Eber: Dog and Pony Show needs to end

No better explanation of what Adam Schiff and San Fran Nan are doing with the Soviet style trial in Washington:  “This dog and pony show has gone on far too long.  It’s time for Republicans in Congress to stand and say enough of what the Urban Dictionary says is “An elaborate presentation that lacks any imagination or originality, and is intended to impress an audience of rubes or halfwits.”

Hilary called Americans “deplorables”, Schiff thinks we are rubes and halfwits.  His Russian collusion scam is a reminder of his lies, he said “I have seen evidence that proves beyond a doubt that Trump colluded with Russia in the 0216 election.”  Of course Mueller never say that evidence, nor di his investigators or any congressional committee.  Schiff is a scam artist, hoping people will believe his soft spoken lies.

As an American, this dog and pony show has to stop now.  As a Republican, I cheer it on—let them continue to lie and make fools of themselves—show themselves the true heirs of the Soviet government.  Americans want a budget, immigration reform, trade agreements, tax cuts and jobs—Democrats just want a B grade soap opera.

Dog and Pony Show needs to end By Richard Eber

Richard Eber, Exclusive to the California Political News and Views,  11/19/19  

Like most internet junkies “Wikipedia” is my go to authority on just about everything. They define, Dog and pony show to be “a colloquial term which has come to mean a highly promoted, often over-staged performance, presentation, or event designed to sway or convince opinion for political, or less often, commercial ends.”

This terminology fits to a tee the impeachment inquiry of the House Intelligence Committee under the guidance of its Democratic Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Ca) The first week of their public testimony consisted of handpicked witnesses who complained about Donald Trump’s foreign policy which has often left career diplomats on the sidelines.

They concocted a highly convoluted scenario that the President committing a so called quid pro quo violation of withholding military aid to the Ukraine unless their new President investigated the activities of Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter. The younger Biden served on the board of Burisma Holdings, a major Ukrainian natural gas producer, from 2014 to 2019. Despite not having expertise in energy matters, Biden according Bloomberg Business was paid   $ 60,000 per month for his services.

Given the alleged favors given to Burisma during the Obama Presidency including possible collusion in the 2016 election, would not this subject be fair game for Trump to be asking about?   Even  the Intelligence Committee star witness former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch admitted Hunter Biden’s relationship with the Ukrainian energy company was of  concern to her during her Senate confirmation hearings and beyond.

Even considering President Trump’s poor judgment of trashing Yovanovitch with an uncomplimentary Tweet during her testimony, there were no grounds for him committing an impeachable offense of withholding military aid for political purposes. The testimony of the acting Ukrainian Ambassador hearing from an aide that a phone conversation was overheard in a noisy restaurant is hardly the way the American system of justice should operate.

Even the current President of the Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky saying he was unaware of military aid being held up by President Trump for political purposes, did not pacify Schiff from continuing his inquiry. Guilt and facts have not been spoken in the same sentence by him.

Even No-Trumper’s I know who want him impeach him at any cost have justified their beliefs from media coverage by CNN,  MSNBC, The New York Times, and Washington Post. They have eagerly joined the leftist press anti-Trump bandwagon like sheep being led to slaughter. By doing this they have ignored the activities of whom the President called “Shifty Schiff”. This man has done nothing by his actions to advance the cause of American Democracy.

From his intervention in bringing forth the original whistle blower to not allowing witnesses put forth by the Republican minority, the Representative from California has acted like a demagogue in stifling opposition.  Not taking into account Schiff’s broken promises to show the President’s alleged Russian collusion during the Mueller investigations, he has proven to be a complete political hack.

Schiff said he’s also concerned about “the president’s threats” to the whistleblower that brought attention to Mr. Trump’s call with the Ukraine’s leader. This is a joke because he has continually leaked information from closed door hearings yet is adamant in protecting the whistle blower from testifying as a central figure trying to impeach a sitting President.

Could it be he is trying to cover up his conflict of interests with this whistle blower who has ties to Joe Biden, Schiff, and former intelligence officials in the Obama Administration?

In reality Adam Schiff’s activities mirror those of Senator Joe McCarthy (R-Wis) whose groundless charges in the 1950’s accusing patriotic American’s of spying for the Russians as part of a vast conspiracy to undermine the United States.  As seen in the movie Point of Order, McCarthy’s empty list of communist conspirators is very similar to the tactics used by Schiff in his conduct operating the Intelligence Committee.

Apparently, the American public after three years of what the President has called a “political witch hunt” has seen enough.  Rather than going forth with this partisan charade, they prefer Congress deal with bread and butter issues that actually affect their lives.  These include immigration reform, cost of medicine, health care, appropriations for needed infrastructure and a host of other neglected areas.

Realizing that this dog and pony show is not going to play very well in an election year, Nancy Pelosi will put an end to the impeachment controversy sooner than later.  She will not allow the House of Representatives to pass a resolution to send the Intelligence Committee findings to the Senate for trial.

What to do?  If Schiff’s committee fails to find the President guilty of impeachable offenses, such a verdict would make the entire process look ridiculous.  Voters in red and purple states would see what a farce the whole process has been and likely cast ballots accordingly.

Looking into my crystal ball we can expect Nancy Pelosi to receive the impeach Trump findings of the Intelligence Committee and not allow a House vote on this matter.  She will undoubtedly say an Impeachment trial has no change of going anywhere in the Republican dominated Senate.  

In that way Pelosi protects vulnerable first term Democrats from red and purple states while avoiding negative coverage of the Senate trial which would feature a much different witness list than Schiff allowed.  She will deflect criticism by having the House censor the President to “gain peace with honor”.

Undoubtedly, the leftist press will condemn the speaker for ending the impeachment proceedings while at the same time praise her patriotism in placing country above politics. In that way part of the mud the Intelligence Committee threw at the wall will stick to set the stage for the elections that are to follow in 2020.

If I were a GOP leader in the House, I would cry uncle and advocate the impeachment hearings to come to a vote by the entire body.  At the same time frustrated Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee should ditch the proceedings and allow Adam Schiff to conduct his one sided Kangaroo Court without the legitimacy needed to convince swing voters of this absurd impeachment inquiry?

This dog and pony show has gone on far too long.  It’s time for Republicans in Congress to stand and say enough of what the Urban Dictionary says is “An elaborate presentation that lacks any imagination or originality, and is intended to impress an audience of rubes or halfwits.”

Manager of Valley’s San Joaquin trains may ditch Amtrak as operator

AmTrak gets more than $3 billion a year from the Federal taxpayer to finance unions and special interests.  Going to the private sector and other railroad firms would save us 2/3 the cost.  It looks like the San Joaquin transportation can no longer afford the bloated, politically protected AMTRAK.

“However, Amtrak’s presence in the Valley could be in jeopardy, based on testimony Action News heard in Washington DC before the US House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee.

The executive director of San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority, Stacey Mortensen, told the House Transportation committee that Amtrak charges three times as much per passenger to run the San Joaquin trains, compared to the Altamont Corridor Express or ACE.


Mortensen is the leader of both the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority and the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, which manages the operators of both routes.

Here is a rational idea:  Sell AMTRAK. Allow market forces to keep it afloat—not tax dollars.  The families of America deserve quality government, not government for the sake of government.

Manager of Valley’s San Joaquin trains may ditch Amtrak as operator

Amtrak allegedly charges three times as much per passenger to run the San Joaquin trains, compared to the Altamont Corridor Express or ACE.

By Dale Yurong, KFSN,  11/15/19 



However, Amtrak’s presence in the Valley could be in jeopardy, based on testimony Action News heard in Washington DC before the US House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee.

The executive director of San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority, Stacey Mortensen, told the House Transportation committee that Amtrak charges three times as much per passenger to run the San Joaquin trains, compared to the Altamont Corridor Express or ACE.


Mortensen is the leader of both the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority and the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, which manages the operators of both routes.

It also gives her a unique perspective into train operations.

In what she called, “A Tale of the Two Services,” she was critical towards Amtrak’s lack of transparency, especially when compared to the way contractor Herzog Transit handles the ACE commuter rail.

“Amtrak, exceeds its own budget projections year after year with little or any explanation. Their only remedy has been to seek additional funding from our state,” said Mortenson.


She says the authority has asked Amtrak for cost-sharing and maintenance data for years.

“Our attempts to discuss these issues with various Amtrak leadership typically starts with, ‘We will look into it.’ Ultimately though the transition to defensiveness, resistance and then, in the end, futility,” said Mortenson.

In a statement to Action News, Amtrak said, “We look forward to continuing to provide more information to state partners and serving more customers in California.”

Amtrak’s contract with the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority must be approved annually.

If the agency’s issues with Amtrak can’t be resolved, Mortensen feels the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority may be forced into looking for another provider to operate passenger trains on the San Joaquin route.

Grimes: CA Governor Grandstanding On PG&E Takeover Threat

The most open secret in Sacramento:  Gavin Newsom is running for President in 2024.  Like other Democrats, he realizes those currently running can not beat President Trump.  So, he wants to show how Leftist he is by giving pardons to illegal alien to avoid deportation (it won’t work, they will get deported sooner) and by socializing California utility companies.  He thinks socialism is the future for America—and the Democrat Party.

“Severson said AB 1054 should have served as a last chance warning against further utility disasters. “Instead, AB 1054 became a bailout of the investor owned utilities, both financially and legally, from the consequences of their continued intransigence against prioritizing safety.”

“AB 1054 provides for an endless amount of bonds to be issued and an endless amount of rate increases to meet the revenue requirement of the DWR charge fund so that the bonds to capitalize the wildfire fund are paid off, which in turn pays for whatever wildfire liabilities are incurred by the IOUs.”

“Worse, AB 1054 redefined both the burden of proof and the legal standard by which an electric utility could be found imprudent,” Severson said. “It is now nearly impossible for utility customers to prevent an investor owned utility from passing uninsured wildfire liabilities onto them.”

Why is California going into a recession?  Like of stable energy sources, high taxes, AB 5, AB 109 making the streets unsafe and Prop. 47/57 making criminals a protected class.   Why are people leaving—because they can, in the future they might be held hostage by economics.  Newsom?  He cares about the National Democrat Party and the billionaires and special interests that run it—people in Visalia, El Cajon and Lompoc?  He does not care.

A caution sign in front of storm clouds warning of “Socialism Ahead.”

CA Governor Grandstanding On PG&E Takeover Threat

PG&E is under the authority of the federal Bankruptcy Court

By Katy Grimes, California Globe,   11/15/19 

AB 1054 was about saving the utility investors and stopping downgrades, but not stopping fires.

The California mega-utility Pacific Gas & Electric filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy reorganization January 29, 2019. So it’s curious how Governor Gavin Newsom continues to publicly threaten that if PG&E doesn’t do what he wants, the state may just take over the utility.

Last week Governor Gavin Newsom told the company in a meeting, if PG&E didn’t work to get itself out of bankruptcy, that the state might take over the entire company as early as June, California Globe reported.

But the state cannot just take over the private utility without Bankruptcy court approval – that talk is all chest thumping and bravado.

PG&E filed its Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization in Bankruptcy Court September 9, 2019, which lays out how the company will satisfy its pre-Chapter 11 obligations to creditors and other stakeholders.

Adding to the confusion, under a proposed bill by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), PG&E would become a state-owned public utility through the state of California.

“We are looking at legislation to force PG&E to become a public utility, but that’s still in the early planning stages and we haven’t settled on the exact details yet,” Senator Wiener told Bloomberg News on Tuesday. “[I plan to introduce] some sort of legislation forcing them to become a public utility.”

Senator Wiener announced he will introduce a new bill by February and has said that it’s “desirable” to give the public control of PG&E.

But there is still much legal wrangling to be done under the authority of the Bankruptcy Court.

Not So Fast…

California Globe spoke with San Diego Attorney Maria Severson, who together with her law partner Michael Aguirre, are suing PG&E, and have provided a proposal to the governor for breaking up the utility.

The lawsuit filed in the Federal District Court in California shows that three Investor Owned Utilities in California, Pacific Gas and Electric, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison, argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that their tens of billions in wildfire liabilities should be paid for by utility customers – despite that Cal Fire repeatedly found electric utility safety violations to be the cause of the wildfires which led to the tens of billions in liabilities. When the Supreme Court refused to hear their case, the Legislature offered its bailout in AB 1054 by Assemblyman Chris Holden (D-Pasadena), passed lightening-fast in late June, to authorize the bailout of these investor owned utility companies from financial and legal consequences, despite their culpability in the wildfires.

Severson and Aguirre discovered the Governor’s Office met multiple times prior to passage of AB 1054 with labor interests (IBEW) and PG&E’s Board of Directors to cut a deal to bail out PG&E, through California Public Records Act requests. They also found that the Governor’s Office claimed there were documents not disclosed to the attorneys, due to various exemptions to the PRA (i.e. deliberative process). There are very likely more meetings that were scheduled and which occurred out of public view.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 1054 on July 12, the same day he appointed his new California Public Utilities Commissioner Marybel Batjer, who was tasked with making sure AB 1054’s bailout of the utilities was implemented.

Attorneys Severson and Aguirre also filed CPRA requests with the Government Operations Agency (GovOps) regarding Marybel Batjer’s work on Gov. Newsom’s Wildfire Strike Force. GovOps repeatedly delayed producing records, thus causing Severson and Aguirre to file a CPRA lawsuit for the information.

Batjer no doubt had a key role in formulating the scheme that is AB 1054, the attorneys explained. The lawsuit emphasizes that because Batjer is now the CPUC President, whatever Batjer did on the Strike Force will necessarily be reflected in what she does as the California Public Utilities Commissioner President.

AB 1054 also put into statute that PG&E has to exit bankruptcy by June 30, 2020 – which is why you keep hearing Gov. Newsom use that as his drop-dead date. It is unclear whether that arbitrary deadline date imposted by state legislation would trump Federal Bankruptcy Court proceedings.

“AB 1054 was about saving the utility investors, and stopping downgrades, but not stopping fires,” Severson said.

Severson said AB 1054 should have served as a last chance warning against further utility disasters. “Instead, AB 1054 became a bailout of the investor owned utilities, both financially and legally, from the consequences of their continued intransigence against prioritizing safety.”

“AB 1054 provides for an endless amount of bonds to be issued and an endless amount of rate increases to meet the revenue requirement of the DWR charge fund so that the bonds to capitalize the wildfire fund are paid off, which in turn pays for whatever wildfire liabilities are incurred by the IOUs.”

“Worse, AB 1054 redefined both the burden of proof and the legal standard by which an electric utility could be found imprudent,” Severson said. “It is now nearly impossible for utility customers to prevent an investor owned utility from passing uninsured wildfire liabilities onto them.”

“Under AB 1054, electric utility customers and California taxpayers will continuously subsidize the IOUs’ (Investor Owned Utilities) liabilities from causing catastrophic wildfires. The statute authorizes the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to issue as many bonds as necessary to capitalize a fund to pay IOU liabilities – an unlawful gift of public funds to the IOUs – while the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is empowered to order any electricity rate increases necessary for the bonds to be paid off. 5. In other words, IOU customers can now be made responsible for paying back potentially limitless IOU wildfire liabilities without due process, while IOUs continue to reap a guaranteed profit for their shareholders and investors.”

If the media is truly interested in investigating collusion, this is a pretty good place to start.

AB 1054 will be a permanent burden to California taxpayers, and violates the due process rights of electric utility customers, the lawsuit explains.

Yet, California’s utility regulators, the PUC, “paid little attention to the condition of PG&E’s transmission system and have largely left it up to the company to decide what to upgrade and when,” the lawsuit says.

California Globe reported:

AB 1054 removed all “twelve factor tests” specific to circumstances relating to a wildfire ignition by which the CPUC would determine if an electric utility had acted prudently. This had previously been codified into law under the 2018 Senate Bill 901, by Sen. Bill Dodd (D-Napa). “This new law is the most comprehensive wildfire prevention and safety package the state has passed in decades,” Sen. Dodd said when the governor signed SB 901. “It will help prevent further loss of life and property while ensuring ratepayers aren’t left holding the bag.”

After fighting to get SB 901 passed in 2018, Dodd voted to pass AB 1054, and was one of the lawmakers who received a contribution from the utility companies, as the lawsuit shows.

This shifted the initial burden of proof onto the utility customers.

“AB 1054 violates Plaintiffs’ due process rights in two ways. First, it impermissibly shifts the burden to ratepayers to show prudency by the utilities when their operations cause wildfires. Second, it violated due process by continuing a surcharge for an additional 15 years and the issuance of bonds that was originally established in and around 2001 and was set to end in 2021. Enactment of AB 1054 denied Plaintiffs due process as they were not provided a forum to challenge the extended surcharge in a CPUC proceeding.”

Severson asked, “Who’s going to bail out the ratepayers for fired caused by the utilities?”

Severson said while the other side is trying to get her lawsuit dismissed, opposition to the dismissal is due later in November.

California Globe will be there.

As U.S. Democrats Push Single-Payer, England’s Is Killing Cancer Patients

Elizabeth Warren and the Democrats want to save health care dollars, to make them go further.  They are going to us the British method:  If you have cancer, make out your will and die before your doctors appointment in a year or two.  That is how they save money, by politicians forcing doctors to let patients die.

““Medicare-for-all” is false advertising, a form of bait-and-switch. The title implies Washington will expand the current medical program for retired workers to include all Americans. Yet Section 901(a)(1)(A) of the Medicare for All Act of 2019, H.R. 1384, abolishes the entire Medicare program, and Section 701(d) liquidates the Medicare Trust Fund. One cannot expand a program that has no money and doesn’t exist.

Recall the discussions in the run-up to passage of the Affordable Care Act. President Obama repeatedly said we had to reduce health-care spending because the trend line was “unsustainable.” Medicare-for-all will cost $32 trillion, $40 trillion, or even $52 trillion.

For a sense of perspective, the combined gross domestic product of all nations on Earth is $87 trillion. Democrats propose spending 60 percent of that amount on the first ten years of their single-payer Medicare-for-all.

U.S. health-care spending is notoriously dollar inefficient, as less money goes to care and more goes to bureaucracy. At least 31 percent of the $3.6 trillion spent on health care in 2018 went to federal administration, bureaucracy, regulation, and compliance, thus depriving the American people of $1.116 trillion worth of patient care.”

Democrats are using health care as a way to finance political campaigns and votes.  The money ill spent goes to those with a need for Democrat government—wasteful spending and regulations, not health care and life saving.

As U.S. Democrats Push Single-Payer, England’s Is Killing Cancer Patients

Americans are profoundly frustrated with health care. Obamacare made health care more expensive and less responsive, but Medicare-for-all will crash the system.

By Deane Waldman, The Federalist,  11/19/19 

England’s single-payer health-care system, National Health Service (NHS), has released another report documenting its repeated failures to provide timely care. Delays before seeing a physician have increased, wait times in emergency rooms have lengthened, and most ominous, Britons who could have been saved if they had received care in time are dying from cancer.

Despite this damning evidence from the NHS and ominous projections for Medicare-for-all in the United States, the American left continues to push a single-payer plan. Yes, Americans are frustrated with the current unaffordable, inaccessible health-care system. Nobody has presented a viable alternative. It’s time to correct this deficiency — but single-payer is exactly the wrong way to do so.

Eschew Medicare-for-All

Americans should reject Medicare-for-all for numerous reasons: Washington’s track record, single-payer failures in other countries, false advertising, cost, and — most important — access to timely care.

Medicare-for-all, like Obamacare but more far-reaching, is another Washington “fix” for health care. Those very fixes brought us to this point: People can’t get care, can’t pay for insurance, and the country is spending money it doesn’t have. Washington’s track record is one of unfulfilled promises and fixes that fail or backfire.

“Medicare-for-all” is false advertising, a form of bait-and-switch. The title implies Washington will expand the current medical program for retired workers to include all Americans. Yet Section 901(a)(1)(A) of the Medicare for All Act of 2019, H.R. 1384, abolishes the entire Medicare program, and Section 701(d) liquidates the Medicare Trust Fund. One cannot expand a program that has no money and doesn’t exist.

Recall the discussions in the run-up to passage of the Affordable Care Act. President Obama repeatedly said we had to reduce health-care spending because the trend line was “unsustainable.” Medicare-for-all will cost $32 trillion, $40 trillion, or even $52 trillion.

For a sense of perspective, the combined gross domestic product of all nations on Earth is $87 trillion. Democrats propose spending 60 percent of that amount on the first ten years of their single-payer Medicare-for-all.

U.S. health-care spending is notoriously dollar inefficient, as less money goes to care and more goes to bureaucracy. At least 31 percent of the $3.6 trillion spent on health care in 2018 went to federal administration, bureaucracy, regulation, and compliance, thus depriving the American people of $1.116 trillion worth of patient care.

While cost alone should be sufficient to scuttle Medicare-for-all permanently, there is a more compelling reason: It will also reduce people’s access to care. Medicare-for-all simultaneously eliminates private insurance (Section 107) and cuts reimbursement schedules (Section 611). Payments to providers and hospitals will be less than their cost of doing business. This means there will be fewer doctors and medical facilities.

Before Obamacare, average maximum wait time to see a primary care doctor was 100 days. The ACA increased the wait to 176 days. With Medicare-for-all, the wait could be — like the VA and the NHS — years! With Medicare-for-all, people who could be saved will die waiting in line for care.

Embrace Market-Based Medicine and StatesCare

To cure a patient, one must treat the cause of illness. For health care, the cause of system failure is the combination of third-party payment with federal control.

As federal control is a root cause, Washington should be removed from health care. This is called StatesCare, returning authority where it belongs per the Constitution. The 10th Amendment reserves “power” in health care “to the states respectively, or to the people.”

The people in their states should be free to choose whatever health-care structure they believe will best satisfy their local medical needs within the state’s unique resource and financial constraints. Based on all the evidence and financial modeling, their best choice would be market-based medicine.

Market-based medicine eliminates the third party as a decision-maker and thus reconnects patients with doctors. Patients can shop for their care and can afford to pay out of large family HSAs for all care except unexpected medical disasters, for which they would have high-deductible catastrophic insurance. Sellers compete on price and quality for buyers’ dollars, not for contracts as they do now.

Reconnecting buyers directly with sellers — cutting out a third-party payer — restores the two key market forces to health care: the need of buyers (patients) to economize, and competition among sellers. States, not Washington, can and probably will construct safety nets for those they define as medically vulnerable. Models of both high-risk pools and state-supported HSAs can work well so those at risk will not be denied needed care.

Americans are profoundly frustrated with health care. Before the ACA, health care didn’t work and was too costly. Obamacare made health care more expensive and less responsive. Medicare-for-all will crash the system. Although Americans see no viable alternative, there is a good two-step solution.

First, get out from under federal domination. Implement StatesCare and let “we the people” decide health care more locally. If Californians want single-payer, if Oregonians want universal health care, and if Texans wants market-based care, they all should be free to decide their own fate without federal interference.

Second, Americans should consider market-based medicine as a viable option for their choice of health care.

PG&E May Cut Power In 25 Counties Starting Wednesday Morning

Be prepared today, my readers in Northern California.  You will be given another reason why you need to move your home and business to another State.  How can you live in a State where you are never sure if your computers at work can be turned on or the refrigerator at home will stay cold?

“Pacific Gas and Electric may shut off power again to customers in the Sierra Foothills, North Valley and North Bay this week because of possible fire weather. 

The utility said in a statement Sunday that its teams are monitoring the forecast, which currently predicts high winds for Wednesday, Nov. 20.

The latest shut off could affect 303,000 customers in 25 counties.

PG&E estimates there are on average three people for each customer account, which means as many as 900,000 people could be affected by the outages.”

Yet Guv Newsom seems to not care—or at least the media and other elected officials have determined to socialize our energy and make it worse—and more expensive.  Wait till the Governor OWNS your electricity.

Photo courtesy of lydiashiningbrightly, flickr

PG&E May Cut Power In 25 Counties Starting Wednesday Morning

Capitol Public Radio,  11/17/19 

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. employee Amara Hayashida, left, helps a resident locate his residence on a map to see if he will be impacted by a possible power outage at a PG&E community resource center on Monday, Oct. 28, 2019, in Berkeley, Calif.

Pacific Gas and Electric may shut off power again to customers in the Sierra Foothills, North Valley and North Bay this week because of possible fire weather. 

The utility said in a statement Sunday that its teams are monitoring the forecast, which currently predicts high winds for Wednesday, Nov. 20.

The latest shut off could affect 303,000 customers in 25 counties.

PG&E estimates there are on average three people for each customer account, which means as many as 900,000 people could be affected by the outages.

The National Weather Service says dry weather early this week will be followed by gusty winds Wednesday into Thursday for parts of Northern California, potentially increasing the risk of fires. 

Hundreds of homes were destroyed this fall by large wildfires across the state. Last month, PG&E shut-off power to millions of people to try and prevent its equipment from sparking wildfires amid dry weather and historically strong winds.

PG&E began a policy of cutting power to prevent fires in October of last year, one month before the Camp Fire killed 84 people in Butte County. That fire has since been blamed on PG&E equipment, which the utility decided not to shut off in the hours preceding it.

PG&E customers can sign up for updates and monitor updates from the utility on its website.

San Jose: First we TAX—Then Decide How to Use $$

We know Democrats and Progressives love taxes.  In San Jose, they are so tied to stealing from workers, that they propose a tax—and will decide later on how to spend the money.  In other words, they are open about their views that YOU are too stupid to spend your own money.

“San Jose lawmakers on Tuesday are expected to approve drafting an affordable housing tax measure for the March 2020 ballot, but differ on how to divvy up the funds that the tax will generate — a frequent dilemma among a City Council that is often at odds with one another.

In a memo to their colleagues, Mayor Sam Liccardo and Councilmembers Lan Diep and Raul Peralez are advocating to allocate half the funds for housing that prioritizes extremely-low income households. They want to allocate another 40 percent of the funds for affordable rental housing and 10 percent for below market-rate for-sale housing and moderate-income rentals.

They propose dedicating 5 percent for homeless prevention programs and 5 percent for city administrative costs.

What this does do is make the cost of housing more expensive for the middle class.  The rich don’t care about the cost—and the poor do not pay, taxpayers do.  Just another example of why folks are leaving California.  San Jose has a housing crisis—the costs are too high.  To solve it?  They want to increase the cost of housing.  Is there a pill for this illiteracy?

San Jose leaders split on how to spend housing tax revenue

by Nadia Lopez, San Jose Spotlight,   11/19/19 

San Jose lawmakers on Tuesday are expected to approve drafting an affordable housing tax measure for the March 2020 ballot, but differ on how to divvy up the funds that the tax will generate — a frequent dilemma among a City Council that is often at odds with one another.

In a memo to their colleagues, Mayor Sam Liccardo and Councilmembers Lan Diep and Raul Peralez are advocating to allocate half the funds for housing that prioritizes extremely-low income households. They want to allocate another 40 percent of the funds for affordable rental housing and 10 percent for below market-rate for-sale housing and moderate-income rentals.

They propose dedicating 5 percent for homeless prevention programs and 5 percent for city administrative costs.

“This general levy is a necessary but not sufficient means to boost city resources to combat this crisis, and we will return to council to discuss a commercial linkage fee and other options in the weeks and months ahead,” they wrote.

The mayor and his co-signers also propose strong accountability and transparency measures, including requiring a 60-day notice and a two-thirds council vote before lawmakers shift funding, and creating a citizens oversight committee.

But in a separate memo, three other councilmembers called for devoting 15 percent of funds to address tenant protections and homeless prevention. They also propose setting aside no less than 45 percent for extremely low-income housing, 35 percent for very low-income and low-income households and no more than 5 percent for moderate income.

They also suggest strong investments in labor-backed policies rooted in preservation, such as land acquisitions, community land trusts and limited equity housing cooperatives.

“While we recognize that the proposed tax measure is to raise funds for general purposes of the city, the housing crisis affects many and, we know that it disproportionately affects those in the extremely low income bracket,” wrote Councilmembers Sylvia Arenas, Magdalena Carrasco and Maya Esparza in a joint memo. “That is precisely why we recommend that a significant amount of the revenue generated from this measure be directed to those with the highest need.”

Councilmember Johnny Khamis is expected to release a memo Monday opposing the tax altogether, saying residents here are already overtaxed and the measure punishes those looking to sell their homes and leave the Bay Area.

In a poll conducted last week, more than 60 percent of San Jose voters supported the potential real property transfer tax, which would apply to the sale of properties valued at $2 million or more. The survey, which polled 806 registered voters likely to vote in the March 2020 primary, found a majority of likely San Jose voters support the tax to generate funds for affordable housing.

“Given the serious needs San Jose faces, with a variety of issues, including homelessness and the lack of affordable housing, emergency response, the administration recommends that the council take the next step in considering placing this potential measure on the ballot,” said Lee Wilcox, the chief of staff to the city manager, in a memo last week.

City officials estimate that only 5 percent of all single-family homes, condominiums and townhomes in San Jose will be affected, primarily the sale of commercial and industrial buildings.

The potential tax only needs a simple majority to pass. San Jose would join many other Bay Area cities in implementing such a tax, including San Francisco, which passed its tiered transfer tax in 2016.

But unlike those cities, San Jose’s tax would be much lower, starting at $3.75 per $500 of transfer value from $2 to $5 million, $5 per $500 of transfer value from $5 to $10 million and $7.50 per $500 of transfer value for transfers more than $10 million. Oakland and San Francisco’s tiered rates begin at $10 per $1,000 for up to $300,000 and $5 per $1,000 for up to $250,000, all of which increase incrementally.

If passed by voters, the tax increase would raise about $70 million each year, according to city officials.

Once approved Tuesday, city officials will return to the council by Dec. 3 with a ballot language draft. The deadline for the city to submit a draft to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters is Dec. 6.

Climate Smart San José

Also on Tuesday, local leaders will hear an update on the city’s ambitious environmental plan to address climate change by reducing at least 40 percent of San Jose’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

“The climate challenges of this century directly affect the quality of life of all residents in San Jose,” wrote Kerrie Romanow, director of the city’s environmental services department. “Over the past two years, across California, the United States, and worldwide, there have been more frequent and disruptive flooding events, degraded air quality from massive wildfires and record-breaking extreme heat events. San Jose has been no stranger to such occurrences.”

City leaders launched a community choice energy program, which allows residents to choose a renewable, carbon-free energy source to power their homes and businesses. Now, officials want to expand the plan by including a “zero-waste” initiative, which will assess the city’s zero waste strategies and determine how many emissions are coming from solid waste.

The plan also includes a wide set of environmentally friendly reforms the city hopes to achieve, which include prohibiting natural gas in new construction projects citywide by Jan. 2023 and partnering with San Jose Clean Energy to provide 100 percent carbon-free energy to residents within the next two years.

San Jose is also working on reducing emissions from its “two most significant sources” — buildings and transportation projects. According to city data, transportation accounts for 63 percent of San Jose’s greenhouse gas emissions. The data-driven initiative seeks to reduce greenhouse gasses by increasing high-density housing, transitioning to renewable energy sources and creating local jobs to reduce traffic congestion and develop better public transit infrastructure.

Less than 25% of LAUSD seniors last year took the type of math/quantitative reasoning class California State University wants to make a requirement

Sending your child to LAUSD, to many is a priori evidence of child abuse.  Education is not practiced in the schools—hatred, junk science, intolerance for America—that is what you learn.  Want to go to college?  Not for 74% of the students, by their own data.

“As the country’s largest four-year public university considers adding a fourth-year math/quantitative reasoning requirement to its admissions standards, new data obtained by The 74 shows less than a quarter of L.A. Unified seniors last year took such a class.

About 23.5 percent of seniors — or 8,472 of 36,124 — were enrolled in a fourth-year math/quantitative reasoning course during the 2018-19 school year, according to the district’s Office of General Counsel. The California State University system, which spans 23 campuses and serves some 481,000 students, will decide in the coming weeks whether to tack on this type of elective class to its admissions requirements for prospective freshmen, starting in fall 2027 when current fifth-graders enter college.

That more than 75 percent of seniors in the state’s largest school district were not enrolled in what could become a required CSU admissions course elicited serious concerns from advocates already worried about college access and readiness among L.A. Unified graduates, less than half of whom were on track to be eligible for CSU admissions last year under the current standards.

Where are the classes in burger flipping and taco shell filling—that is what 75% of the students have to look forward to with their worthless LAUSD “diploma’s.  Another reason over 100,000 students are in LA area charter schools—with another 100,000 begging to get an education.  LAUSD is why government education is a waste and a failure.  What to stop crime?  LAUSD needs to education students, not indoctrinate them.

Less than 25% of LAUSD seniors last year took the type of math/quantitative reasoning class California State University wants to make a requirement

Taylor Swaak, Los Angeles School Report,  11/18/19    

As the country’s largest four-year public university considers adding a fourth-year math/quantitative reasoning requirement to its admissions standards, new data obtained by The 74 shows less than a quarter of L.A. Unified seniors last year took such a class.

About 23.5 percent of seniors — or 8,472 of 36,124 — were enrolled in a fourth-year math/quantitative reasoning course during the 2018-19 school year, according to the district’s Office of General Counsel. The California State University system, which spans 23 campuses and serves some 481,000 students, will decide in the coming weeks whether to tack on this type of elective class to its admissions requirements for prospective freshmen, starting in fall 2027 when current fifth-graders enter college.

That more than 75 percent of seniors in the state’s largest school district were not enrolled in what could become a required CSU admissions course elicited serious concerns from advocates already worried about college access and readiness among L.A. Unified graduates, less than half of whom were on track to be eligible for CSU admissions last year under the current standards.

This should be “raising alarm bells for everyone,” said Elisha Smith Arrillaga, executive director of the Education Trust-West. “We need to have a serious conversation as a state about who has access to college and who doesn’t.”

Data also revealed that of the 35 math/quantitative reasoning courses L.A. Unified counted in 2018-19, all were math, with at least 80 percent listed as precalculus or calculus. This, advocates added, underscores the likely hurdles districts will face offering additional courses to all of their students — especially classes other than math. CSU in its proposal has touted the possibility of students taking quantitative reasoning courses, such as statistics, computer science or personal finance, to fulfill the requirement.

These findings speak to the necessity of having data-driven policy, said Michele Siqueiros, president of the Campaign for College Opportunity. CSU’s proposal, which purports that the “majority of California students already meet the proposed requirement,” leans on data limited to students who applied to the Cal State system or who are already currently enrolled. This, advocates argue, discounts students who want a college education but who are already struggling to meet the bar for admissions.

“Why do we have to rely just on CSU data and public records requests to get this kind of information?” Siqueiros asked in response to The 74’s findings. “That is no good way to make very significant policy changes or admissions changes to the CSU.”

James T. Minor, CSU’s assistant vice chancellor and senior strategist who presented the official proposal to trustees, said he “would find it difficult to believe” that L.A. Unified students don’t have access to courses beyond math that would satisfy the prospective requirement.

Under the proposal, he noted, students could also complete certain CSU-approved science or Career and Technical Education courses, or enroll in a qualifying class at a local community college. There would also be an automatic waiver for students at under-resourced schools who still don’t offer permissible courses by the 2027 rollout, though a formal provision and parameters haven’t been fleshed out yet.

Minor added that he disagrees with advocates’ tying CSU’s proposal to the systemic college readiness challenges statewide and in districts like L.A. The proposal’s focus, he said, is mainly on students already prepped to attend CSU, and whether it’s reasonable to ask those students to take an additional course to boost their preparedness.

If “nothing changed, LAUSD would still have the same circumstance — that a very high percentage of their students would not be meeting [the] requirements,” he said. “Is that a major challenge for public education in the state of California? Absolutely. Should we be working on that challenge? Absolutely. But it’s beyond the scope of this proposal.”

Still, CSU officials reason that the additional admissions requirement would promote equity, in part by expanding marginalized students’ access to more rigorous pre-college coursework and opportunities in STEM-linked fields. They’ve also touted the benefits of quantitative reasoning-based courses in teaching problem-solving and critical thinking.

The system’s Board of Trustees, which ramped up conversations on the proposal over the summer and has the power to approve the change, is discussing it again Wednesday morning, with an official vote delayed to January.

Existing barriers in L.A.

Students in districts like L.A. already confront glaring disparities in college access. Less than half of L.A. Unified’s Class of 2019 cohort — a projected 46 percent — was eligible to apply to the CSU under current admissions standards, which require a C or better in three high school math courses: Algebra I, Geometry and Algebra II.

If that percentage holds, it would mark a slight dip from the prior two years, though it still sits above above the 43 percent statewide average publicly available for 2018. About half of California school districts don’t align their graduation requirements to CSU admissions standards, like L.A. Unified does.

The district has also cited concerns with procuring the funds to implement such a proposal. L.A. Unified has been walking a financial tightrope; it lost a June bid for a $500 million annual parcel tax and continues to struggle to rein in deficit spending and adopt balanced budgets that appease county overseers.

“We’re strong supporters of rigor, and we do want to prepare our students for a four-year university. However, we also know that that takes time. It takes money. It takes communication. It takes capacity,” said Katherine Trejo, a former L.A. Unified student who now manages United Way of Greater Los Angeles’s Young Civic Leaders Program.

Both Trejo and college sophomore Mariel Mendoza said they attended high schools in L.A. that only offered one fourth-year math/quantitative reasoning course.

For Trejo, who graduated from a downtown L.A. high school in 2012, it was an AP Calculus class. Her pilot school, unlike most other district schools, required that fourth year. So she took it first semester senior year — failed — and was forced to retake precalculus before graduating.

Mendoza’s Koreatown high school, which she graduated from in 2018, offered an AP statistics course. Students including herself avoided the class, though, she said, because they didn’t feel prepared to take on the advanced material.

The dearth in course diversity and many students’ unawareness of college admissions standards was “heartbreaking,” Mendoza said. In the case of the latest 2018-19 data out of L.A. Unified, it’s unclear whether low enrollment in those fourth-year classes was mainly attributable to capacity issues because of teacher shortages, or if it was also due in part to students choosing not to take them.

“I’m a student of color, and coming from a school like mine [that didn’t have a lot of resources] — we want to have the opportunity to attend a four-year college,” she said. Mendoza is attending both California State University-Los Angeles and Los Angeles City College part-time, majoring in business with plans to be an accountant.

L.A. Unified has made some strides in getting students college-ready, Trejo noted. About 16 percent of the district’s 2018 graduates enrolled in the CSU system, for example, up from about 12.5 percent in 2014. But even L.A. Unified officials themselves say there is still considerable work to be done to ensure more minority and low-income students have access to postsecondary education.

L.A. Unified’s school board passed a resolution in June opposing CSU’s proposal, claiming it would “further exacerbate barriers to accessing the CSU system” and “ignores the real challenges of limited quantitative course offerings and teachers required to meet such a requirement.” Now-former Chief Academic Officer Frances Gipson acknowledged at that board meeting that, “I don’t know that we are necessarily prepared” to teach a fourth year to all students, citing “the staffing requirements, the partnership requirements” that would be needed to “move forward elegantly.”

Kelly Gonez, a district board member who spoke out against the proposal at a CSU public hearing in August, continues to be disenchanted by the university system’s solution to creating equity.

“The change will disproportionately impact our students with the highest needs, including underrepresented, low-income, and first-generation students,” she wrote in a statement Thursday to The 74. “I appreciate the CSU’s effort to strengthen the transition to college, but we can build better pathways without denying opportunities for our most marginalized students.”

Seeing the data differently

Part of the discord surrounding the proposal is rooted in differing opinions about its scope — whom it ultimately affects, and what data matters as it moves forward.

From CSU’s perspective, the proposal is “concerned with CSU-bound students,” Minor, the assistant vice chancellor and senior strategist, said. “[We’re trying to discern]: Among the students who will arrive to the CSU, who are meeting the [current] requirements, and is it reasonable to ask them to take one additional course to strengthen their preparation for college success?”

From that angle, the data in the proposal tell a more optimistic story. A reported 93 percent of the 126,071 regularly admitted fall 2018 applicants would have met the prospective requirement, according to information acquired through CSU’s recent data-sharing agreement with the California Department of Education. That trend held up fairly well across racial lines, with 88 percent of African-American applicants and 91 percent of Latino applicants having already taken a course that could count.

For L.A. Unified specifically, a reported 91 percent of the 15,169 regularly admitted students in fall 2018 would have met the suggested new standard.

When asked whether there was any intention to conduct further research to glean high school-level data, Minor responded affirmatively but provided no details, calling the idea of amassing statewide high school data “sort of a false setup.”

“We have to have reasoned discussions. … Not simply impassioned, sort of emotional pleas based on worry about what might happen in the future,” Minor said. “I think we all collectively have to have the courage to go forward.”

Advocates, for now, remain unconvinced and say they will continue their opposition. The Campaign for College Opportunity and Ed Trust-West plan to be at Wednesday’s meeting, urging trustees to press pause on the measure.

If it moves forward, “We plan to galvanize all the forces,” Siqueiros said.

Governor Newsom Pardons Three Criminals To Block Their Deportation

Do we need more known criminals on our streets?  Guv Newsom thinks so.  In fact, he is giving three illegal aliens a pardon, so they can not be deported.  My bet, is that ICE doesn’t care about Newsom and his assistance to criminals.  But, when will ICE and DOJ indict and arrest him for being a co-conspirator in numerous crimes?

“While Newsom did not hold a press conference or offer comment on the pardons, his office did release a brief statement.

All three of the former criminals pardoned Friday had been convicted of violent crimes.

Cambodian Samon Pho was released from prison in 2007 after serving 12 years under an attempted murder charge while Vietnamese Quyen Mai was let out in 2008 after serving three years for being an accessory to a shooting. The other former prisoner, Vietnamese Dat Vu had been imprisoned with two counts of assault and threatening a witness.

Pho in particular was pardoned after a spirited campaign was started in October after he was detained by immigration officials. A rally in Sacramento, which garnered national attention, had even been held. The rally pressured state officials, particularly Governor Newsom, to do something about the growing number of Southeast Asian deportations. California’s status as a sanctuary state helped force Newsom’s hand, especially since all three had been released more than a decade ago and have had clean records ever since.

Doesn’t California have enough murderers on our streets—do we need a Governor that wants more?

Governor Newsom Pardons Three Criminals To Block Their Deportation

Newsom’s unusual maneuver could be used again in the near future

By Evan Symon, California Globe,  11/18/19  

Three formerly imprisoned criminals from Cambodia and Vietnam were pardoned by Governor Newsom late last week to stop them from being deported back.

The pardons were Governor Newsom’s latest actions over immigration and deportation issues in California. Since Newsom took office early this year the Trump administration has added more laws and has increased deportation for those with criminal records. One of the main areas of the world being focused on by the administration is Southeast Asia, where spikes in crime, particularly concerning the drug trade.

While Newsom did not hold a press conference or offer comment on the pardons, his office did release a brief statement.

All three of the former criminals pardoned Friday had been convicted of violent crimes.

Cambodian Samon Pho was released from prison in 2007 after serving 12 years under an attempted murder charge while Vietnamese Quyen Mai was let out in 2008 after serving three years for being an accessory to a shooting. The other former prisoner, Vietnamese Dat Vu had been imprisoned with two counts of assault and threatening a witness.

Pho in particular was pardoned after a spirited campaign was started in October after he was detained by immigration officials. A rally in Sacramento, which garnered national attention, had even been held. The rally pressured state officials, particularly Governor Newsom, to do something about the growing number of Southeast Asian deportations. California’s status as a sanctuary state helped force Newsom’s hand, especially since all three had been released more than a decade ago and have had clean records ever since.

But his use of pardons to effectively end deportations of someone has been called into question by many, who see it as a backdoor way for jailed and formerly jailed criminals to avoid being sent back.

“It may be seen as precedent now,” said Martin Wong, a Los Angeles-area immigration lawyer. “This is a powerful tool, and if you use it now for a few, there’s not much stopping future pardons of others, maybe even those currently in jail or with more violent crimes.

“What you also need to take into account is when they got here. In Friday’s case all three had gotten here as children, leaving Cambodia during the genocide of Pol Pot in Cambodia, or getting out of Vietnam after wars with the United States and China. Or, in both cases, leaving the hardship both countries experienced after those wars and incidents.”

“There’s also some question of other immigrants from Central America who could ask the Governor to be pardoned, lest they go back to countries like El Salvador and Nicaragua where they were fleeing drug cartels and dictatorships.”

“We need to take all that into account. Some we’re looking to deport don’t even speak the language of the country they were born in – how is it justified to deport them then? Is it justifiable to break apart families? Or to send away the families only means of money?”

“Criminals should be punished, and if their crimes were particularly bad, they lost their right to being in the country. But this isn’t a black and white issue. There’s tons of factors people don’t see. Everyone the Governor pardoned had people relying on them here. Plus the crimes were older and they have since become upstanding citizens. They paid their time to society.”

“But for others who are petitioning the Governor and may receive it because out of fear from repercussions in the country or from the administration doing this, it’s not that easy an issue, and it’s not easy for a Governor to decide.”

Governor Newsom’s office had earlier called their deportations “an unjust collateral consequence that would harm their family and community.”

More pardons may be coming in the future as the Trump administration has plans to deport a greater number of convicted criminals. How many to be pardoned and what threshold there is for pardoning reasons remains to be seen.

New “Benefit” for Teachers: Housing!

Watch as EVERY school district turns from education to becoming housing developers and speculators.  No need to worry about math scores—do your teachers have taxpayer subsidized housing.  And, if teachers have it, why not cops and firefighters.  If they have it, why not social workers.  In the future government work will include a salary, health care, pension, workers comp and housing.  Work—government can not afford it.

“Families place an enormous amount of trust on teachers, counselors, coaches and administrators to take care of their child for six or more hours per day. Yet, with the cost of living skyrocketing in Santa Clara County, the ability to attract and retain highly qualified school employees has become more challenging each year.

In an effort to help address this issue, on Oct. 17, the East Side Union High School District Board of Trustees voted unanimously to place a $60 million general obligation bond on the March 3, 2020 ballot to pay for 100 units of executive style housing for district employees. The proposed complex for teachers and classified staff will be built on 4.5 acres of district property located at 830 N. Capitol Avenue, adjacent to the district’s main office.

If this measure passes by district voters, it will authorize $60 million in locally controlled funds to construct below market rental housing for teachers and staff members. This project will attract, hire and retain highly-qualified teachers and support staff for our local high schools in East Side Union High School District.

Why is education so expensive?  It isn’t—social welfare for employees is expensive.  Once housing is included in union contracts, what is next, Dodger or Giant tickets—teachers are so poorly paid they can not afford the tickets—so add that to the benefits!

Funk: Employee housing bond is a win-win for the community

by Chris Funk, San Jose Spotlight,  11/18/19 

Every day, approximately 1.7 million students attend public schools.

Families place an enormous amount of trust on teachers, counselors, coaches and administrators to take care of their child for six or more hours per day. Yet, with the cost of living skyrocketing in Santa Clara County, the ability to attract and retain highly qualified school employees has become more challenging each year.

In an effort to help address this issue, on Oct. 17, the East Side Union High School District Board of Trustees voted unanimously to place a $60 million general obligation bond on the March 3, 2020 ballot to pay for 100 units of executive style housing for district employees. The proposed complex for teachers and classified staff will be built on 4.5 acres of district property located at 830 N. Capitol Avenue, adjacent to the district’s main office.

If this measure passes by district voters, it will authorize $60 million in locally controlled funds to construct below market rental housing for teachers and staff members. This project will attract, hire and retain highly-qualified teachers and support staff for our local high schools in East Side Union High School District.

Bond funds will be used to construct rental housing for our employees to allow them to reside in the communities where they work. The measure will build approximately 100 1-bedroom, 2 bedroom and 3-bedroom units of below-market, high quality rental housing. Employees will be able to live in these units for up to seven years to help with expenses that newly-hired employees face while working in Silicon Valley.

At East Side Union High School District, we have been researching for the past four years financial models to deliver this project to our employees. Most models either left the general fund unprotected or the district would have to give up ownership of its land or relinquish the rights to whom would be eligible to rent the units.

In California, school districts use general obligation bonds to fund school construction and renovation projects. Similar to a home loan, these bonds are repaid over a set number of years. The repayment of funds comes from taxes levied on all taxable properties — residential, commercial and industrial-located within the district.

The average annual assessed tax levy for our measure is expected to be approximately $2.70 per $100,000 of assessed valuation. On $500,000 assessed value, that would be $13.50 per year, per owner.

Assessed valuation should not be confused with market value. The assessed valuation is the value placed on the property by Santa Clara County at the time a property is sold or undergoes a major renovation and is typically lower than market value.

Our community over the years has supported several general obligation bonds for school construction.

We have demonstrated with each bond that’s passed that ESUHSD has been a fiscally responsible agent of taxpayers’ bond dollars. Our schools are beautiful, and we have had no findings in our audits for the past ten years. We continue to have a strong independent Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee, which must review and audit all bond expenditures. Funds are prohibited from being used for general operating expenses. There are legal safeguards, which prohibit the state from taking these funds and spending them in other districts.

Another unique aspect of this funding model is that the housing project will generate net revenue to the district general fund.

Because taxpayers will pay the principal and interest on the bond and because the district retains 100% ownership of the land and of the housing units, net revenue from the rents will support the general fund. We anticipate the housing units to generate $1 million in the first several years and climb as high as $3 million annually thereafter.

In the future, we see the possibility of helping our employees with down payments on purchasing their first home by using the revenue from rents. This would be similar to programs such as Landed, which helps educators with down payments on homes.

We see this initiative as a win-win for our community.

By decreasing the commute time for our employees, reducing the need for a second job or the need to double up in shared living spaces, we will increase the quality of life for our employees, which in turn, increases the quality of their working environment.  Property values go up when the quality of education at our public schools go up.

The time is now to improve access to quality housing for our public education employees.

McClatchy Stock Down 81.7% in a year—Will Sac, Modesto, Fresno Bee be closed?

The dead tree industry is dying.  The Fresno, Modesto and Sacramento Bee, along with the SLO Union Tribune is owned by McClatchy—a company that has lost 81% of its value in a year and went down 37% in a day.  If you get the paper—or see it in a coffee shop—regardless of city, notice that the paper is as thick as toilet paper—take out the few ads and you get toilet paper—good enough to use in San Fran.

“In the last five years, the EPS of the company has been roughly -49.4%. Though the percentage looks disappointing, extra tailwinds are emerging as looking out over a next 5-year period, with analysts estimating that their earnings will increase annually by 5%. The revenue of the company has retreated at an average annualized rate of about -7.9 over the last five years. The company recently recorded a drop of -12.5%, but this figure is rather unattractive.

No ads, no subscribers, no revenues—but this is the status of the entire industry.  The former LA Times, now the El Segundo Times was either going belly up or bought for a song—a billionaire Democrat donor bought it.  Newsweek, the venerable news magazine was sold for $1—not a typo, see here:

Fake News is cheap and losing money.  At some point somebody might notice.

Photo courtesy of prayitno, flickr

The McClatchy Company (MNI) Sinks 37.79%, Brings Too Much Of A Surprise


Melissa Arnold, Press Recorder,  11/15/19 

The McClatchy Company (NYSE:MNI) is one of the stocks that are taking the center stage today as the company shares are trading 37.79% or 0.529 points lower from last closing price of $1.4, reaching $0.871 at last check. So what’s going on with MNI shares anyway? The price is losing for the fourth day in a row and has dropped in 4 of the last 5 days and is down -36.65% over the past week. It will be exciting to see whether the stock manages to continue decreasing or take a minor break for the next few days. The move came on weak volume too with far less shares changing hands than in a normal session. Trading activity as of this writing weakened by -146,367 shares, and in total 112333 shares valued at $97842 were seen changing hands compared with 258700 shares valued at $362180 recorded at the previous session. You should take into consideration that a falling volume on lower prices shows the bearish trend but this is an early indication which means that the MNI stock is near its bottom.

The McClatchy Company (MNI) shares have notched a 3-month decline of about -36.65%, but has still tumbled -81.7% year to date. By comparison, the stock sank -81.78% over the past 12 months, while it slipped -49.64% over the 1 month. The company’s market cap is around $11.69M, with its short interest ratio standing at 18.19%.

In the current trading session for MNI, the stock witnessed two major price actions, it rose to a high of $1.26 and was down as much as $0.7754 at one point. The high recorded is very low when compared to their 52-week high which is $1.38. The 52-week high is now at -89.31 distance from current price. Their recent low of $8.25 represents a -36.07% recovery. This data is quite important for investors who look to benefit from the recent rise of the company’s stock. The price target currently for MNI is $2.5, this is below the recent high that the stock attained. Taking a look at the overall sentimental views of financial analysts, the trading pattern of this stock recently is very clear.

The stock of The McClatchy Company earned $-10.18 per share in the trailing 12 months and has a P/E ratio of -0.09. You can compare it with that of similar companies in its industry to get a sense of whether the stock you’re looking to purchase is overvalued or undervalued. Its current price to earnings ratio is lower than the ones recorded by the industry which is 27.36 and lower compared to the sector’s average of 35.92. When the P/E ratio is low let’s say below 1.0, then the stock price is considered a good value. MNI also has P/S multiple of 0.01. This is smaller versus the 12 month P/S ratios of other companies in the same indutry. The peer average price to sales ratio is 1.51x.

MNI‘s last price was down -74.06% as compared to the average trading price of 50 days recorded at $3.36 while enlarging the period to 200 trading days, the average closing price was $2.62. At present, there are 8.35 million in the total number of common shares owned by the public and among those 4.69 million shares have been available to trade. The percentage of shares being held by the company management was 20.88% while institutions stake was 64.5%. The company has generated positive returns on equity over the last 12 months (24.3%). It managed to keep its gross profit margin at 93.4% over the past 12 months.

When assessing the full upside of the MNI stock, there is another set of technicals that should be looked into and considered. Its -66.43% decline from moving average of $2.59 has brought about a negative sentiment when calculated over the last 20 days. The market has allocated a beta of 0.21 to the stock. With the beta been less than one, this implies that the company shares are theoretically less volatile than the market, something that the traders definitely are keeping an eye on.

In the last five years, the EPS of the company has been roughly -49.4%. Though the percentage looks disappointing, extra tailwinds are emerging as looking out over a next 5-year period, with analysts estimating that their earnings will increase annually by 5%. The revenue of the company has retreated at an average annualized rate of about -7.9 over the last five years. The company recently recorded a drop of -12.5%, but this figure is rather unattractive.