Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom Says People Are Fleeing California Because of Trump’s Policies

Gov. DeSantis was right—the hair gel, made in part with fossil fuel, has seeped into his brain.  His support of criminals, high taxes, failed education, the killing of cars, his openness to criminals from foreign countries coming to this State—and being protected by government, is according to him, not the reason California is losing population—and students are fleeing our schools.

“Gavin Newsom said people are fleeing his state for red states like Idaho, Texas, Arizona and Florida… because of Trump’s policies.

People are fleeing California “because of visa policies in the Trump administration,” Newsom said to crooked former US Attorney Preet Bharaha at a Recode Conference over the weekend.

Newsom’s in-laws moved to Florida during the pandemic.

According to donation records, Kenneth Siebel Jr. and Judith Siebel, the parents of Newsom’s wife, made a $5,000 donation to the Friends of Ron DeSantis PAC in April.

Those that know him the best, his in-laws, had to flee to Florida for freedom and economic and physical self preservation.  Then to prove how much they trust Gavin, they donated to DeSantis.  I can not wait for the 2024 TV ad starring his in-laws, explaining why Gavin was the cause of them being forced to more 3,000 for their own health and safety!

Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom Says People Are Fleeing California Because of Trump’s Policies (VIDEO)

By Cristina Laila, The gateway Pundit,   9/21/22 

Hundreds of thousands of people have left California since the Covid pandemic began in what many are calling “The California Exodus.”

In 2021, California lost a congressional seat for the first time due to the decreasing population.

However, according to California’s Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom:

  • It’s not because of high taxes.
  • It’s not because of unconstitutional Covid mask and vaccine mandates.
  • It’s not because of record homelessness.
  • It’s not because millions of illegal aliens receive better healthcare and perks than taxpaying citizens.
  • It’s not because of rolling blackouts during heatwaves.
  • It’s not because the sale of gas-powered cars was banned by 2035 when CA can’t even keep the lights on.

Gavin Newsom said people are fleeing his state for red states like Idaho, Texas, Arizona and Florida… because of Trump’s policies.

People are fleeing California “because of visa policies in the Trump administration,” Newsom said to crooked former US Attorney Preet Bharaha at a Recode Conference over the weekend.

Newsom’s in-laws moved to Florida during the pandemic.

According to donation records, Kenneth Siebel Jr. and Judith Siebel, the parents of Newsom’s wife, made a $5,000 donation to the Friends of Ron DeSantis PAC in April.

But it’s all Trump’s fault.

LA Aims To Add Thousands Of Bus (Homeless) Shelters Across The City, But The Plan Has ‘A Lot Of Ifs’

Is the L.A. City Council just ignorant, stupid and does not care?  This is a story about the politicians voting to create upwards of 3,000 bus shelters.  Why is this crazy—because as soon as the shelters go up, the homeless will take them over.  This does two things—first it gives a home (watch the tents go up over the bus shelters to at least 3,000 homeless).

Second, it means school children, the elderly, disabled and those that do not want to be crime victims will no longer be able to use the government buses.  As the shelters go up, watch as the ridership go down and crime goes up.  Until they get serious about the homeless crisis, instead of figuring ways to payoff friends and donors, along with the professional homeless “advocates”, this meant finally kill off government buses in L.A.

Would you wait for a bus in the middle of a homeless encampment with the bus shelter as the center of attraction?

LA Aims To Add Thousands Of Bus Shelters Across The City, But The Plan Has ‘A Lot Of Ifs’

By Ryan Fonseca, LAist,   9/21/22 

In a 12-1 vote, the Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday approved a new contract to provide more bus shelters across the city.

The goal is to address decades of neglect in communities where people rely on buses, but often have no shade or places to sit while experiencing dangerous heat.

Through the contract, the city will pay Tranzito-Vector, LLC to “install, upgrade, and maintain transit shelters,” plus develop separate shade structures and other amenities — and manage advertising on digital screens to be featured on some shelters.

The bus shelters are expected to include monitors so riders can view real-time bus arrival times. The contract also includes plans for scooter docks, e-lockers, public Wi-Fi and phone charging stations.

The work will be managed by the city’s Bureau of Street Services through its new Sidewalk and Transit Amenities Program, dubbed STAP for short. The 20-year contract — an initial term of 10 years with two five-year extension options — is set to begin at the start of 2023.

The city’s goal is to add 3,000 new bus shelters with equity in mind. L.A. has several thousand bus stops, but the vast majority of them do not have shade. As extreme heat gets more frequent, many Angelenos waiting for their buses are competing for slivers of shade near stops — or else withering in the sun.

Given that the majority of public transit riders in L.A. County are Latino or Black and qualify as low-income residents, that means communities that rely on transit the most have the least relief from heat as they wait for the bus.

As Jessica Meaney, executive director of mobility advocacy organization Investing in Place, put it, channeling Tom Petty: “The waiting is the hardest part” for bus riders.

Meaney’s team published a report this week, titled The Bus Stops Here. It documents hundreds of observations and bus riders’ personal experiences on six crucial bus lines across the city. Refuge from the sun was a common concern for riders, Meaney noted.

“People want just shade, a tree, a pleasant place to sit,” she told LAist. “It’s not really anything too complicated.”

Ahead of Tuesday’s vote, Councilmember Mike Bonin, who represents Westside communities in L.A.’s 11th District, shared his recent experience waiting for a bus near City Hall.

“It was brutal. It was hitting close to 100 that day. People were suffering standing there in the heat. The people who were there were up against a building which had a narrow sliver of shade as if they were on the edge of a ledge. It was so hot and so uncomfortable that there was a guy there who gave a bottle of water to a stranger because he was afraid that this woman — this senior citizen — was going to pass out. And that is the reality of bus shelters in Los Angeles.”

Lingering Concerns

While the goal is clear, how the city will fund and implement the shelter plan is not. So far about $6 million has been identified as available funding — $1 million from the city’s budget and $5 million from the L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

City leaders approved the contract, but some voiced concerns about the city’s ability to follow through on investment long-term (something officials have already acknowledged is not their forte).

The lone “no” vote came from Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, who said the contract is “already showing signs of some unfulfilled promises.”

“We know we’re able to do this… I’m just concerned at what cost, without fully committing ourselves in terms of what the actual financial obligation is going to be and the determination of what it’s going to mean for future budgets to fully implement this and actually make sure that we’re not selling people a mirage and a promise that will end up being unfulfilled.”

The city has been down this road before. This new contract will follow a 20-year contract the city signed with Outfront/JCDecaux. But as KPCC has previously reported, that program mostly failed to deliver. According to recent reporting by KCET, the contractor reported installing just 660 bus shelters in 20 years.

Bonin also raised concerns about the contract, saying it contains “a lot of ifs” and “some question marks that I worry about.”

“But the reality of what is happening now is absolutely unacceptable,” he said.

Some residents opposed to the plan say the digital ads will be an eyesore and potentially distract passing drivers. City officials noted that the screens are much smaller than the typical billboards that dot city streets. Under the contract, less than 700 of the proposed 3,000 new bus shelters would include digital panels displaying ads.

The program will also mean money for L.A. The contract grants the city a 60.5% share of ad revenue generated from digital bus shelters.

That’s an uncomfortable reality for Meaney.

“The fact that we won’t invest in improving our bus stops unless it’s tied to advertising is such an outdated and, frankly, punishing position to take for people who ride the bus who are already dealing with a bus service that hasn’t really seen significant improvement in 30 years,” she said.

Bonin also noted he’s not a fan of a “bus shelter program based around advertising.”

“Other cities just do it — they fund it,” he said during Tuesday’s meeting. For him, approving the contract came down to a simple fact: many bus riders don’t have other transportation options.

“Because we don’t have enough amenities, they suffer …and they suffer more because of the worsening climate crisis,” Bonin said. “So in a balance between my distaste for digital advertising and my desire to make sure that we provide for bus riders, that’s an easy choice to make today.”

Rising homelessness is tearing California cities apart

The homeless are living on the sidewalks of Sherman Oaks, on Ventura Blvd. in Los Angeles.  They are living in the entrances of billion buildings in San Fran—and in every neighborhood of San Fran, Santa Ana and most of the city of San Diego.  Go to Hollywood and you won’t see stars—you will see miles and miles of homeless encampments in every corner of this California slum.

“As the pandemic recedes, elected officials across deep-blue California are reacting to intense public pressure to erase the most visible signs of homelessness. Democratic leaders who once would have been loath to forcibly remove people from sidewalks, parks and alongside highways are increasingly imposing camping bans, often while framing the policies as compassionate.

“Enforcement has its place,” said Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, a Democrat who has spent much of the past year trying to soothe public anger in a city that has seen its unsheltered homeless population surpass that of San Francisco — 5,000 in the most recent count compared with San Francisco’s 4,400. “I think it’s right for cities to say, ‘You know, there are certain places where it’s just not appropriate to camp.’”

And tha is the problem—except for certified campgrounds there are no appropriate places to pitch a tent and harass residents and tourists.  By not stopping it when it started, the politicians have allowed it to destroy whole sections of our cities.  Now we need to get tough—provide the shelter needed, the treatment and rehabilitation—and we already have the funds—just stop giving the money to the professional homeless industry.

Rising homelessness is tearing California cities apart

Democrats are under pressure to fix the state’s most pervasive problem — or at least move it out of sight.

By LARA KORTE and JEREMY B. WHITE, Politico,  9/21/22  

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A crew of state workers arrived early one hot summer day to clear dozens of people camped under a dusty overpass near California’s Capitol. The camp’s residents gathered their tents, coolers and furniture and shifted less than 100 feet across the street to city-owned land, where they’ve been ever since.

But maybe not for much longer.

The city of Sacramento is taking a harder line on homeless encampments, and is expected to start enforcing a new ban on public camping by the end of the month — if the courts allow.

As the pandemic recedes, elected officials across deep-blue California are reacting to intense public pressure to erase the most visible signs of homelessness. Democratic leaders who once would have been loath to forcibly remove people from sidewalks, parks and alongside highways are increasingly imposing camping bans, often while framing the policies as compassionate.

“Enforcement has its place,” said Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, a Democrat who has spent much of the past year trying to soothe public anger in a city that has seen its unsheltered homeless population surpass that of San Francisco — 5,000 in the most recent count compared with San Francisco’s 4,400. “I think it’s right for cities to say, ‘You know, there are certain places where it’s just not appropriate to camp.’”

Steinberg is one of many California Democrats who have long focused their efforts to curb homelessness on services and shelter, but now find themselves backing more punitive measures as the problem encroaches on public feelings of peace and safety. It’s a striking shift for a state where 113,000 people sleep outdoors on any given night, per the latest statewide analysis released by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in 2020. California’s relatively mild climate makes it possible to live outdoors year-round, and more than half of the nation’s unsheltered homeless people live here.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom recently announced the state had cleared 1,200 encampments in the past year, attempting to soften the message with a series of visits to social service programs. But without enough beds to shelter unhoused people, advocates say efforts to clear encampments are nothing more than cosmetic political stunts that essentially shuffle the problem from street corner to another.

Steinberg, a liberal Democrat who resisted forcibly removing people until more shelters can come online, has for more than 20 years championed mental health and substance abuse programs as ways to get people off the street. But such programs have been largely unable to keep up with the rising number of homeless people in cities like Sacramento, where local leaders are now besieged by angry citizens demanding a change.

He and many of his fellow Democratic mayors around the state are not unsympathetic to their cause. San Diego has penalized people refusing shelter. Oakland upped its rate of camp closures as the pandemic receded. San Jose is scrambling to clear scores of people from an area near the airport or risk losing federal funding.

“No one’s happy to have to do this. … We’re doing everything we can to provide people with better choices than the street.”

San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria

“No one’s happy to have to do this,” San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria said earlier this summer as he discussed ticketing people who refuse shelter. “We’re doing everything we can to provide people with better choices than the street.”

Other Democratic leaders around the country, facing similar pressure, have also moved to clear out encampments and push homeless people out of public spaces. New York City Mayor Eric Adams, a former police captain who won his office on a pledge to fight crime, came under fire this year for his removal of homeless people from subways and transit hubs. The city’s shelter system is now bursting at the seams.

In California, where the percentage of people living day-to-day on the streets is far higher than New York, the shortage of shelter beds has caused friction and embroiled local and state officials in court challenges.

A recent court decision requires local governments to provide enough beds before clearing encampments — a mandate that does not apply to state property. But that’s easier said than done in a state where there are three to four times as many homeless people as shelter beds.

California’s homelessness problem has deep, gnarled roots dating back decades, but has become increasingly pronounced in recent years. Tents and tarps on sidewalks, in parks and under freeways have become a near-ubiquitous symbol of the state’s enduring crisis. A pandemic-spurred project to move people from encampments to motels has lapsed, and eviction moratoriums have dissolved. Homelessness is a top concern for voters in the liberal state, and as Democrats prepare for the midterm elections, Newsom and other leaders have been eager to show voters they’re taking action.

But the practice of clearing out camps can be a futile exercise, particularly when the people being forced to pack up their tents have nowhere else to go or simply end up doing the same thing just a few blocks away.

Weeks after state transportation workers cleared the space under the Sacramento highway, people are still camped out along a city sidewalk across the street, with blankets, chairs, tires and shelves spilling out onto the street and, at times, blocking driveways.

Syeda Inamdar, who owns a small office building on the block, said her tenant is afraid to come to work because of the camp. A nearby Starbucks abruptly closed earlier this year, citing safety concerns.

“This is not safe for anybody,” said Inamdar, who is sympathetic to the people in the camp but says she’s nevertheless thinking of just giving up and selling the property.

Jay Edwards, a homeless man in his 60s, said he and many of his fellow residents felt safer under the overpass, where their tents didn’t block footpaths and people didn’t bother them. Newsom and others have described living situations like his — in a blue tent, with a dirty mattress, surrounded by piles of random belongings and trash — as inhumane. Edwards disagreed.

“It’s not inhumane,” he said. “It’s the people’s attitudes that make it inhumane.”

The state has given more than $12 billion in recent years to help local governments build housing and shelter. But it could be years before those units are built.

In Sacramento, city and county leaders just made it easier for authorities to clear tents from sidewalks and along a popular river trail. But some want even tougher laws. Earlier this year, a coalition of Sacramento business owners approached city councilors hoping to put a measure on the November ballot that would compel the city to move camps blocking sidewalks and create more shelter for those they moved. The Council, whose members run without party affiliation, voted to put the measure on the ballot, with some caveats that enlist the help of the county. Councilmember Katie Valenzuela was one of two members who voted against it.

“It’s not inhumane. It’s the people’s attitudes that make it inhumane.”

Jay Edwards, a homeless man in his 60s who felt safer under an overpass

She said moving the camps won’t help the root of the problem, and the city can’t afford the amount of space that would be necessary to house people cleared from encampments.

“People are saying ‘oh you’ve got the space to do this, just put them all on 100 acres.’ That’s not how this works,” she said.

Newsom appears to be feeling the pressure as well, channeling voter frustration by calling proliferating encampments “unacceptable” and pointing to the litter-filled highway underpasses he cleans during press events as evidence the state has become “too damn dirty.”

Historically, California governors have been reluctant to funnel significant resources to combat the homeless problem. But Newsom, a former mayor of San Francisco, has made it a centerpiece of his administration. The governor has secured hundreds of millions of dollars to help local governments address encampments by offering residents services and helping them find shelter, on top of the billions of dollars California has poured into homelessness more broadly and a state program to convert hotels and motels into low-income housing.

But those efforts aren’t happening fast enough for many in California, including merchants who are languishing in downtowns that are inundated with tents, tarps and other refuse from the people who have taken up residence on sidewalks and street corners. Business owners in San Francisco’s historic Castro District threatened to stop paying taxes last month if city officials didn’t do something about the vandalism, littering and frequent display of psychotic episodes that are a result of the neighborhood’s homeless population.

Protesters demonstrate on Sunset Boulevard against the removal of a homeless encampment at Echo Park Lake on March 25, 2021 in Los Angeles. | Mario Tama/Getty Images

The governor has also personally weighed in when those efforts collided with resistance from courts and local governments. Earlier this year, he decried a federal judge for “moving the goal posts” in an order that blocked CalTrans from removing a camp in San Rafael. The Newsom administration and Oakland also clashed over a sprawling encampment where a July fire menaced a nearby utility facility that stored explosive oxygen tanks.

A judge blasted both the state and the city for trading blame while failing to find shelter for camp residents, accusing the parties of wanting “to wash their hands of this particular problem” and blocking the state’s plan to clear the site. Newsom excoriated the judge’s order and subsequently threatened to pull funding from Oakland, arguing the city was shirking its obligations. The judge ultimately allowed the clearing to proceed despite camp residents outnumbering available city beds.

Those tensions illustrate a larger test for the housing first philosophy that Newsom and other Democrats espouse. The basic premise is that long-term housing is the starting point for getting people off the streets. But it would take years to address California’s chasmic housing shortage while people are clamoring for solutions to street homelessness now.

The governor’s top homelessness adviser, Jason Elliott, said it was “impossible to say” if the state had sufficient short-term shelter for everyone living outside and conceded that “we don’t have enough money to afford a home for every person who experiences homelessness.” But he argued the state could and should move swiftly on “the most unsafe” sites, calling it a first step to help people.

“The criticism that we should not do anything about dangerous, unsafe encampments until we achieve millions of more units, I think, ignores the seriousness of the problem,” Elliott said. “Street homelessness is deeply dangerous and unsafe for people in the community and for people living in those tents.”

Addiction and mental illness can drive people into homelessness and keep them there, which has fueled Newsom’s push for a civil court system that would create treatment plans for those with the most critical needs and allow involuntary commitment for people who do not participate. The CARE Courts program, which Newsom is expected to sign into law soon, is estimated to help between 7,000 and 12,000 people — a small portion of the more than 160,000 Californians without stable housing.

Outside of interventions in critical mental health cases, policymakers broadly agree that poverty and a dearth of affordable housing are still driving more Californians to live on the street and that, on any given day, more people may become homeless than find housing.

Wary advocates are responding with legal challenges.

Oakland amended an ordinance barring camping near locations including homes, schools and businesses after advocates for the homeless sued, calling the policy inhumane. Advocacy groups in Sacramento unsuccessfully sued to block a ballot measure they called cruel and unusual.

In Los Angeles, a sprawling lawsuit over encampments endangering public welfare has produced a vow to build more shelters — and created the legal authority to clear people from public spaces. Last year, the LA City Council prohibited people from sleeping in sensitive public spaces selected by council members in a move the city of Riverside emulated. Then, Los Angeles bolstered its prohibition in early August by banning camping near schools and daycares, acting at the behest of school district officials who warned children were being traumatized and threatened by people in a growing number of encampments.

A backlash erupted as protesters filled the City Council chambers, chanting and shouting over speakers as they accused council members of inflicting death and violence on homeless people. Authorities ultimately cleared the chambers before lawmakers could return and vote. The proposal passed overwhelmingly with the blessing of Rep. Karen Bass, a Democrat running for LA mayor. But dissenters accused the Council of displacing the problem.

“When you don’t house people, when you don’t offer real housing resources to people at a particular location, the best outcome that you can hope for from a law like this is that people move 500 feet down the street,” Councilmember Nithya Raman said in an interview. “I’m up against a wall. I don’t have any available shelter, and I would imagine other council members are feeling the same way.”

Seventy percent of California’s homeless population is unsheltered, according to a recent Stanford University study, compared to New York, where the figure is 5 percent. The same study found that a large portion of the California homeless population have either a severe mental illness or long-term substance abuse problem, or both.

State and local officials have feuded for decades over who bears responsibility for housing and caring for people with severe mental health illnesses — those who might have been institutionalized a half-century ago, before the national closure of state-funded psychiatric hospitals.

Steinberg, the Sacramento mayor, has been trying to solve this problem for decades. In 2004, as a state legislator, he authored a landmark ballot measure, the Mental Health Services Act, which charged a 1 percent income tax on earnings more than $1 million to provide funding for mental health programs. Steinberg and others have praised the measure as a success, and some reports show that those who participate in the programs funded by the law see a reduction in homelessness.

But nearly two decades later, Steinberg is now dealing with a sprawling homeless population. Sacramento’s bans on camping along sidewalks and along the scenic river trail are set to go into effect at the end of the month. The city ban would classify a violation as a misdemeanor, but homeless people are not supposed to be automatically jailed or fined unless there are extraordinary circumstances, per a companion resolution Steinberg introduced.

With the upcoming ballot measure, championed by business leaders, the city is prepared to put tougher enforcement laws to voters in November, despite fierce criticism and legal challenges from advocates for homeless people. Steinberg said it’s still worth a shot. “It is not perfect and it is not the way I would write it,” he said of the ballot measure. “But it is progress toward what I believe is essential: that people have a right to housing, shelter and treatment and in a very imperfect way.”

LA Is Reopening Its Section 8 Housing Voucher Waitlist For The First Time In Five Years

Over 350,000 L.A. families qualify for low income/subsidized housing.  Less than 30,000 will get it—and at that, it will take up to five years.  L.A. is a Third World City, with productive people leaving, replaced with illegal aliens, the poor and the homeless.  This economic disaster will continue until government and the politicians end policies that cause the lack of well paying jobs, return education to the schools, we control our borders—and arrest and jail criminals.

“The last time the city’s housing authority opened its waitlist — back in October 2017 — nearly 188,000 households applied for 20,000 available spots.

Officials anticipate even higher demand this time. They’re expecting about 365,000 households to apply for just 30,000 available waitlist spots. Based on those figures, applicants will likely have a less than 1-in-12 chance of getting picked.”

LA Is Reopening Its Section 8 Housing Voucher Waitlist For The First Time In Five Years

By David Wagner  LAist,  9/21/22 

For the first time in five years, the city of Los Angeles is reopening the waitlist for its Section 8 housing voucher program.

Next month, low-income residents will have two weeks to submit an online application for a shot at getting on the waitlist.

Section 8 vouchers represent the nation’s largest rental assistance program, and local housing officials are expecting hundreds of thousands of L.A. tenants to apply.

Hyepin Im is the founder of Faith and Community Empowerment, an L.A. organization planning to help English and Korean-speaking tenants apply. She said, “With the pandemic, the growing shortage of housing, as well as homelessness, I predict that the need will be even greater than ever.”

First, Check To Make Sure You’re Eligible

Section 8 vouchers provide federal funding to subsidize rents for low-income tenants.

Tenants use these vouchers to go out and find an apartment on the private market, as long as the rent doesn’t exceed local program limits. Currently, tenants in L.A. can use Section 8 vouchers to rent a two-bedroom apartment that costs no more than $2,452 per month.

Tenants generally put 30% of their income toward their rent — with government funding making up the difference.

L.A.’s Section 8 vouchers are only available to households that fall into the city’s “very low-income” category.

For an individual, the annual income cutoff is $41,700. For a family of four, it’s $59,550.

According to L.A.’s housing authority, which administers the city’s Section 8 program, Section 8 vouchers are only available to U.S. citizens, immigrants with legal authorization or to families with “mixed status” (meaning at least one household member has legal immigration status).

When And How To Apply

The city’s housing authority plans to accept applications from Oct. 17 through Oct. 30. Don’t worry about getting your application in on the very first day. Officials say applying early won’t give you any advantage over those who apply later in the two-week application window.

The city will only be taking applications online during this round. If you don’t have home Internet access, you should ask your local library or reach out to L.A.-based housing organizations to ask if they’re planning to assist people who need help applying online.

The online application portal is not yet available, but you can keep an eye on the city’s housing authority website here. City officials said more details about the online portal, and where applicants can go to get help, will be coming in early October.

The Waitlist Is Long, And Your Odds Of Getting On It Are Slim

Applying will not guarantee you a voucher — it won’t even guarantee you a spot on the waitlist. Applying only guarantees you a chance to be randomly selected for the waitlist.

After the application window closes on Oct. 30, the city’s housing authority will conduct a lottery to select households for the official waitlist.

The last time the city’s housing authority opened its waitlist — back in October 2017 — nearly 188,000 households applied for 20,000 available spots.

Officials anticipate even higher demand this time. They’re expecting about 365,000 households to apply for just 30,000 available waitlist spots. Based on those figures, applicants will likely have a less than 1-in-12 chance of getting picked.

“Those numbers speak volumes,” said Chancela Al-Mansour, executive director of the L.A.-based Housing Rights Center. “There’s not enough affordable, safe, decent housing for individuals, for families, for people on fixed incomes, for low-income persons. We have a huge housing crisis in Los Angeles.”

The lucky few who are placed on the waitlist won’t necessarily get a voucher any time soon. Housing authority officials say tenants currently in the system have been waiting up to six years to receive a Section 8 voucher they can then use to search for an apartment.

Getting A Voucher Doesn’t Always Mean You’ll Find A Home

Getting on the waitlist requires luck. Getting a voucher takes patience. Then, in order to finally get an apartment, voucher holders must undertake a lengthy — and often fruitless — search for one of the few landlords in L.A. willing to take in a Section 8 tenant.

A 2018 study from the Urban Institute found that 76% of landlords in the city refuse to accept Section 8. While it is now illegal for California landlords to explicitly reject tenants because they’re using a voucher, many still filter out Section 8 applicants through rigorous tenant screening that demands high income, proof of on-time rent payment and excellent credit scores — criteria many voucher holders cannot meet.

As a result, many voucher holders in L.A. end up losing their Section 8 vouchers because they can’t find anyone who will rent to them.

Doug Guthrie, president and CEO of the city’s housing authority, said most of the city’s vouchers are being turned into leases. But with thousands of new emergency housing vouchers for unhoused Angelenos also coming online during the pandemic, competition to find a place has never been so fierce.

“There are probably close to close to 10,000 [voucher holders] now out searching, between the city and the county of Los Angeles, and that’s the most ever on the street,” Guthrie said. “That just kind of compounds the problem of making sure that there are enough available units that people can find out there to make use of this resource.”

Still, unhoused and low-income L.A. residents hold out hope of getting the help they need to afford the city’s high rents.

Christine Garcia, 60, lost her home after her husband died in 2016. She lives on about $1,400 per month in survivor’s benefits. Lately, she’s been living in a motel. She said she’s getting kicked out soon, and finding a place to rent in L.A. isn’t an option on her income.

“It does seem like a long shot to me,” Garcia said about applying for a spot on the city’s Section 8 waitlist. But getting a voucher, she said, “would mean the world to me, because I wouldn’t have to suffer anymore.”

Texans don’t pay more taxes than Californians do, reports show

Just like Biden insists the borders are secure and that he is not owned by the Chinese Communist Party, Guv Nuisance claims Texans pay more in taxes than Californians.  He needs to lie because he policies have caused folks to flee from the former Golden State to protect their assets and their lives.

“According to a Tax Foundation analysis, Californians pay $6,813, per capita in state and local taxes every year compared to Texans paying $4,481.

“That’s about two-thirds of what Californians pay,” DeVore said.”

Just another Democrat lie exposed.

Texans don’t pay more taxes than Californians do, reports show

By Bethany Blankley | The Center Square,  9/19/22  

 (The Center Square) – As thousands of Californians continue to move from California to Texas, the Houston Chronicle reported, “Texans actually pay more in taxes than Californians do.”

But a former California legislator and Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Chief National Initiatives Officer, Chuck DeVore, argues, “Nothing could be further from the truth.”

Findings from analyses published by the Tax Foundation and Stanford University’s Hoover Institution also conflict with the Houston Chronicle’s claim.

The Chronicle cites a report published by the San Antonio Express News citing 2018 data published by the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP). ITEP’s report evaluated IRS income tax, sales tax, property tax, Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Expenditure Survey information, and U.S. Census Bureau data.

Express News cites a tax professor at the University of Texas’s law school, Robert Peroni, who says the data from the 2018 report hasn’t changed in four years and California’s income taxes “actually do more to lower inequality.”

The Chronicle also cites a Progress for the People Instagram post that claims, “California has the most ‘equitable’ state/local tax structure in the US, while Texas has the 2nd least. Despite right [wing] propaganda to the contrary, Texas is not low tax for the people most in need. They only care about reducing taxes for the rich, not about helping the poor and creating an equitable system.”

According to a Tax Foundation analysis, Californians pay $6,813, per capita in state and local taxes every year compared to Texans paying $4,481.

“That’s about two-thirds of what Californians pay,” DeVore said.

He also argues the ITEP report is from “a left-leaning group funded by organized labor.”

The ITEP report ranks states based on “estimating the share of income the richest 1% pay in state and local taxes versus the poorest 20%, and then calculates the gap,” DeVore said. It also focuses on “who pays, rather than how much is paid” and uses the data “to answer a quantitative question (which state’s residents pay more) rather than the subjective topic it was originally gathered to address (fairness).”

Higher taxing states don’t help the poor, DeVore argues. According to ITEP, the District of Columbia and California have the most fair tax systems in the U.S.

U.S. Census data shows they have the highest Supplemental Poverty rates, DeVore notes. The Supplemental Poverty Measure accounts for cost-of-living differences among states, the amount of taxes paid, and the type of noncash benefits low income individuals and families receive including food, housing, childcare, and medical assistance.

Texas is one of seven states that levies no individual income tax.

California’s top individual income tax rate is 13.3% with a state and local tax burden of 13.5%, according to the Tax Foundation. It also has an 8.84% corporate income tax rate, a 7.25% state sales tax rate, a max local sales tax rate of 2.5% and an average combined state and local sales tax rate of 8.82%.

By comparison, Texas levies no individual income tax or corporate income tax. It levies a gross receipts tax. It also has a 6.25% state sales tax rate, with a maximum local sales tax rate of 2%, and an average combined state and local sales tax rate of 8.2%.

California’s tax system ranks 48th on the Tax Foundation’s 2022 State Business Tax Climate Index, Texas ranks 14.

It’s not just the reports that point to the tax disparity of the two larges stats in the country.

Of the record number of people and companies moving out of California, they’ve repeatedly cited cost of living and high taxes as reasons for leaving. Those moving to Texas, now estimated to be roughly 1,000 a day, cite low cost of living and no personal income or corporate tax as their reasons for relocating. So many more people have moved to Texas over the past decade that it gained two additional Congressional seats.

In 2020 alone, under California Gov. Gavin Newsom, California reported the first ever population decline in state history and also lost a congressional seat.

According to a study by McKinney-based Spectrum Location Solutions and Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, Texas is beating every other state as a destination for California companies by a ratio of 4:1.

California company headquarter exits more than doubled in 2021, the study found. Its authors warned, “California is experiencing a serious loss of company headquarters to other states. The phenomena, which includes business in nearly all industries, has gone virtually unrecognized by the state’s elected officials and governmental agencies.

“Unless policy reforms reverse this course, California will continue to lose businesses, both large established businesses, as well as young, rapidly growing businesses, some of which will become the transformational giants of tomorrow.”

Since the report was published, California legislators and Newsom doubled down on increasing taxes whereas Texas Gov. Greg Abbott recently pledged to use half of the state’s $27 billion surplus to provide property tax relief to home owners.

Despite Promises of Equity, Students at This San Fran Middle School Still Lack Teachers

Equity is killing education for the children of San Fran—and other cities.  San Fran is spending millions each year to imitate the racism of the KKK—instead of spending money on teachers.  In some classes students have not had a full time teacher for over a year.

“”We are missing science teachers,” said Ricky Li, whose son is a sixth grader at the school. “So all they do now is just give out handouts. They (are) asking for help from parents. They should have had enough staff. I’m not sure why they are missing teachers.” 

The teacher shortage at MLK Middle School, and staffing challenges in districts across the state, comes at a time when unprecedented state and federal education dollars have been sent to districts to help students recover from pandemic-related learning loss — something noted by researchers studying the phenomenon of teaching-staff shortages nationwide.

So, it isn’t lack of money—it is the lack of a pro-education policy.  How many teachers really prefer to groom six years olds for sex, instead of teaching them to read?  Decent people do not want to teach racism and bigotry instead of math.  So the teachers you get are ideological, not education professionals.  Are kids are losing their future.

Despite Promises of Equity, Students at This San Francisco Middle School Still Lack Teachers

Julia McEvoy, KQED,   9/21/22 

At back-to-school night last week, parents at Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Academic Middle School in San Francisco’s Portola neighborhood got some bad news.

“We are missing science teachers,” said Ricky Li, whose son is a sixth grader at the school. “So all they do now is just give out handouts. They (are) asking for help from parents. They should have had enough staff. I’m not sure why they are missing teachers.” 

The teacher shortage at MLK Middle School, and staffing challenges in districts across the state, comes at a time when unprecedented state and federal education dollars have been sent to districts to help students recover from pandemic-related learning loss — something noted by researchers studying the phenomenon of teaching-staff shortages nationwide.

Whatever the overall reasons, one thing remains clear: Teacher shortages tend to be worse at schools that serve kids from economically disadvantaged communities. 

MLK Middle School, where a third of the kids speak English as a second language and 10% are considered unhoused, is one of those schools.

Maritza Tupul’s son Douglass Mejia is in eighth grade. His classroom is missing a full-time science teacher, but Tupul said she didn’t know this until she checked her son’s grades and found he’s getting an F.

“So I asked him what’s going on,” she said. “And he says, ‘Oh, we don’t have a teacher in the classroom.’ So … how could you have an F (if) you don’t have grades?”

Tupul’s son told her they hadn’t had teachers for weeks and that the sixth grade teachers were subbing the class.

The San Francisco Board of Education has vowed to improve struggling elementary and middle schools in an effort to make school quality more equitable, and district officials say they’ve sent three teachers on special assignment to MLK to help staff for now.

Eric Lewis, a science content specialist who helped create the district’s curriculum, is one of those teachers. At the start of every year he emails all the district’s science teachers about training opportunities and resources — but a lot of those emails never get read.

“That’s how I figure out who is not in the district anymore,” Lewis said. “Because I get all these emails bouncing back at me. I mean, this year I had probably 40 emails bouncing back. This was a huge number of teachers that were gone. And it was across the district!”

Lewis says this year’s eighth graders have already had a rough time.

“They have had very inconsistent science education in sixth, seventh and now into eighth grade,” said Lewis. “Their sixth grade was online. Their seventh grade had teachers who left halfway through the year for science.”

Lewis is normally tasked with supporting new teachers so they don’t quit and with helping teachers implement the new science curriculum. Instead, he’s been assigned to fill in on classroom teaching.

“There was supposed to be another TSA [teacher on special assignment] who came in to teach the other half of the courses,” he explained, “and that teacher didn’t show. They ended up taking a leave from the district.” 

Lewis is confident most of his students can rebound. But he also says those with the most needs will have the longest-term impacts, and he predicts they will have major gaps.

The staffing shortage got worse a week ago after a teacher got COVID and another was injured. Jackson Whittington, an art and integrated arts teacher at MLK, says three seventh grade classes were put into the cafeteria.

‘I wish someone could do something. …  (If not), I have to do something.’Maritza Tupul, parent

“I think you can imagine having three seventh grade classes in a cafeteria is not, like, the best learning space,” said Whittington. “It’s kind of just a management situation.”

Maritza Tupul has asked for her son to be transferred to another classroom.

“I wish somebody (could) do something,” she said. “(If not), I have to do something.”

Other parents say they’re taking their kids out of MLK altogether.

In a letter written to the San Francisco Unified School District, Whittington decried the current situation as “unsafe, inequitable, and in need of immediate attention,” saying enrollment at MLK Middle School had dropped by almost 100 students; that multiple teachers are giving up prep time; and that staff — including administrative staff — cover classes on a daily basis because “there are no subs coming here and no full time TSAs covering open positions.”

SFUSD, meanwhile, is continuing to recruit, with 210 certificated teaching positions open online as of Friday. The district had about 2,500 full-time-equivalent teachers for the 2021-22 school year.

Ricky Li has sympathy for the district trying to find more teachers, but doesn’t understand why there still isn’t enough staff.

“Help should be here by now,” he said. “So hopefully, they’ll find somebody soon.”

That’s something everybody can agree on.

Four things to know about pandemic’s detrimental effects on LAUSD test scores

While this story tells the effects of the closing of the schools, it does not make clear that Fauci and friends have damaged children of color the most.  In fact, this was a government jihad against poor kids and those of color.  They were targeted by the Progressives, like Newsom to kill off their desire for an education—keep them dumb and on government welfare so they can be controlled.

“L.A. Unified’s latest state test scores reveal dramatic decreases in student performance — and an even more striking decline for some ethnic groups and vulnerable students.

The outcomes of the 2022 Smarter Balanced assessment showed just 28.47% of LAUSD students met state standards in math, while 41.67% met English standards in the 2021-22 school year — declines of two and five percentage points respectively from the 2018-19 school year.

For Latino, low-income, Black, female, and other student groups, the declines were often greater — which was no surprise, said LAUSD superintendent Alberto Carvalho. 

Of course the leader of the bigots in LAUSD was not surprised—that was the goal—keep kids in failed, racist, pro-bullying—anti-free speech academically inferior schools.  This is why student enrollment is down to approximately 400,000—with massive absenteeism.  A few years ago the district had over 600,000 students.  The parents have voted with their feet to save their children.

Four things to know about pandemic’s detrimental effects on LAUSD test scores

Isabel Crespo, LA School Report,   9/20/22 

L.A. Unified’s latest state test scores reveal dramatic decreases in student performance — and an even more striking decline for some ethnic groups and vulnerable students.

The outcomes of the 2022 Smarter Balanced assessment showed just 28.47% of LAUSD students met state standards in math, while 41.67% met English standards in the 2021-22 school year — declines of two and five percentage points respectively from the 2018-19 school year.

For Latino, low-income, Black, female, and other student groups, the declines were often greater — which was no surprise, said LAUSD superintendent Alberto Carvalho. 

“Kids who were at risk, in a fragile condition, prior to the pandemic, as we expected, were the ones who have lost the most ground,” said Carvalho at a news conference. “Five years of gradual academic progress … have been reversed.”

Here are highlights from the data:

1. While all students’ test scores declined, the downward trends were greater among Latino, low income, and Black students:

The change from the 2018-019 school year to the 2021-22 school year on the English assessment for third graders was the largest among Latino and low-income students. While third graders’ scores on the English test declined 14 percentage points overall, for third grade Latino students, the drop was 18.38 percentage points; and more than 16 percentage points for low income students. 

Latino and low-income students in third through fifth grade also demonstrated among the greatest change in performance from the 2018-19 school year to the 2021-22 school year in math. In those grades, Latino students’ scores declined 17.63 percentage points,  while low-income students dropped 16.41%. Overall in grades 3-5, the decline was 14.24 percentage points.

The results of the sixth through eighth graders’ math scores show that Black students 

exhibited the greatest change in performance, with a 16.42 percentage point decline, followed by Latino students at 15.81 percentage points and low-income students at 15.73 percentage points. 

“It’s not surprising that they would have fared worse during the pandemic because of all the disadvantages they face,” said Pedro A. Noguera, dean of the Rossier School of Education at USC. “We could have predicted what we are seeing now.”

2. Females had greater declines on the math exam compared to males, a change from prior to the pandemic — and one of the largest declines in English scores:

While L.A. Unified female students have consistently performed better on the English assessments, the 2021-22 school year marked a dramatic change.

Females were among the groups that lost the most ground on reading assessments, with a 2.76 percentage point decline from the 2018-19 school year, compared to a 1.67 percentage point decline for males. Up until last school year, females routinely outperformed males in the pre pandemic years: In 2018-19, 48.84% of females met the English standards, compared to 39.19% of males. 

 “That is an anomaly, for over the past years, female students have actually been outperforming male students in math and science courses,” Carvalho said. “This is a regression that merits deep, deep analysis and research.”

Post-pandemic, male students earned a higher percentage in math state standards compared to females. Nearly 30% of male students met or exceeded math state standards while just over 27% of females did. 

3. From 2018-19 to 2021-22, 11th graders showed a significantly larger decline on the assessments

In English, 11th graders showed the biggest drop in performance with a decrease of 7.10 percentage points compared to a decrease of 4.55 percentage points in grade three and 3.98 percentage points in grade 4. 

Grade 11 also saw the greatest decline in math with a high of 9.73 percentage points away from state standards compared to 5.83 percentage points in grade eight and 5.73 percentage points in grade six.

4. Low-income students continue to underperform on state tests, with the gap between low-income and non low-income students increasing:

Recent scores in English show 35.71% of low-income students met or exceeded standards while 65.65% of non low-income students did — highlighting the growing divide between students according to socioeconomic status.

In math, 22.5% of low-income students met or exceeded state standards on math tests while 51.91% of non low-income students met or exceeded standards. 

Noguera said a lack of reliable internet, access to a device, and support at home were the main drivers contributing to poor performance from low-income students.

“The general pattern in America is poor kids do less well than affluent kids and that’s because we spend less to educate the poor kids,” Noguera said. “They have less qualified teachers, they go to schools with fewer resources, and that’s true in L.A. just as it is across the country.”

This article is part of a collaboration between The 74 and the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.

Isabel Crespo is an undergraduate student at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism on the pre-law track. She is passionate about ethics, education and culture.  

Student groups at Berkeley adopt a ‘no Zionist speakers rule’

It looks like you have to hate Jews to be a student at the Cal Berkeley law school.  They have adopted a policy of not allowing speakers on campus that support the State of Israel.  That means Trump, Biden, Newsom, McCarthy and 99% of the Congress and Governors would not be allowed to speak on campus.  They will allow supporters and apologists for terrorism to speak.

Now you know the quality of those with a law degree from Berkeley—the are haters and racists.  In fact, based on the ethics of the California bar, none of them should be allowed to even take the Bar Exam.  Would you hire a Berkeley hater for your firm?

“At least eight different student organizations at University of California, Berkeley’s School of Law incorporated a bylaw into their respective constitutions last month attacking the state of Israel and committing to never invite “Zionists,” or anyone who supports Israel, to speak on campus.

“[I]n the interest of protecting the safety and welfare of Palestinian students on campus [insert organization name] will not invite speakers that have expressed and continued to hold views or host/sponsor/promote events in support of Zionism,” the bylaw read.

But these bigots do not care about the safety of the Jews on campus.

Student groups at Berkeley adopt a ‘no Zionist speakers rule’

Jasmine James, Campus Reform, 9/21/22  

Last month, at least eight different student organizations at UC Berkeley’s School of Law incorporated a bylaw into their respective constitutions attacking the state of Israel.

‘[I]n the interest of protecting the safety and welfare of Palestinian students on campus [we] will not invite speakers that have expressed…support of Zionism,’ the bylaw read.

FacebookTwitterEmailMore

At least eight different student organizations at University of California, Berkeley’s School of Law incorporated a bylaw into their respective constitutions last month attacking the state of Israel and committing to never invite “Zionists,” or anyone who supports Israel, to speak on campus.

“[I]n the interest of protecting the safety and welfare of Palestinian students on campus [insert organization name] will not invite speakers that have expressed and continued to hold views or host/sponsor/promote events in support of Zionism,” the bylaw read.

Organizations adopting the pledge also committed themselves to boycott “institutions, organizations, companies, and any entity that…supports the actions of the apartheid state of Isreal.” 

Campus Reform reached out to UC Berkeley Media Relations and was given access to an email Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the Law School, sent to all the department heads of Law Student Organizations about the issue.

“It is troubling to broadly exclude a particular viewpoint from being expressed,” Chemerinsky stated. “[T]aken literally, this would mean that I could not be invited to speak because I support the existence of Israel, though I condemn many of its policies.”

Chemerinsky concluded that “singling out the state of Israel for special condemnation, or questioning the very legitimacy of its existence, is considered by many Jewish students to be a form of Antisemitism.”

Campus Reform spoke with Adam Naftalin-Kelman, Director of Berkeley’s Hillel Jewish Student Center, to get his perspective on the issues.

 “I’m troubled by the actions of Berkeley Law’s Students for Justice of Palestine in asking other student groups to exclude any speaker that supports Zionism. While they have the first amendment right to make this request of other student groups, it has a chilling effect on Jewish students’ acceptance and full inclusion of their whole selves into the campus community,” Naftalin-Kelman stated.

He continued by saying that “[w]hile this is troubling and antithetical to the values of the community of UC Berkeley and Berkeley Law, I’m appreciative of the vocal support the Dean of the Law school has given to Jewish students.”

“Berkeley Hillel will continue to work with creating a supportive and welcoming space for Jewish students to be able to express their whole selves,” he said.

Campus Reform reached out to UC Berkeley Media Relations, Chancellor Carol Christ, and all Berkeley Law student organizations that adopted the anti-Zionist bylaw. This article will be updated accordingly.

Oakland Audit Blasts Inability to Account for What Happened With $70 Million In Homeless Funding

What is surprising about this story is not that Oakland can not account for $70 million meant for the homeless.  The massive growth in homeless proves that the money being spent is wasted—worse, it seems the “Homeless Industry” not the homeless are getting the benefits.  Between the politicians, the academics doing “studies” and the non profits hiring well meaning inexperienced people, the money left to help the homeless is minimal.

“The Bay Area News Group reports that a new audit from that office says the city has spent $69 million over the last four years to get unhoused people sheltered, but can’t actually say whether anyone was permanently sheltered, because they’re failing to keep track of whether anyone found permanent housing.”

Of course they can not show if anyone was helped—that was never the purpose of the funding—the real purpose was to finance a political machine that uses the homeless as an excuse to buy political power.    

Oakland Audit Blasts Inability to Account for What Happened With $70 Million In Homeless Funding

Joe Kukura, SFist,  9/20/22     

The city of Oakland spent $69 million over four years housing unsheltered people, but has no idea if any of those nearly 9,000 people ever found permanent housing, according to a new report from the City Auditor.

The highest-profile homelessness issue right now in the City of Oakland is the on-againoff-again clearing of the Wood Street encampment, which could benefit from a $4.7 million state grant to turn it into something more stable and less dangerous. But throwing money at the problem might be the problem, according to a new report from the Oakland City Auditor. The Bay Area News Group reports that a new audit from that office says the city has spent $69 million over the last four years to get unhoused people sheltered, but can’t actually say whether anyone was permanently sheltered, because they’re failing to keep track of whether anyone found permanent housing.    

“We can do better, and we must do better,” City Auditor Courtney Ruby wrote in a press release summarizing the audit. “I believe establishing and adopting better strategies, management, oversight and staffing is essential to sustaining a successful homelessness response, which addresses the issues outlined throughout this audit report.”

The full, 135-page audit details that the city has sheltered 8,683 people in temporary shelters, all run by third parties like nonprofits, but got “mixed results” on the $69 million they spent. The report notes that these nonprofits never tracked how many people found permanent housing (nor did the city ask for this information), and more bafflingly, the city has no idea how many beds are available on any given night  (and again, the city has not been asking for this crucial data).

“The audit found the city does not have the requisite analytical and technical skills to consistently analyze, track, and monitor data, all of which is needed to effectively manage homelessness services and hold service providers accountable,” the press release explains.

The final 15 pages of the auditor’s report are devoted to 30 recommendations (yeah, that’ll totally happen) to tighten up the system, which include staffing analysis, more comprehensive reporting, and clearer communication of goals and deadlines.

And this comes just as the Chronicle has done its own analysis about how much good a $100 million grant from the nonprofit Tipping Point has done to reduce chronic homelessness. That grant, issued to the city in 2017, had a goal of reducing the chronically homeless population by half in five years. But, in fact, the city’s population of chronically homeless individuals has increased in those five years from 2,138 to 2,691.

California poll finds parents leaving traditional public for charter schools

In the past three years 25% of California parents have left the union controlled. Radical hatred, sexualized curricula of government schools.  They moved their children into schools that are based on academics, not indoctrination.

:”Scorned by the bureaucracy of Los Angeles Unified School District and the tumultuous politics of reopening schools in the spring of 2021, Carrie Kangro moved her oldest son to a charter school in the midst of the pandemic.

Kangro, unsure if LAUSD would reopen schools, made the move despite having a particular love for the local LA Unified schools in her quaint Mar Vista neighborhood.

“We love the specific teachers at our LAUSD school, but no one was standing up for our kids. So we went to a charter school and it’s nice because they don’t have to deal with all of this,” Kangro told The 74 referring to LAUSD’s turbulent COVID-19 reopening efforts.

More than one in four California parents have switched their child’s school during the pandemic with most transferring from traditional public to charter schools, according to the 2022.” 

Government schools are run by radical politicians and greedy unions—is that what you want for your children?

California poll finds parents leaving traditional public for charter schools

Joshua Bay, LA School Report,  9/19/22  

Scorned by the bureaucracy of Los Angeles Unified School District and the tumultuous politics of reopening schools in the spring of 2021, Carrie Kangro moved her oldest son to a charter school in the midst of the pandemic.

Kangro, unsure if LAUSD would reopen schools, made the move despite having a particular love for the local LA Unified schools in her quaint Mar Vista neighborhood.

“We love the specific teachers at our LAUSD school, but no one was standing up for our kids. So we went to a charter school and it’s nice because they don’t have to deal with all of this,” Kangro told The 74 referring to LAUSD’s turbulent COVID-19 reopening efforts.

More than one in four California parents have switched their child’s school during the pandemic with most transferring from traditional public to charter schools, according to the 2022 PACE/USC Rossier Poll.

The poll found a higher percentage of school switches among Democrats, white parents, families with English as a primary language and households earning more than $150,000 per year.

The annual poll, conducted by Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) and the University of Southern California (USC) Rossier School of Education, surveyed 2,000 registered California voters, including 500 parents, on their opinions and priorities for public education. 

The poll’s analysis on school switches attempts to understand what contributed to the historic 4.6% student enrollment decline – or more than 270,000 students statewide.

Among parents surveyed that switched their child’s school, the 52% that originally attended traditional public schools dropped to 41% – an 11 percentage point decline. In contrast, the 15% that attended charter schools grew to 23% – an 8 percentage point increase.

This comes as 71% of parents surveyed supported charter schools – a 15 percentage point increase from 2020 to 2022.

“The public school system needs to figure out what’s driving these decisions because without enrollment there’s no money and that’s a problem,” said Morgan Polikoff, associate professor of education at the University of Southern California and co-author of the poll.

38% of parents decided to switch schools because they wanted a different educational experience for their children. The poll also found 31% of parents dissatisfied with COVID-related safety measures at their childrens’ school and 30% dissatisfied with mental health support or one-on-one learning help.