Home Blog Page 48

After Years of Complaints, Harbor Gateway South’s Fight Against Jones Chemicals Reaches Washington

Reporters Desk
-
0
After Years of Complaints, Harbor Gateway South’s Fight Against Jones Chemicals Reaches Washington

By Rick Thomas, Columnist

“Now recognize the Gentlelady from California, Ms. Barragán.”

That was the introduction inside a Congressional hearing in Washington, D.C.

The “Gentlelady” was Congresswoman Nanette Barragán — the representative for California’s 44th Congressional District, which includes my neighborhood in Harbor Gateway South.

The witness sitting before Congress was EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.

And finally — after years of residents being ignored, dismissed, and treated like collateral damage — Harbor Gateway South was no longer invisible.

Because one of the issues raised during that hearing came directly from this community.

Directly from the neighborhood surrounding Jones Chemicals, Inc.

At this point, I’m tired of even typing the company’s name. I hoped this story would already be over. Instead, families in Harbor Gateway South are still living next to a facility with a documented history of hazardous violations, while politicians, agencies, and institutions spent years looking the other way.

This is people’s lives.

This is a working-class community where residents raise children, walk their dogs as I do every day, attend school events, and try to live in peace — while wondering what exactly is being released into the air around them.

Congresswoman Barragán knows this neighborhood personally. She grew up here. She attended school here. She still lives here when she’s not in Washington.

And now the issue sitting in the middle of Harbor Gateway South has reached the United States Congress.

That matters.

Because for years, too many people acted like this community didn’t matter enough to protect.

“Now recognize the Gentlelady from California, Ms. Barragán.”

Good.

Because somebody finally did.

Jones Chemicals, Inc. has operated for decades in the middle of a residential community while government oversight repeatedly failed the people living around it. According to current public records, the Los Angeles Fire Department documented 48 fire code violations at the facility.

Forty-eight.

Not four.

Not eight.

Forty-eight.

And somehow the people demanding accountability are still treated like the problem.

That’s backwards.

Residents of Harbor Gateway South are not extremists because they want clean air, safe streets, and basic accountability from a chemical facility operating next to homes, schools, and the Cheryl Green Boys & Girls Club.

That is not unreasonable.

That is the bare minimum any community deserves.

During the hearing, Congresswoman Barragán questioned EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin directly:

“…in my district the EPA’s risk management program inspected a chlorine transfer facility… JCI Jones Chemicals… in 2015 and in 2017 and they found serious safety problems, including corroded equipment handling hazardous chemicals.”

Then came the part that should alarm everybody:

“When the EPA returned in 2024 it found many of the same issues again.”

Again.

That single word says everything.

Because communities like Harbor Gateway South are too often expected to simply absorb risk, stay quiet, and be grateful for whatever scraps of accountability eventually arrive years later.

Meanwhile, residents are told to “engage in dialogue” with corporations that continue operating despite repeated violations and ongoing public concern.

Dialogue matters.

But accountability matters more.

And the people living here are exhausted.

They are exhausted from being talked down to.

Exhausted from watching agencies protect relationships instead of neighborhoods.

Exhausted from hearing carefully worded public relations statements while families live with real fear.

This is not a game to the people living here in Harbor Gateway South.

Residents should not have to keep “shelter in place” kits inside their homes just because they live near an industrial facility.

That should disturb everybody.

Congresswoman Barragán also pointed out that repeated violations were not treated as repeat offenses because inspections occurred years apart and penalties remained minimal.

A few thousand dollars.

That’s apparently the price tag attached to years of hazardous conditions inside a working-class Los Angeles neighborhood.

And people wonder why residents are angry.

Los Angeles City Councilmember Tim McOsker has now called for stronger oversight and enforcement involving the facility, writing that constituents have demanded clarity regarding safety and enforcement authority.

Truthfully, the residents already have clarity.

The clarity came from 48 fire code violations.

The clarity came from repeated inspections identifying ongoing problems.

The clarity came from years of residents feeling unheard while institutions protected process over people.

What Harbor Gateway South needs now is no more excuses.

It needs enforcement.

It needs transparency.

It needs leadership willing to prioritize residents over corporate comfort.

And to be fair, leadership is finally beginning to emerge.

Congresswoman Barragán and Councilmember McOsker previously worked together to address truck idling in Harbor Gateway South, another quality-of-life issue that residents were forced to endure for years.

That effort made a visible difference.

People noticed.

The trucks stopped idling.

The neighborhood got quieter.

Residents felt heard.

We did.

I did.

That matters because Harbor Gateway South is not asking for luxury.

People here are asking for dignity.

For safety.

For basic respect.

There is still a long fight ahead. Jones Chemicals, Inc. has already responded aggressively through legal channels, and nobody should pretend this issue disappears overnight.

But for the first time in a long time, residents can see elected officials publicly confronting the issue instead of avoiding it.

That changes things.

Because Harbor Gateway South deserves the same protection, urgency, and respect as any other community in Los Angeles.

No family should feel abandoned simply because they live next to industry.

And no resident should be attacked for refusing to stay silent about it.

Savoring Seasonal Fruit

Reporters Desk
-
0
Savoring Seasonal Fruit

 

By Lynn Nishimura, Columnist

One of the best things about a farmer’s market is that the fruits and vegetables are often in season. If you want to be sure, you can always check a seasonal calendar — but many markets also carry produce year-round, so nothing should stop you from cooking with your favorites.

Preserving fruit when it’s at its peak is a wonderful idea. I want to share one fruit I’ve come to appreciate, the lesser-known quince. It has a beautifully complex flavor — tart, sweet, and fragrant — and pairs especially well with blue cheeses like Roquefort cheese when transformed into fruit paste, also known as Spanish membrillo. There is no comparison. Homemade versions are hands down better than versions from a store, and you can add your personal touch to an original recipe.

The texture of non-industrial, farm-fresh produce is an experience in itself. For my quince fruit paste, I started with pesticide-free fruit and slowly transformed it into a candy-like treat using sugar, lemon, and vanilla. You can use other fruits to make different flavors. For vegetables, you can pickle onions, cauliflower, and cucumbers.

That balance of flavors is what makes simple ingredients feel gourmet. There are so many ways to prepare and enjoy seasonal fruit:

  • Canning
  • Juicing
  • Freezing
  • Preserving

When fruit ripens in abundance, it invites creativity. Purple plums can be turned into rich jellies, and apples into comforting applesauce. When preserving, an enamel dutch oven is a nice tool to have when working with sugar. It’s important to work in a sterilized environment, especially for canning. A properly sealed jar will have a lid that is slightly indented— not popped up.

Enjoy experimenting with food science this season — and don’t be afraid to try something new in the kitchen.

It’s Make-or-Break Time for Walker’s Cafe

Reporters Desk
-
0
It’s Make-or-Break Time for Walker’s Cafe


Crucial Meeting on June 2

By Emma Rault, Columnist

On June 2, the Harbor Area Planning Commission is discussing Burbank-based developer Prospect Group’s plans for a large new build on the Walker’s Cafe lot.

I spearheaded the grassroots campaign that won historic landmark designation for Walker’s Cafe. It was a major community effort with over three thousand supporters. But more than four years later, we’re in danger of losing the cafe altogether.

When Walker’s was suddenly shuttered by its previous absentee owners back in 2021, I feared for its future. Its location, on a large lot with an ocean view, made it vulnerable in an overheated real-estate market where history and community are often sacrificed for a quick profit.

Just before landmark status was finalized, it was bought by Prospect Group in an off-market deal for just $650,000. This firm is mainly active in the San Fernando Valley and specializes in fixing and flipping residential properties.

Prospect Group has no experience running restaurants and has shown little interest in doing so. Numerous potential cafe operators that reached out were stonewalled.


In the meantime, the group has let the shuttered cafe sit. And sit. After repeated invitations, Prospect finally appeared before the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council — unveiling plans for a massive, 3,500+ sq ft, two-story residence with ADU.

These large, featureless cubes are common in many of LA’s seaside neighborhoods, where outside investors have created playgrounds for the ultra-wealthy, eroding charm and community feel. They have no place in Point Fermin, with its Victorian lighthouse, stunning park, and the rich history that led to the creation of the Point Fermin Historic District, added to the National Register of Historic Places in 2021.

The current plan for the mega-mansion would fill most of the lot, totally overshadowing Walker’s. It would choke off the cafe’s vital space for storage, commercial deliveries, and the other crucial needs of a functioning business.

In short: this huge development would mean the death of the cafe.

Meanwhile, interested cafe tenants have continued to be pushed away. Colin Fahrner of the viral pop-up Yellow Paper Burger showed serious interest but was denied even a walkthrough of the site.

He ended up opening a brick-and-mortar in Eagle Rock instead.

Prospect’s approach since buying the historic cafe is beginning to look a lot like “demolition by neglect.” This is when owners deliberately allow a building to fall into disrepair while waiting for the land value to increase or trying to push through large-scale new construction to maximize profits.

Demolition by neglect is manipulative. The more time goes by, the more likely people are to OK something — anything — other than blight.

But time doesn’t make a bad idea better. If this project gets approved as proposed, we’re unlikely to see Walker’s reopen.

Which might be great for Prospect Group, but we’ll lose a vital community space when so much local history has already been lost in recent years. As the phrase goes, you can’t make a new old friend.

Dozens of people showed up to the City Planning hearing in October 2025 to say: We’re not against new housing, but this project is just too big.

Yet the city planner rubber-stamped the project, ignoring the recommendations of both the council office and the community. And they did it behind closed doors: no one was notified, a direct violation of the law. Not the neighbors, not the neighborhood councils, not the countless people who sent letters.

One longtime Walker’s supporter stumbled across the decision letter on a city portal last month and let us know. After we reached out, Planning admitted their “unforeseen administrative issue” and reopened the appeal period.

Friends of Walker’s Cafe have now joined forces with other concerned locals and filed an appeal to be discussed at the meeting on Tuesday, June 2 after 4:30 pm.

Here’s what we’re asking for:

1) A substantially reduced footprint for the residence.
2) A special planning condition, or “Q condition,” stating that the cafe must be kept operational.
3) Withholding building permits for the house until Prospect has made real progress on restoring the cafe.

Cramming the lot full makes Walker’s untenable. A smaller house at an appropriate distance, however, could still be rented out to a cafe operator. Or an owner-operator could take over, either living in the house themselves or renting it out for extra income.

Please join us in asking the city to hold this developer accountable, either by sending a support letter or giving public comment at the hearing. Visit savewalkerscafe.com for more information.

Since the 1940s, Walker’s has been a space of community and generosity. Its legendary founder, Bessie Mae Petersen, fed patrons even if they couldn’t pay. People still tell me all the time how much they miss it — it’s where their parents met, where they had their father’s funeral, their wedding reception. We can’t let something so precious be destroyed by — let’s call it what it is — greed.

Lamar Lyons Centers Working-Class Agenda in Bid for 65th Assembly District

Terelle Jerricks
-
0
Lamar Lyons Centers Working-Class Agenda in Bid for 65th Assembly District

 

Sixty-fifth Assembly District candidate Lamar Lyons presented himself as a defender of the working class with experience in manufacturing, warehouse labor, finance and neighborhood leadership during his interview with Random Lengths News. Citing his background working on an assembly line at Douglas Aircraft Company and later in finance, Lyons noted his perspective is markedly different from his rivals in the race.

Throughout the interview, Lyons focused on economic development and job creation, arguing that the district has lost too many good-paying industrial jobs while criticizing plans that prioritize warehouse expansion over manufacturing. Lyons repeatedly pointed to industrial land opportunities in Wilmington, Carson, and along the 66th Street corridor as areas that could be redeveloped for advanced manufacturing and technology-based industries. He said the district needs “career jobs” instead of low-paying warehouse work and argued that environmental regulations, while important, can sometimes hurt employment opportunities if not balanced properly.

Lyons also emphasized environmental justice and public health concerns tied to the ports. He acknowledged the pollution created by ships and trucking operations and said the state should strengthen environmental oversight and protections. At the same time, he proposed bringing healthcare directly into communities through mobile health vans that would provide medical and mental health services to residents who struggle to access care.

Lyons expressed a mixed but pragmatic view on environmental regulations during the interview. He acknowledged that pollution from the ports — particularly from ships and trucks — is a serious problem affecting air quality and public health in communities like Wilmington and San Pedro. He said the state should strengthen oversight and create “guard rails” through environmental agencies and regulations to address pollution issues.

At the same time, Lyons argued that some environmental regulations can negatively affect employment and economic development. He stated that certain regulations are “killing employment” by making it harder to retain or attract manufacturing businesses and industrial jobs in the district. He connected this concern to the loss of major employers such as Toyota and other companies that have left the region.

Rather than opposing environmental protections outright, Lyons advocated for balancing environmental goals with job creation. He repeatedly emphasized that he supports environmental improvements but believes regulations should not come at the expense of working-class employment opportunities. His broader argument was that the district should pursue cleaner industrial development and manufacturing while still protecting air quality and public health.

On housing, Lyons linked affordability directly to wages and economic opportunity. He advocated for expanding pathways to homeownership through state-backed assistance programs, lowering credit score barriers for first-time buyers, and encouraging mixed-use developments that combine housing and commercial space. While supportive of new housing construction, he expressed concern that transit-oriented developments often become too expensive for working-class residents and can contribute to displacement without affordability protections.

The interview also addressed automation and artificial intelligence in the workplace. Lyons distinguished between AI research tools and automation on the waterfront, saying he opposes automation “in its present form” because it threatens union jobs and labor protections. He argued that workers should be retrained and protected as new technologies are introduced.

On public safety, Lyons rejected reducing police budgets but supported redirecting resources toward mental health professionals and nonviolent crisis response teams. He noted that many 911 calls involve homelessness or mental health crises and said alternative response systems could improve outcomes while reducing unnecessary police involvement.

In closing, Lyons framed his campaign as one focused on practical solutions rather than broad political rhetoric. He repeatedly returned to themes of manufacturing, economic opportunity, healthcare access, environmental health and working-class empowerment as the foundation of his candidacy for the 65th Assembly District.

To see the full video, visit: https://tinyurl.com/Lamar-Lyons-4-Assembly

Jim Crow Court’s Return Highlights Need For Fundamental Reform

Paul Rosenberg
-
0

 

On April 29, the conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act or VRA, opening the floodgates for Republican state governments to eliminate Black representation in Congress throughout the South in a lightening-fast replay of how the 19th-century Supreme Court paved the way for Jim Crow segregation, in defiance of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.

After the 2020 census, Louisiana’s legislature created a map with five majority-white and one majority-Black districts, even though Black people made up one-third of Louisiana’s population. Black voters challenged the new maps as a violation of VRA. After courts found in their favor, and new maps were drawn, a group of white voters sued, claiming that the new maps violated their rights. And the conservative Supreme Court agreed: white rights, good; Black rights… too bad.

The immediate response has been a dramatic escalation of partisan redistricting, but as Harvard law professors Nikolas Bowie and Daphna Renan argued in the New York Times, the Court “has effectively killed the Second Reconstruction, the mid-20th-century civil rights revolution,” exactly as it did the first Reconstruction — but only after Radical Republicans initially prevented it from acting — and the way forward is to draw lessons from that time to limit the Supreme Court’s power.

 

Republicans Rush To Purge Black Representatives In Dixie

Almost immediately, Republicans in southern states began announcing plans to redraw their congressional districts to eliminate seats held by Black Democrats, starting with Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry (R), who suspended an election in which absentee ballots had already been cast. In Alabama, Gov. Kay Ivey (R) called a special session to redraw congressional and legislative maps, even though ballots had already been mailed out in the state’s primary election. In Tennessee, Gov. Bill Lee (R) did the same, targeting the state’s sole remaining majority-Black district in Memphis. In Florida, the state legislature was already drawing new maps in anticipation of the ruling, and they were signed into law the next Monday.

But in Georgia, Gov. Brian Kemp rejected redistricting, noting that “Voting is already underway.” And North Carolina has already held and certified its primary elections. The same is true of Mississippi, but Gov. Tate Reeves (R) has convened a special session to redistrict state supreme court elections, and Trump is pressuring the state to redistrict congressional maps as well. But with Black people representing nearly 40% of the state, efforts to eliminate Alabama’s sole black representative could backfire, so state Republicans are reluctant to act.

South Carolina stood alone in seeming to stand by its existing maps — for purely partisan reasons. “We need to be careful about this because in an effort to go to 7-0, we very well could go to 5-2,” State Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey told South Carolina Public Radio.

As an overview of all this, the New York Times ran a map of eight Southern states, already intensely gerrymandered by their Republican legislatures. Of the 24 existing Democratic seats — almost all held by minorities — the Times projected Republicans would take over 11.

In partisan terms, Democrats could blunt the impact, according to an analysis by Fair Fight Action reported by The New Republic, which found that Democrats could redraw anywhere from 10 to 22 congressional seats in time for the 2028 elections if they push hard with redistricting in seven blue and swing states. And Democrats immediately showed signs of doing so, starting with New York, where Gov. Kathy Hochul voiced her support. As with California, New York law will require voter approval, but that’s unlikely to be a problem in response to the extremism and racism of the southern GOP redistricting efforts.

 

The Need For Fundamental Court Reform

But neutralizing the GOP’s partisan advantage doesn’t address the mass disenfranchisement of Black and Hispanic voters, and the sidelining of their representatives in the political sphere. Nor does it do anything about the increasingly lawless Supreme Court, which seeks to dictate to everyone else and will apparently do anything to thwart efforts to make America more democratic and give minority voters a voice, as the 15th Amendment intended to do.

This is why the larger issue of confronting judicial supremacy cannot be ignored, and why many who’ve resisted Supreme Court reform in the past have begun to change their minds.

In the Times, Bowie and Renan noted that post-Civil War Radical Republicans in Congress “debated measures ranging from declaring certain federal laws beyond judicial reach to changing the number of justices,” and “the partial measures they enacted saved Reconstruction — for a time.” But the most relevant ideas now “are the comprehensive reforms they proposed but never fully enacted.” The two are co-authors of a forthcoming book, Supremacy: How Rule by the Court Replaced Government by the People, and there’s growing pressure to challenge that judicial supremacy, with even bolder ideas than were considered in the 1870s.

 

Reform Deferred Only Makes Things Worse

There was some talk of reform in terms of court expansion, after Trump appointed three justices with dubious means at best: One nomination was stolen from Barack Obama, when GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell refused to hold hearings on his nominee, another stolen was from Joe Biden, when McConnell rushed Trump’s appointee to confirmation even after voting in the election had begun, and the third approved despite multiple accusations of sexual assault.

When Biden took office, the most radical proposals getting wide attention were to expand the Court. But rather than even consider acting, Biden appointed a commission to study the problem to death, which only seemed to further embolden the Court.

But calls for reform surged again after the Court struck down Roe v. Wade — and for good reason. Support for Roe was almost 2-1 in most polls, while three of the justices who voted to overturn it were nominated by a president who lost the popular vote, and four of them were confirmed by senators who represent a minority of the American people, as well as lying during their confirmation hearings about their willingness to overturn Roe.

Even if the decision’s legal and historical arguments hadn’t been eye-rolling — ignoring the prevalence of legal early-term abortions in America in the 18th and 19th centuries, while citing a ruling from an earlier witch-hunting judge — the arrogant disregard for the will of the people caused a sharp drop in approval for the Supreme Court, and an increased willingness — even eagerness — to change it.

Yet, Democrats failed to capitalize on the public backlash to Roe’s repeal. As a result of such timidity, the Court grew even bolder, protecting Trump from standing trial and giving him a get-out-of-jail-free card, which enabled his return to the White House. So now, in turn, reformers’ ideas have grown bolder as well.

 

Beyond Expansion: New Calls For A New Court

Rather than expand the Court, still leaving it in place as an exalted, unelected super-legislature, more and more people are calling for stripping it of power, in favor of something that acts more like a real Court. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to limit the Court’s jurisdiction over cases on appeal, and Congress did that specifically during the First Reconstruction. Rather than do it on a case-by-case basis, Congress could do it for everything, giving appellate jurisdiction to a new court specifically designed to remedy the problems with the Supreme Court.

One such proposal, introduced by Rep. Sean Casten of Illinois, would create a court drawn by lot from each circuit of the federal judiciary to serve for a period of one year. Another proposal, described by Justin Briley at Liberal Currents, would draw federal judges by lot on a case-by-case basis, creating in essence a jury of judges.

Some have argued that Court reform is the last thing we need, because an independent judiciary is a check on executive power. But the reality is that while lower courts have been something of a check on Trump’s lawlessness, the Supreme Court has repeatedly undermined them, particularly with its shadow docket rulings, brief, cryptic, “interim” rulings that frequently allow Trump’s lawlessness to continue, destroying people’s lives, while lower court rulings are being appealed. Proposals like Casten’s and Briley’s would actually strengthen judicial independence, unifying the judiciary in contrast to the Supreme Court’s current war with the lower courts on behalf of Donald Trump.

The immediate battle is simply to counter the GOP’s relentless redistricting assault on democracy, so that Democrats can win the House and begin to rein in some of Trump’s authoritarian lawlessness. But much more than that is needed in the long run, and without major court reform, none of it will be possible. So the time to start discussing it is now.

Confusion, Not Clarity, Comes From Governor’s Debate

Paul Rosenberg
-
0
Confusion, Not Clarity, Comes From Governor’s Debate

 

Amidst the chaos, two clarifying moments stood out in the governor’s debate on May 6. The first was when Tom Steyer, the only billionaire on stage, said he would vote for the billionaire wealth tax initiative. There was no real discussion, it was just a yes-or-no question, but Republicans always oppose wealthy people paying their fair share, while the other Democrats have previously argued that a onetime tax on a small number of people doesn’t make sense, or that “We should charge billionaires in other ways,” as San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan said, in the only comment that did get squeezed in.

The reason it was clarifying is three-fold: first, because wealth inequality is the driving force behind almost all of the state’s major problems except for climate change (housing and homelessness are two obvious examples), second, because it’s rarely talked about in forums like the debate, and third, because it really is difficult for one state alone to tackle the problem. The way in which the question was briefly raised (only because of a looming ballot initiative) and then quickly dropped is a telling reminder of how the deeper driving problems we face are not being grappled with.

The other clarifying moment came when pseudo “constitutional sheriff” Chad Bianco simply dismissed the homeless as “pawns in the homeless industrial complex,” adding, “This is not and has never been about homes. This is about drug and alcohol addiction. This is about mental illness and a combination of both,” a claim that flies wildly in the face of decades of data here in LA, statewide and across the country.

In the real world, it absolutely is about homes. Katie Porter may have been oversimplifying when she said, “the cause of homelessness is the cost of housing,” but not by much. California’s extreme homeless problem is a direct consequence of its lack of affordable housing, compounded by an inadequate safety net protecting those in danger of becoming homeless.

Steyer summarized things neatly: “What I would say is it’s absolutely critical to keep people from going on the street. That rental assistance is much cheaper and more humane than letting someone go on the street. That emergency interim housing to get people off the street into a single room with a key, with shared dining, laundry facilities where you can bring your dog is much more compassionate.”

The more polished MAGA Republican onstage, former Fox News personality Steve Hilton, ignored policy discussion entirely, instead blasting “sixteen years of one-party rule,” and saying “Chad’s plan is exactly right,” a puzzling claim given that Bianco didn’t even offer a plan, just massive misinformation.

In a CalMatters interview, Hilton called California’s “housing first” philosophy (getting people housed before dealing with any other problems) a “complete disaster,” but Finland, which pioneered the approach, has almost eliminated street homeless camps, even as homelessness continues climbing almost everywhere else in Europe.

This shows that the philosophy itself is sound, but implementing it fully in California’s much more unequal economy is clearly a major challenge. The fact that Bianco’s fantasy got floated in the debate, but that Finland’s working realworld model wasn’t even hinted at tells you everything you need to know about how the framing of the debate worked against having a truly realistic discussion.

The lack of realism was apparent in discussions of immigration as well, particularly since California’s economy is so dependent on undocumented immigrants and it has a statewide sanctuary law to protect them. That 2017 law (SB 54) is based on a model first set out in Special Order 40 in 1979 by rightwing LAPD chief Daryl Gates. Gates had no great love for undocumented immigrants, but he knew his officers needed their help in fighting crime, so he made sure everyone knew that LAPD was not la migra. Unfortunately, this history is so forgotten and ignored by the corporate media that it falls to Democratic candidates to remind people of the logic involved.

In this debate, that task fell to Xavier Bercerra. “Our sanctuary laws do not provide sanctuary to criminals,” he said. “What they do is they build trust between law enforcement officers and the community they serve. We don’t ask our police officers to check your tax returns or your immigration papers, because… we want you to report crime, serve as a witness, provide evidence.”

The fact that SB 54 is the law of the land seemed to escape Hilton’s notice, since it directly contradicted his “calm and peaceful,” “just-follow-the-law” narrative.

“We can’t just stand up here and decide which laws we like and which laws we don’t,” Hilton said. “If we don’t like the laws, we’ve got to change them. But the governor’s job is to enforce them. And as governor, I will do that peacefully and calmly and cooperatively with the federal immigration authorities.”

But SB-54 forbids Hilton’s fantasy calm and peaceful cooperation with ICE operations as the Trump administration has carried them out. In fact, as Steyer noted, “ICE is a criminal organization. They’re coming into our state. They’re terrorizing people. They’re racially profiling people, and they’re harming people and committing violence against them. I’m in favor of abolishing ICE,” he said. “We should be prosecuting ICE agents for racial profiling. It’s illegal in the state of California. We should be prosecuting them for violence against Californians.”

There was a great deal more that happened in the debate, but it was almost entirely constrained media narratives that worked against serious fact-based discussions of policies that actually might work. And it utterly excluded some of the most basic facts. The discussion of California’s insurance crisis, for example, made no mention of the fact that it was being driven by climate change, and that California’s geography, regional climate and past developmental practices have all combined to put it in a particularly precarious place.

As with combating the ills of income inequality, the insurance crisis isn’t something California can even conceivably solve on its own—it’s not just national, it’s a global problem, as Random Lengths first laid out in 2005, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. While it’s true that California’s governor can’t solve global problems, they certainly can play a role in setting examples, forming alliances and influencing policies adopted by others. They have to deal with realities they can’t control, but they don’t have to accept them as fixed and immutable.

Nor do they have to accept the terms set by those who’ve caused the problem in the first place. Over the past few years, activists have increasingly pressured Democrats to stop taking money from the fossil fuel industry, and as RLN reported in the past, this has made a significant difference in how politicians vote on climate issues. Naturally, this wasn’t an issue that made in onstage in such a detached-from-reality debate. But it’s a crucial concern for voters who want to see California continue to lead on climate issues, and Bercerra is the only Democrat who’s taken fossil fuel money in this campaign—a maximum campaign contribution of $39,200 from Chevron.

When news of this broke, he doubled down, saying “they’re not the bad guy.” California Environmental Voters was quick to respond.

“Becerra is wrong. Big Oil is absolutely the bad guy,” executive director Matt Abularach-Macias said. “Big Oil knew their products would cause devastating impacts to our health, economic, and physical safety decades ago, and they decided to lie about it and continue their destructive, deadly business practices.”

This is precisely the kind of historically-informed big-picture view of the problems facing our state and where they come from that was so sorely missing in the governor’s debate. In years past, civic groups like the League of Women Voters sponsored campaigns and helped ensure that issues such as this were more fully and fairly presented. The past wasn’t always golden—not by a long shot. But this is one practice we sorely miss—even if most folks don’t even realize it.

Keeping Tradition in Motion

Terelle Jerricks
-
0
Keeping Tradition in Motion

Lorraine Gomez-Maese’s 60-Year Journey Through Dance, Culture and Community

Lorraine Gomez-Maese is focused on securing her legacy in the Harbor Area before beginning a new chapter in Nevada with her family. For nearly 60 years, she has used dance to teach generations of students not only technique, but also discipline, resilience, culture and history.

Her latest project reflects that mission.

Gomez-Maese recently released a children’s book, The Spanish Swan Ballet: Faith’s Wish, about a young girl named Faith who dreams of becoming a dancer despite needing a brace to walk. Instead of emphasizing the child’s limitations, the story centers on encouragement, perseverance and the power of believing in possibility.

The book is tied to an original production Gomez-Maese created, The Spanish Swan Ballet, a 30-minute performance blending storytelling, dance, music and cultural themes. Designed for dancers of different ages and skill levels, the production promotes faith, healing, inclusion and cultural pride. The book was featured at the Los Angeles Times Festival of Books last month.

For Gomez-Maese, the project represents more than a new creative endeavor. It is part of a lifetime spent preserving culture through the performing arts.

“What I’ve been doing for over half a century, I’m proud of,” Gomez-Maese said. “My vision is just to keep it going.”

Her journey into the arts began at age 4 with tap lessons at Wilmington Park under recreation leader George-Anne Rudder. Though neither of her parents were professional dancers, creativity was deeply woven into family life.

Her father, Robert Gomez, loved music from the 1940s and often built backyard stages where neighborhood children could perform. Her mother sewed costumes, organized productions and supported nearly every aspect of the family’s artistic activities.

“At our house, there was always music, dancing and people creating something,” Gomez-Maese said.

By age 9, she had begun studying ballet folklórico and flamenco. By 13, she was already dancing professionally.

In 1967, Gomez-Maese opened her own dance school with just six students. Over time, it evolved into one of the Harbor Area’s most recognized cultural arts programs, training students across San Pedro, Wilmington, Catalina Island and surrounding communities.

Her choreography became known for blending traditional Mexican folklórico with the intricate footwork and discipline of flamenco, creating a style that distinguished her productions throughout Southern California.

But Gomez-Maese said dance was never simply about performance.

“Dance is not just about movement,” she said. “It’s about history. It’s about the music, composers — everybody involved in what they do in the art world.”

That philosophy was shaped early by Rudder, whom Gomez-Maese credits as one of the most influential figures in her artistic life.

Rudder recognized her talent as a young child and encouraged Gomez-Maese’s mother to enroll her in formal dance training. What started as a neighborhood recreation program soon became the foundation for a lifelong career in cultural arts.

Beyond teaching dance steps, Rudder introduced Gomez-Maese to the broader idea of community arts and public cultural spaces. Gomez-Maese recalled Rudder’s involvement in preserving community gathering places such as the gazebo at Averill Park — spaces where music, performance and neighborhood life could thrive together.

“She taught me that the arts belong to the community,” Gomez-Maese said.

That lesson would later define Gomez-Maese’s own work. Throughout her career, she built programs designed not only to train dancers but also to bring families and communities together through public performance and cultural education.

Over the decades, Gomez-Maese staged productions at venues including the Warner Grand Theatre, Terrace Theater and Hermosa Beach Playhouse, along with countless festivals, parades and community celebrations.

Her work extended far beyond choreography. She viewed performance as a collaborative art form involving costume design, music, storytelling, history and theater production.

Her parents became deeply involved in the school’s success. Her father developed dance shoe modifications to help performers execute difficult footwork, while her mother designed costumes and prepared food for productions and celebrations.

“It became a family tradition,” Gomez-Maese said. “Everybody had a role.”

Students often stayed with her for years, and many families enrolled multiple generations of children in her programs. Across the Harbor Area, former students still recognize her influence as both an instructor and mentor.

M D Png
Lorena Gomez-Maese with her daughters Raquel and Catalina, circa mid 1980s. Courtesy of Lorena Gomez-Maese.

That artistic legacy now stretches across multiple generations of her own family as well.

Her daughters grew up immersed in rehearsals, productions, parades and backstage preparations. Dance classes, costume fittings and theater rehearsals became a normal part of daily life.

Among her children, daughter Catalina Gomez emerged as the strongest continuation of the family’s professional dance tradition.

A ballerina, choreographer, producer and instructor, Catalina built a reputation for organizing large-scale productions and community performances throughout Southern California.

“She’s my clone,” Gomez-Maese said with a laugh. “She carries the same passion.”

Catalina trained extensively in ballet and later worked with the Joffrey Ballet during a year in New York. She also studied dance in Spain, deepening her understanding of classical and Spanish dance traditions.

Her longtime friendship with renowned ballerina Misty Copeland reflects her connection to professional dance circles.

Catalina has produced numerous performances at the Warner Grand Theatre, organizing productions involving hundreds of performers and audience members. Like her mother, she teaches multiple dance styles and works closely with children and youth performers.

She also teaches on Catalina Island, where several local families and relatives participate in her programs.

Gomez-Maese said Catalina is now helping carry the artistic tradition into a third generation through her own children, who study dance, music, gymnastics and stage performance.

Her daughter Raquel also pursued dance professionally and later became an instructor. Raquel trained in hip-hop, jazz, Mexican folklórico and Zumba, eventually performing in major productions, including family presentations of The Nutcracker at the Warner Grand Theatre during the early 2000s.

While Raquel’s path expanded beyond traditional folklórico and ballet, Gomez-Maese said she remains deeply involved in arts-related projects and future family plans, including the development of a creative arts and retail space in Las Vegas that would combine dance instruction, fashion and cultural programming.

For Gomez-Maese, the continuation of the arts within her family represents the fulfillment of her greatest vision: “the legacy.”

That legacy now includes dance schools, theater productions, photography, writing, children’s books and community arts programming focused on healing, inclusion and cultural preservation.

Her grandchildren are studying dance, theater, voice, music and visual arts. Some are pursuing advanced performance training, while others are exploring careers in animation, theater production and music.

“They’ve all grown up around creativity,” Gomez-Maese said. “That’s what keeps the legacy alive.”

As she prepares to expand her work into Las Vegas, Gomez-Maese does not see the transition as leaving the Harbor Area behind. Instead, she views it as an opportunity to grow what her family has spent decades building.

She continues to maintain projects in San Pedro and on Catalina Island while planning future arts academies, productions and cultural programming in Nevada.

Her mission, she said, has always remained the same: preserving tradition while making sure art continues connecting people across generations and communities.

“We have to keep culture alive,” Gomez-Maese said. “If we stop teaching it, we lose part of who we are.”

All Heat, No Light From Mayoral Debate

Paul Rosenberg
-
0
All Heat, No Light From Mayoral Debate

 

For the first time in a quarter century, Los Angeles is engaged in charter reform, revising basic aspects of how city government functions to increase accountability, effectiveness, and public trust, expand the city council for the first time in a century, and double funding for city parks. But you’d never know that a major overhaul of city government was being worked on, for voters to consider in November, if you watched the televised mayor’s debate on May 6.

Instead, it was selectively framed in terms of a few headline problems, in a manner favoring sound bites and simplistic solutions that fail to come to grips with underlying causes and limitations.

In an echo of national politics, that framing favored the least qualified candidate by far, Republican reality TV star, Spencer Pratt, distracting from what could have been a highly productive debate between the incumbent, Mayor Karen Bass, and City Councilwoman Nithya Raman — previously a city planner — who was recently called “the tip of the spear in the struggle” for charter reform by the City Council President, Marqueece Harris-Dawson.

By professional background, Raman thinks in terms of systemic causes and consequences, and has detailed issue position pages on her campaign website. Anyone who has long-standing grievances about how the city works ought to be interested in at least paying some attention to ideas she’s engaged with.

Mayor Karen Bass’s website lays out in detail what she’s accomplished in her time in office — crime and homelessness are down, and new housing is up, as prime examples. There’s obviously a constructive debate to be had contrasting her accomplishments with what Raman argues is possible.

A Reality TV Debate

But the debate moderators had something else in mind: playing up the reality TV star, Pratt, a Trump-like peddler of grievance, attacks, “alternative facts” and simplistic promises.

“Oh shit, I can be president now,” Pratt thought while watching Trump run for president in 2016. “Do I want to be in the White House one day?” Nothing came of it then, but that changed after his house burned down in the Palisades fire. He’s now running to be LA mayor, framing that loss as his political origin story, though his sister Stephanie Pratt disagrees.

“He’s just trying to stay famous and sell his memoir, don’t be fooled,” she wrote on X in mid-February. “Spencer has done great work for the Palisades,” she continued, “But LA does not need another unqualified and inexperienced mayor.”

Ignoring her warning, the moderators opened the debate just as Pratt would have wanted it, using the fires to question if Bass deserved another term, then asking Pratt a dream question he couldn’t have topped himself:

“Your desire to run for office for mayor of Los Angeles. Really born of your own experience. You lost your home in the fire. You lost your neighborhood,” moderator Conan Nolan said. “How does that really color your view of what needs to happen at this point, and how does that help others moving forward?”

With the “question” having said everything Pratt could have wished for, he ignored it and continued attacking Bass instead, adding garbled facts in the process. “He’s saying several things that are completely inaccurate,” Bass responded. And Pratt replied by calling Bass “an incredible liar,” just as Trump might have done.

Lost in the interchange was any attention to root causes: the unheard of midwinter wildfires were a direct result of global warming — which Pratt sought to wave away — and while he also obscured the inherent inability of municipal firefighting infrastructure to deal with wildfires on this scale, neither the LA Department of Water and Power nor the fire department was without fault. Restructuring departmental accountability is just the sort of thing charter reform is meant to do, though the current report doesn’t deal with it, instead listing it as the first recommended item for future reform.

If the moderators had any awareness of the charter reform process and Raman’s role in advancing it, they could have asked her why it wasn’t being dealt with now, and whatever her response, it would have given the audience a more informed view of the issues involved. Instead, Raman, who had been doing her job — with preparedness efforts beforehand and fire preparedness motions afterwards — was asked non-specifically if she was doing enough, even though, as she noted, “We didn’t have a single home that was lost during these fires” in her district.

Feelings Over Facts In Crime Debate

The next issue, crime, was framed in a facts-be-damned manner. “LAPD is reporting the overall crime rate is down, but people repeatedly say that’s not their perception. They do not feel safe,” the question to Bass began, putting a privilege on fears over facts, as the corporate media has done for generations, covering crime.

As a result, people almost every year say that crime is getting worse, even though crime rates have decreased dramatically since the 1990s, with steady declines over most of that period, except for the immediate aftermath of COVID-19. The questioner went on to mention “yet another series of home burglaries in the San Fernando” and the federal arrest of 18 people for drug trafficking, asking if the latter was “a sign that our communities are not safe?” When debate moderators cite arresting criminals as a possible danger sign, you can be sure that they’ve totally lost the plot.

Notably missing from their questions was any concern for police accountability, for alternatives to police in crisis situations, or for anything else that might contribute to public safety, though Raman did try to squeeze them into the conversation.

For instance, she noted that a bloated police contract resulted in “a $1 billion budget deficit last year. That led to us having to cut essential services across the entire city,” she noted. “If you’re wondering why your street lights are out on your block, and the Bureau of Street Lighting is telling you that it’s taking a year to fix a street light. That’s why.”

Street lights, of course, also contribute to public safety, as well as quality of life. But the debate was devoid of questions about improving the quality of life.

Drug Myths And Homelessness

When the debate turned to homelessness, it went even farther off the rails, with Pratt portraying the homeless as an incorrigible, violent, drug addicted menace.

“No matter how many beds you give these people, they are on super meth, they are on fentanyl. The DEA statistics says 93% of this is a drug addiction problem,” he said.

But that’s simply not true. Past homeless surveys in LA have shown that income loss is the primary cause of homelessness, accounting for almost half, while drug addiction accounts for less than a third of that. Drug use is far more a consequence of homelessness than a cause.

Ramping up the mindlessness of the debate, the moderators asked for a yes or no response to continuing the city-run needle exchange program, which Pratt alone automatically rejected. “No needles and pipes for drug addicts on the street ever, got it?”

Complete missing was decades of documented experience showing how much good such programs do, not just in preventing disease and death, but in promoting treatment and recovery. One Seattle study, for example, found that needle exchange participants were three times more likely to substantially reduce or even stop injecting drugs than those not involved in the program.

Again and again throughout the debate, the lack of concern for facts vs. feelings skewed the whole enterprise into fantasy, helping Pratt play the fantasy role of no-nonsense, get-it-done tough guy, despite having no evidence his ideas would actually work, rather than making things worse, á la Trump.

Sizzle vs. Steak

When asked how his experience qualified him to oversee LA’s $14 billion budget, Pratt not only claimed “I have common sense,” but “I’m humble, I have humility,” so he would surround himself “with the smartest people in the world,” a direct echo of Trump’s promise in 2016. “My job is to be as crazy as this will sound. I’m the adult in the room,” he said.

He’s right. It does sound crazy, given how little he knows and how much he thinks he knows.

In dramatic contrast to Pratt, Raman has detailed plans for dramatically increasing housing supply, protecting renters and dealing with homelessness, as well as increasing park space and planting trees, and improving transportation and public safety — exactly the sort of thing one might expect from a city planner. A public debate about the city’s future should at least consider the kinds of ideas that Raman is putting forward, and compare them with Bass’ record of achievement.

But the moderators instead went the reality TV route — all sizzle, no steak.

St. Mary Medical Center Earns National Five-Star Hospital Quality Rating

Reporters Desk
-
0
St. Mary Medical Center Earns National Five-Star Hospital Quality Rating

 

LONG BEACH — Dignity Health – St. Mary Medical Center or SMMC announced it has achieved a Five-Star Quality Rating from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services or CMS. This top rating, the highest possible designation, signifies “above average” quality in patient care, staffing, and health inspections. SMMC is the only acute care hospital in Long Beach to achieve this distinction.

The CMS Five-Star Quality Rating System is a national program designed to give consumers a clear and concise method for comparing hospital performance. The evaluation encompasses three key areas: comprehensive health inspections, staffing levels that measure hours of direct patient care, and quality measures reflecting patient outcomes.

“Earning the CMS Five-Star Quality Rating is a tremendous source of pride for everyone at St. Mary Medical Center,” said Carolyn Caldwell, FACHE, president of SMMC. “This national recognition is a powerful testament to the tireless work, expertise, and spirit of our entire care team. It assures our patients and the Long Beach community that they are receiving exceptional medical care, delivered with humankindness. We are dedicated to providing personalized, innovative care and maintaining the highest standards of clinical excellence.”

The criteria for the CMS Five-Star rating reinforce SMMC’s promise to patient safety, optimal staffing ratios, and superior quality outcomes through evidence-based practices.

Details: dignityhealth.org/stmary

Community theatre take on “Side by Side by Sondheim” successfully communicates his genius

Greggory Moore
-
0
Community theatre take on “Side by Side by Sondheim” successfully communicates his genius

Part of the genius of Stephen Sondheim lies in the complexity of his music and lyrics. Often technically demanding, always clever and idiosyncratic, any theatre company staging Sondheim is making a real commitment.

So you wouldn’t expect to find a lot of it in the world of community theatre. But from their ambition to their venue, a lot about Long Beach Landmark Theatre Company is a little unexpected. And they generally make that work for them — including their second take on Sondheim in their last eight shows

While the original Side by Side by Sondheim was written for a cast of four (three singers plus an emcee of sorts), right off the top we see that Landmark has gone its own way, populating the stage with 26 performers ranging in age from 8 or 9 to it’s-impolite-to-guess. They’ve personalized the narrative (Long Beach- and self-referential, a few too many Dad jokes), and musical director Curtis Heard — whose piano carries the entire instrumental weight (unless you count a cute cameo by Jadzia Kopp’s trumpet in Gypsy’s “You Gotta Get a Gimmick”) — has adapted the songs to everything from solos to full ensemble numbers. Artistic director Megan O’Toole’s simple blocking and lite choreography (mincing steps, slow weaves) keeps things from getting sluggish, with occasional moments of genuine charm.

While on average the singing is solid, it never flies higher than the harmonies in a pair of duets: Malakai Howard & Cole Whiter in “We’re Gonna Be All Right” (from Do I Hear a Waltz?), and Briana Bonilla & Sia Carter in “A Boy Like That / I Have a Love” (from West Side Story). Bonilla also stands out on Company’s ridiculously tongue-twisting “Getting Married Today”.

We also get also some fine character work. The most obvious example is Brooke Wittenmeier’s performance of “Losing My Mind”, the emotionality which is so powerful that you feel like you know the backstory. George Carson and Lauren Chambers make a wonderful pair for “Barcelona” (from Company). And Emily Morgan is droll as all get-out doing “I Never Do Anything Twice” (from the film The Seven-Per-Cent Solution).

But the show-stopper belongs to third-grader Eliot Winkler, such an incongruous, tiny presence amid the ensemble for most of Act One that you kind of wonder what she’s doing there until Follies’s “Broadway Baby” just before intermission. While just giving her this song is amusing enough, it’s what she does with it that brings the house down. If she were merely a good singer, fine, but the quirkiness of her slightly Nico-esque delivery is just about worth the price of admission all by itself.

It’s clear that Heard, O’Toole, and the cast have put a helluva lotta effort into delivering these wonderfully wordy songs just so, many of which depend on especially precise rhythms, phrasing, and even pauses for their musical and verbal wit to fully come across.

On that score, this Side by Side by Sondheim is a complete success.

Side by Side by Sondheim at Long Beach Landmark Theatre Company
Times: Fri–Sat 7pm, Sun 2pm
The show runs through May 17.
Cost: $30–$40
Details: (562) 856-1999, lblandmark.org
Venue: First Congregational Church of Long Beach (241 Cedar Ave., Long Beach)

1...474849...1,056Page 48 of 1,056