Monday, October 6, 2025
spot_img
spot_img
Home Blog Page 456

Trumka: From union militant to liberal democrat

0

I appreciated the tribute to former United Mine Workers of America president, Richard Trumka, whom I had an opportunity to work with during the 1989 Pittston Coal strike. The International Association of Machinists lockout and strike at Eastern Airlines strike was happening at the same time, and in one of the greatest demonstrations of mutual solidarity, we organized a 100-car caravan from “Motown to Coaltown,” to West Virginia Camp Solidarity organized by the UMWA.

Trumka had previously been part of the movement called Miners for Democracy, which was a rank and file movement successfully winning union democracy and throwing out the boss-loving Tony Boyle. This battle made the UMWA the most democratic union in the country, going back to the traditions of the labor movement in the 1930’s and not the current usually bureaucratically run unions of today.

Riding that movement, he became UMWA president and with that militant past was elected AFL-CIO president until his recent death. But during his tenure, the labor movement continued to get weaker and smaller with concessionary contracts, widespread officialdom corruption, inability to win organizing drives, and total subservience to the Democratic party. Little was done nationally to support embattled unionists. The result is that virtually every strike has been lost in the past decade and the AFL-CIO has failed to take progressive positions in defense of immigrants’ rights, a women’s right to choose, or tackling climate change and mobilizing workers in action in acts of solidarity to win.

Recently he campaigned to keep police unions in AFL-CIO despite calls by more progressive unions to kick them out in the wake of the killing of George Floyd and national protests. And led by Gabriel Prawl, President, ILWU Clerks Local 52, in Seattle the ILWU organized a West Coast port strike with a march and rally demanding the utmost prosecution of Floyd’s killers and jailing of all killer cops.

In Seattle the ILWU led the battle against cop unions being workers organizations…challenging local and national AFL-CIO positions. In voting to expel the police union from the Kings County Labor council (representing 100,000 workers), Jane Hopkins, executive vice president of SEIU Healthcare 1199NW said “We can’t both stand with a police system that’s set up to hurt our Black community and stand up for our people of color who are oppressed by police.” Sara Nelson, national Flight Attendants union president agrees.

ILWU Southern California District President Floyd Bryan speaking at LA press conference Against US embargo on Cuba.

“There are a lot of unions that are very concerned about police brutality,” said Lowell Peterson, executive director of Writers Guild of America-East, which adopted a resolution calling on the AFL-CIO to disassociate itself from the International Union of Police Associations, the federation’s police union affiliate.

And reported in Politico, “Local unions are defying leaders of the AFL-CIO, who have rejected calls to cut ties with the labor federation’s law enforcement arm and stressed the importance of collective bargaining instead to counter the use of excessive force.

The second-largest local teachers’ union in the nation, United Teachers Los Angeles, voted to eliminate police in Los Angeles public schools and “redirect funding to mental health and counseling” for students.”

Trumka’s response, reported on in New Republic, was to continue todefendthe police as “community friendly.”

My experience as a 4-decade veteran of the International Association of Machinists and the CA Federation of Teachers has taught me this:

The fight for union democracy, labor independent political action (not supporting either of the bosses’ Democratic or Republican parties), and mobilizing our members is the road to a rebirth of organized labor, winning union organizing drives and strikes, and challenging Washington’s reactionary foreign policies…including ending the embargo of Cuba which the ILWU has called for.

Exide Clean-up Proceeds as Company Retaliates

The department of toxic substances control hosted a webinar updating community stakeholders about the developments with the contamination clean-up left behind by the old Exide Technologies plant on Sept. 9. The contamination covers a seven mile radius in the city of Vernon.

Peter Ruttan, the unit chief at the Department of Toxic Substances Control said, “8,604 parcels were sampled and 2,841 parcels were cleaned up, including Wyvernwood Gardens Apartments, and Estrada Courts, and that the remediation efforts ran from May 2018 through August 2021.

However, there still remain 3400 properties to be cleaned as of December 2020 at a rate of 16 clean-ups per week. The baseline for necessary clean-up is 200PPM lead concentrations and thus new letters sent to 2,000 households for planned sampling.

One of the webinar participants who identified himself as a homeowner where one of the clean up sites said Exide is suing him to pay for the clean up.

Deputy Director of DTSC’s Site Mitigation and Restoration Program, Grant Cope, replied to the allegation, explaining that the “National Lead Industries is using this tactic to point to others as responsible, shift the blame.” Cope urged homeowners who find themselves being sued for clean up to attain legal representation.

As if to punctuate the absurdity of homeowners having to defend lawsuits for cleanups of contaminated messes they didn’t cause, Armando said, “My lawyer is asking for a $5,000 retainer.”

“The DTSC appealed the judges decision on Exide settlement. We disagreed with EPA and DOJ backing [of Exide’s] bankruptcy plan… [but the] laws permit lawsuits,” Cope replied. “But we do have additional funding to clean-up 2,700 new properties.”

When asked by this RL reporter why the EPA agreed to such a horrendous bankruptcy settlement that essentially let Exide off the hook and put the clean-up burden on taxpayers. Amanda Cruz- EPA manager for work being done, emailed the following reply:

EPA acknowledges the community’s very real frustration regarding the settlement. We very much sympathize with the community’s disappointment and Judge Sontchi’s previously stated sentiments:

“… the cost of remediating the site will fall on the State of California and, ultimately, its taxpayers. That is neither fair nor avoidable.

Under bankruptcy law, as Judge Sontchi explained, “secured liens … are superior to Exide’s environmental obligation”. As such, with minimal funds left to address the environmental obligations at the site, EPA agreed to the settlement that allowed the Trust to be formed, which reduced the risk of a chaotic and harmful abandonment.”

Lead, even in small quantities, has an immediate impact on brain functioning, especially among infants and youth in the formative stages of brain development. That is why it has been completely removed from paint and gasoline which incorporated lead, as well as colorants on kitchenware, for decades.

Lead is a neurotoxin, and there is no level that is considered safe in humans. Lead poisoning can impact children’s growth, learning and behavior, and there are no obvious symptoms or signs.

More than 500 families across southeast Los Angeles County who lived in an environmental disaster zone for the last several decades commented at a public hearing Oct. 13, 2020 on the proposed bankruptcy of Exide Technologies.

The former battery recycling that operated for 33 years in the city of Vernon.

More than 500 families across southeast Los Angeles County who lived in an environmental disaster zone for the last several decades lined up in a phone queue for hours to comment on the proposed bankruptcy of Exide Technologies. The former battery recycling that operated for 33 years in the city of Vernon. City leaders from across Southeast Los Angeles, County agencies, and various community organizations were in the queue.

To a person they were unequivocally and strenuously opposed to the settlement, even according to an Oct. 17 2020 report in the Los Angeles Times.

Indoor Large Events Required to Verify Vaccination or Negative Test for Entry

0

As of Sept. 20, the State requires that all attendees at indoor mega events show proof of full vaccination or a negative test result prior to entry. Self-attestation can no longer be used to verify an attendee’s status as fully vaccinated or as proof of a negative COVID-19 test result.

Indoor mega events are events with 1,000 or more attendees indoors and include, conventions, conferences, expos, concerts, shows, nightclubs, sporting events, live entertainment, and festivals.

Acceptable proof of vaccination status includes a photo identification with any one of the following:

CDC COVID-19 vaccination record card (white card)

World Health Organization (WHO) vaccine record card (yellow card)

California Department of Public Health (CDPH) COVID-19 digital vaccination record

Other COVID-19 digital vaccination record issued by an approved company

Documentation of vaccination from the healthcare provider or entity that provided the COVID-19 vaccines

California Immunization Registry (CAIR2) vaccination record

The vaccination proof should include the person’s name, type of COVID-19 vaccine, and the date of the doses administered. The person can show the vaccination card, a photo of the card as a separate document, or a photo of the card stored on a phone or electronic device.

Acceptable proof of a negative test includes a photo identification with testing results that must include the person’s name, type of COVID-19 viral test performed, and negative test result. The date when the COVID-19 test was taken must be within the 72 hours prior to the event. The test results can be a printed copy or on a phone, including an email or text message results from the test provider or laboratory.

Public Health will host a Virtual Town Hall on COVID-19 at 6 p.m. Sept. 23. The town hall will be streamed live on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube @lapublichealth at: TinyURL.com/LACOVIDTownHall

Anyone 12 and older living or working in L.A. County can get vaccinated against COVID-19.

To find a vaccination site near you, make an appointment at vaccination sites, and much more, visit: www.VaccinateLACounty.com (English) and www.VacunateLosAngeles.com (Spanish). If you don’t have internet access, can’t use a computer, or you’re over 65, you can call 1-833-540-0473 for help.

Details: www.publichealth.lacounty.gov.

Pier T Terminal Begins Pilot Program for 24-Hour Cargo Pickup

Total Terminals International container terminal on Pier T in the Port of Long Beach is making it easier for trucks to access the facility during the overnight hours in a new pilot program to widen access and speed deliveries amid the ongoing cargo surge.

The pilot program focuses on the effort to reduce “dwell” – the amount of time cargo spends waiting for pickup on the dock. The terminal is taking two steps to increase cargo pickup in the late night, early morning hours, when there is less traffic.

For truckers with appointments from 11 p.m. to 1:30 a.m, the TTI Terminal will allow access whenever they arrive during that time. This widens the window typically available.

Additionally, TTI is opening gates during the third shift, from 3 to 7 a.m., Monday to Thursday, for two-way, prearranged truck appointments to both drop off and pick up containers in the same trip. Known as “dual transactions,” the practice pairs transport of a truck-hauled empty container for export with a loaded import container, for maximum efficiency. Visits are arranged in advance, with chassis equipment drawn from the region’s “pool” so everything goes smoothly.

The new TTI truck access pilot program was developed with the intent to drive down on-terminal dwell and increase driver productivity. The pilot program will be evaluated periodically by the terminal and adjusted as necessary. To assess the program’s effectiveness, the terminal will monitor gate utilization, dwell time of import containers, and truck driver productivity.

The pilot project meshes with the recently announced joint effort with the neighboring Port of Los Angeles and the U.S. Department of Transportation to extend terminal hours to improve freight movement and reduce delays at the San Pedro Bay port complex.

Santa Claus Is About To Drop a Bomb On Biden, Plus Rep. Barragán Shows Action on a Directly Related Issue

Americans deserve to know how we’ve been manipulated, & by whom, for the past 40 years. Hopefully the Democrats & our media will begin to call the GOP out on Wanniski & Reagan’s Two Santa Clauses scam

https://hartmannreport.com/p/santa-clause-is-about-to-drop-a-bomb

“The only thing wrong with the U.S. economy is the failure of the Republican Party to play Santa Claus.” —Jude Wanniski, March 6, 1976

The stock market is falling today, in part a reaction to GOP threats to shut down the government: it’s all part of their plan.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen last week warned us that the GOP is about to use Jude Wanniski’s “Two Santa Clauses” fraud again to damage Biden’s economy and our standing in the world. And, sure enough, Mitch McConnell verified it when he said last week there would be “zero” Republican votes to raise the debt ceiling.

Yellen responded yesterday by telling The Wall Street Journal that if the Republicans force a shutdown of the US government like they did to Obama in 2011, “We would emerge from this crisis a permanently weaker nation.” But the GOP is adamant: they have their strategy and they’re sticking to it.

Here’s how it works, laid it out in simple summary:

First, the Two Santas strategy dictates, when Republicans control the White House they must spend money like a drunken Santa and cut taxes to run up the US debt as far and as fast as possible.

This produces three results: it stimulates the economy thus making people think that the GOP can produce a good economy; it raises the debt dramatically; and it makes people think that Republicans are the “tax-cut Santa Clauses.”

Second, when a Democrat is in the White House, Republicans must scream about the national debt as loudly and frantically as possible, freaking out about how “our children will have to pay for it!” and “we have to cut spending to solve the crisis!” Shut down the government, crash the stock market, and damage US credibility around the world if necessary to stop Democrats from spending money.

This will force the Democrats in power to cut their own social safety net programs and even Social Security, thus shooting their welfare-of-the-American-people Santa Claus right in the face.

And, sure enough, here we are now with a Democrat in the White House. Following their Two Santas strategy, Republicans are again squealing about the national debt and refusing to raise the debt ceiling, imperiling Biden’s economic recovery as well as his Build Back Better plans.

And, once again, the media is covering it as a “Biden Crisis!” rather than what it really is: a cynical political and media strategy devised by Republicans in the 70s, fine-tuned in the 80s and 90s, and rolled out every time a Democrat is in the White House.

Jude Wanniski hatches the scheme that saves the GOP

Republican strategist Jude Wanniski first proposed his Two Santa Clauses strategy in The Wall Street Journal in 1974, after Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace and the future of the Republican Party was so dim that books and articles were widely suggesting the GOP was about to go the way of the Whigs. There was genuine despair across the Republican Party, particularly when Jerry Ford couldn’t even beat an unknown peanut farmer from rural Georgia for the presidency.

Wanniski reasoned the reason the GOP was losing so many elections wasn’t just because of Nixon’s corruption, but mostly because the Democrats had been viewed since the New Deal as the Santa Claus party.

On the other hand, the GOP, he said, was widely seen as the party of Scrooge because they publicly opposed everything from Social Security and Medicare to unemployment insurance and food stamps.

The Democrats, he noted, got to play Santa Claus for decades when they passed out Social Security and Unemployment checks — both programs of FDR’s Democratic New Deal — as well as their “big government” projects like roads, bridges, schools and highways that gave a healthy union paycheck to construction workers and made our country shine.

Even worse, Democrats kept raising taxes on businesses and rich people to pay for all this stuff — and those taxes on the rich didn’t have any effect at all on working people (wages were steadily going up until the Reagan Revolution, in fact).

It all added, Wanniski theorized, to the perception that the Democrats were the true party of Santa Claus, using taxes from the morbidly rich to fund programs for the poor and the working class.

Americans loved the Democrats back then. And every time Republicans railed against these programs, they lost elections.

Therefore, Wanniski concluded, the GOP had to become a Santa Claus party, too. But because the Republicans hated the idea of helping out working people, they had to come up with a way to convince average voters that they, too, have the Santa spirit. But what?

“Tax cuts!” said Wanniski.

To make this work, the Republicans would first have to turn the classical world of economics — which had operated on a simple demand-driven equation for seven thousand years — on its head. (Everybody understood that demand — “working-class wages” — drove economies because working people spent most of their money in the marketplace, producing “demand” for factory output goods and services.)

To lay the ground for Two Santa Clauses, in 1974 Wanniski invented a new phrase — “Supply-Side Economics — and said the reason economies grew wasn’t because people had good union jobs and thus enough money to buy things but, instead, because business made things available for sale, thus tantalizing people to part with their money.

The more products (supply) there were in the stores, he said, the faster the economy would grow. And the more money we gave rich people and their corporations (via tax cuts) the more stuff (supply) they’d generously produce for us to think about buying.

At a glance, this move by the Republicans seems irrational, cynical and counterproductive. It certainly defies classic understandings of economics. But if you consider Jude Wanniski’s playbook, it makes complete sense.

To help, Arthur Laffer took that equation a step further with his famous napkin scribble. Not only was supply-side a rational concept, Laffer suggested, but as taxes went down, revenue to the government would go up!

Neither concept made any sense — and time has proven both to be colossal idiocies — but if Americans would buy into it all they offered the Republican Party a way out of the wilderness.

Ronald Reagan was the first national Republican politician to fully embrace the Two Santa Clauses strategy. He said straight out that if he could cut taxes on rich people and businesses, those “job creators” would use their extra money to build new factories so all that new stuff “supplying” the economy would produce faster economic growth.

George HW Bush — like most Republicans in 1980 who hadn’t read Wanniski’s piece in The Wall Street Journal — was horrified. Ronald Reagan was proposing “Voodoo Economics,” said Bush in the primary campaign, and Wanniski’s supply-side and Laffer’s tax-cut theories would throw the nation into debt while producing nothing in growth.

But Wanniski had been doing his homework on how to sell “voodoo” supply-side economics.

Democrats, Wanniski told the GOP, had been “Santa Clauses” since 1933 by giving people things. From union jobs to food stamps, new schools and Social Security, the American people loved the “toys” the Democratic Santas brought every year as well as the growing economy that increasing union wages and the money from social programs in middle class hands.

Republicans could stimulate the economy by throwing trillions at defense contractors, Jude’s theory went: spending could actually increase without negative repercussions and that money would trickle down to workers through the defense industry, which had reacted to Eisenhower’s warning by building factories in every single one of America’s 435 congressional districts.

Plus, Republicans could be double Santa Clauses by cutting people’s taxes!

For working people the tax cuts would only be a small token — a few hundred dollars a year at the most — but Republicans would heavily market them to the media and in political advertising. And the tax cuts for the rich, which weren’t to be discussed in public, would amount to hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars, part of which would be recycled back to the GOP as campaign contributions.

There was no way, Wanniski said, that the Democrats could ever win again. They’d be forced into the role of Santa-killers if they acted responsibly by raising taxes, or, even better, anti-Santas by cutting spending on their own social programs. Either one would lose them elections.

Reagan, Greenspan, Wanniski, and Laffer took the federal budget deficit from under a trillion dollars in 1980 to almost three trillion by 1988, and back then a dollar could buy far more than it buys today. They and George HW Bush ran up more debt in twelve years than every president in history up till that time, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter, combined.

Surely this would both “starve the beast” of the American government and force the Democrats to make the politically suicidal move of becoming deficit hawks. And that’s just how it turned out.

Bill Clinton, the first Democrat they blindsided with Two Santas, had run on an FDR-like platform of a “New Covenant” with the American people that would strengthen the institutions of the New Deal, strengthen labor, and institute a national single-payer health care system.

A few weeks before his inauguration, however, Wanniski-insider Alan Greenspan and Goldman Sachs co-chairman Robert Rubin sat him down and told him the facts of life: Reagan and Bush had run up such a huge deficit that he was going to have to raise taxes and cut the size of government.

Clinton took their advice to heart, raised taxes, balanced the budget, and cut numerous programs, declaring an “end to welfare as we know it” and, in his second inaugural address, an “end to the era of big government.”

Clinton was the anti-Santa Claus, and the result was an explosion of Republican wins across the country as Republican politicians campaigned on a platform of supply-side tax cuts and pork-rich spending increases.

State after state turned red, and the Republican Party rose to take over, ultimately, every single lever of power in the federal government, from the Supreme Court to the White House.

Looking at the wreckage of the Democratic Party all around Clinton in 1999, Wanniski wrote a gloating memo that said, in part:

“We of course should be indebted to Art Laffer for all time for his Curve… But as the primary political theoretician of the supply-side camp, I began arguing for the ‘Two Santa Claus Theory’ in 1974. If the Democrats are going to play Santa Claus by promoting more spending, the Republicans can never beat them by promoting less spending. They have to promise tax cuts…”

Ed Crane, then-president of the Koch-funded Libertarian CATO Institute, noted in a memo that year:

“When Jack Kemp, Newt Gingrich, Vin Weber, Connie Mack and the rest discovered Jude Wanniski and Art Laffer, they thought they’d died and gone to heaven. In supply-side economics they found a philosophy that gave them a free pass out of the debate over the proper role of government. … That’s why you rarely, if ever, heard Kemp or Gingrich call for spending cuts, much less the elimination of programs and departments.”

Two Santa Clauses had gone mainstream.

Never again would Republicans worry about the debt or deficit when they were in office; and they knew well how to scream hysterically about it and hook in the economically naïve press as soon as Democrats again took power.

When Jude Wanniski died, George Gilder celebrated the Reagan/Bush adoption of his Two Santas scheme in a Wall Street Journal eulogy:

“…Jude’s charismatic focus on the tax on capital gains redeemed the fiscal policies of four administrations. … Unbound by zero-sum economics, Jude forged the golden gift of a profound and passionate argument that the establishments of the mold must finally give way to the powers of the mind. … He audaciously defied all the Buffetteers of the trade gap, the moldy figs of the Phillips Curve, the chic traders in money and principle, even the stultifying pillows of the Nobel Prize.”

The Republicans got what they wanted from Wanniski’s work. They held power for forty years, made their donors trillions of dollars, and cut organized labor’s representation in the workplace from around a third of workers when Reagan came into office to around 6 percent of the non-governmental workforce today.

Think back to Ronald Reagan, who more than tripled the US debt from a mere $800 billion to $2.6 trillion in his 8 years. That spending produced a massive stimulus to the economy, and the biggest non-wartime increase in American national debt in all of our history. Nary a peep from Republicans about that 218% increase in our debt; they were just fine with it and to this day claim Reagan presided over a “great” economy.

When five rightwingers on the Supreme Court gave the White House to George W. Bush he reverted to Wanniski’s “Two Santa” strategy and again nearly doubled the national debt, adding over a trillion in borrowed money to pay for his tax cut for billionaires, and tossing in two unfunded wars for good measure, which also added at least (long term) another $5 trillion.

There was not a peep about that debt from any high-profile in-the-know Republicans; in fact, Dick Cheney famously said, amplifying Wanniski’s strategy: “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter. We won the midterms. This is our due.”

Bush and Cheney raised the debt by 86% to over $10 trillion (and additional trillions in war debt that wasn’t put on the books until Obama entered office, so it looks like its his).

Then came Democratic President Barack Obama, and suddenly the GOP was hysterical about the debt again. So much so that they convinced a sitting Democratic president to propose a cut to Social Security (the “chained CPI”). Obama nearly shot the Democrats’ biggest Santa Claus, just like Wanniski predicted, until outrage from the Democratic base stopped him.

Next, Donald Trump raised our national debt by almost $7 trillion, but the GOP raised the debt ceiling without a peep every year for the first three years of his administration, and then suspended it altogether for 2020 (so, if Biden won, he’d have to justify raising the ceiling for 2 years’ worth of deficits, making it even more politically painful).

And now Republicans are getting ready to use the debt ceiling debate to drop their Two Santas bomb right onto President Joe Biden’s head. After all, it worked against Clinton and Obama. Why wouldn’t they use it again?

And if Republican debt-ceiling default threats could lower the stock market, as they did to both Clinton and Obama, all the better: Republicans could just blame the Democrats in power!

Americans deserve to know how we’ve been manipulated, and by whom, for the past 40 years. Hopefully Democratic politicians and our media will begin to call the GOP out on Wanniski’s and Reagan’s Two Santa Clauses scam.

 

In a related item here are both action and a statement from Rep. Nannette Barragán on this very issue.

Barragán Votes to Keep the Government Open, Deliver Emergency Relief, Prevent Catastrophic Default

Washington, D.C. Congresswoman Nanette Diaz Barragán voted for legislation that would keep the federal government open, secure emergency funding to help communities devastated by natural disasters, help resettle Afghan refugees fleeing persecution, and prevent a devastating debt default.

This bill is essential to ensuring that the government can continue to deliver essential services that families depend on, while also preventing a first-ever default on the federal debt that would have a catastrophic impact on the American economy.

The legislation:

  • Secures government funding through December2021, ensuring the uninterrupted operations of essential government services and allowing for Congress to continue to advance appropriations priorities through the regular order process for Fiscal Year 2022.
  • Delivers emergency funding for urgent priorities, including relief funding for communities devastated by this summer’s record-breaking natural disasters, and funding to resettle Afghan refugees after the evacuation effort in August.
  • Suspends the debt ceiling through December 2022 so the federal government can continue to meet the financial obligations it has already made, including Social Security and Medicare benefits, services for veterans, and paychecks for members of the military.

Addressing the debt limit is a bipartisan responsibility. Over the last decade, each time the debt limit has needed to be addressed, Congress has come together and acted on a bipartisan basis. Over his four-year term, President Trump incurred $7.8 trillion in debt. During those four years, Republicans and Democrats worked together to increase or suspend the debt limit three separate times. Now, under President Biden, many Republicans refuse to join Democrats in addressing the debt limit. This is blatantly hypocritical given that only 3 percent of the current debt was accumulated under President Biden and more than 27 percent was incurred under President Trump.

Just two years ago, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said “America can’t default. That would be a disaster” and supported suspending the debt limit as necessary because it “ensures our federal government will not approach any sort of short-term debt crisis in the coming weeks or months. It secures our nation’s full-faith and credit and ensures that Congress will not throw this kind of unnecessary wrench into the gear of our job growth and thriving economy.” Yet, now, Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans are trying to force the first-ever default of the United States, which would devastate the economic well-being of American families.

“The full faith and credit of the United States should never come under threat,” continued Congresswoman Barragan. “Republicans have chosen to play political games with the economic health and security of millions of hard-working Americans. This is shameful. Senate Republicans should not hold the American economy hostage. They should join Democrats to pass this bill so we can get back to Building Back Better.”

 

 

Gov. Newsom Signs Legislation to Boost California’s Housing Supply

Gov. Gavin Newsom Sept. 16, signed bipartisan legislation to expand housing production in California, streamline housing permitting, and increase density to create more inclusive and vibrant neighborhoods across the state. The suite of bills also will help address the interrelated problems of climate change and housing affordability by promoting denser housing closer to major employment hubs – a critical element in limiting California’s greenhouse gas emissions. The Governor also highlighted the state’s ongoing work to spur more housing production, tackle barriers to construction and hold local governments accountable.

California officials Sept. 16, announced the new California Housing Accelerator – a $1.75 billion component of Gov. Newsom’s California Comeback Plan to expedite construction of an estimated 6,500 shovel-ready affordable multi-family units in projects stalled due to constraints on the supply of tax-exempt bonds and low-income housing tax credits.

The California Comeback Plan invests an unprecedented $22 billion in housing and homelessness which will lead to the creation of over 84,000 new affordable homes for Californians, including over 44,000 new housing units and treatment beds for people exiting homelessness. This Plan marks the most significant investment in housing in California’s history with $10.3 billion proposed for housing and over $12 billion for the unhoused.

The Governor Sept. 16, signed California State Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins’ SB 9, the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency or HOME Act, which the White House this month commended to increase housing supply. The HOME Act facilitates the process for homeowners to build a duplex or split their current residential lot, expanding housing options for people of all incomes that will create more opportunities for homeowners to add units on their existing properties. It includes provisions to prevent the displacement of existing renters and protect historic districts, fire-prone areas and environmental quality.

SB 10 by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) creates a voluntary process for local governments to access a streamlined zoning process for new multi-unit housing near transit or in urban infill areas, with up to 10 units per parcel. The legislation simplifies the CEQA requirements for upzoning, giving local leaders another tool to voluntarily increase density and provide affordable rental opportunities to more Californians.

A signing message for SB 10 can be found here.

The Governor also signed SB 8 by Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), which extends the provisions of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 through 2030. The Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which was scheduled to expire in 2025, accelerates the approval process for housing projects, curtails local governments’ ability to downzone and limits fee increases on housing applications, among other key accountability provisions.

Gov. Newsom also signed AB 1174, by Assembly member Tim Grayson (D-Concord), an urgency measure that makes changes to the existing streamlined, ministerial approval process for housing development in jurisdictions that have not yet made enough progress towards their allocation of their regional housing needs.

Another pillar of Gov. Newsom’s housing agenda is housing accountability for local governments. Governor Newsom the week of Sept. 14, lauded the Attorney General’s recent success in defending the validity of California’s Housing Accountability Act (the “anti-NIMBY law”) from challenge in California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund v. City of San Mateo. Last year, the Governor asked the Attorney General to intervene in the case to defend this critical tool for holding local governments accountable for doing their part to increase housing supply. The resulting appellate court decision curbs the ability of local governments to block new housing that is supposed to be allowed under their own existing rules and general plan.

Kristin Smart Hearing Judge Denies Unusual Requests By Defense

The hearing in the disappearance and murder of Cal Poly student Kristin Smart has taken several strange turns thanks to the defense team’s controversial tactics.

Smart hasn’t been seen since disappearing on the walk from a party to her dorm on Memorial Day weekend 1996. The lone suspect for more than two decades was Paul Flores, a fellow Cal Poly student who walked back with her that night. Flores and his father, Ruben Flores, were arrested April 13, marking the first time anyone has been arrested in connection with Smart’s disappearance.

Read more at SF Gate: www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Kristin-Smart-murder-case

Updates to the City of Long Beach Health Order

The Long Beach Health Department will align with Los Angeles County and require proof of vaccination at indoor bars, wineries, breweries and distilleries that do not serve food (establishments that are 21and over). While not required, the Health Department also strongly recommends that restaurants establish similar proof of vaccination requirements for the safety of its staff and patrons. Outdoor mega events of 10,000 or more people will require proof of vaccination or a negative COVID-19 test within 72 hours prior to attending. Attendees at indoor mega events are already required to show proof of vaccination or a negative test result prior to entry.

To allow time for compliance, patrons and employees will be required to be partially vaccinated by Oct. 7 and fully vaccinated by Nov. 4.

Details: www.longbeach.gov/health/diseases-and-condition/information-on/coronavirus

What Has Happened to Boeing Since the 737 Max Crashes

0

Sept. 14, by Priyanka Boghani

Within the span of five months, 346 people were killed in two crashes involving Boeing 737 Max planes: first off the coast of Indonesia in October 2018 and then in Ethiopia in March 2019.

Boeing’s Fatal Flaw, a new Frontline investigation with The New York Times, examines how commercial pressures, flawed design and failed oversight contributed to those devastating tragedies and a catastrophic crisis at one of world’s most iconic industrial names.

Here follows a brief look at what has happened to Boeing following the crashes.

Read more at: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/what-has-happened-to-boeing-since-the-737-max-crashes/?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ICYMI&utm_content=19xxxx

Board Approves Supervisor Barger’s Motion to Expand Mental Health Services in Schools

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved a motion by Supervisor Kathryn Barger, coauthored by Supervisor Hilda L. Solis, Sept. 16, to explore expanding the Community School Initiative.

Supervisor Barger said as students return to school full time, this is a critical time to expand onsite mental health services to ensure youth can thrive both in the classroom and in daily life.

The program has been implemented at 15 school sites, including an additional 10 regional teams comprised of 45 total members who are deployed countywide. This motion seeks to sustain the initiative and identify communities and school districts with a high need for mental health services where the county can expand the program.

Initially passed in January 2019, the initiative fostered collaboration between the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health and Los Angeles County Office of Education to provide access to mental health services. The initiative was then expanded in April 2019 to implement prevention-focused mental health services.

Supervisor Holly Mitchell added an amendment to the motion that includes the Los Angeles Unified School District in the expansion of the program.

Click here for Supervisor Barger’s motion.