Bay Area home prices: Three counties set new records

http://www.dreamstime.com/-image14115451Not one, but three Bay Area counties set new jaw-dropping records as home prices continued to climb to vertigo-inducing heights.

In February, median prices for resale, single-family homes in Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco counties were the highest they’ve ever been — no small feat in a housing market where prices already are among the most expensive in the nation.

The records, unveiled Thursday in a report by housing data company CoreLogic, suggest no cooling in the red-hot market that’s padding sellers’ pockets while squeezing wannabe buyers and forcing many to leave in search of better deals.

Kevin Cole, president of the Santa Clara County Association of Realtors, called February’s price increases “amazing.”

“It just reflects the ratcheting up of what buyers are able to afford,” he said, “with large down payments, with possibly all cash, with low interest rates.”

In Santa Clara County, the median price for a resale, single family home hit $1.29 million last month — up 34 percent from the same time last year, according to the CoreLogic report. In San Mateo County, the median price reached $1.45 million — up 24 percent, — and in San Francisco it was $1.5 million, up 30 percent. …

Click here to read the full article from The Mercury News

SF judge orders first-ever hearing on climate change science

A federal judge in San Francisco has ordered parties in a landmark global warming lawsuit to hold what could be the first-ever U.S. court hearing on the science of climate change.

The proceeding, scheduled for March 21 by U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup, will feature lawyers for Exxon, BP, Chevron and other oil companies pitted against those for San Francisco and Oakland — California cities that have accused fossil fuel interests of covering up their role in contributing to global warming.

“This will be the closest that we have seen to a trial on climate science in the United States, to date,” said Michael Burger, a lawyer who heads the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University.

Experts on both sides say Alsup’s call for a climate change “tutorial” is unlike anything they’ve heard of before. …

Click here to read the full article from McClatchy

Bay Area leaders pledge millions to protect undocumented immigrants in court

San Francisco interim Mayor Mark Farrell announced Thursday that the city plans to pay for legal representation of any immigrant that the Trump administration tries to deport.

On Thursday, ICE announced 232 arrests in Northern California in a four-day period.

Farrell spoke at Carecen, an immigrant rights organization in the Mission District, where he made the announcement alongside Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer and Supervisor Hillary Ronen. He said his goal is to make sure every single immigrant that the Trump administration tries to deport has legal representation in immigration court.

“We are in unprecedented territory here,” Farrell said. “He is targeting our immigrant community, here in San Francisco. We’re not going to stand for that.”

Farrell and Assemblyman Phil Ting are partnering together to advocate for $7 million in state funding. The city will spend an additional $3.5 million annually on legal defense services, bringing the total annual amount to $11.1 million. That represents a 236-percent increase from spending levels two year prior.  …

Click here to read the full article from KTVU

Legislation would make it easier to clear pot convictions from criminal record in California

Buds are removed from a container at the "Oregon's Finest" medical marijuana dispensary in Portland, Oregon April 8, 2014. Over 20 Oregon cities and counties are moving to temporarily ban medical marijuana dispensaries ahead of a May deadline, reflecting a divide between liberal Portland and more conservative rural areas wary about allowing medical weed. Portland, Oregon's largest city, already has a number of medical marijuana clinics and has not moved to ban them. Picture taken April 8, 2014.  REUTERS/Steve Dipaola (UNITED STATES - Tags: DRUGS SOCIETY POLITICS HEALTH) - RTR3KMHE

Recently proposed legislation would make it easier for Californians to have their pot convictions wiped away, in just the latest drug policy development following marijuana legalization on a state level earlier this year.

Under Proposition 64, California residents can petition to have certain drug convictions overturned – but Assembly Bill 1793, introduced by Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, in January, would make it even easier, by automatically clearing the records of those convicted of crimes that are now legal under the new law.

“Let’s be honest, navigating the legal system bureaucracy can be costly and time-consuming,” Bonta told reporters last month in Sacramento. “[It] will give people the fresh start to which they are legally entitled and allow them to move on with their lives.”

Offenses that can now be wiped away include past convictions for possessing up to an ounce of weed and growing between 1-6 plants for personal use, which are both now legal.

However, Bonta has not specified what the cost of such a move would be, as it would require courts to identity who’s eligible and then notify those persons of the changes.

But the proposal is in line with the positions of district attorneys in San Francisco and San Diego, who have said their offices will go through case files themselves so that residents don’t have to go through the petition process.

For example, in San Francisco, pot-related felony and misdemeanors dating back to 1975 will be cleared or re-classified based on the new state law. The city so far has identified 8,000 such cases and San Diego has identified around 5,000.

“Long ago we lost our ability to distinguish the dangerous from the nuisance, and it has broken our pocket books, the fabric of our communities, and we are no safer for it,” San Francisco D.A. George Gascon reportedly said late last month. “A criminal conviction can be a barrier to employment, housing and other benefits, so instead of waiting for the community to take action, we’re taking action for the community.”

Proponents of the move argue that it’s a necessary part of a legalization framework, as past convictions can be a hurdle to finding a job or obtaining certain professional licenses.

“This isn’t just an urgent issue of social justice here in California, it’s a model for the rest of the nation,” Lt Gov. and gubernatorial frontrunner Gavin Newsom added.

However, not all cities are taking this approach, as Los Angeles District Attorney Jackie Lacey says the city will instead have residents follow the petition process already in place.

“The process also allows people most affected by these convictions to pro-actively petition the court for relief and move to the head of the line – rather than wait for my office to go through tens of thousands of case files,” Lacey said in a statement.

As of September 2017, around 5,000 Californians have petitioned to have marijuana convictions expunged or reclassified.

This article was originally published by CalWatchdog.com

Universal Basic Income: A Progressive Experiment That’s Doomed to Fail

Universal basic incomeIf the states are supposed to be laboratories for democracy, where new ideas that reflect regional attitudes can flourish, then cities are like micro-laboratories. Local governments can try out ideas that would never get statewide traction. Unfortunately, some California cities are more like laboratories run by Dr. Frankenstein, where frightening concepts are given life — and local residents have few other choices than to flee to other places.

Most conservatives are familiar with the goings-on in San Francisco, where stringent rent-control laws have — I know you’re surprised by this — led to the least affordable rents and most unaffordable home prices. Parts of the “City by the Bay” resemble an open-air cesspool, given the homeless problem caused by myriad public policies. It’s magnificently beautiful, though, so the city remains a magnet despite its officials’ best efforts to destroy it.

But what happens to a city that has few natural advantages, a less-desirable climate and nothing in particular to draw people to it? Apparently, Stockton — an historic San Joaquin Valley agricultural and port city 80 miles east of San Jose — is trying to cram every conceivable bad experiment into its 64.75 square miles. The latest idea is to offer a “universal basic income” to a few dozen residents to see what happens when you give people money for nothing.

KQED News pinpoints some of Stockton’s enduring problems: “Wage stagnation. Rising housing prices. Loss of middle-class jobs. The looming threat of automation.” We can add some others: A dreadful violent-crime problem, trash-strewn streets, a vacant downtown that could be a movie set for a third installment of Blade Runner, crumbling public services, overpaid public employees, high taxes, and a troubled city budget.

Mayor Michael Tubbs, an enthusiastic 27-year-old Democrat, has shown a keen interest in trying “new” things in the city. Last summer, for instance, he proposed paying people not to commit gun crimes, and now he’s working with some Bay Area entrepreneurs who are providing the funds to give some families $500 a month with no restrictions on how they spend the cash.

The Economic Security Project is backing the Stockton Experiment, based on its belief that “cash is an effective way” to rebuild the middle class and fight poverty. “Automation, globalization, and financialization are changing the nature of work, and these shifts require us to rethink how to create economic opportunity for all,” the group explains on its website.

Some conservatives have actually pitched a guaranteed-income concept. The thinking, advanced by Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, is to “replace the ragbag of specific welfare programs with a single comprehensive program of income supplements in cash  —  a negative income tax.” Such an idea, he added, “provides comprehensive reform which would do more efficiently and humanely what our present welfare system does so inefficiently and inhumanely.”

This is one of those cases where the concept makes a certain amount of sense in the philosophical realm, while being borderline crazy in the real world. If California ended its generous “ragbag” of welfare and support programs — programs that can provide more than $35,000 in benefits a year — then simply giving the recipients a cash payment could potentially reduce the size of the bureaucracy. It would presumably provide additional incentives to work, given that most of these programs are income-based and fade away if recipients work.

In the real world, it would expand government spending. Bureaucracies never go away. I recall the cost savings that would ensue after California sensibly decriminalized certain low-level crimes, yet there have been few budget reductions in various law-enforcement agencies. And chalk it up to human nature, but many Americans are not about to do anything productive if it’s easy enough to get a living wage while playing video games and downing six packs.

In a recent column, I argued that these funds aren’t enough to live on even in Stockton and also quoted a critic who said that a universal basic income would reduce incentives for work and self-reliance. The Stockton Record’s metro columnist criticized me for “a contradiction in this argument: $500 is not enough to live on but people who receive it will become lazy layabouts.”

It’s not actually a contradiction. Stockton’s plan isn’t enough to live on, so it will lead to endless calls by recipients for more money. A full-blown guaranteed income would indeed destroy whatever is left of the nation’s work ethic. Basically, 500 bucks would cause a little bit of sloth, while 50,000 bucks would cause a lot of it. It’s all a matter of degrees. But it’s hard to see what kind of experiment the city hopes to run if it’s only providing a pittance in income and isn’t ending other government programs.

It is easy to spot an underlying reason that this idea is rearing its head again. Some thinkers, especially on the Left, argue that the burgeoning tech industry is creating a winner-take-all economy, and that eventually automation will replace too many low-level jobs. Apparently, they believe a large portion of Americans will be permanently unemployable and just need a stipend. This is nonsense. The tech industry is creating far more jobs and opportunities than it replaces even on the lower end, but that’s where some of the impetus is coming from.

Leave it to Californians to go down this road, when a simpler path is so much better. Note that our state has the highest poverty rate in the nation, according to the Census Bureau’s cost-of-living adjusted model. The reason is fairly clear, and it has nothing to do with the state’s refusal to be generous enough with its welfare payments.

Our current public policies have destroyed middle-class and manufacturing jobs through excessive regulation and high taxes. They’ve destroyed many low-income jobs by raising minimum wages and passing union-backed work rules. We’ve created an education system that graduates functional illiterates. The state’s slow-growth rules have driven up rents and housing prices, thus delegating lower-income people to squalor.

On the local level, Stockton went bankrupt in 2012 because of its misplaced priorities. For instance, it paid ridiculous compensation packages to public employees and “invested” public funds in showy redevelopment projects that remain surrounded by vacant buildings. Instead of reducing pension packages, as the federal bankruptcy judge allowed, the city raised taxes. So now Stockton has an even harder time drawing businesses.

Stockton is like many other California cities, only worse. It’s trying to show us what not to do. As a Stockton property owner and someone who really likes the city, I’m saddened by this kind of misbegotten experimentation.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

This article was originally published by the American Spectator

San Francisco Politician Wants to Outlaw Gas-Powered Cars

Electric CarSacramento is threatening to outlaw a freedom Californians have enjoyed for more than a century through a bill introduced by Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting, of San Francisco. If it’s passed and signed, new gasoline-powered cars will become the state’s new undocumented immigrants. Government will refuse to register them.

Should it become law, Assembly Bill 1745 would, beginning Jan. 1, 2040, “prohibit the department from accepting an application for original registration of a motor vehicle unless the vehicle is a zero-emissions vehicle.” Commercial vehicles weighing 10,001 pounds or more when fully loaded are exempt as are vehicles brought in from other states.

While the San Francisco Democrat insists a transition to electric vehicles is necessary to sharply cut greenhouse gas emissions, the argument has more smoke than fire. Speculation that man is overheating his planet due to Industrial Age atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is far from settled science.

The latest research shows how the science continues to unfold. An academic study released just last week reported that the doomsday, worst-case scenario, the most extreme projection that global warming alarmists commonly cite, isn’t credible. The climate’s reaction to CO2 simply isn’t as intense as they claim. Lead researcher Peter Cox of Exeter University said both the low and high sensitivities had been all but ruled out.

The virtues of “zero-emissions” vehicles are overhyped, as well. There are few bona fide zero-emission vehicles in California or elsewhere. Their batteries aren’t charged by the dynamos of political rhetoric. Unless 100 percent of the state’s electric power is generated by sources that emit no greenhouse gases nor pollutants by 2040 — Sacramento’s goal is 2045 — a sizable portion of zero-emissions vehicles will be charged by electricity generated at power plants whose smokestacks vent the byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Electric cars don’t have tailpipes, yet most still have a carbon footprint.

Also conveniently missing from the electric vehicle discussion is the environmental damage unleashed by their assembly. Even before their tires hit asphalt, they are belching emissions. Building a Tesla Model S P100D, for example, produces more than 12,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This includes emissions discharged in the mining and transportation of rare earths needed to produce electric cars’ hulking batteries.

Meanwhile, production emissions from a gasoline-guzzling BMW 750i — 17 mpg city, 25 highway — are only 8,190 kilograms of CO2 equivalent. Building a gasoline-powered subcompact Mitsubishi Mirage emits a mere 4,752 kilograms of CO2 equivalent.

Though the BMW’s use emissions are about twice as high as the Tesla’s, the Mirage’s are less than the electric car. The Mirage is also cleaner over its entire lifecycle, which includes emissions produced when an automobile is scrapped. If the electric-vehicle campaign were more about actually cutting emissions and less about virtue signaling and raw politics, wouldn’t Sacramento be pushing us into subcompacts instead of EVs?

Not that that is an acceptable alternative. A nation of ostensibly free people should not be saddled with a 21st century Trabant, the 20th century “peoples car” of the captive East German population.

Given our rich car culture that delights in cubic-inch displacement, and the hum and roar of combustion, it’s reasonable to believe that most Californians would not be terribly interested in EVs if it weren’t for the interventions of political nags. As Pacific Research Institute fellow Wayne Winegarden says in his upcoming electric vehicle study, without the taxpayer-funded subsidies, “a robust EV market will not develop.”

Winegarden’s research proves his point.

“After Hong Kong eliminated its tax break for EVs in April 2017, registrations of new Tesla electric cars in Hong Kong fell from 2,939 to zero,” he says. “Similarly, after Georgia eliminated its $5,000 EV subsidy in 2015, EV sales fell 89 percent in two months.”

Even with as much as $42 billion in spent and promised federal subsidies, and billions more issued by the states, fewer than 352,000 EVs have been sold in the U.S., according to Winegarden. That’s less than one percent of the entire market.

Despite EVs’ thin popularity, policymakers have determined that those are the cars we have to buy. It’s a policy decision sure to create electric-car dissidents who will resent the day they lost their power to choose. The fact that the law is a wholly unnecessary stunt will only make it hurt more.

Kerry Jackson is a Fellow at the California Center for Reform at the Pacific Research Institute.

This article was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

San Francisco sues Defense Department over gun background checks

GunThe cities of San Francisco, New York and Philadelphia filed a sweeping federal lawsuit Tuesday accusing the U.S. Department of Defense of failing to live up to its legal duty to notify the FBI when a member of the military is convicted of a crime that would bar them from buying or possessing firearms.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Virginia, accuses the defense department, the Army, Navy, Air Force and a host of high-ranking Pentagon officials — including Secretary of Defense James Mattis — of unevenly feeding reports about convictions and dishonorable discharges to the FBI’s criminal background check system for the past two decades.

In their joint complaint, the cities contend that these kinds of reporting lapses allowed Devin Kelley — a former member of the Air Force who was court-martialed and convicted of assaulting his wife and stepson in 2012 — to purchase the assault-style weapon that he’s accused of using to kill 26 people at a church in Texas last month. Kelley, who was discharged from the Air Force in 2014, killed himself shortly after the mass shooting. …

Click here to read the full article from the San Francisco Chronicle

Moderates brawl with progressives in San Francisco mayoral race

London BreedThe Dec. 12 death of San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee from a heart attack has set the city up for another of the periodic battles between liberal Democrats and even more liberal Democrats for control of City Hall. Members of the former group are known as moderates in San Francisco parlance.

“The voter coalitions that elect moderates in San Francisco are Chinese voters, white homeowners, older renters, and the 10 Republicans left in town, combined with unions that represent building trades, police officers and firefighters,” political consultant Jim Ross told the San Francisco Chronicle the day after Lee’s death. Progressives dominate every other category of voters, especially young tech workers and social justice activists.

While many other names have been mentioned, here are the most prominent likely or declared candidates in the June 5 special election to serve out the last year and a half of moderate Lee’s term:

– Acting Mayor London Breed, part of the moderate faction on the city-county Board of Supervisors who shares Lee’s view that dealing with homelessness is the city’s most important issue. Breed, pictured, is the first African-American woman to serve as mayor. There is a possibility that supervisors will name an interim mayor rather than give Breed months to use her authority as both mayor and supervisor to build support for her expected mayoral bid. This could be supported by moderate as well as progressive supervisors in a city full of ambitious politicians.

– Supervisor Jane Kim, part of the progressive wing, filed paperwork to run for mayor on Wednesday. Kim lost a state Senate bid to moderate Supervisor Scott Weiner last year. She has won national and international attention for her proposed state “robot tax” assessing fees on companies whose use of robots or algorithms has led to the loss of jobs. The money from the fees would be used for worker retraining and other programs meant to minimize the impact of losing jobs to technology.

– State Sen. Mark Leno announced in May that he would run for mayor in 2019 after Lee was termed out. Now he’s running in the June special election, touting his “progressive vision for our city, grounded in a commitment to affordability and civil rights.” A former Assembly member and supervisor, he’s won a reputation as an energetic policy wonk with interest in a wide range of issues, from gender and transgender rights to prison and criminal justice reform to the environment.

– Former San Francisco Supervisor Angela Alioto, daughter of former Mayor Joseph Alioto, has taken out papers to run. An attorney specializing in discrimination cases, she cited homelessness as a key issue and said it was crucial to build a coalition with tech firms to address the issue and larger housing concerns. She has deep ties to moderates both through family ties and years in the city’s political trenches.

– Assemblyman David Chiu, a former supervisor, faces perhaps the toughest decision of any candidate. If the moderate runs in the June mayoral special election, he can’t seek re-election to the Assembly in November – meaning he’d be giving up the safest of legislative seats with more than eight years until he would face term limits. But Chiu is poised to inherit support from the Chinese American community that was so valuable to Mayor Lee, and he has high name recognition and fundraising clout.

Willie Brown still a crucial behind-the-scenes player

Even at 83, former Mayor and former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown remains a key player in San Francisco’s political intrigue. After Mayor Gavin Newsom was elected lieutenant governor in 2010, Brown helped arrange the appointment of Lee – then the city’s chief administrative officer – as interim mayor and gave Lee crucial help in winning a full term in 2011 after Lee broke a promise to progressives to not seek the office.

San Francisco progressives fear that moderate Brown will try to execute the same maneuver with Breed, who is considered one of his proteges.

Now TWO California vacancies on 9th Circuit

Alex Kozinski, a U.S. federal appeals court judge based in San Francisco, resigned on Monday after the court’s chief judge initiated an inquiry into harassment accusations, Kozinski said in a statement.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge said he was retiring immediately to avoid being a distraction for the federal judiciary.

The Washington Post, which on Monday first reported the retirement, said earlier this month that six women had come forward to accuse Kozinski of subjecting them to inappropriate sexual conduct or comments. The newspaper followed with a second report with nine additional accusers.

“Family and friends have urged me to stay on, at least long enough to defend myself. But I cannot be an effective judge and simultaneously fight this battle. Nor would such a battle be good for my beloved federal judiciary,” Kozinski wrote in the statement, released by his lawyer. “And so I am making the decision to retire, effective immediately.”

The chief judge of the San Francisco-based court, Sidney Thomas, last week initiated an inquiry into the accusations by former law clerks and externs. …

Click here to read the full article from Reuters

Will Bay Area political crowd trump LA yet again?

Gavin newsomIt’s been a fait accompli that Gavin Newsom, the former San Francisco mayor and current lieutenant governor, will be California’s next governor after the iconic Jerry Brown heads off into the sunset next year. Moonbeam is a hard act to follow, having served as the state’s youngest and oldest chief executive, but it’s too bad California can’t at least muster a feisty and contentious political debate before crowning another Bay Area pol as successor.

You know, where politicians actually debate issues, take varying political stances and give voters a choice rather than a coronation.

It’s hard to understand Southern California’s inability to exert much clout at the highest levels of California government. Brown is from Oakland. U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris, the former state attorney general who got here start under the tutelage of former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, already is touted as the inevitable Democratic nominee for president.

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, whose slim accomplishments certainly are on par with those of Harris, is mostly garnering skepticism for his possible presidential run. Sen. Dianne Feinstein is from Marin County and Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon is, of course, from Los Angeles, but he’s too busy dealing with an unfolding sexual-harassment scandal in his own chamber to have the time for a serious shot at her U.S. Senate seat.

De Leon and the low-key Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount, have the top legislative spots, but they’ve mostly rubberstamped the governor’s priorities. No one would suggest that either man is a true power broker – or is on the fast track to the governor’s mansion or the U.S. Capitol. There’s little doubt that Southern California politicians play second fiddle to their Bay Area counterparts and don’t even put up a fuss about it.

They rarely set an agenda that’s distinct from the one set by their Bay Area betters, so perhaps that explains why a region with so many people can’t seem to keep up with the power of an area that’s far less populous. San Francisco Democrats and Los Angeles ones are both progressive – but their priorities should not be interchangeable. The demographics and economies are vastly different between the state’s two megalopolises.

The latest Public Policy Institute of California poll offers some mixed news for Southlanders. For instance, Newsom’s latest lead is far lower than expected. He is favored by 23 percent of surveyed voters, with former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, also a Democrat, coming in a surprisingly close second at 18 percent. The other contenders, including the two lackluster Republicans (John Cox and Travis Allen), are in single digits. With the top-two primary system, the top two vote-getters face off in the general election even if they are from the same party.

In the Senate race, Feinstein is besting de Leon by a two-to-one margin, and around half of the voters surveyed had never even heard of de Leon, which is perfectly understandable given his underwhelming tenure in the Capitol. De Leon did throw a really cool $50,000 party at the Walt Disney Concert Hall in 2014 to celebrate his inauguration as Senate president pro tempore, but apparently the “glitz-fest,” as the Sacramento Bee called it, didn’t help any lasting name identification.

On the surface, Villaraigosa’s competitiveness in the gubernatorial race does offer hope that a Southern California politician could once again lead the state. But don’t get your hopes up. He admirably has taken on the teachers’ unions to advance school reform, but he also touched the third rail of politics, when he called for “changes” to 1978’s property-tax-limiting Proposition 13. Instituting a “split roll,” for instance, would dramatically increase the tax bill paid by commercial property owners.

This is more than a policy problem. Villaraigosa’s path to the governor’s mansion involves rallying Southern Californians, Latinos and remaining conservative and Republican-oriented voters. The latter comprise a falling 26 percent of voters, but it’s a significant enough block to create a path to victory. But attacking Prop. 13 tax protection is a nonstarter for that group.

Last November, former Orange County Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez seemed to embrace a similar political strategy (Latinos, mod Dems, Southern Californians, Republicans) to take on Harris for the U.S. Senate race, but despite her more moderate positions, her Latina background and SoCal credentials, Sanchez could only muster 38 percent of the vote. Unless, Villaraigosa expands his appeal, he is likely to face a similar fate.

“It looks just like the Harris race that it’s preordained that the candidate from the Bay Area will get the position rather than a qualified Latino candidate from Southern California,” said Alan Clayton, a San Gabriel Valley-based redistricting expert. “The political class in California protects its own, and they are significantly from the Bay Area.”

For Southern Californians to have a greater voice in Sacramento and Washington, D.C., Southern California Democrats have to speak with a more regional voice – one that focuses on public-sector reform, fiscal responsibility and on working-class concerns (jobs, housing, etc.) rather than the often-bizarre fixations of San Francisco liberals. Until then, expect a county that’s more populous than 40 other states to remain the lapdog to the Bay Area political establishment.

Steven Greenhut is a Sacramento-based writer. 

This article was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily