Legal Fights Over California’s Homeless Camps Expand to Supreme Court

The California State Association of Counties and League of California Cities told justices that a string of federal court rulings over the last five years have made addressing health and safety concerns “unworkable.”

Fed up with homeless encampments, California local officials are seeking guidance from the nation’s most powerful judges.

In a legal brief filed Tuesday with the U.S. Supreme Court, the California State Association of Counties and League of California Cities told the justices that a string of federal court rulings over the last five years that restrict cities’ abilities to sweep camps and order residents off the streets have made addressing health and safety concerns “unworkable.”

“The State of California and its cities and counties are engaged in unprecedented efforts to address homelessness through the creation of significant new policy initiatives and funding investments,” the league and association wrote. “However, camping ordinances can be a useful tool in appropriate circumstances in addressing the complex conditions that exist in our homeless populations.”

California cities made a similar appeal in 2019, but the court declined to hear that case.

It all stems from a landmark 2018 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in an Idaho case that was binding on California local governments. Judges then decided that it’s unconstitutional to criminally penalize people camping in public when they lack “access to adequate temporary shelter.”

On Wednesday, more California officials weighed in. The state’s sheriff’s association and police chiefs association, as well as a group of Orange County cities, filed their own brief arguing the Idaho ruling “may have expanded the rights of those suffering from homelessness [while] the rights of business owners, taxpayers, children and other housed citizens to clean, safe, drug-free streets and public areas have been completely ignored.”

Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho filed his own brief, too. And San Diego, which recently began enforcing a sweeping new camping ban, will sign on to a brief being circulated by the city of Seattle, a spokesperson for Mayor Todd Gloria said.

Will Knight, decriminalization director at the National Homelessness Law Center, previously told CalMatters he doesn’t think the Supreme Court will take up the case, given that the question has not come up prominently in federal courts in other parts of the country. Knight criticized cities for trying to get around the technical boundaries of the Idaho ruling and said they should focus instead on expanding individualized housing options for residents.

Meanwhile, political pressure is mounting on cities to more strictly enforce their camping ban. Democratic big-city mayors and Gov. Gavin Newsom have blasted federal judges for rulings that halt encampment sweets.

On Tuesday, Ho sued the city of Sacramento, accusing it of inadequately enforcing a number of recent camping bans such as those near schools and of ignoring residents’ requests to safety issues at camps.

Click here to read the full article in OC Register

Teamsters Union March Shuts Down Sacramento Streets; Demanding Gov. Newsom Sign AB 316

‘F**k Gavin Newsom’ was the Teamsters chant of the day

Tuesday in downtown Sacramento, police blocked off North/South streets near the Capitol all the way from 16th Street down to 3rd Street for a Teamsters Union Protest, causing a massive backup and forcing drivers trying to head south on the numbered streets onto northbound Interstate 5. I was stuck in it following a press conference with the Sacramento District Attorney just a few blocks away. What should have taken 5 minutes ended up taking 30 minutes after being forced onto the freeway. (I’m still irate…)

This was a debacle of epic proportions. But I want to know, who authorized the closure of all of these streets? The Mayor? The Capitol? Assembly Speaker or Senate President? Both?  And why do the Teamsters get to shut down Capitol City streets for a march?

The teamsters want Newsom to sign AB 316 to require a human driver in the cab of all autonomous trucks over 10,000 pounds. This could make the new driverless car technology obsolete in California, according to some business groups. Many tech companies in the industry have said if the bill passes they will leave the state as 22 others have already started implementing regulations to begin testing on roads. With no pathway for autonomy in California they don’t see why they would stay here, one business association representative told me.

The Teamsters’ concern is for their jobs, which is understandable. As the Globe reported:

While AB 316 was authored by Assemblywoman Aguiar-Curry, it was introduced with a bipartisan group of legislators, including Assemblymen Tom Lackey (R-Palmdale) and Ash Kalra (D-San Jose). Both parties have also had a few members each oppose the legislation throughout the year, leading to strange non-party coalitions. Democrats have largely been in favor of the bill because due to alleged safety benefits of the bill as well as massive support of the bill coming from unions such as the Teamsters. Republicans, meanwhile, have been mostly for AB 316 because of many rural areas wanting to keep trucking jobs.

“Lawmakers aren’t against technology, but we see the bill as a safer way for companies to test self-driving trucks,” said Lackey. “We want balance because we believe in people, and we believe in public safety. When surprises happen, physics is not your friend.”

Former Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, now with the California Labor Federation, was a prominent figure at the rally/protest, but she was overshadowed by Lindsay Dougherty, Western Regional VP Teamsters Local 399 who warned, “The governor should know he is in big trouble. We had to bring the General President out here to make him do the right thing.” She goes on: “Gavin Newsom would not take a meeting with our General President.” The crowd booed.

Dougherty lathered up the crowd as she called out Gov. Newsom for his “Bullshit.”

“You’re about to see some fucking rage if you don’t sign the bill,” Dougherty said.

“So, I’m going to end this with a chant,” Dougherty said. But it wasn’t the old leftist trope “Hey Hey Ho Ho, Gavin Newsom’s got to go…”  Lindsay yelled “Fuck Gavin Newsom” repeatedly. Some in the crowd joined her.

The rally/protest was video recorded and posted to Facebook – At the 27.30 minute mark you can hear Lindsay’s lovely chant – HERE ahead of introducing Lorena Gonzalez who commented, “I love having Lindsay around because nobody can complain about me saying ‘Fuck’ anymore.”

Gov. Newsom and his administration oppose AB 316: “Our state is on the cusp of a new era and cannot risk stifling innovation,” said Office of Business and Economic Development Director Dee Dee Myers earlier this year.

Dougherty told the crowd Newsom said he won’t sign the bill.

As the Globe reported:

“However, the bill also saw increased opposition come from within Newsom’s office. The Department of Finance came out against AB 316 over the cost to the state of $1 million yearly to operate it. Transportation officials have said that regulations should be up to the California Department of Motor Vehicles. Safety advisors said that self-driving cars were not causing many accidents. And, perhaps most critically, the Office of Business and Economic Development said that the state would be hurt economically, with driverless vehicle makers being more inclined to move out of state to develop and test new technology.”

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Sacramento Prosecutor Sues California’s Capital City Over Failure to Clean Up Homeless Encampments

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Sacramento’s top prosecutor is suing the city’s leaders over failure to cleanup homeless encampments, escalating a monthslong dispute with leaders in California’s capital city.

County District Attorney Thien Ho announced the lawsuit Tuesday during a news conference in Sacramento, saying the city is seeing a “collapse into chaos” that he said reflects the “erosion of everyday life.” A group of residents and business owners also filed a companion lawsuit against the city.

Ho said his office had asked the city to enforce local laws around sidewalk obstruction and to create additional professionally operated camping sites, but that the city did not.

The lawsuit includes accounts from dozens of city residents living around 14 encampments. Some homeowners recounted being threatened with firearms at their front door and having their properties broken into and vandalized — which has driven some from their homes. Local business owners said they have spent thousands of dollars to upgrade their security systems after their workers were assaulted by homeless people, while calls to city officials seeking help have gone unanswered, the lawsuit said.

“This is a model for the people to stand up and hold their government accountable,” Ho said in an interview Tuesday. “All I’m asking is the city do its job.”

Sacramento County had nearly 9,300 homeless people in 2022, based on data from the annual Point in Time count. That was up 67% from 2019. Roughly three-quarters of the county’s homeless population is unsheltered, and the majority of that group are living on Sacramento streets.

Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg said Ho was politicizing the issue. The city has added 1,200 emergency shelter beds, passed ordinances to protect sidewalks and schools and has created more affordable housing, Steinberg said in a statement.

The city is trying to avoid “the futile trap of just moving people endlessly from one block to the next,” Steinberg said. People’s frustrations are “absolutely justified” but Ho’s actions are a “performative distraction,” he said.

“The city needs real partnership from the region’s leaders, not politics and lawsuits,” he said.

Homeless tent encampments have grown visibly in cities across the U.S. but especially in California, which is home to nearly one-third of unhoused people in the country.

Ho had threatened in August to file charges against city officials if they didn’t implement changes within 30 days. In a letter to the city, Ho demanded that Sacramento implement a daytime camping ban where homeless people have to put their belongings in storage between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m., among other rules.

City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood’s office has also repeatedly urged Ho to work with the city to address the issue, she said.

“It sadly appears the DA would rather point fingers and cast blame than partner to achieve meaningful solutions for our community,” Alcala Wood said in a statement.

Ho, elected in 2022 after vowing on the campaign trail to address the city’s homelessness crisis, said he’s asked the city to share real-time data about available shelter beds with law enforcement. He anticipates the lawsuit will go to trial and hopes a jury will agree with what he has proposed.

“This is a rare opportunity — a rare opportunity — for us to effectuate meaningful, efficient means of getting the critically, chronically unhoused off the streets,” Ho said.

Ho said he supports a variety of solutions including enforcing laws and establishing new programs to provide services to people facing addiction or mental health issues. He said he supports a statewide bond measure that would go toward building more treatment facilities. Voters will weigh in on that measure next year. He also backs the proposed changes in the state’s conservatorship system that would make it easier for authorities to mandate treatment for those with alcohol and drug use disorders.

The dispute between the district attorney and the city was further complicated by a lawsuit filed by a homeless advocacy group earlier this year that resulted in an order from a federal judge temporarily banning the city from clearing homeless encampments during extreme heat. That order is now lifted but the group wants to see it extended.

The attorney for the homeless coalition also filed a complaint with the state bar this month, saying Ho abused his power by pushing the city to clear encampments when the order was in place.

Ho’s news conference included testimony from residents who say the city is not providing resources to deal with homelessness. Emily Webb said people living an encampment near her home have trespassed on her property, blocked her driveway and threatened her family, but city officials have done little to clear the camp.

“We’re losing sleep and exhausted from this stress,” she said Tuesday. “We are beyond frustrated and no longer feel comfortable or safe in our home.”

Click here to read the full article in AP News

Palmdale Man Arrested in Ambush Killing of LASD Deputy; Suspect’s Family Blames Mental Illness

A man accused of ambushing a Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy, killing him with a shot to the head as he sat inside his patrol vehicle, was arrested early Monday, Sept. 18, after an hours-long standoff at his home in Palmdale, Sheriff Robert Luna said.

While Luna described the suspect — Kevin Cataneo Salazar, 29 — as a “coward” who likely targeted the deputy, 30-year-old Ryan Clinkunbroomer, because he was in law enforcement, Salazar’s family said the man was suffering from mental health issues.

“My brother did have schizophrenia,” said Yessica Salazar, the suspect’s sister, outside the family’s Palmdale house on Monday. “He had paranoia. He heard voices.”

She said the family had taken Kevin Salazar to the hospital before and tried to get him help. She said while his mental health issues did not justify the shooting and that she was praying for Clinkunbroomer’s family, she said her family wanted to give their side of the suspect’s story.

“Please don’t judge him as if he was a regular person,” Yessica Salazar said. “He is sick.”

Since Clinkunbroomer was found fatally injured inside his vehicle just steps from the Palmdale sheriff’s station on Saturday, Sept. 16, Luna and other officials have been searching both for the person behind the killing as well as the reason why they attacked the deputy.

Deputies surrounded Salazar’s home in the 37600 block of Barrinson Street starting in the early morning hours of Monday. After his family went outside, Salazar barricaded himself in the home and refused to leave, Luna said. At around 5 a.m., deputies fired tear gas inside the home, prompting Salazar to finally come out.

Los Angeles County jail records show he was arrested at 5:15 a.m. He was being held without bail. A law enforcement source, who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the case, said Salazar would be charged sometime in the next two days and was expected to appear in an Antelope Valley courtroom by Wednesday.

After Salazar was arrested, Luna said deputies found “numerous firearms” inside the home.

Salazar allegedly pulled up alongside Clinkunbroomer at around 6 p.m. Saturday after the deputy stopped his patrol vehicle briefly just outside the Palmdale Sheriff Station. Luna said Salazar suddenly opened fire on Clinkunbroomer, hitting him in the head, then sped off.

Luna said Salazar was the only suspect. He said someone came forward to the department to identify him Sunday after Luna spoke to the media. Earlier Monday, Luna said investigators were still trying to determine what led Salazar to allegedly shoot Clinkunbroomer. The sheriff heavily implied the deputy was targeted because he was a member of law enforcement.

“He was in a marked black and white, right in front of this station,” Luna said.

Neighbors who witnessed the standoff Monday morning described the scene as chaotic, with police vehicles and deputies suddenly packing their street before the sun came up.

Wilbur Cardona, who lives next door, said deputies evacuated him and his family.

“There was a lot of police activity over here, a lot of people with guns,” Cardona said. “It was scary.”

Cardona was familiar with Kevin Salazar, describing him as “a good person.”

“I would suspect nothing like that,” he said. “I wouldn’t see him doing such a thing.”

Clinkunbroomer worked for the Sheriff’s Department for eight years, serving at the Palmdale station since July 2018.

Clinkunbroomer, who went by “Clink” at the Palmdale Sheriff’s station where he’d worked since 2018, was described as caring deeply about his community.

“I could just see this light inside him,” said Raymond Wilson, 58, at a vigil held for Clinkunbroomer on Sunday. “He held this community in such regard and you could tell he wanted to make it even better. Safer.”

Clinkunbroomer was a third-generation member of law enforcement — both his father and grandfather also were deputies with the Sheriff’s Department. Family and coworkers said Clinkunbroomer had gotten engaged just four days before his death.

Click here to read the full article in the Press Enterprise

New Initiative Strikes at Root of Housing Ills

California’s housing crisis is a long time in the making, caused by regulations, land-use restrictions and developer fees that depress supply and drive up the cost of building.

With statewide median home prices hovering around $750,000 and costs in sought-after coastal areas soaring above $1 million, the situation destroys homeownership opportunities for the non-wealthy, sends young families to other states and exacerbates homelessness.

It’s gotten so bad that the state Legislature —  the same body that passed many of the growth controls, urban boundaries and environmental rules at the root of the problem — has passed a succession of laws that make it easier to build (at least within the urban footprint).

Those laws are welcome, but they haven’t yet made a dent because they don’t address the biggest obstacles.

A group called Californians for Home Ownership (californians4homeownership.com) is gathering signatures for a statewide initiative campaign that deals directly with two major cost drivers — the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and developer fees that localities impose on new projects.

Virtually anyone can file a lawsuit that halts or delays construction for years. And CEQA never was intended to be used for housing proposals, so the group would require any lawsuit alleging CEQA noncompliance to be filed by district attorneys or the attorney general.

That would stop labor unions from using the threat of CEQA challenges to secure wage demands from developers and NIMBY activists from stopping the construction of housing near their homes.

None of that is how CEQA was intended to be used, yet it is routinely how CEQA is abused. This is why, for many years, you can find elected officials from both the Democratic and Republican parties acknowledging the problems of CEQA. As this editorial board frequently recalls, Gov. Jerry Brown called CEQA reform “the Lord’s work.”

If Sacramento politicians can’t find the courage to stand up to special interests and change CEQA, this measure might have to do.

The initiative also would “would end the extortionate tax on new homes by capping impact fees at a proportion of construction costs, thereby creating the incentive to build truly affordable homes,” as one of the group’s founders, Steve Hilton, explained in these pages.

One of the reason that builders focus on luxury homes is because outsized fees make it cost-prohibitive to build more affordable places.

Fundamentally, the housing crisis in California is a matter of simple economics. When you make it harder and costlier to build more housing, you get less of it.

If you want more housing to be built in California, you must make it easier to do so. Part of that has been done by the California Legislature through implemented and ongoing zoning and land-use reforms. But the threat of frivolous CEQA lawsuits remains, and costly impact fees remain.

Most initiative proposals fail to raise the money needed to qualify for the ballot and successfully secure support at the polls.

Nevertheless, this idea offers a model for reform.

If lawmakers are serious about the housing crisis, they ought to lend their support to it.

Click here to read the full article at the OC Register

Transgender Rights Activists Protest Women’s Liberation Group Convention in SF

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) — There was a heated protest Saturday in San Francisco where opinions clashed over the issue of Transgender rights.

At the demonstration, outside a hotel where a women’s rights group is holding its convention, protesters say the organization is anti-Trans rights.

“What do we want? Trans justice. When do we want it? Now,” protesters chanted.

A group of demonstrators protested outside the Hilton Hotel in San Francisco’s Financial District, where Women’s Declaration International USA is holding its convention. “WDI” says it’s focused on reigniting the Women’s Liberation Movement, but critics say that’s misleading.

MORE: Chaos at Sunol Glen school board meeting as district votes to ban pride flags

“Their group is what we call ‘TERFs,’ Trans-exclusionary radical feminists,” said Nancy Kato from Reproductive Justice Coalition.

Activist Kato says she believes WDI’s mission is anti-Trans.

“Their basic premise is patriarchy and men are the enemy and therefore focused on Trans women, to say they are not real women,” Kato.

“I’m so happy to see so many people standing in solidarity with the Trans community,” said Honey Mahogany.

MORE: Judge issues temporary restraining order over Chino school board policy on transgender notification

Honey Mahogany, chair of San Francisco’s Democatic Party says WDI is contributing to the spread of misinformation.

“Ultimately, what I’m here to fight today is the misinformation about my community. We are people who have always existed, always been a part of society,” Mahogany said.

Police intervened when several counter protesters attending the women’s conference showed up, including Corrina D’Annible.

“What specific rights are Trans-identified individuals asking for that they don’t already have to begin with? So if we’re talking about the right for males to invade women’s spaces, like I said, the history of male violence is long and storied,” D’Annible said.

MORE: ‘Experience Queer Joy’: SF Pride Parade showcases unity, inclusion and visibility

WDI conference organizers declined an on-camera interview but told us in a statement they do not support counter protesters.

The WDI’S statement went on to say: “We are enjoying our discussions about the rights, privacy and safety of women and girls, including reproductive liberty and the rights of lesbian and bisexual women.”

Protesters called out the Hilton for hosting the conference.

In response, Hotel management told ABC7 News, “As a place of hospitality, the Hilton San Francisco Financial District Hotel strives to serve as a welcoming place for all and does not adopt or endorse the views of any individuals or groups we serve.”

WDI says it’s planning its own rally Monday at San Francisco City Hall. Protesters say they’ll be there.

“San Francisco and the Bay Area, there’s a lot of people who believe the need to build inclusive movements, not exclusive ones,” Kato said.

Click here to read the full article at ABC 7 News

California Targets Smash-and-Grabs With $267 Million Program Aimed at ‘Brazen’ Store Thefts

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California will spend $267 million to help dozens of local law enforcement agencies increase patrols, buy surveillance equipment and conduct other activities aimed at cracking down on smash-and-grab robberies happening around the state.

Officials from the California Highway Patrol and San Francisco and Los Angeles law enforcement agencies made the announcement Friday. It follows a string of brazen luxury store robberies in recent months, where dozens of individuals come into a store and begin stealing en masse.

Videos of the incidents have quickly spread online and fueled critics who argue California takes too lax an approach to crime.

“Enough with these brazen smash-and-grabs — we’re ensuring law enforcement agencies have the resources they need to take down these criminals,” Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement about the grants.

The spending comes from a pot of money Newsom first requested in late 2021, after he signed a law to reestablish a statewide taskforce to focus on investigating organized theft rings. The money will be given through grants to 55 agencies, including local police departments, sheriff’s and district attorney’s offices.

The grants, to be distributed over the next three years, will help local law enforcement agencies create investigative units, increase foot patrol, purchase advanced surveillance technology and equipment, as well as crack down on vehicle and catalytic converter theft — an issue that has become rampant in the Bay Area. The money would also help fund units in district attorney’s offices dedicated to prosecuting these crimes.

California Highway Patrol Commissioner Sean Duryee called the money “a game changer.”

“This is a sizable investment that will be a force multiplier when it comes to combating organized retail crime in California,” he said at a news conference Friday.

Retailers in California and in cities elsewhere around the U.S., including Chicago and Minneapolis, have recently been targeted by large-scale thefts when groups of people show up in groups for mass shoplifting events or to enter stores and smash and grab from display cases.

Several dozen people participated in a brazen smash-and-grab flash mob at a Nordstrom store in the Westfield Topanga Shopping Center last month. Authorities said they used bear spray on a security guard, the Los Angeles Times reported, and the store suffered losses between $60,000 and $100,000.

Video showed a chaotic scene, with masked thieves running through the store – one dragging a display rack behind them. They smashed glass cases and grabbed expensive merchandise like luxury handbags and designer clothing as they fled.

Other high-end malls have been hit in similar fashion in recent years. Lately, a Gucci store and a Yves Saint Laurent store were major targets in the Los Angeles area, prompting authorities to announce a new task force to investigate the crimes.

“No Angeleno should feel like it’s not safe to go shopping in Los Angeles,” Mayor Karen Bass said last month while announcing the new task force. “No entrepreneur should feel like it’s not safe to open a business.”

Since 2019, law enforcement in California has arrested more than 1,250 people and recovered $30.7 million in stolen merchandise, the governor’s office said.

The new funding is essential to help law enforcement respond to large-scale, organized crimes that could turn violent, said Los Angeles Assistant Sheriff Holly Francisco.

Click here to read the full article in AP News

California Legislature Approves Plan Allowing the State to Buy Power

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The California Legislature voted Thursday to give Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration permission to buy massive amounts of electricity, a move aimed at avoiding blackouts by shoring up the state’s power supply while jumpstarting the West Coast’s fledgling offshore wind industry.

Five companies paid roughly $750 million last year to lease areas off the California coast to build wind turbines. Collectively, those projects could generate enough electricity to power 3.5 million homes, helping the state avoid blackouts during extreme heat waves that have routinely strained the electrical grid of the nation’s most populous state.

But so far, the state’s largest utility companies have not been willing to commit to buying power from projects like those because it would cost too much money and take too long to build. In addition to building the wind turbines, the projects will require improvements at the state’s ports and new power lines to transport the energy from the ocean to the land.

“This is a major, generational series of investments that need to happen, and there’s a real risk it won’t if we can’t provide more certainty,” said Alex Jackson, director of American Clean Power Association, which represents the companies trying to build the wind projects.

The bill would let the state buy the power. The money would come from a surcharge imposed on Californians’ electricity bills. State regulators would decide how much this charge would be. Consumers would not pay it until the wind projects are up and running, likely several years from now.

California already has among the highest electricity rates in the country.

“This legislation … means that every single ratepayer in California, no matter where you live, is going to pay for this,” said Republican state Sen. Brian Dahle, who opposes the bill.

Supporters argue the bill will save people money in the long run on their electric bills. California has a law requiring all of its electricity to come from renewable or non-carbon sources by 2045. To do that, supporters say the state will have to invest in offshore wind projects, which typically generate the most power at night when solar energy is not as abundant.

Supporters say it would be more efficient for these offshore wind projects to sell all of their electricity to the state instead of a selling pieces of it to multiple utility companies, helping to control costs and keep rates lower.

“The biggest threat to us meeting our climate goals between now and 2045 are rate impacts to rate payers,” Scott Wetch, a lobbyist representing various construction trade associations, told lawmakers in a recent public hearing. “(This bill) is the only way to bring down those costs on these large, complex, long lead time projects in order to minimize the rate impacts.”

The bill gives the Department of Water Resources the authority to purchase the power — but not forever. Their authority would expire in 2035. Lawmakers would have to vote again to extend it.

California has moved quickly to end its reliance on fossil fuels in recent years. State regulators have OK’d rules banning the sale of most new gas-powered cars by 2035. But the state has struggled maintaining its clean energy values amid that transition.

An extreme heat wave in 2020 overwhelmed the state’s power grid, leaving hundreds of thousands of homes in the dark for a few hours over two days. Similar heat waves in the following summers prompted regulators to ask consumers to use less energy when demand was at its peak in the early evenings.

Newsom and the state Legislature have since spent $3.3 billion to build a “strategic reliability reserve” that included purchasing diesel-powered generators and extending the life of some gas-fired power plants that were scheduled to retire.

“There are things happening right now in energy policy that give me some pause about the efficacy of our strategy,” Democratic state Sen. Henry Stern lamented during a public hearing on the bill last week.

State law requires utility companies to have enough energy to meet demand. If they don’t, the bill would require those companies to pay a penalty. The Newsom administration has said this will prevent utilities from relying too much on the strategic reliability reserve, which uses gas-powered generators that pollute the air.

Click here to read the full article in AP News

Tuition Hike of 34% Across Five Years Coming to California State University

The California State University system voted today to raise tuition 6% annually for the next five years, a decision that seemed destined when its leaders revealed in May that Cal State brings in far less revenue than it needs to educate its nearly half a million students.

The system’s board of trustees voted 15 to 5 to approve the hikes, choosing financial stability over the collective outcry of students and the faculty union that denounced the move.

The Cal State “is a dream engine” but approving tuition hikes is a “nightmare scenario,” said Cal State trustee Jose Antonio Vargas, who ultimately voted for the increases.

The first increase will kick in for all tuition-paying students next fall. For in-state undergraduates, that’ll be an uptick of $342, rising to $6,084 per year. After five years, annual undergraduate tuition will be $1,940 higher than it was in the 2023-24 school year.

Currently, tuition and campus fees at most Cal States are below $8,000 — and below the national average of nearly $10,000.

Cal State is in a race to increase its graduation rates — especially among Black, Latino and Native American students — to make good on a promise that all major ethnic groups graduate at similar levels by 2025. That means more faculty, classes, tutors, mental health professionals and other academic expenses. Other expenses include more than $40 million annually to adopt changes to how the system tracks and resolves sexual discrimination cases after a series of high-profile incidents that led to top officials resigning. Two marquee reports published in July faulted Cal State’s handling of sexual misconduct violations. Also looming over the system is the risk of strikes as workers seek raises Cal State says it cannot afford.

Cal State expects to draw $148 million in new revenues in the first year of the tuition jump. Core to the plan is that one-third of those revenues will support student financial aid.

Around 60% of Cal State undergrads don’t pay any tuition because they receive enough state and system financial aid. An additional 18% of students pay partial tuition. Cal State senior staff say that won’t change under the tuition hike. Meanwhile, a new state grant is sending more money to middle-class students.

Those details were scant consolation to the students raging against the increases during yesterday’s meeting of the Cal State board of trustees. Across roughly 2.5 hours of designated time for public comments, an hour longer than trustees planned, students  inveighed against the trustees for proposing the tuition hikes and reprimanded the trustees for slouching and looking at their phones during the students’ remarks. Some decried what they called the inherent racism of raising revenue through tuition hikes at a system that enrolls mostly students of color. A few admonished Cal State for not explaining how the hikes will affect students who pay full tuition. Others bitterly observed that the incoming system chancellor’s compensation will exceed $1 million.

“Students are supposed to be offered affordable higher education but instead we are slowly being stripped away of our education because the CSU fails to see us as students but instead sees us as their salary increases,” said Cassandra Garcia, the student body president at Sonoma State. 

“You watch your students sleep in cars from the comfort of your gated communities,” another student from Cal State Dominguez Hills said.

“We are working numerous jobs just to be able to attend and you want to raise tuition,” said Courtland Briggs, a student from Cal State Channel Islands. “It’s pathetic. Y’all are pathetic.”

Shortly after the public comment session Tuesday, Interim Chancellor Jolene Koester tried to quell the nerves of trustees. “I know you are uncomfortable and I appreciate your discomfort,” she said. But Koester reiterated her comments in July that it’s never a good time to raise tuition and expecting students to ever support hikes is “fantasy.” 

Among the trustees opposing the hikes were two prominent California lawmakers and likely gubernatorial hopefuls who sit on the board of trustees: Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, who has announced she’s running for governor in 2026, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, who’s been “seriously considering” jumping into the race.

Kounalakis said the trustees “headed into an action that you do not fully understand the consequences of,” she said today before the vote. Even if 60% of undergraduates don’t pay tuition, 184,000 students do. “I don’t see how we can do this without knowing what a $2,000 a year increase is going to mean for our students. We know anecdotally that a lot of students are going to drop out.” She wanted to postpone the vote until trustees learned more — and let the incoming chancellor who starts next month make the final call.

Trustee Lillian Kimbell pushed back, saying while she doesn’t know how the hike will affect the students paying tuition, she knows “100%” of students will experience a worse academic experience without the added revenue.

Twelve of the 20 trustees also shot down an effort by a student member, Diana Aguilar-Cruz, to limit the tuition hikes to four years rather than five. Doing this would have cost the system $126 million in lost revenue, said Koester. Still, the board is empowered to shorten the length of the hikes in the future.

Tuition hikes were on the table since May, when a task force concluded that Cal State needs at least $1.5 billion annually in new revenue to afford student services and bolster its academic offerings.

“This is a lot like climate change,” said Julia Lopez, a CSU trustee and co-chairperson of the working group, at the May trustees meeting. “If we don’t heed the warning signs right now, we’re going to find ourselves in a world of hurt down the line. So that’s what we’re trying to do, to get ahead of that.

Daniel Fanous, a third-year business major at CSU Bakersfield, pays full tuition, so the hike will affect him. Fanous said he covers the costs by working a full-time job seven days a week, and with support from his parents. 

“I think that, over time, if they keep increasing it, a lot of people are going to see value elsewhere in life than just getting an education formally,” Fanous said. 

Kathryn Flores, a third-year liberal studies major also at CSU Bakersfield, pays for her tuition both out-of-pocket and with student loans.

“I feel scared about it because I pay for my own college tuition,” she said. “My parents don’t pay for it.”

“If we don’t heed the warning signs right now, we’re going to find ourselves in a world of hurt down the line. So that’s what we’re trying to do, to get ahead of that.”JULIA LOPEZ, CSU TRUSTEE AND CO-CHAIRPERSON OF THE WORKING GROUP

The tuition hikes were formally proposed in July and were met with instant opposition from the system’s faculty union, the California Faculty Association, which represents about half of Cal State’s roughly 60,000 workers, as well as a student group affiliated with the union.

“CFA opposes student tuition increases,” said Charles Toombs, the union’s president, at the July trustees meeting. He called on the system to prioritize the state support it already receives and advocate for more state funding. He also reiterated that Cal State should spend more of its money on student instruction and advancement.

The union reiterated its opposition to the hikes this week ahead of the trustees meeting with an email blast that said its members ”unequivocally oppose the 6% multi-year tuition increase.”

The system’s academic senate, which represents professors on academic matters, passed a resolution this month asking the Cal State trustees to delay its tuition-hike vote “until the impact of such a tuition increase on enrollments and diversity has been analyzed and reported upon.”

The resolution also criticized the trustees for formally discussing the tuition hike for the first time in July, when most students and professors aren’t in class.

It’s a point underscored by Dominic Quan Treseler, president of the systemwide Cal State Student Association. “You cannot tell me we wouldn’t have had twice as many protesters outside of those doors If this was not presented three weeks after school started,” he said during remarks to the board Tuesday.

While about 42% of undergraduates borrow to attend Cal State, a new report co-sponsored by the student association finds that almost two-thirds of those students come from families that earn less than $54,000.

Given those figures, Treseler said, the tuition hikes “will continuously suffocate and impede the success of our students and the system.” And because two-thirds of Black students borrow, he added, a tuition increase “will decimate the Black student population across our system.”

He noted that many students who want to avoid borrowing must work more than 20 hours a week to afford college expenses beyond tuition, such as housing, food and transportation. This tuition increase, he said, would require another three to four hours of work per week.

“I feel scared about it because I pay for my own college tuition. My parents don’t pay for it.”KATHRYN FLORES, THIRD-YEAR LIBERAL STUDIES MAJOR AT CSU BAKERSFIELD

Treseler also expressed exasperation that student government advocates spent weeks persuading the trustees to change the tuition hike so that it’s not indefinite — as originally proposed in July — to one across five years. And while he has sympathy for the Cal State leaders’ obligations to respond to salary demands from its workers, he said the system’s top consideration should be “to offer an accessible and affordable road to success for every Californian.”

But it’s salaries that are the main expense for the system. More than 70% of Cal State’s $8 billion core budget is spent on salary and benefits.

The faculty union is in heated negotiations with Cal State over raises to lessen the sting inflation has had on workers’ purchasing power. The union wants 12% raises this year. Cal State said it can do that across three years or a one-year raise of 5%.

Other unions also want raises, but Cal State says it needs to spend $55 million annually for every 1% bump in pay for all employees. Money for those salary demands and the student services Cal State says it needs to have more students graduate are in direct competition this academic year, the system wrote. Teamsters Local 2010, a union that represents skilled workers such as electricians and plumbers, plans to ask its members to approve a strike in the coming weeks, its principal leader, Jason Roboniwitz, told CalMatters.

“And if they don’t start getting fair with us, the new chancellor could start her first month on the job with a 60,000-person strike, the biggest labor dispute in CSU history,” he said.

Outside the trustee meeting space yesterday, unionized workers chanted for better wages, at times with a full drum kit. But the system insists its budgets are already strained by its wage-increase promises. 

“The CSU’s commitment to fair and competitive employee compensation requires budgetary tradeoffs, which could result in nearly all other operating budget priorities receiving only some or none of the new funding in 2023-24,” Cal State leaders wrote in documents ahead of today’s vote.

That sentiment was echoed by Interim Chancellor Koester during an Aug. 25 video address, in which she said current new salary commitments for staff and faculty were greater than the $227 million in new money Cal State got from the state budget this year.

“Her fearmongering threats are not only disrespectful towards the faculty and staff who serve the students in the CSU, but it is also disingenuous to claim that the CSU does not have the budget to properly compensate workers,” a September faculty union press release said.

But even with tuition increases that’ll kick in next year, Cal State’s revenues won’t be enough to handle all its future costs, system leaders argue. Cal State’s proposed budget for 2024-25 seeks $557 million in new revenue. About a quarter comes from new tuition hikes and $240 million from additional state funding Gov. Gavin Newsom promised the system as part of a five-year compact. But Cal State wants $145 million on top of that.

All that translates to just $220.7 million to fund 2024-25 compensation increases for all employees, Cal State says. That’s enough for 4% across-the-board raises for all staff, it says.

Pushed to increase raises beyond what it’s been offering, Cal State “will have fewer employees and we will have fewer seats for students in our classes,” Koester said Tuesday.

In one scenario, if Cal State agrees to 15% raises over three years, and the tuition hike didn’t happen, the system would have a half-billion-dollar budget hole. The new tuition revenue would still mean a deficit of $322 million, said Ryan Storm, a senior budget staffer for the system, today. Again, layoffs would be likely, he added.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Temecula Board OKs Policy Banning Pride Flags From Schools

Only U.S., California flags allowed unless a banner is used “solely for educational purposes”

The Temecula school board approved a policy to limit which flags can be flown on school property, a rule that some said is a way to ban pride flags, at its Tuesday night, Sept. 12, meeting.

similar policy was adopted by the Chino Valley Unified School District board in June.

The item passed 3-2, with the board’s conservative majority in favor and trustees Allison Barclay and Steven Schwartz voting no.

Tuesday’s Temecula Valley Unified School District board meeting drew a crowd similar in size to the one several weeks ago, when the board adopted a policy to inform parents if their child is transgender.

The proposal, which was adopted with some small language changes, contains two alterations to the district’s flag protocols.

The first is an addition to Pledge of Allegiance guidelines, which states that students not reciting the pledge “shall maintain a respectful silence.”

The second reads: “No flag other than the United States of America and State of California may be displayed on school grounds, including classrooms, unless it is a country, state, or United States military flag used solely for educational purposes within the adopted curriculum.”

Other flags would need the superintendent’s approval.

The document does not specify which flags are barred.

“It is not the intent of the Board of Education to deprive any person of his or her right to freedom of expression,” the agenda item states. “The intent of this regulation is to maintain a safe and orderly workplace for teachers, students, administrators, staff, parents/guardians and other members of the community.”

More than 100 people waited outside before the meeting’s open session. Some had American flags on their clothing. A few wore Donald Trump merchandise. Others sported pride flags.

Jennifer San Nicolas, a Temecula resident with two teenagers in Temecula Valley schools, said she’s concerned about board decisions she said remove diversity, equity and inclusion programs and cited December’s critical race theory ban — approved at the first meeting of the board’s conservative Christian bloc elected by voters — as an example.

“It’s just unreal, they way that they are chipping away at the humanity of kids of color, kids on the LGBTQ spectrum, anyone who isn’t their White evangelical, in their church — they other them.”

Murrieta resident Jen Reeves called the flag policy “worrisome.”

“I feel like it removes self-expression, and any sort of ability for teachers to say, ‘Hey, you’re welcome here, and we do support you, and we love you, and we want you here’,” Reeves said.

She said she believes the Temecula school board is following the agenda of other boards that have passed similar policies.

Ryan Waroff, who lives in the school district, said he supports the proposed flag policy.

Any flag can create a sense of division, Waroff said, “and I think that’s a problem we have in this country right now.”

In response to concerns about a ban on pride flags obscuring people’s identities, he said, “if you walk into a place and it takes a flag for you to feel comfortable about yourself, then we have a bigger problem than that.”

Waroff said people should be able to express their identities in any way they feel necessary, and maybe at one point, such flags were a good idea, but they’ve become politicized.

“And it is both sides,” he said. “It is a Trump flag. It is a pride flag. It is a BLM flag.”

“This isn’t anti-LGBTQ, this isn’t anti-trans,” he said. “We live in America, and in America, we’re allowed to be whatever we want, but let’s unite under the one unifying goal, that’s ‘We’re all Americans.’ I would like to see us come back to that.”

Daniel Molina spoke in favor of the policy, saying that “there is no pride flag” without also standing for the American flag.

Josh Schierling asked: “How delicate is your sense of democracy that it’s threatened by a pride flag?”

Schierling said everyone should be allowed to coexist, and that “taking down a pride flag is telling people they’re not wanted. How un-American is that?”

Board members discussed reasons for the policy, and potential pitfalls, including the definition of the word “flag.”

Danny Gonzalez said he thought the administration needed more time to work on the policy, and saw it “being potentially problematic” if not done the right way.

Schwartz said the “good intentions” behind the policy would open the district up to problems. He read aloud concerns of people who wrote to him, including that the policy “is an attempt to censor LGBTQ support” and that, according to the policy, flags for entities like colleges wouldn’t be allowed.

Barclay agreed that “a lot of things aren’t clear.”

She said that, if there’s a certain flag in question, “let’s just say it.”

Barclay said such policies make people nervous.

“They don’t want to break the rules, but they don’t understand the rules,” she said.

Board President Joseph Komrosky said that a school visit during which there were “at least 10 classrooms” that had no American flags showed him that the district needed the regulation. He  said he wants to “instruct the superintendent to add U.S. flags to every single classroom.”

Regarding flags for colleges and school sports teams, board members discussed whether they counted as “educational,” and whether, according to the policy, the superintendent would need to approve each one. Komrosky said that would be the case.

The meeting featured outbursts, applause and other interruptions from audience members. At least one person was removed, and some reacted to comments by holding up red, yellow and green cards, which Komrosky has done at previous meetings to convey warnings to audience members. At different points, both Schwartz and Komrosky asked for spectators’ cooperation.

“This would go a lot easier with no audience in here,” Komrosky said.

Other politically charged topics have been reviewed by the Temecula Valley school board in the past year.

After December’s critical race theory ban, a social studies curriculum was rejected by the board after some members cited its mention of slain gay-rights activist Harvey Milk in supplemental materials. After pushback from Gov. Gavin Newsom and others, the curriculum was approved in July — except for the unit mentioning Milk.

Last month, the board approved the transgender notification policy that some opposed because they felt it puts transgender students at risk by outing them. Such a policy also was previously approved by the Chino Valley school board.

Click here to read the full article in the Press Enterprise