California, Harper said, although members from private institutions wouldn’t be affected. If Californians don’t come, that’s a huge financial hit for the conference, and that doesn’t take into account any members who also agree to boycott the conference, standing in solidarity with California and LGBT individuals in Texas.

For Harper, who is gay and black, however, the moral implications of hosting the conference in Texas far outweigh the financial costs, and troubles in Houston have been brewing for months.

“It’s a presidential nightmare,” he said.

Travel Ban

California’s travel ban — which blocks state-funded travel to states that discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity — became law on Jan. 1, but the attorney general can update destinations where state-funded travel is banned. On Thursday, Texas was added to the list, along with Alabama, Kentucky and South Dakota. Already on the list were Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee.

“Our country has made great strides in dismantling prejudicial laws that have deprived too many of our fellow Americans of their precious rights. Sadly, that is not the case in all parts of our nation, even in the 21st century,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement announcing the additional states to be included in the ban.

According to the California attorney general’s office, Texas was added because of a recently enacted law that allows foster care agencies to discriminate based on the sexual orientation or gender identity of people wishing to adopt a child. Harper, in a March email to ASHE members, also spoke out against a restroom-access bill — similar to the one enacted in North Carolina, which garnered widespread condemnation from LGBT groups and would bar transgender students from using bathrooms other than those that correspond with their legal gender assigned at birth — which has been progressing through the Texas Legislature and could pass in a special session to be held in July.

“Deciding against going to a city or state for a few days is a privilege denied to people who must live their lives there every day. We have ASHE members who live and work in Texas. Some students and faculty members whom we study — including those in large state and federal data sets — do not have the luxury of opting out of living in Texas. Some are trans and gender nonconforming,” Harper wrote to ASHE, fearing the bill could be passed before the November conference. “If SB 6 passes, they will be forced to reside and learn in dangerous contexts that deny their full humanity.”

Harper said in the email that ASHE is working to make sure that its facilities have restrooms available for use by any and all attendees, regardless of their gender identity. At the time, he argued for hosting the conference in Houston as a way to protest anti-LGBT laws in Texas. Now, however, he’s not sure what the best decision is.

“My own view on this is that Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders didn’t say, ‘We’re not going to Selma, because there’s injustice in Selma,’” he said. “They stared injustice in its face.”

Going to Texas, he said, would be an opportunity to use ASHE’s “arsenal” of members and research to show politicians, and LGBT Texans, where the organizations stands. In response to the letter he sent in March, he said he received nearly 300 responses, estimating that about five of them were negative. In one instance, Harper said, a transgender high school student reached out to him after seeing the letter on Facebook, thanking him for “not abandoning us.”

Now, however, Harper isn’t sure whether keeping the conference in Texas or relocating to a different state is the right call. A boycott would send an economic message, but going to Texas could send a message of solidarity. At the same time, the lack of Californians — and others who might boycott the conference — would hurt the success of the conference, in addition to any negative financial issues that might arise.

The ASHE Board of Directors is currently talking to members and its attorneys about the best course of action.

“I still feel that way now,” Harper said of his stance of going to where he sees injustice. “But I think I’m in this weird, very tough conundrum, where I’m trying to weigh my personal activist stance alongside the fiduciary responsibility to the association I was elected to lead.”

ACPA — College Student Educators International

As is the case with Harper and ASHE, California’s travel decision wasn’t the first time questions were raised about hosting conferences in Texas. Norm Pollard, dean of students at Alfred University in New York and a member of ACPA — College Student Educators International, raised questions about hosting the group’s annual conference in Texas, citing civil rights concerns raised by the American Civil Liberties Union when Texas passed an anti-sanctuary city law. He said the adoption law and pending bathroom bill further his belief that the organization should boycott the state.

“It troubled me when we as an organization chose to have our national conference in a state that discriminates against the members of our organization, as well as the students that we interact with everyday,” Pollard said.

Pollard said he appreciated Harper’s strategy of going to Texas and showing opposition to LGBT discrimination, but said he believed economic boycotts have the best chance of making lawmakers reconsider. Harper said members of ASHE have also expressed that view, which he is sympathetic toward.

“It may not make a huge economic impact, but [if] enough professional organizations do so, it can create change,” Pollard said.

In a statement on its Facebook page, ACPA — College Student Educators International said it was monitoring the situation.

“We are aware of the updated legislation in California prohibiting state employees from using state funds to travel to Texas. The #ACPA18 team will continue to monitor the situation and provide opportunities for ACPA members to engage with legislators in Texas,” the statement read. Representatives from ACPA — College Student Educators International were not immediately able to be reached for comment.

Athletics

On the sports side, the addition of Texas to California’s travel ban complicates matters but is unlikely to actually change any of the scheduled matchups, since those contracts are often signed years in advance, and the travel ban only covers commitments made after it went into effect in January. For example, Fresno State University will still travel to play the University of Alabama in football, since that contract was inked in 2015, Al.com reported.

Postseason play, however, might cause scheduling problems, and there are other unanswered questions about sports-related travel. The 2018 NCAA men’s basketball Final Four is scheduled to take place in San Antonio, which could pose problems if a team from a public California institution makes it that far in the tournament. However, the issues aren’t clear-cut even then, because some colleges’ athletic programs — and in some cases, travel budgets — don’t use state funds, even if the coaches are state employees.

The California attorney general’s office is currently considering whether the ban applies to college coaches, The Texas Tribune reported.

Moving Forward

Even if ASHE decided to pull out of Houston, Harper said, the prospect of finding a replacement for Texas, and venues for future events, isn’t a simple process.

“Injustice exists everywhere. And the unfair treatment of people of color; of gay, lesbian and trans people; of Muslims; of people with disabilities, that happens everywhere across our nation, not just in Southern states, and not just in Texas,” he said. “There is Islamophobia in California, in New York State, in places we tend to think of as much more liberal … There are -isms and phobias everywhere. I think that that’s where I’m struggling.”

He said that on some level, he would feel hypocritical pulling out of Texas and relocating to a more liberal state, such as Massachusetts, when “there is still transphobia” in parts of the state.

A decision from ASHE’s Board of Directors on relocating or staying in Houston could come as soon as this week. As chairman of the board, Harper gets one vote.

“If our board were convening today for a conference call, I do not know how I would vote,” he said. “And it has absolutely nothing to do with finances.”

State Finally Admits: Hackers Changed Voter Registrations in 2016

  During the 2016 election I received dozens of calls and emails from friends and folks sent to me, complaining that their Party affiliation had been changed without their permission.  Democrat Secretary of State Alex Padilla said he had no idea what happened, but claimed it was just a technical error.  Lots of folks were not able to vote in the Presidential primary.  Finally, the State admits what the rest of us had known for a year—hackers were able to manipulate our voter rolls.

“Hestrin’s investigation would ultimately show that hackers accessed voter registration information, indiscriminate of party, through the California Secretary of State’s election website, and changed some voters’ party affiliations. But because the state did not collect the IP addresses of the visits, there’s no way to know where the hacker — or hackers — were based.

“I have no idea who they are, or why they did this,” Hestrin said. “Not sure who did it, not sure why, just know it was happening across a broad section.”

The bigger question is this:  If hackers were able to change voters registrations, did they also change the votes cast?  Obviously they are able to change anything on the Secretary of States’ server—why not the vote?

vote-buttons

DA: Hackers Penetrated Voter Registrations in 2016 Through State’s Election Site

 

By John Sepulvado, KQED,  7/21/17

Hackers successfully penetrated state-run online voter registration systems in 2016, triggering confusion and heated exchanges between voters, poll workers and poll watchers during California’s June 7 primary, Riverside County District Attorney Michael Hestrin said Friday.

“I think that pretty quickly, as is sort of the case around our politics, partisanship got into it,” Hestrin told The California Report. “And frankly the victims of these changes were both Republicans and Democrats.”

Hestrin’s investigation would ultimately show that hackers accessed voter registration information, indiscriminate of party, through the California Secretary of State’s election website, and changed some voters’ party affiliations. But because the state did not collect the IP addresses of the visits, there’s no way to know where the hacker — or hackers — were based.

“I have no idea who they are, or why they did this,” Hestrin said. “Not sure who did it, not sure why, just know it was happening across a broad section.”

Twenty formal complaints were filed by voters turned away by poll workers, leaving them unable to vote in their party’s primary. Hestrin said he believes — from anecdotal accounts — that many, many more people were turned away but did not complain, opting instead to forgo voting or to vote by provisional ballot.

Hestrin said there is currently an active investigation into the hack, but investigators are at a dead-end because there is no new information.

“Short of someone coming to us and confessing, I don’t see how this inquiry goes forward,” he said.

So far, that inquiry ends at the office of Secretary of State Alex Padilla, where the hack took place.

“As we have previously stated,” said the Secretary of State’s Office, “we do not have any evidence to suggest a breach of our voter registration database, nor have we subsequently received any information or evidence from individuals, counties, or federal officials of any breach.”

California Ages—People Keep Homes Till They Die

Prop. 13 makes it easy for the elderly to keep their homes.  Most elderly have paid off their homes, so the stable, predictable property taxes mandated under Prop. 13 makes it cheaper to keep the long time home rather than sell and rent or move into a residential home.  At the same time millennial’s are not buying homes—they can not afford the cost.

“The old dominate the home ownership ranks in California.  Fewer properties are turning over because many older homeowners are now having their grown adult children moving back in.  Which makes sense since many bought because they were itching to pop out offspring.  Now their offspring is itching to pop out offspring but many are hesitant to do that when a “starter home” is $700,000 and many times is in an area with bad schools.

We have record number of young people moving back into the homes of their parents.  Prediction:  In the end the elderly will sell or turn over their homes to their children.  That will cause a major economic shift and issues with Prop. 13.  Watch for this trend to begin within the next ten years.

http://www.dreamstime.com/-image4643982

California homeowners are getting older and taking homes into the grave.  Property turnover has fallen substantially since 2000.

Dr. Housing Bubble,  7/23/17

California homeowners are entering into their geriatric phase.  The share of homes owned by older Californians has grown substantially since 2000.  The Taco Tuesday baby boomer crowd is dominating the ranks of homeowners.  This trend is new and because of key items like Prop 13 and Millennials living with parents, very few homes are turning over.  The first time home buyer in California is simply getting older and older contrary to the house humping cheerleaders talking about the days of “sucking it up” and having to save to buy a home.  Of course many were not contending with hot global money, limited inventory, artificially low interest rates, and a delusion of crap shack grandeur.  Now some yell from their beer belly exposed guts and a savory carne asada taco in the other hand that people should move out if they don’t like it here (and many are).  The economics of course are more subtle.

California old folks home

The old dominate the homeownership ranks in California.  Fewer properties are turning over because many older homeowners are now having their grown adult children moving back in.  Which makes sense since many bought because they were itching to pop out offspring.  Now their offspring is itching to pop out offspring but many are hesitant to do that when a “starter home” is $700,000 and many times is in an area with bad schools.

Take a look at this chart of homeownership based on age cohorts:

The chart is interesting for the two groups in the middle.  You can see the homeownership percentage of all homes owned by the 35 to 55 age group decline as it is overtaken by the 55 to 75 age group.  In 2005 the 35 to 55 group dominated and now it is the 55 to 75 age group.  But that group, your typical Taco Tuesday baby boomer, is now seeing many of their adult children moving back home.

This is keeping property turnover very low:

Why are people not selling if the market is so blistering hot?  The demographics should explain a lot of this change.  Older homeowners are now stuck in their stucco sarcophagus.  If they sell, many metro areas across the country are also expensive.  The only time they would maximize their wealth is if they left to a lower cost of living country.  Many will not do that – they even hesitate going to lower cost states.  They would rather shop at the 99 Cents Store and live in a million dollar crap shack than unlock that sweet tasting equity.

That is one reason but another is the fact that their kids now live at home once again.  2.3 million grown adults live at home with their parents in California.  Don’t think this is common as some are preaching as if suddenly California is Italy.  This is uncommon.  It is happening because people are broke after paying the monthly bills and even rents eat up a ridiculous amount of income.

Also remember that we’ve been in a hot market for 8 years now.  The business cycle is bound to rear its ugly head:

The employment market is already looking a little softer.  This can only mean that more adult children are going to be moving back home and of course this means home prices are going to go up forever because that is simply how things go in California where the tacos never run out on Tuesdays.

 

San Fran Pension Board: Economic Illiterates/Ideologues

The San Fran pension system, San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System, is looking at ways to LOSE money for the retirees.  These folks need to be fired—they need to be indicted if they follow through with the divestment of fossil fuels investments, at a loss of over $11 million.  This is a criminal act against the retiree covered by this system.  Will someone force the issue and sue?

“In a report released earlier this year, Compass Lexecon specifically examined how divestment would impact SFERS (among other major pension funds). Our study found that divesting from oil, natural gas and coal securities would cost SFERS $11.5 million annually. Over 50 years, that equals a $149 billion loss. If divestment were expanded to include utilities, the losses would grow to $15.7 million annually and $201 billion over 50 years.

In our study, we measured losses caused by reduced portfolio diversification — a key principle of investing that all advisors recognize as critical to increasing returns and managing portfolio risk. Despite the rhetoric of divestment advocates, the reality is that the energy sector has the lowest correlation with all other majority industry sectors in the U.S. equity markets and, as a consequence, the largest potential diversification benefit. Removing this sector of the economy from a pension fund’s portfolio reduces this benefit, either limiting potential returns or increasing portfolio risk (or both).

In the long run the loss could be between $149 BILLION and $201 billion.  This is corruption—will the DA bring this to the Grand Jury—a government agency, on purpose losing that massive amount of money.  If approved, that will mean massive contribution increases to make up for the lost money.  San Fran, home of the illiterate, haters.

money bag

Divesting would bring SFERS high costs, no rewards

By Christopher Fiore and Todd Kendall, SF Examiner,  7/23/17

 

This summer, the San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System board is expected to consider a limited fossil fuel divestment proposal. However, the available evidence shows that divestment is not only a costly investment decision for funds to pursue, but also carries no tangible impact on targeted companies or the environment.

In a report released earlier this year, Compass Lexecon specifically examined how divestment would impact SFERS (among other major pension funds). Our study found that divesting from oil, natural gas and coal securities would cost SFERS $11.5 million annually. Over 50 years, that equals a $149 billion loss. If divestment were expanded to include utilities, the losses would grow to $15.7 million annually and $201 billion over 50 years.

In our study, we measured losses caused by reduced portfolio diversification — a key principle of investing that all advisors recognize as critical to increasing returns and managing portfolio risk. Despite the rhetoric of divestment advocates, the reality is that the energy sector has the lowest correlation with all other majority industry sectors in the U.S. equity markets and, as a consequence, the largest potential diversification benefit. Removing this sector of the economy from a pension fund’s portfolio reduces this benefit, either limiting potential returns or increasing portfolio risk (or both).

The lost diversification costs alone mean a loss of $11.5 million annually for the 59,000 active and retired employees that rely on SFERS. We also performed the same analysis for CalPERS, the nation’s largest pension fund. For the 1.6 million California public employees, retirees and their families who rely on CalPERS, this loss translates to a shortfall of $210 million to $289 million annually, and up to $2.3 trillion to $3.1 trillion over the next 50 years.

In fact, divestment also imposes additional costs, such as transaction fees, commissions and compliance costs, that are unavoidable when buying and selling securities. For instance, selling fossil fuel stocks and buying replacement stocks will result in transaction costs, and compliance costs associated with maintaining a pension fund’s adherence to divestment goals will, in most cases, impose higher management costs, thereby reducing the returns of the fund. As a result of these additional costs, total losses due to divestment are likely to be even higher than reported in our study.

Fossil fuel divestment isn’t just costly; it’s ineffective. There is no evidence that divestment has any tangible impact on the companies targeted and, therefore, no evidence of any environmental or climate benefit. Giving up shares in a fossil fuel company merely makes them available for others in the market to purchase, having no impact on a company’s bottom line. Instead, fossil fuel divestment is a symbolic endeavor. This is acceptable for an individual investor, but public pension funds must consider their larger obligations to provide returns to pensioners before making such a decision.

The upcoming vote on limited divestment at SFERS comes at a time when San Francisco’s retirement fund is already expected to have a $119 million deficit in the next fiscal year. To make up for these shortfalls, our report finds that institutions like SFERS would be forced to either cut payments to pensioners or find another funding source, such as a taxpayer bailout — a risky approach given the state’s precarious financial position.

Some advocates, recognizing the costs and fruitlessness of divestment, propose instead a smaller scale divestment focused only on thermal coal. With a smaller divestment, the costs will naturally be smaller given the limited exposure to these securities by the fund at this time. But there are still costs, and at the same time, no evidence of any benefits. Cutting off less of your nose to spite your face is better that cutting off more, but that doesn’t make it a good idea.

The SFERS board continues to delay the vote on divestment, and hopefully this extra time will be used to research the facts. SFERS may very well find that the symbolic value of supporting divestment is a worthy cause. But it’s important to have an informed conversation that provides information on how much a symbolic cause will actually cost the retirees the fund is in place to support.

Christopher Fiore is vice president at the economic consulting firm Compass Lexecon. Todd Kendall is executive vice president at Compass Lexecon.

Santa Barbara Wants to Be REALLY Exclusive $1200 VALET Charge to Park on City Streets!

As my friend Jon Fleischman says, “You can’t make this up”.  Those running the city of Santa Barbara are looking to provide VALET service for folks in this Progressive town.  This is a town where white people are hated—but the majority of residents are white.  This is a city of rich people—that loves to tax the poor and middle class.  Now the ultra rich are looking at a government VALET service, at a cost of $1200 a year, with a $400 “set-up” charge.

“The City of Santa Barbara on Tuesday will consider creating an annual $1,200 on-street valet parking permit fee.

The fee is designed to capture the cost of allowing valet companies and the restaurants they serve to park cars on public streets for their private service.

Valet attendants, particularly in Santa Barbara’s Funk Zone, where parking is scarce, sometimes set up on sidewalks and block or make it difficult for members of the public, who aren’t using the valet service, to park on public streets.”

Who said the rich aren’t special?  Santa Barbara knows how to cater to the rich, white liberals!

Photo courtesy Brian Auer, flickr

Santa Barbara Considers Imposing Annual $1,200 On-Street Valet Parking Fee

Ordinance Committee to discuss plan for fee, along with $400 setup charge, to compensate city for valet use of rights of way and staff reviews

 

By Joshua Molina, Noozhawk, 7/23/17

The City of Santa Barbara on Tuesday will consider creating an annual $1,200 on-street valet parking permit fee.

The fee is designed to capture the cost of allowing valet companies and the restaurants they serve to park cars on public streets for their private service.

Valet attendants, particularly in Santa Barbara’s Funk Zone, where parking is scarce, sometimes set up on sidewalks and block or make it difficult for members of the public, who aren’t using the valet service, to park on public streets.

City staff is recommending the $1,200 fee, along with an initial set-up fee of $400. The money would compensate the city for the on-going use of the right of way, and cover the cost of staff to review of the Valet Parking Plan annually, and to conduct occasional on-site observations of the valet parking operation.

“There are different perspectives on the amount of fee and the use of the fee,” said Travis Hawley, the founder of BlueStar Parking. “If the money can be shared by a group for multiple citywide programs that could diffuse the reticence of creating a fee.”

The city’s three-member ordinance committee, made up of Council members Frank Hotchkiss, Cathy Murillo and Randy Rowse, will discuss the fee Tuesday.

City staff intends to make this fee payable on a quarterly basis. The idea is that one or more businesses in an area could pay the fee, and then use or share a valet service for their patrons.

On-street valet operators sometimes take over public curbside parking spaces or loading zones in the public right of way, generally in front of the business they serve. Valet company drivers then take the cars and park them in a variety of locations, including public parking lots, or on the street.

Hawley said he supports a citywide valet program. He is involved in a pilot program with Paseo Nuevo and the city to provide valet parking for customers of the downtown mall.

“We have the curbside valet parking there because Paseo does not want any patron to feel like they cannot visit any shop with ease,” Hawley said. “There is never a patron who would be turned away by lack of space. There’s never a time when you can’t park your vehicle and go to Paseo Nuevo.”

The valet service, however, is not free. It costs $7. Hawley said most people pay about $4 to drive into the Paseo Nuevo garage and park, so an extra $3 provides great value and convenience for the shopper who doesn’t want to go through the hassle of finding a place to park.

A $1,200 fee may or may not have an impact on the customer, Hawley said.

“The implementation of the city fee could result in the consumer paying for the service in a manner they may not have done previously,” he said.

CalTax Commentary: Busting the Myth That Proposition 13 Eviscerated Local Revenue

Thanks to Prop. 13 property tax revenues have gone up and the elderly, folks on fixed incomes and the young are able to buy and keep their homes—which was the goal of Prop. 13.  Lots of Leftists lie about the results of Prop. 13.  Why?  Because this measure holds back the tax increases.  In 1978, just before the election. L.A. County Assessor Pope announced that in the coming year property taxes in the County could DOUBLE.

“One of the most often cited claims by opponents of the 1978 ballot measure is that “Proposition 13 eviscerated local revenue.” Nothing could be further from the facts. The truth is that since 1978, local property tax assessments in California have increased by 856.48 percent.

This year alone, local property tax assessments are expected to increase an average of 5.5 percent, amounting to billions of dollars in additional funding for local schools, libraries, fire and police departments, parks and recreation programs, public health programs, streets and transit.

Since the Great Recession, property tax assessments have soared, as the chart above illustrates. Santa Clara County alone has seen 50 percent growth in its assessment roll. San Francisco’s property assessments grew 10.8 percent just this year, and have grown almost 46 percent since 2010.”

Progressives will lie about anything if they think they are able to steal from you.  The Prop.13 must be repealed effort is based entirely on lies.  Shame on the media for not reporting the facts.

Howard-Jarvis

CalTax Commentary: Busting the Myth That Proposition 13 Eviscerated Local Revenue 

By Robert Gutierrez, Director of the California Tax Foundation, 7/24/17

The year 1978 might seem almost like ancient history – a distant memory for most voters, and unimaginable for a growing class of lawmakers who were not yet born then. With the passage of time, folklore prevails and myths sometimes come to overshadow facts. It is in this light that opponents of Proposition 13 have made many false claims about the landmark property tax reform initiative.

One of the most often cited claims by opponents of the 1978 ballot measure is that “Proposition 13 eviscerated local revenue.” Nothing could be further from the facts. The truth is that since 1978, local property tax assessments in California have increased by 856.48 percent.

This year alone, local property tax assessments are expected to increase an average of 5.5 percent, amounting to billions of dollars in additional funding for local schools, libraries, fire and police departments, parks and recreation programs, public health programs, streets and transit.

Since the Great Recession, property tax assessments have soared, as the chart above illustrates. Santa Clara County alone has seen 50 percent growth in its assessment roll. San Francisco’s property assessments grew 10.8 percent just this year, and have grown almost 46 percent since 2010.

While Proposition 13 limits property taxes to 1 percent of a property’s assessed value, and caps how fast a property’s taxes can increase each year, the aggregate revenue growth has been substantial.

Proposition 13 protects property owners by capping the growth of a property’s assessed value to 2 percent per year, absent a change in ownership or new construction, but the point that many critics of Proposition 13 fail to account for is that aggregate figures are much higher than 2 percent. Only in the depths of the state’s worst recessions (1994-1996 and 2009-2012) have Proposition 13 property taxes failed to grow more than 2 percent per year. Even then, property tax assessments still grew faster than inflation.

To say that Proposition 13 limits property tax growth to 2 percent per year is also misleading. The growth of property tax assessments has far outpaced inflation and changes in California’s population. According to state data, since passage of Proposition 13, assessments have grown at an average rate of about 7.07 percent per year. In contrast, inflation has grown at an average annual rate of 3.57 percent, and population has grown at an average rate of 1.43 percent.

The trajectory of local property tax assessments is quite similar to the growth of property taxes prior to Proposition 13. From 1945-46 to 1977-78, property assessments grew at an average rate of 7.93 percent. However, what most people remember is the voter outrage during the property tax revolt in the years leading up to passage of Proposition 13. In this era, property tax assessments were skyrocketing by as much as 15 percent from one year to the next.

To make matters worse for property owners during that era, county assessors were reassessing properties at three- to five-year intervals, so property owners were hit with massive increases in their property tax bills every few years, with no way to anticipate how high the bill might be.

It’s hard to imagine what it was like to open the mail and not know how much your property tax bill would be – or whether you would be able to afford to pay the tax and continue living in your home or operating your business. Proposition 13 changed this. Instead of setting your property tax based on standards such as the sales price of your neighbor’s house, Proposition 13 bases the property tax on acquisition value – usually the purchase price, an objective standard that generally is not disputed – plus 2 percent per year. The cap ensures that even as the aggregate property tax assessments grow, individual taxpayers are protected.

Myths about Proposition 13 have been common since 1978, and have included scare tactics about Proposition 13 ostensibly eviscerating local revenue. Voters were told that the San Francisco Public Library would shut its doors if Proposition 13 passed. Today, the library is open seven days a week, and has expanded its services to include computer lending, free lunches during the summer for anyone under the age of 19, and more. Los Angeles County said all beaches would be closed. Summer beachgoers in 2017 have many surf and sun options. The Los Angeles Unified School District said competitive high school sports could be eliminated if Proposition 13 passed. This year, the district will participate in 579 sporting events.

Discussions about Proposition 13 should not be framed by myths and misleading statements. To evaluate Proposition 13, tangible data from state and local sources must be used to inform the debate.
Love Proposition 13 or hate it, the data shows that it has provided a stable and growing source of revenue for local government that has far exceeded inflation.

Waste, Fraud & Mismanagement: Your Tax Dollars at Work

Stockton Considering Paying Criminals to Not Shoot People. Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs announced this month that he is considering several options to curb violent crime within the city, including a program centered on paying past violent offenders to not shoot people.

The mayor indicated that Stockton’s model would be inspired by the Advance Peace program, currently run by the city of Richmond, which pays individuals with a history of gun charges to not shoot people again. Participants have the opportunity to earn up to $12,000 per year through the program, participating in job training and problem-solving workshops, with the promise to not reoffend.

“This is just one suggested approached towards improving public safety,” Mayor Tubbs said. “I am always looking for solutions and researching innovative ways and to help curb crime in our city.”

The mayor said that if Stockton implements a version of Advance Peace, the program will not be funded solely by tax dollars. (Source: The Stockton Record, July 7.)

Potpourri: Symposia, Sightings, Salutes & Snafus

Pro-Tax Cupertino Mayor Files for BOE. Cupertino Mayor Barry Chang has filed papers to run for next year’s State Board of Equalization’s District 2 election, joining state Senator Cathleen Galgiani and San Francisco Supervisor Malia Cohen in the race to fill the seat that will be left open when BOE Member Fiona Ma runs for state treasurer.

Mr. Chang, a former Cupertino School Board member, has served on the City Council since 2009, as a mayor since 2015. His term as mayor is scheduled to conclude next year.

When he ran for the state Assembly in 2016, Mr. Chang campaigned in support of “a permanent tax on the wealthiest in our state”; a local tax targeted specifically at Apple to fund a public transit system; a minimum wage of $18 per hour; and plans to stand up to “the biggest corporate polluter in Assembly District 24.” His campaign slogan was “A Democrat who won’t back down.”

BOE Candidate Accused of Harassing Colleague on Community College Board. Scott Svonkin, a candidate for next year’s State Board of Equalization District 3 election, has been accused by a fellow Los Angeles Community College District board member of violating the board’s code of conduct by “exhibiting two years’ worth of threats, intimidation and verbal threats and abuse.”

The allegations were lodged by Andra Hoffman, who has asked the board to formally sanction Mr. Svonkin. The Los Angeles Daily News reported July 11 that Ms. Hoffman was prompted to take action after an incident in June in which Mr. Svonkin “leaned toward (her) face like a U.S. Marine drill sergeant, then allegedly unleashed a stream of verbal abuse.”

In a July 14 editorial, the Daily News added: “Hoffman says that during a break in a June 7 meeting, Svonkin leaned close to her and shouted at her about her votes, a tirade severe enough that another district official stepped in to break it up and a sheriff’s deputy offered to walk Hoffman to her car.” The editorial called for the board to take the allegations seriously and to act upon them quickly, stating: “The residents Svonkin represents deserve to know if he did or didn’t do these things. So do voters in the 2018 California Board of Equalization election ….”

Mr. Svonkin denied the allegations, and said, “This is nothing short of a negative and politically charged smear attack, the likes of which reminds me of what we see from Donald Trump on a near daily basis.”

Ms. Hoffman said she kept numerous voicemails and text messages from Mr. Svonkin, and has turned them in to the board as evidence to support her request for sanctions. The board voted 4-3 on July 12 to table a decision on whether to hold a sanction hearing, and to instead form a special ad hoc committee to look into the matter.

David Hadley Drops Out of Governor’s Race. Fourteen days after throwing his hat in the ring for next year’s gubernatorial election, former state Assemblyman David Hadley of Manhattan Beach this week announced that he has ended his bid.

Mr. Hadley, a Republican who served in the Legislature for just one two-year term, from 2014 to 2016, told supporters that he determined he would not have the resources needed to run a winning campaign.

Bay Area Regional Government: We Needs Jobs–Do Not Need to Fix Problems

The governments in the Bay Area are silly.  That are cooperating in the effort to get new manufacturing jobs for the region.  Wonderful words.  But note, not a single word as to the cause of the problem—nor a desire to fix the reasons for the lack of middle class jobs in the region.  Who cares if twenty cities meet and cry about the lack of jobs, if they do not want to fix the reasons for the lack of jobs?

““Lots of these new opportunities have gone to the very high end of wages or the low end of wages and the middle wages, which are really necessary to make the whole community function, are not doing as well,” he said. “I think focusing on the local manufacturing, run by local people, is one of the answers to maintain healthy middle-wage jobs.”

Gupta said he is looking forward to working with cities across the region to share best practices and educational opportunities in the manufacturing industry and helping the group set priorities in the coming year. Now in its second year, the partnership between cities as far south as Morgan Hill and as far north as Santa Rosa with for-profit companies is looking to increase the number of middle-wage jobs in the Bay Area in the three years since it was launched May 2016.

Just a bunch or worthless and meaningless words—trying to sound sincere, as they pass higher sales taxes, limit growth of homes and commercial, create traffic gridlock by putting in bike lanes and taking out car lanes.  Government is the problem—and they refuse to act.  The voters need to take back government—until then, hacks will waste tax dollars on failed policies and studies.

Jobs

South City sounds support for local manufacturing, new jobs

By Anna Schuessler Daily Journal staff, 7/24/17

In an effort to boost support for local manufacturing and middle-wage jobs in South San Francisco, the city joined more than 20 other Bay Area cities in participating in a regional manufacturing network earlier this month.

For Mayor Pradeep Gupta, adding the city’s voice to those behind the Bay Area Urban Manufacturing Initiative marks the city’s commitment to the manufacturing jobs at the core of the city’s economy for decades. Though he acknowledged the proliferation of high-tech jobs, specifically in the biosciences, as a boon to the city in recent years, Gupta said maintaining a base of local manufacturing jobs for those with the specific training to do them would remain a priority.

“Lots of these new opportunities have gone to the very high end of wages or the low end of wages and the middle wages, which are really necessary to make the whole community function, are not doing as well,” he said. “I think focusing on the local manufacturing, run by local people, is one of the answers to maintain healthy middle-wage jobs.”

Gupta said he is looking forward to working with cities across the region to share best practices and educational opportunities in the manufacturing industry and helping the group set priorities in the coming year. Now in its second year, the partnership between cities as far south as Morgan Hill and as far north as Santa Rosa with for-profit companies is looking to increase the number of middle-wage jobs in the Bay Area in the three years since it was launched May 2016.

With roots in large-scale manufacturing such as shipbuilding and steel manufacturing, the city has transitioned to forms of smaller-scale manufacturing such as food production, said Gupta. Though the city has become a leader in biotech, he said its western part is still home to small manufacturing operations, some of which have been critical to the success of larger companies and research and development efforts.

“We have … a very scientific, very research and development-oriented industry and that’s fine,” he said. “But in addition to that, we have a number of local people who are looking for jobs who may not have those particular training or education, and I want to maintain the local core of other manufacturing jobs.”

Gupta was hopeful joining the initiative will connect South San Francisco manufacturers with outside resources from the county and other cities and ultimately help them develop internship programs and other aspects of their businesses. By importing best practices into the city, Gupta said, manufacturers will be better equipped to deal with regional economic trends that might otherwise put them at risk.

As the city has taken on additional complex topics shared across cities in the region, Gupta is also hopeful joining the effort to further dialogue on manufacturing jobs will strengthen the city’s connections with other cities on issues they all facing, such as affordable housing.

“The ideal outcome will be that our community in South San Francisco will understand that our local government is trying to provide opportunities and jobs in the city for next generations to come,” he said. “I’m very happy that this particular initiative is adapting.”