Newsom Vetoes Controversial Gender-Identity Bill in California

September 24, 2023 By David Zimmerman 5 Comments

Deviating from his past legislative support of transgender youth in California, Democratic governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have required parents to demonstrate affirmation of their child’s gender identity in custody court battles.

Under California Bill AB957, judges would have been legally obligated to specifically consider whether parents have affirmed their child’s gender identity or gender expression in determining “the health, safety, and welfare of the child.” The California State Assembly passed the bill along strictly party lines earlier this month, hoping to advance transgender rights in the state.

Newsom said in a statement late Friday night he appreciates “the passion and values” of Democratic assembly member Lori Wilson for authoring the bill but disclosed he couldn’t sign it.

“I share a deep commitment to advancing the rights of transgender Californians, an effort that has guided my decisions through many decades in public office,” Newsom wrote.

“That said, I urge caution when the Executive and Legislative branches of state government attempt to dictate – in prescriptive terms that single out one characteristic – legal standards for the Judicial branch to apply,” he added. “Other-minded elected officials, in California and other states, could very well use this strategy to diminish the civil rights of vulnerable communities.”

Nonetheless, the California governor noted judges are still “required to consider a child’s health, safety, and welfare” in the context of their gender identity when hearing out parents in child custody cases, even if the bill wasn’t signed.

“Moreover, a court, under existing law, is required to consider a child’s health,
safety, and welfare when determining the best interests of a child in these
proceedings, including the parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity,” he concluded.

Following the governor’s veto, Wilson expressed her disappointment with the decision.

“I am extremely disappointed. I know the Governor’s record. He’s been a champion for the LGBTQ+ community for years and even before it was popular to do so,” Wilson said in a statement. “However, on this point, the Governor and I disagree on the best way to protect [Transgender, Gender-Diverse and Intersex] kids.”

She added her bill was intended “to give [the trans community] a voice, particularly in the family court system where a non-affirming parent could have a detrimental impact on the mental health and well-being of a child.”

Democratic state senator Scott Wiener, who co-authored the bill, also called out Newsom for rejecting it.

“This veto is a tragedy for trans kids here & around the country,” Wiener posted on X, formerly known as Twitter. “These kids are living in fear, with right wing politicians working to out them, deny them health care, ban them from sports & restrooms & erase their humanity. CA needs to unequivocally stand with these kids.”

“Governor Newsom has been such a staunch ally to the LGBTQ community. A true champion. Respectfully, however, this veto is a mistake,” he continued.

Click here to read the full article in the National Review

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

Wildfire-prone California to consider new rules for property insurance pricing

September 23, 2023 By Adam Beam 7 Comments

California will let insurance companies consider climate change when setting their prices, the state’s chief regulator announced Thursday, a move aimed at preventing insurers from fleeing the state over fears of massive losses from wildfires and other natural disasters.

Unlike other states, California does not let insurance companies consider current or future risks when deciding how much to charge for an insurance policy. Instead, they can only consider what’s happened on a property in the past to set the price.

At a time when climate change is making wildfires, floods and windstorms more common, insurers say that restriction makes it difficult to truly price the risk on properties. It’s one reason why, in the past year, seven of the top 12 insurance companies doing business in California have either paused or restricted new business in the state.

On Thursday, California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara said the state will write new rules to let insurers look to the future when setting their rates. But companies will only get to do this if they agree to write more policies for homeowners who live in areas with the most risk — including communities threatened by wildfires.

“Modernizing our insurance market is not going to be easy or happen overnight. We are in really unchartered territory and we must make difficult choices when the world is changing rapidly,” Lara said at a news conference.

The rule change could mean higher rates for homeowners who are already seeing dramatic increases. Eight insurance companies doing business in California have requested rate increases of at least 20% or higher this year, according to the California Department of Insurance.

Harvey Rosenfield, founder of the advocacy group Consumer Watchdog and author of a 1988 ballot proposition that regulates insurance rates, said Lara’s announcement “will dramatically increase homeowner and renter insurance bills by hundreds or even thousands of dollars.”

But Lara said looking to the future to set rates doesn’t have to always be pessimistic. Insurers can also consider the billions of dollars the state has spent to better manage forests and the improvements homeowners have made to their homes to make them resistant to wildfires — all things insurers aren’t allowed to consider when setting rates under the current rules.

“Insurers have advanced a very powerful argument that the past is not as good a predictor of the future as it used to be,” said Amy Bach, executive director of United Policyholders, a national insurance consumer organization. “I think the (Insurance) department did what it needed to do to try to restore a viable market. We don’t have a viable market right now in this state in a lot of areas.”

California isn’t the only state that’s struggled to keep home insurance companies amid natural disasters. Officials in Florida and Louisiana, which deal with hurricanes and flooding, have fought to keep companies writing policies. A recent report from First Street Foundation said about one-quarter of all homes in the nation are underpriced for climate risk in insurance. Florida allows insurers to consider climate risk with restrictions. States with less regulated insurance markets have insurers who build current and future events into their models.

Wildfires have always been part of life in California, where it only rains for a few months out of the year. But as the climate has gotten hotter and dryer, it has made those fires much larger and more intense. Of the top 20 most destructive wildfires in state history, 14 have occurred since 2015, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Insurance companies have responded by not renewing coverage for many homeowners who live in areas threatened by wildfires. When that happens, homeowners who need insurance must purchase it from the California Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) Plan. All insurance companies doing business in California must pay into a fund to provide coverage from the FAIR plan.

People with mortgages often have to buy home insurance because their lender requires it. The number of people on California’s FAIR plan nearly doubled in the five years leading up to 2021, and that number has almost certainly increased even more in the past two years.

Lara said his plan is to require insurance companies to write policies for no less than 85% of their statewide market share in areas at risk for wildfires. That means if a company writes policies for 20 homes, it must write 17 new policies for homeowners in wildfire-distressed areas — moving those people off of the FAIR Plan.

“This is a historic agreement between the department and insurance companies,” Lara said.

The American Property Casualty Insurance Association, which represents insurers, called Lara’s actions “the first steps of many needed to address the deterioration” of the market.

“California’s 35-year-old regulatory system is outdated, cumbersome and fails to reflect the increasing catastrophic losses consumers and businesses are facing from inflation, climate change, extreme weather and more residents living in wildfire prone areas,” Denni Ritter, vice president for state government relations, said in a statement.

Jeremy Porter, a co-author of the First Street Foundation report on climate risk, said allowing insurers to consider climate change in their pricing might lead to more competition in the state’s insurance market.

“If this is implemented correctly, this would definitely allow insurers to come back into the market in California,” he said.

Some consumer groups, including Consumer Watchdog, say they are not opposed to insurance companies using a model to look to the future to set their rates. But they want to see what is in that model. It’s not clear if California’s new rules will allow that. State regulators will spend much of the next year deciding what the rule will be.

Click here to read the full article in AP News

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

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

September 23, 2023 By CalMatters 1 Comment

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

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

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

September 22, 2023 By Katy Grimes 4 Comments

‘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

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

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

September 21, 2023 By Tran Nguyễn 2 Comments

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

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

California Legislature Passes ‘Tyrannical’ Package of 12 Gun Control Bills

September 20, 2023 By Katy Grimes 9 Comments

‘The California Legislature chose to follow other hostile regimes desperate to restrict the rights of the people’

In June 2022, U.S. Supreme Court issued a critical decision in New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen striking down a New York gun law that put unconstitutional restrictions on concealed carry of a gun out in public. And because this is the law of the land, California with its extremely restrictive gun laws, was put on notice.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion in the 6-3 ruling: “The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’ The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.”

“This ‘special need’ standard is demanding,” Thomas wrote. “For example, living or working in an area ‘noted for criminal activity’ does not suffice.” In 43 other states, Thomas noted, authorities are required to issue licenses to applicants who meet certain requirements, and officials do not have discretion to say no due to what they believe is an insufficient need.”

Despite being rebuked by the highest court in the country over gun control attempts last year, California Democrats continue to tell the people through unconstitutional legislation that you can’t defend yourself with a firearm… or at least they will limit who can carry, and where you can carry.

Last year, Senator Anthony J. Portantino’s (D–Burbank) annual gun control legislation restricting CCW permit holders, Senate Bill 918, appeared to be dead as it was placed on the suspense file in the Assembly Appropriations Committee – until he it moved out with 32 pages of 185 new amendments. However, SB 918 died in the Assembly.

Portantino came back in 2023 with Senate Bill 2, also sponsored by Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta. SB 2 again illegally imposes restrictions on those seeking a California CCW permit.

Notably, Newsom, Bonta and Portantino know they are imposing to restrict those applying for CCWs, when virtually no crimes are committed by CCW holders, who are required to pass background checks by County Sheriffs.

Yet, CCW permit holders don’t commit mass shootings, they stop them. We’ve never had a positive comment from Gov. Newsom or Sen. Portantino on this statement.

Following the close of the 2023 California legislative session Friday, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) released the entire list of the 12 gun control bills which were passed by state lawmakers.

Notably, SB-2 was passed this year, which clearly violates the Supreme Court Bruen decision, enacts numerous “sensitive locations” where guns are banned, and changes requirements to obtain a concealed carry license.

The Globe spoke with gun advocate Craig DeLuz, host of Morning Coffee with Craig, publisher of 2A News, and candidate for California’s 6th Congressional District. DeLuz said pro gun groups now have to spend their money defending the U.S. Constitution.

DeLuz said considering the most notable mass shootings in California, as well as those shootings in the rest of the U.S., creating a “sensitive location” signals to anyone considering such an event, “that it’s a target rich environment and will be met with little resistance.” And DeLuz warned, “allowing local governments to decide on additional ‘sensitive areas,’ creates a different set of laws in one state, for when, where and how they can carry.”

De Luz reiterated Justice Thomas’ written decision in the New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen case in which he clearly laid out what can and cannot be done, noting that there should never be a test to determine if someone is permitted to carry a gun, based on the 2nd Amendment.

And in the face of that decision, California lawmakers have shown they do not care about the Constitution, except when it protects their activities.

“The California Legislature chose to follow other hostile regimes desperate to restrict the rights of the people, flying in the face of the Second Amendment and recent Court decisions, by advancing multiple pieces of anti-rights legislation to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk,” FPC said.

“This tyrannical package shows the legislature’s utter disdain for peaceable People and their willingness to use state violence to squash their rights,” Richard Thomson, FPC’s Vice President of Communications said.

“FPC stands steadfast in opposition to the state’s destruction of fundamental rights. Threatening peaceable conduct with imprisonment, injury, and death is nothing new for the tyrants in Sacramento. FPC promises to continue to work behind enemy lines and be a voice for the People of the state.”

The FPC listed all of the bills that passed before the Friday 9/15/2023 legislative deadline:

  • SJR-7: Resolution for a federal constitutional convention to restrict firearms
  • AB-28: Enacts a gun and ammunition excise tax
  • AB-92: Makes it a misdemeanor for a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm to purchase, own, or possess body armor
  • AB-301: Authorizes a court considering a red flag petition to consider evidence of acquisition of body armor when determining whether grounds for a gun violence restraining order exist
  • AB-725: Requires lost and stolen reporting for “precursor parts”
  • AB-1089: CNC and 3D-printing of arms ban, prohibits sharing digital firearm plans
  • AB-1406: Authorizes DOJ to request a delay of the delivery of a firearm for up to 30 days in an “emergency” that caused DOJ to be unable to review purchaser’s eligibility
  • AB-1483: Deletes the private party transaction exemption to the 30-day prohibition, which prohibits a person from making more than one application to purchase a handgun within any 30-day period
  • AB-1587: Requires a merchant acquirer to assign to a firearms merchant a unique merchant category code
  • SB-2: Bruen response bill, enacts numerous “sensitive locations” where guns are banned, changes requirements to obtain a concealed carry license.
  • SB-368: Prohibits gun dealers from offering an opportunity to win an item of inventory in a game dominated by chance, exempts nonprofit organizations under certain circumstances
  • SB-452: Postpones handgun microstamping requirement to at least January 1, 2028

In June, California Governor Gavin Newsom, who pretends he isn’t running for President, proposed a 28th Constitutional Amendment to restrict gun national rights, and had the chutzpah to claim it will “leave the 2nd Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition.”

“Firearms Policy Coalition will continue to restore the rights of the People in court, just as it has done in its lawsuits challenging California’s handgun roster and discriminatory fee-shifting regime, New Jersey’s Bruen response bill, and Illinois’ ‘assault weapon’ ban,” the the Firearms Policy Coalition said in a press statement. “And to all tyrants, like Gavin Newsom and his legislative co-conspirators, that push these immoral and unjust policies, we say simply this: ‘Fuck you. No.’”

In 2021, District Judge Roger T. Benitez threw out California’s 32-year ban on assault weapons, while also clarifying the deliberate and incorrect use of the label “assault weapon.”

Benitez noted that the California Legislature has not properly adjudicated their ban laws, and quotes former California Governor Pete Wilson’s 1998 priceless veto statement:

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

California Gov. Gavin Newsom says he will sign climate-focused transparency laws for big business

September 19, 2023 By Staff Report 6 Comments

NEW YORK (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom said Sunday that he plans to sign into law a pair of climate-focused bills intended to force major corporations to be more transparent about greenhouse gas emissions and the financial risks stemming from global warming.

Newsom’s announcement came during an out-of-state trip to New York’s Climate Week, where world leaders in business, politics and the arts are gathered to seek solutions for climate change.

California lawmakers last week passed legislation requiring large businesses from oil and gas companies to retail giants to disclose their direct greenhouse gas emissions as well as those that come from activities like employee business travel.

Such disclosures are a “simple but intensely powerful driver of decarbonization,” said the bill’s author, state Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat.

“This legislation will support those companies doing their part to tackle the climate crisis and create accountability for those that aren’t,” Wiener said in a statement Sunday applauding Newsom’s decision.

Under the law, thousands of public and private businesses that operate in California and make more than $1 billion annually will have to make the emissions disclosures. The goal is to increase transparency and nudge companies to evaluate how they can cut their carbon emissions.

The second bill approved last week by the state Assembly requires companies making more than $500 million annually to disclose what financial risks climate change poses to their businesses and how they plan to address those risks.

State Sen. Henry Stern, a Democrat from Los Angeles who introduced the legislation, said the information would be useful for individuals and lawmakers when making public and private investment decisions. The bill was changed recently to require companies to begin reporting the information in 2026, instead of 2024, and mandate that they report every other year, instead of annually.

Newsom, a Democrat, said he wants California to lead the nation in addressing the climate crisis. “We need to exercise not just our formal authority, but we need to share our moral authority more abundantly,” he said.

Newsom’s office announced Saturday that California has filed a lawsuit against some of the world’s largest oil and gas companies, claiming they deceived the public about the risks of fossil fuels now faulted for climate change-related storms and wildfires that caused billions of dollars in damage.

Click here to read the full article in AP News

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , ,

New Initiative Strikes at Root of Housing Ills

September 19, 2023 By Editorial Board Leave a Comment

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

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , , ,

Southern California Gas Prices Climb at Their Fastest Rate This Year

September 18, 2023 By Carly Olson 4 Comments

Gas prices in Southern California shot up at their fastest rate of the year last week, according to data released by AAA.

A gallon of regular self-serve gasoline cost an average of $5.62 in the Los Angeles-Long Beach metro area as of Thursday. That is up 18 cents from last week and 38 cents from last month.

The national average price is nearly $2 less — $3.86 — up 6 cents from a week ago.

AAA officials blamed both regional and global factors for high prices, including the floods in Libya.

“Our pump prices have been skyrocketing as a result of regional refinery outages, as well as from increasing crude oil prices following deadly flooding in Libya, which will temporarily disrupt oil exports from that OPEC nation,” Doug Shupe, a spokesperson for the Automobile Club of Southern California, said in a statement.

Other parts of Southern California have seen similar eye-popping price increases.

In the San Diego metro area, the average price for a gallon of gas is $5.60, and in Riverside, $5.50. Both of those figures are up 17 cents from last week and 39 cents from last month.

On the Central Coast, a gallon will cost drivers an average of $5.53, 14 cents higher than a week ago and 38 cents more than last month.

It remains unclear when drivers might feel relief, but AAA officials said last month that California has increased oil stockpiles and imports, which may drive down wholesale prices soon.

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , ,

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

September 18, 2023 By Cornell Barnard 1 Comment

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

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,