As Crisis Grows Worse Under Mayor Bass, LA City Council Extends Homeless Emergency Declaration

‘Inside Safe’ a housing first program, has spent $34 million of the initial $50 million in funding

The Los Angeles City Council extended the city’s homeless emergency declaration on Tuesday, while also tightening the leash on Mayor Karen Bass’ Inside Safe initiative by asking for more frequent reports on how the floundering program is going.

Chief Administrative Officer Matthew Szabo appeared before the City Council on Tuesday to give a report on how Inside Safe, a “housing first” homelessness initiative that places many homeless in hotels and motels, was doing. So far, since it began five months ago, Szabo has said that 1,205 homeless people have been placed into program housing, with 11 housing fairs and 15 encampment sweeps occurring since the same time.

In addition, the program has also spent $34 million of the initial $50 million in funding. The largest chunk, $12.8 million, has been spent on 22,437 hotel room nights in 25 hotels and motels around the city. Other large expenditures in the program have surrounded the Grand Hotel, with $6.4 million going towards the contract extension with the hotel for another year of housing homeless following the end of a Project Roomkey contract and $3.2 going to service providers at the hotel.

“Based on the work that’s been done since April 28, the homeless emergency account will incur $34 million of obligation,” added Szabo on Tuesday. “By June 30, the city is projected to expend approximately $44 million overall.”

Deputy Mayor for Housing Mercedes Marquez also noted that 15 more affordable and permanent housing projects had been streamlined for approval recently, adding to the hundreds of other projects currently under Inside Safe to reduce homelessness.

However, many on the Council stressed that more reports on how Inside Safe was doing would be needed, as this was only the second report to the Council on the program in the last five months. While the Council had originally wanted bi-weekly reports on Inside Safe spending, it has not happened, with the program only averaging a new report every two to three months. With the Council expected to vote on the city budget for the next fiscal year, which includes a proposed $1.3 billion in homeless funding by Bass, of which $250 million would go to Inside Safe, the need to see how the money is being allocated is higher than ever.

Inside Safe funding questions

“This is such a big program, yet they are only giving a few reports on what is happening with it,” said “Miguel,” a staffer at the Los Angeles City Hall, to the Globe on Wednesday. “The program is going to see a huge jump in funding too, and a lot of people here are concerned about it. Everyone wants to reduce homelessness and get people off the street, but the way they are going about doing it is really divisive. It may look like everyone working for the city is 100% behind inside safe, but that is not the case. We’re seeing the crisis grow worse under Bass and stories trickle back to us of so many people refusing to be housed through the program. There needs to be more accountability and management, and the way you do that is through the frequent reports that the Council wanted.”

Overall, the program has been unpopular, with everyone from hotel and motel owners to even homeless people largely against the program.

“It’s pretty telling from only the handful of hotels that actually agreed to do this and the number of people choosing to stay in the street that this program has problems,” added Maurice, who helps run a church-based shelter in LA, to the Globe on Wednesday. “But I regularly talk with others who run shelters, the homeless, and even some motel owners. There is just too much red tape and restrictions to make it viable. For example, so many homeless people leave those shelters because they’re so restrictive that it hurts their ability to get and maintain jobs.”

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Bill To Restrict Marijuana Packaging Appealing To Children Gains Support In Assembly

AB 1207 currently up for Appropriations Committee vote

A bill to restrict marijuana products with packaging that appeals to children continued to gain traction in the Assembly, with more votes shifting in favor of the bill in recent weeks.

Assembly Bill 1207, authored by Assemblywoman Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks), would build upon provisions in the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), more commonly known as Prop 64, which legalized marijuana in California under a statewide vote in 2016. Under the legislation, AB 1207 would implement provisions of AUMA by prohibiting the sale or manufacture of cannabis or cannabis products that are attractive to children and by prohibiting the advertisement and marketing of cannabis or cannabis products in a way that is attractive to children. The bill would implement AUMA by prohibiting cannabis or cannabis products intended for use by inhalation or combustion from containing any natural or synthetic flavors or descriptors of flavors.

AB 1207 would also further define “attractive to children” by having marijuana products use the images of cartoons, toys, robots, fictional animals, real or fictional humans, as well as any likeness to images, characters, or phrases that are popularly used to advertise to children. Names of products would also be greatly limited under the bill by banning the use of any names similar to cereals, candies, chips, or any other food products sold to kids, as well as variant names with similar spelling.

In addition to the more precise wording of AUMA, the bill would also prohibit any artificial, synthetic, or natural flavoring, similar to a flavored tobacco ban law that went into effect in California earlier this year.

Assemblywoman Irwin wrote the over the increase of marijuana use for those under the legal age of 21. While many factors have been blamed for the rise, with teens 18% more likely to use marijuana following the passage of Prop 64, Irwin specifically targeted product packaging, similar to how tobacco companies had to stop using cartoons and designs on packs during the “Joe Camel” lawsuits in the mid 1990s. In addition, she noted that AB 1207 would help curb any accidental use by young people.

“Since the passage of Proposition 64, pediatric exposures to cannabis have increased exponentially,” Irwin said earlier this year. “These exposures are heavily influenced by the use of features on cannabis product packaging that are explicitly attractive to children. Children who unintentionally consume cannabis consistently require poison control treatment, and in many cases, they can also expose their fellow elementary and middle school peers to cannabis.”

Initially slow in gaining support, the bill quickly gained support last month when it was passed 13-0 with 5 abstentions  in the Assembly Business and Professions Committee. In the past month, more Assembly members have also signaled that they would either vote for it or abstain from voting, despite the next Appropriations Committee hearing over it having been delayed.

“No one is really against it, but for many it is mixed,” said “Dana,” a Capitol staffer to the Globe on Wednesday.” On the left, no one really wants to restrict marijuana that much after it was fought so hard to legalize, but they also don’t want kids smoking it. On the other side, no one wants to obstruct the free market, but again, they don’t want kids doing it. Some also can’t resist on curtailing marijuana to some degree. So they are all either voting for AB 1207 or abstaining.”

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

California’s Reparations Scam: Michael Jackson’s Kids Would Get Payouts

California’s reparations con game is like a Nigerian Prince email scam

In 2020 the California legislature passed AB 3121 which created a 9-person task force to study California’s “complicity in slavery.” The task force would also be authorized to make recommendations to the state legislature about payments – also known as reparations.

Even if one could prove the dubious theory that the economic state of Blacks today is a result of America’s legacy of slavery, the state of California wouldn’t be the first place or even the second place to focus on this slavery.  Since 1850 when California became a state its Constitution expressly forbid slavery, and it never supported the Confederacy during the Civil War.

It turns out that though California didn’t promote slavery, today it is one of the places willing to entertain bad ideas, however.

Rather than focus on how California’s poor public schools have failed poor Blacks and white alike? Or how its anti-business regulatory climate has eroded the ability of its poorer residents to climb out of poverty and into the middle class, elites in the state have moved to distract disadvantaged voters with the reparations con.

This high-stakes con game will prove no more beneficial to Blacks in California than the typical recipients of the Nigerian Prince email scam.

The Reparations Task Force has already pledged that nearly 80 percent of California’s 2.6 million Black residents will be granted reparations. The task force cannot achieve this goal – even if it was legal, which it is not.

First, the math simply doesn’t work. Consider: if all of the ‘eligible’ Blacks in California were merely given $1000 in reparations the cost to California would exceed $2 billion.  But that compensation would in no way equal the staggering claims made by the racial alarmists that push for reparations. $1,000 would be a pittance of the injuries that they claim that blacks have faced in California.

Using questionable calculations that wouldn’t get a passing grade in junior high, the task force has estimated that the “compounded” injury to Blacks that have lived their entire lives in California would equal 100k for every year of their residency in the state.  Consider, for just one year of reparations using this measure, the state would be on the hook for $200 billion – out of a 300 billion state budget as of 2022.  The median age of Blacks in California is 36.5.  When you factor in that median age payouts equal nearly a trillion.  There is no scenario where this will occur.

Second, who should receive payments? Per the decision of the task force, only Blacks who are descendants of slavery are eligible. Persons born outside of the U.S. aren’t eligible. 

But should all others be eligible? What about Michael Jackson’s kids? Should his oldest son Michael “Prince” Joseph Jackson, Jr. receive a payment? Using the online calculator set up by the reparations task force he’d be eligible for a half a million payout. This despite there being no evidence that he has ever faced discrimination because he is the son of a black man. And the same is true for his siblings. Yet the task force would also award the three more than a cool million. In fact, the task force hasn’t set up any criteria other than race for eligibility. Has in fact every black descendant of slavery suffered injury? The task force says yes, but they present no evidence to prove their claims.

Merely being black is a sufficient basis for getting a payment per the task force.  But who is Black? Do recipients self-select and declare themselves black? Will California restore the odious “one drop rule” and decide that any black descendant is sufficient to make someone black? Alternatively, will the state of California use visual inspectors a la Plessy v Ferguson to sort out who is who? Or must recipients submit DNA samples to show their heritage?

Whatever method California adopts is fraught with danger. As a melting pot nation, black Americans have intermarried at higher and higher rates over the last 100 years and not every one of those children born of such unions identify as black.  Increasingly Americans of all stripes identify as other proving that forcing people to choose being only black is completely unworkable.

Finally, the task forces objectives are illegal. Courts are highly skeptical of any public policy effort that relies primarily on race to provide a benefit or detriment.  There was a time when “separate but equal” was the law of the land. But that ruling was overturned and today after a long line of rulings starting with Brown v. Board of Education, even modest raced-based policies are highly scrutinized.

Whatever method California adopts is fraught with danger. As a melting pot nation, black Americans have intermarried at higher and higher rates over the last 100 years and not every one of those children born of such unions identify as black.  Increasingly Americans of all stripes identify as other proving that forcing people to choose being only black is completely unworkable.

Finally, the task forces objectives are illegal. Courts are highly skeptical of any public policy effort that relies primarily on race to provide a benefit or detriment.  There was a time when “separate but equal” was the law of the land. But that ruling was overturned and today after a long line of rulings starting with Brown v. Board of Education, even modest raced-based policies are highly scrutinized.

Click here to read the full article in FoxNews

California Legislature Proposing Unemployment Benefits For Illegal Immigrants

‘Excluded workers’ who are not eligible for regular state or federal unemployment insurance benefits due to their immigration status

The California Legislature is proposing a program to provide unemployment benefits to illegal immigrants coming to and residing in the state.

Senate Bill 277 by State Senator Maria Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) proposes income assistance to unemployed “excluded workers” who are not eligible for regular state or federal unemployment insurance benefits due to their immigration status.

Perhaps even more horrifying, this program would be administered by the Employment Development Department and implemented upon appropriation by the Legislature of sufficient funds to carry it out.

Currently, the state’s employers pay for unemployment insurance.

This is the same EDD the massive fraud was perpetrated against during the pandemic. “The current estimate is that the EDD lost about $40 billion to illegitimate claimants, including prisoners (and not just from California prisons), garden variety local scammers, and international fraud rings, all of whom simply walked right into the department’s completely unprotected system,” the Globe reported.

“While the EDD has claimed it did the best it could, it should be noted that the EDD—even though it could have purchased basic fraud protection software that would even work with its antiquated IT systems for about $5 million—had no way to prove if an applicant was who they said they were until the end of 2020, months after the pandemic began.”

The Senate Committee on Labor bill analysis explains that SB 277 Prohibits the EDD, in administering the program, from taking any of the following actions:

  1. Requesting, orally or in writing, an individual’s nationality, place of birth, or eligibility or ineligibility for a social security number.
  2. Compelling or requesting an individual to admit in writing whether they have proof of lawful presence in the United States.
  3. Contacting an individual’s current, former, or prospective employer for any purpose, including to verify employment status. However, does not prohibit the department from using other means to verify past employment.
  4. Recording an individual’s immigration or citizenship status.

The bill also authorizes an applicant to self-attest to being eligible for the program and requires them to submit documentation with a value equal to at least four points to establish proof of work history. (emphasis ours)

Did lawmakers learn nothing from the rampant fraud of the EDD during COVID? “Self-attest to being eligible for the program?

“Every day, undocumented immigrants contribute to California’s economic prosperity in agriculture, construction, clothing and other industries” said Senator Maria Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles). “California is set to be the world’s fourth-largest economy in large part thanks to immigrant labor, yet immigrants continue to be shut out from California’s economic success due to unjust exclusions from the safety net. That is why I am authoring SB 227, the Safety Net for All Workers Act. California must include a life-saving unemployment benefits program for these workers.”

Governor Gavin Newsom recently announced that the state’s budget deficit has ballooned by $9 billion, going from the initial January estimate of $22.5 billon to $31.5 billion, leading to more major cuts being implemented next fiscal year.

Approximately half of California’s income comes from the top 1% of earners as well as businesses in the state.

The perfect storm for recession may be upon us with high inflation, high taxes, high energy costs, high food costs, a sizable budget deficit, and tens of thousands of big tech layoffs, which is the other issue California lawmakers and governor need to address, the Globe reported. And now taxpayers will be expected to financially support more illegal immigrants into the state with the expiration of Title 42.

Senator Durazo never acknowledges where the funding will come from – and it’s not from the Appropriations Committee.

“Title 42, a Trump administration era policy suspended rights to seek asylum, expired Thursday evening, bringing an influx of migrants to the border,” Fox News reported. “A record 83,000 migrants crossed the border last week in anticipation of the policy’s expiration, but U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said border agents saw a 50% drop in the number of border crossers over the weekend.”

“Just south of San Diego, roughly 15,000 migrants had gathered in Tijuana last week, filling hotels and shelters or sleeping outside in a makeshift camp while waiting for Title 42 to expire in the hopes of making it into the Golden State, The New York Times reported.”

The state is bleeding businesses and losing hundreds of thousands of residents to other states. The California exodus to other states is even worse than we realized; the state’s population dropped by more than 500,000 people between April 2020 and July 2022, with the number of residents leaving surpassing those moving in by nearly 700,000, the Globe reported in February – taking $29.1 billion with them to other states.

And California Democrats are proposing to pay illegal immigrants unemployment.

Click here to read the full article in California Globe

Gavin Newsom Eliminates Vote-by-Mail — for Farmworker Union Elections

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed a law Monday that will eliminate vote-by-mail in elections for union certification by farm workers, under a deal that will allow organizers to use a “card check” system instead.

Newsom, who owns a winery himself, signed the law, AB 113, under a deal he struck with unions last year under pressure from labor organizers and Democratic leaders, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

Originally, Newsom sounded almost like Donald Trump as he objected to the vulnerability of vote-by-mail to fraud. He vetoed a bill last year to allow vote-by-mail in union elections because he said that he could not “support an untested mail-election process that lacks critical provisions to protect the integrity of the election.”

Farmworkers led a series of protests in response, including a march to the infamous French Laundry restaurant in Napa, where Newsom dined maskless with lobbyists right after issuing pandemic guidelines telling other Californians not to to to restaurants. Newsom relented and signed a bill allowing vote-by-mail and other provisions, under the understanding that the vote-by-mail provision would be repealed the following year.

One of those provisions is “card check,” which allows labor organizers to approach workers personally to sign a card or cast a ballot for union certification. It is a system that critics — including some liberal Democrats, like the late left-wing presidential nominee George McGovern — denounced as a violation of the secret ballot.

The bill limits the number of “card check” elections to 75, and gives the unions a Jan. 1, 2028 deadline to hold them.

California adopted automatic vote-by-mail in its regular elections in 2020, over the objections of Republicans.

Click here to read the full article in BreitbartCA

Is Anaheim Looking to Secretly Negotiate Another Angel Stadium Deal?

Anaheim City Council members secretly rejected a lawsuit settlement that would’ve forced more transparency when it comes to any future city stadium negotiations. 

The decision comes less than a year after a couple of damning FBI court affidavits surfaced, alleging the former Mayor Harry Sidhu tried to ram through a controversial stadium sale for $1 million in campaign support from team officials.

The FBI affidavit crushed city hall credibility last year after agents alleged that a small cadre of Disneyland resort area insiders through the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce essentially steer public policy in Anaheim largely behind closed doors. 

[ReadFBI Reveals What Many Anaheim Residents Felt For Years, City Hall is Run By The Chamber of Commerce]

Federal agents also said the former mayor destroyed records to hide from an Orange County Grand Jury investigation on the sale and passed on confidential city information to the LA Angels.

Through his attorney, Sidhu has maintained he committed no wrongdoing and hasn’t been charged with a crime. Team officials also have denied any wrongdoing publicly and pushed for completion of the stadium sale even after release of the FBI affidavit. 

[ReadFBI Alleges Anaheim Mayor Harry Sidhu Destroyed Angel Stadium Records to Hide From OC Grand Jury]

Before revelations of the FBI corruption probe last May, Anaheim was facing a 2020 lawsuit from the nonprofit activist group, the People’s Homeless Task Force.

The task force alleged the city violated the Ralph M. Brown Act – the state’s chief transparency law – when secretly negotiating the old deal in 2019. 

The task force lost their lawsuit in Superior Court but later appealed, prompting ongoing talks between them and the city. Last year, FBI officials in their explosive affidavit noted that city officials may not have properly disclosed all relevant public records in that lawsuit. 

[Read: Anaheim Activists Take City Back to Court For Shadowy Attempt at Angel Stadium Sale]

Kelly Aviles, attorney for the task force, said local transparency activists weren’t asking for much in their settlement negotiations with city officials  – a signed settlement agreement that Anaheim officials wouldn’t privately hammer out another stadium deal and minimum attorney fees. 

“You don’t have to say that you were wrong, but you have to promise you won’t do it like this again in the future,” Aviles said in a Wednesday phone interview. 

That’s something city officials refused to agree to earlier this year, a decision that was never reported out to the public – even though council members met in closed session to consider the lawsuit in January. 

Based on that refusal, Aviles said it’s fair to conclude that city council members want to leave open the option of secret talks that potentially violate the state’s open meetings laws when it comes to Angel Stadium. 

“Based on the refusal to enter into a very reasonable settlement that says we won’t do it in the future, they want to keep every option open – including things we thought were illegal.”

Aviles is also Voice of OC’s chief public records litigator. 

Mayor Ashleigh Aitken and all other council members did not respond to requests for comment last week.

In late 2019, when the now-dead land sale was being initially approved, two state lawmakers, the OC Register editorial board, many residents and activists lambasted city officials for the rushed sale process. 

City officials unveiled the plan Dec. 4 that year and approved the land sale 16 days later – all without knowing the final cash amount they would get for the land. 

[ReadTwo State Lawmakers Call For Delay of Angel Stadium Land Sale]

After the Peoples Homeless Task Force was gearing up to appeal their loss in OC Superior Court last spring, Aviles said settlement negotiations were taking place between her and contracted attorneys for the city. 

The biggest part of the settlement proposal was promising to publicly construct any future stadium deal and reimburse the task force for $10,000 – a flat fee Aviles said she charged them, while waiving all other attorney fees. 

But, she said, that all abruptly ended in January. 

“There was no feedback from the city council that there was some provision they had concerns with. We had talked definitively that we were really open to work out language,” Aviles said. “We would be open to hammer out actual details and actual language if they came back.” 

The last time the lawsuit was scheduled for a closed session discussion was at the Jan. 24 city council meeting and the city attorney didn’t publicly disclose any action on the item. 

Jeanine Robbins – an Anaheim resident who’s part of the task force – said she’s confident heading back to court. 

“Obviously the Brown Act was violated, so we’re hoping that this one will have a different outcome,” Robbins said in a Wednesday phone interview. 

Former Councilman Jose Moreno said the previous city council – before November’s election – seemed willing to settle the lawsuit. 

“The tone to me is what was the harm in settling this? Minimal attorneys fees, adherence to the Brown Act,” Moreno said in a Thursday phone interview. “So that to me seemed to be the tone – what harm does this do to the city? Nothing really.”

Is Another Stadium Deal Coming? 

A day before that Jan. 24 secret meeting, Angels owner Arte Moreno – unrelated to Jose Moreno – announced he was pulling back on his public announcement last year that he was putting the LA Angels up for sale.

That same day, Aitken said in an email statement to Voice of OC that she was open to discussing a new land sale.

“There have been no discussions since last year. But after the dust settles and when the time is right, I am open to talking about any proposal that would be good for our residents,” Aitken said on Jan. 23.

[Read: Los Angeles Angels No Longer For Sale; Is Another Land Sale Proposal Coming to Anaheim?]

It was the last time Aitken, who campaigned for mayor on a platform of bringing more transparency and reforms to city hall, responded to a request for comment from the Voice of OC. Her father, Wylie Aitken, chairs Voice of OC’s board of directors.

Two months later in March, Aitken told the Los Angeles Times she would be willing to use the previous land sale deal as a basis to restart talks with the Angels.

Anaheim Spokesman Mike Lyster said city officials talk to LA Angels representatives on a regular basis about various issues.

“But there are no active discussions about a future lease or sale of the stadium site,” he wrote in a Thursday email.

The old stadium deal was nearly complete until the FBI affidavits surfaced last May, alleging Sidhu gave Angels representatives critical information during negotiations in his effort to ram the deal through.

Sidhu resigned a week after the probe surfaced. 

[ReadAnaheim Mayor Harry Sidhu Resigns After FBI Reveals Anaheim Corruption Probe]

Shortly after his resignation, city council members canned the stadium sale. 

David Duran, an Anaheim resident who’s part of the People’s Homeless Task Force, said he’s concluded that council members rejected the settlement proposal so they can secretly hammer out another stadium deal. 

“I don’t think that they want to have their hands tied,” Duran said in a Wednesday phone interview. “They don’t want to agree to not violate the Brown Act again – that’s essentially what it was.” 

Now that the city has formally rejected settling the lawsuit with transparency activists,  former City Councilman Jose Moreno said future court proceedings present a real chance for Anaheim to nullify the stadium lease, which was reinstated by Sidhu and his majority in January 2019 under questionable circumstances given what the FBI has presented in public court filings. 

If the lease was nullified, former Councilman Moreno said, that would open it up to be on the market – significantly boosting the land value.

“That would be a powerful outcome for the people of Anaheim.”

Did Officials Violate Transparency Law Again? 

The last time the council members discussed the proposed settlement was Jan. 24, according to a review of meeting agendas. 

And City Attorney Rob Fabela said there was nothing to report out that night. 

When asked for more details – like what the vote was – Lyster reiterated Fabela’s stance. 

“We do not have and are unable to provide details about a closed session item before the Council,” Lyster wrote in a Wednesday email, refusing to say if a vote was taken and what that vote was.

Aviles said the Jan. 24 vote to reject the settlement should’ve been publicly disclosed, despite a loophole in the Brown Act that doesn’t explicitly state city officials have to report out when they reject a settlement. 

“The section does not specifically require them to disclose it, but there’s still that other section that says there should not be a secret vote,” Aviles said.

She said oftentimes city officials only apply the secret vote provision to public sessions and not closed door meetings. 

“No legislative body shall take action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or final,” reads the Brown Act. 

Moreno, the former councilman, said reporting out that vote would’ve been the right thing to do. 

“It would be the ethical thing to do. I raised that issue with the city attorney last year,” Moreno said of various closed session items voted on by council members that weren’t initiating lawsuits or settling them. “He said, ‘Well, the Brown Act doesn’t require it.’” 

At the same Jan. 24 meeting, council members appointed Norma Campos Kurtz to fill a council vacancy left by Avelino Valencia after he was elected to the state Assembly.

Before her appointment, Kurtz sat on the advisory committee for Support Our Anaheim Resort – Disney’s chief campaign spending vehicle in town.

SOAR heavily financed the campaigns of Councilmembers Natalie Meeks and Natalie Rubalcava in last year’s elections. In 2020, they also heavily financed Councilmembers Jose Diaz and Steve Faessel. 

Click here for to read the full article in Voice of OC

County Prepares for Quiet Transition as Nathan Fletcher Leaves Office Monday

San Diego County staff are preparing for a quiet transition when Nathan Fletcher resigns Monday, after the turbulent period since he first took medical leave seven weeks ago amid sexual misconduct allegations.

Fletcher ended his campaign for state Senate in late March and announced he would seek treatment for post-traumatic stress and alcohol abuse. Days later, he announced he was stepping down from the board of Metropolitan Transit System and then from the Board of Supervisors, after a former MTS employee sued him and the transit agency for alleged sexual harassment and assault.

Fletcher’s sudden downfall from what had seemed an ascendant career created chaos as the four other county supervisors debated how to conduct business and how to fill his seat. Earlier this month, they voted to hold a special election in August, with a runoff to follow in November if no candidate wins a majority.

Despite the uncertainty over the district’s representation, officials expect the transition Monday to be uneventful.

Fletcher’s resignation will take effect at 5 p.m. Monday, and no additional steps are needed to finalize it, county spokesperson Mike Workman said. Although county counsel told board members Fletcher could in theory revoke his notice of resignation and reclaim his seat before then, staff have no indication that he will and don’t expect him to appear in person Monday.

His office has provided constituent services during his absence, and once his resignation is final, District 4 staff will continue that work, reporting directly to the county’s Chief Administrative Office.

The county has spent $1.9 million on security for Fletcher since an apparent arson incident at his home early last year, but his security coverage ended March 26 when he announced his medical leave. His pay and benefits as a supervisor continue through Monday, amounting to $39,168 since he went on leave.

Following the sexual misconduct accusations against Fletcher at MTS, Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer said any complaints at the county would be investigated.

Helen Robbins-Meyer, the county’s chief administrative officer, sent an email to all staff last month detailing the county’s policy on sexual harassment and urging them to report any complaints.

“Most of you are aware of recent events that have put the topic of sexual harassment in the workplace back in the spotlight,” she wrote. “I want all employees to hear from me directly, in no uncertain terms: We have no tolerance for sexual harassment here. Zero.”

Robbins-Meyer directed managers to reinforce the message “until it reaches every single employee.” She noted that people who have been targets of abuse are often hesitant to speak up and asked anyone who has experienced or witnessed harassment to report it to a supervisor, manager, department head or human resources or by calling the county ethics hotline at (866) 549-0004.

MTS, which is also a defendant in the sexual misconduct suit against Fletcher, has commissioned an outside law firm to investigate the complaint against him.

But the county was not named as a defendant in that lawsuit and has not conducted any investigations related to Fletcher, Workman said last week.

Click here to read the full article in the SD Union Tribune

California Democrats Further Torn After Seeing Sen. Feinstein’s Return to Washington

As she approaches retirement age, Democrat Donna Perkins understands reluctance about telling Sen. Dianne Feinstein what to do as she winds down her career.

After all, California’s senior senator has already announced that she would not seek another term — and some argue that the calls for her to step down earlier are rooted in misogyny and ageism.

But after seeing news coverage of Feinstein’s return to the nation’s capital last week, in a wheelchair and still weak after a nearly three-month absence from Washington as she recovered from shingles, Perkins is more concerned than ever about the 89-year-old senator’s ability to represent 39 million Californians.

“I don’t want to be like that, right? I’m getting ready to turn 65. I want somebody to say, ‘Hey, Donna, you know what? It’s time to pass the torch.’ It’s sad, but it’s not fair either,” said Perkins, 64.

Perkins was among about a dozen Democrats who gathered at the Highland Park branch of a Los Angeles library Thursday evening to watch a livestreamed U.S. Senate candidate forum featuring two of the top Democrats running to replace Feinstein in 2024, Reps. Barbara Lee of Oakland and Katie Porter of Irvine. The event was sponsored by the progressive California Working Families Party. Rep. Adam B. Schiff of Burbank was invited to participate but declined.

Questions about Feinstein’s future have been swirling for quite some time over concerns about declining mental and physical capabilities. Concerns grew after she was briefly hospitalized earlier this year and, while recuperating at home in San Francisco, missed votes that resulted in a holdup for confirming some of President Biden’s judicial nominees. Feinstein is a member of the Senate’s powerful Judiciary Committee, which was deadlocked because of her absence, resulting in Democrats delaying votes on nominees that could not win support from Republican senators.

Feinstein flew back to Washington on Wednesday, though she has been advised by doctors to take on a lighter workload. She cast critical votes Thursday to advance judicial nominees who lacked Republican support. And yet, among some California Democrats, Feinstein’s return did little to quell concern about her likely effectiveness in the Senate, heightened further by the Democrats’ razor-thin majority.

“Everybody is so diplomatic. I think she needs to take care of herself, and you can’t take care of yourself with that intense responsibility. Something comes first — either taking care of yourself or taking care of your constituents,” said Susie Tompkins Buell, a major Democratic fundraiser based in San Francisco. “I know she likes being there, I know she’s a fighter. But I feel like for the bigger picture, for a better future for all of us, I think she should resign. It’s an act of honor to do that.”

Tompkins Buell has helped raise campaign money for Feinstein in the past and her husband once worked for the senator.

Others expressed similar concerns about representation, while declining to weigh in on what Feinstein should do.

“I’m not a doctor. I certainly haven’t seen Sen. Feinstein in person. I don’t feel like the best person to make that judgment call,” said former San Francisco Board of Supervisors member Jane Kim, who is now the executive director of the Working Families Party and moderated the Senate candidate forum.

“I think it’s important we have a U.S. senator to be able to fulfill their duties every day in the U.S. Senate because we have a tied vote,” Kim said Friday. “It is critical for our party and our movement that we’re able to move forward on decisions around judicial nominees in particular and keep business moving in Washington.”

Eddie Isaacs, 42, said after seeing the images out of Washington, he was concerned about her health but wants to see how Feinstein’s recovery progresses.

“I think we should see how she does in the next few weeks and make a decision at that point,” he said. “Frankly, I didn’t realize it was deteriorating as bad as it had been the last three months.”

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times

S.F. is Still On Edge Over Shoplifting. Can Downtown Businesses Stop Thieves Without Risking Lives?

At a Metro PCS store near City Hall in San Francisco, clerk Maria Gonzalez said shoplifters invade at least twice a week, at times jumping over the counter to swipe phones, cords and anything else they can snatch.

Sometimes they wear hoodies and masks, but other times, “they just come in like they are.” If the thieves get too close or act aggressively, she said, employees like her have no choice but to pepper-spray them. A lone security guard patrols a stretch of Market Street where her store is, funded by area merchants, she said — but it’s not enough.

“We tell them to get out, but they’re going to take what they’re going to take,” Gonzalez said. “More than anything, I feel scared for my life.”

Once again — after a Walgreens guard shot and killed an unarmed man who had allegedly shoplifted, and after a nearby Whole Foods closed, citing theft as a significant reason — San Francisco store owners, employees and guards say they are grappling with a difficult question: In a city struggling with a high rate of property crime, what is the best way to deter petty theft?

Do you confront people suspected of shoplifting or do you steer clear, knowing such interactions can escalate from a minor, often desperate crime to an encounter that can be dangerous for both parties?

Relatives of the 24-year-old man killed outside the downtown Walgreens on April 27, Banko Brown, say the tragedy has shown that merchants shouldn’t hire gun-carrying guards. The fatal shooting prompted a change in policy for the guards at the store, the San Francisco Standard reported, who were told shortly before the incident to confront shoplifters; afterward, they were ordered to stand down and leave their firearms at home.  

On an earnings call earlier this year, a Walgreens corporate executive said the company had seen a slight reduction in “shrink,” the loss of inventory attributed to employee theft, shoplifting, fraud, or other factors. During the call, Walgreens CFO James Kehoe said the company was moving from using security guards to hiring off duty law enforcement officers to guard stores because the security companies Walgreens was using had “proven to be largely ineffective.”

Many merchants, meanwhile, say they remain in a no-win situation, not wanting to resort to violence to stop shoplifters but also loathe to rack up thousands of dollars in losses while sending a message to would-be thieves that they have free reign.

“Merchants are completely fed up with having their businesses vandalized, or being robbed over and over,” said Ryen Motzek, president of the Mission Merchants Association. “But that still doesn’t justify taking a human life.”

He said many businesses defend themselves “because the police can’t. And the response might not be a well-trained response. It creates ugliness all around, this loop of dysfunction. I don’t see anybody winning.”

Many specifics about Brown’s death remain unclear. District Attorney Brooke Jenkins initially declined to prosecute the guard, Michael Earl-Wayne Anthony, saying evidence showed he acted in self-defense. But as outrage grew over the decision, Jenkins backtracked and said she might still file charges. She has refused to release video of the fatal encounter, saying it would be unethical to do so because the case is under investigation.

Meanwhile, the controversy ignited by Brown’s killing has served to intensify the debate about the role of security guards in San Francisco. 

After the shooting Supervisor Dean Preston introduced legislation seeking to amend the city’s police code to clarify that guards are not to unholster their weapons unless there is an actual and specific threat to a person. The current police code says guards may draw their handgun if there is an actual and specific threat “to person and/or property.”

The first responsibility of a private guard, industry leaders and experts said in interviews, is to minimize risk and loss. But doing that — by physically intervening with a shoplifter, if necessary — can be fraught, and is sometimes barred by policy. Guards don’t know whether a person they suspect is shoplifting might be under the influence of drugs, struggling with mental health issues or carrying a hidden weapon.

In 2021, a video of a man on a bicycle stuffing goods into a trash bag at a San Francisco Walgreens went viral, in part because viewers were shocked no one tried to stop the thief. The man was later arrested and sentenced to 16 months in jail for a series of thefts in the city. But similar videos of open shoplifting have become fairly routine. 

“It can be very dangerous,” said Tom Wong, CEO of Red Dragon Private Security, referring to attempts to stop people they suspect are stealing. In the past year, a security guard was shot dead in Japantown, allegedly by a 15-year-old boy he had escorted out of the neighborhood mall, and another was stabbed at a Walgreens on Powell Street.

Wong’s strategy is simple: “Find the least confrontational approach, the least amount of force needed to get that person out of the store.”

In a perfect world, Wong said, after a security guard spots a shoplifter, he or she would make their presence known, and order the shoplifter to put the item back and leave the store. If the shoplifter refused, then the security guard would summon other store employees, and warn the shoplifter if they didn’t leave they would be arrested for theft. 

If a security guard’s client wants a guard to do more than just be a visible deterrent to shoplifters, they might then actually detain a thief, he said.

Under state law, security guards have the power to enact a “citizens arrest,” but no more. When actually detaining a suspect, a guard is required under state rules to tell the suspect of the intention to arrest them, the cause, and the security guard or private security officer’s authority to make a citizen’s arrest, according to a training manual on the website of the state’s Bureau of Security and Investigative Services, which regulates California security guards.

The manual also notes security guards should never touch a suspect “except when they are protecting a citizen, protecting their employer’s property, in self-defense, or when necessary to use reasonable force in effecting an arrest.”  

Ideally, Wong and others said, a security guard tries to resolve the situation with words first — and only reaches for a baton, TASER or pepper spray if that doesn’t work. A gun should be a last resort, and only in situations where there is “an imminent threat” to the life of the security guard or others.

Security guards in California must be 18 or older, pass a federal background check. They must also complete a 32-hour training course, and if they want to carry firearms, pass a separate firearms training course that includes qualification at a firing range and a written exam. If they want to carry a baton or pepper spray, they must obtain separate permits for those weapons — and undergo additional training. That compares to police officers who must pass a rigorous police academy — 34 weeks in San Francisco, followed by a 16-week field training program.

Michael Spearman, who runs the Bay Area-based Archangel Solutions security company for CEOs, celebrities and Fortune 50 companies, said giving a gun to anyone with less than excellent training raises potential for trouble.

“You give a guy a hammer, and everything looks like a nail after a while,” he said. “When you’re dealing with angry people, desperate people stealing things or the mentally ill — actually any confrontation — if they are trained correctly in de-escalation, a guard will know what to do. If they’re not, it doesn’t work. 

“Look, police officers get hundreds of hours of training,” he said. “And you’re asking a security guard to get a week or so of training and a gun course and then expect them to do the same job? It’s not practical.”

In interviews in the past week, several security guards in downtown San Francisco said they focused on de-escalation in their jobs. They said they preferred not to be armed because, as one put it, “someone could wrestle the gun from me, and if I have to use it, I don’t want a death on my hands.”

The guards said they weren’t authorized to speak publicly, and The Chronicle granted them anonymity in accordance with its confidential-sources policy.

“The trick is to closely study people when they walk in, see the trouble before it happens, and then go up and politely engage to stop it,” said one guard at a major downtown store.

As she spoke, she nodded at a man walking by in ragged clothes with a bulging backpack under his jacket, mumbling to himself as he eyed merchandise. “Like that guy,” she said. “I will be polite and respectful, but make sure I keep an eye on him.”

Across California, clearance rates for petty larcenies — thefts without the use of force or threat of force — have fallen substantially over the past three decades, records show. In 2019, police across the state solved about 9% of such crimes. In San Francisco, police have solved roughly 3.6% of larcenies reported in 2023, a slight increase from the same time last year.

Some law enforcement officials say shop owners and security guards have been hamstrung by local and state policies that have reduced punishment for nonviolent offenders, and emboldened them as a result. The argument is rejected by progressives who say petty theft is often driven by poverty and inequality, and favor rehabilitation over incarceration.

“If they’re not going to prosecute (the shoplifters) why are you putting yourself at risk?” asked Art Acevedo, a former head of the Major Cities Chiefs Association who has led police departments in Texas, Florida and Colorado.

Some shopkeepers say shoplifting is just part of doing business in San Francisco. Mohsen Ali Mused — who keeps a machete, pepper spray and a baseball bat behind the counter of his Tenderloin Market and Deli —  said he doesn’t employ guards despite losing what he estimates to be thousands of dollars in merchandise to shoplifting every month. He said he’s got the weapons in case someone tries to rob him — not for dealing with shoplifters.

“I’m the owner, like the Godfather, and I know how to talk to them,” he said as he cheerfully greeted a mix of well-dressed and ragged customers coming in the door. “Seventy percent of those people who want to steal probably don’t have their brains working right. They’re hungry, they’re desperate.”

He said sometimes when people ask him for food, it gives it to them. “It’s the right thing to do,” he added.

Sherilyn Adams, head of the San Francisco nonprofit that in 2019 opened the nation’s first homeless shelter for trans youth like Banko Brown, said the problem of unhoused people shoplifting won’t end until there are enough drug rehab, aid and housing programs for street dwellers.

“It’s poverty. People would not have to steal food and basic needs if things were readily available to them, said Adams, executive director of Larkin Street Youth Services.  

Not every homeless person shoplifts, of course. But Adams acknowledged that some of those boosting from stores do it to get money for drugs or alcohol.

Shoplifted goods are sold everyday by housed and unhoused people alike.  

Those selling the goods have little fear of being punished. They generally say they boost and sell for survival.

“Panhandling doesn’t get me enough for my food and drugs,” said Antonio Ortega, 33, as he spread out his latest haul of spices, coloring markers and socks on Turk Street. “You think I like shoplifting? Hell no. But most of us doing it are doing bare essentials to get by.”

He said he often gets questioned by security guards, “but they can’t do anything, really.”

“It’s brutal out here,” he added, explaining that he needs to boost to buy food and drugs.  

James McGee, 41, lives outside and is a regular at the Tenderloin Market and Deli. He said he shoplifts food, mostly sweet snacks to ease the craving for heroin and meth. But one place he leaves alone is Mused’s.

“Moh is a really good guy, and if I’m really hungry he’ll give me chips, soda, things like that,” he said, grinning while holding up a bag of popcorn. “Moh gave me this. He understands. All he asks is that you be clean and don’t disrespect the store. 

Click here to read the full article in the SF Chronicle

Equity vs. Equality: California Reparations Commission Wants to Legalize Racial Discrimination

Newsom-backed task force recommends nixing Proposition 209, which prohibits discrimination

“With a ‘Reparations Management Council’ to operate independent of the government of San Francisco, what could possibly go wrong?” the Globe asked earlier this week.

San Francisco resident Richie Greenberg has identified that the San Francisco Reparations Plan “installs a neo-Apartheid system on a city of 45,000 Black/African-American residents being given super-prioritized services, funding and extraordinary privilege – out of total city population of 825,000. The result is Apartheid San Francisco, where 5% Black residents take the resources and economic earnings of the 95% non-Black residents.”

As the Globe reported in January, both the San Francisco African American Reparations Advisory Committee and State Reparations Task Force are expanding reparations beyond slavery. It’s become a grab and hustle for all grievances. But where does this end?

Buckle up and hold on tightly – they said the quiet parts aloud: “the racial wealth gap in the state of California.”

As the Globe reported in December, Reparations task force member Jovan Scott Lewis said: “Spoiler-alert: We don’t yet know the racial wealth gap in the state of California.” This is the preliminary conversation to figure out what we know and what we don’t know.”

Remember this: “Racial wealth gap.”

Another task force member Dr. Cheryl Grills said: “Racial terror leads to racial trauma … also known as race-based traumatic stress.”

Fox News now reports that the statewide California Reparations Task Force, created by legislation signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, formally recommended that the state legislature repeal Proposition 209, a constitutional amendment that prohibits the government from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, someone based on their race.

Proposition 209, a ban on affirmative action, was passed by California voters in 1996, and prohibits discrimination or preferential treatment by the state, public universities, public employment, or other public entities, and banned affirmative action policies.

In 2020, voters even reaffirmed the ban on affirmative action policies and practices by voting down Proposition 16, 57% to 42%. Prop. 16 qualified for the ballot when ACA 5, authored by then-Assemblywoman Shirley Weber (D-San Diego), was passed by the California legislature in 2020. If passed, Prop. 16 would have repealed Proposition 209.

Imagine the coincidence that the statewide reparations committee is the result of legislation also authored by Assemblywoman Shirley Weber (D-San Diego), Assembly Bill 3121, passed in 2021.

So it now appears that the California Reparations Task Force has taken up the affirmative action mantle and will backdoor granting preferential treatment based on race via their final recommendations to the California Legislature.

However, as we reported in January, both the San Francisco and state Reparations committees are seriously neglecting the state’s rich ethnic history, favoring race hustling instead.

A local historian friend sent this:

“Before and during the Civil War militia companies were ethnic, generally social groups with others from the ‘old country’ such as German, Irish, and Italian companies all over northern California. This was not then considered segregation, it was a place to socialize with those of similar backgrounds. Sacramento had a black militia company in that era. Many from those units joined the California Volunteers and fought in the eastern battles.
In the [Sacramento] Land Park area (there is a monument marker in the park) was Camp Union Sutterville where seven regiments of infantry, two regiments of cavalry, and smaller specialized units were trained and participated primarily in two Union moves. One was to replace regular army troops in the west and they garrisoned posts all the way to Salt Lake City, founding an army base in that area that is still active. The other went to southern California and joined units raised in that area. Confederates had occupied what is now Arizona and New Mexico up to the California border. Camp Union troops were involved with pushing them back into Texas and when the war ended Sacramento troops were well established in that state.”

Every kid in California should know this.

As Fox reported:

“The [statewide reparations] task force highlights a study commissioned by the far-left Equal Justice Society, an organization of which a task force member is president, that concluded between $1 billion and $1.1 billion in contract dollars were lost annually by businesses owned by women and people of color due to Proposition 209. The task force’s report also argued admissions declined for Black applicants ‘at every campus.’”

“According to UCLA law professor Richard Sander, however, the number of Black graduates from the University of California had risen 70% above pre-Proposition 209 levels by 2017. That same year, he wrote, the number of STEM graduates rose from an annual average of around 200 before Proposition 209 to 510. The figure increased to 558 in 2018.”

“It is unclear how repealing a measure that bars discrimination or preferential treatment based on race would help combat racial discrimination,” Fox concluded. Indeed.

This topic isn’t going away, and the left isn’t giving up. A bill last year by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, and 52 House Democrats sought reparations and a national apology for slavery. They are still pushing to set up a commission to “examine slavery and discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present and recommend appropriate remedies,” the New York Post reported.

As the Globe reported in December, the state Reparations Task Force is already pulling a bait-and-switch on Californians –  with talk of a “racial wealth gap,” “racial terror,” “race-based traumatic stress,” and “guaranteed income for dependents of slaves.” But what they are really promoting is social justice reparations and nothing more than a redistribution of wealth.

California has very serious problems that lawmakers seem disinterested in fixing:

  • California is home to one-third of the nations’ welfare recipients and has the highest poverty;
  • Our failing schools now rank 48th in the country;
  • California lawmakers can’t build new homes or apartments for less than $800,000 each (luxury level costs);
  • The governor and lawmakers can’t figure out what to do with several hundred thousand drug-addicted, mentally ill homeless vagrants living on city streets and taking over public parks;
  • California lawmakers refuse to build additional reservoirs for water storage in a state in which drought conditions are historically normal, and now has a regular wildfire “season;”
  • California lawmakers and governor mandated all electric vehicles within a few years, but can’t keep the power on during heat spells and winter storms;
  • Lawmakers authorized more than $25 million worth of taxpayer-funded guaranteed income to some individuals in the state, but can’t really tell you why.

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe