The investigation, conducted by The California Newsroom and UC Berkeley’s Investigative Reporting Program, identified 148 California law enforcement officers between 2014 and 2024 whose agencies sustained allegations involving explicit bias. The cases included officers using slurs, ridiculing transgender people, making derogatory remarks about immigrants or people who do not speak English, and sharing racist or homophobic comments involving members of the public, co-workers and incarcerated people.

Only about 12% of those officers were fired as a result of the conduct, according to the review. More than 40% of the officers identified — not including correctional officers — continued to work in California law enforcement.

Among the cases was that of Rafael Silva, a former Delano Police Department officer in Kern County. In April 2023, the FBI found that Silva had posted violent threats against transgender people on TikTok under a pseudonym, according to investigative records. The posts included threats involving firearms and comments suggesting transgender people would be killed.

Silva was allowed to resign from Delano rather than be terminated. He later worked for police departments in Avenal and Wasco. The California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, known as POST, declined to revoke his certification. The city of Wasco confirmed that Silva remained employed as one of its police officers as of June 24, 2026. Silva did not respond to requests for comment. Delano police confirmed he worked for the department until 2023 but declined to discuss the matter further.

The findings were based on thousands of pages of internal affairs records, disciplinary files and court documents obtained from nearly 500 law enforcement and oversight agencies across California. The records show a wide range of discipline, from reprimand letters and training orders to suspensions, demotions, pay reductions and firings.

POST has the authority to decertify officers, which prevents them from working as peace officers in California. But investigations and discipline are generally handled by the officers’ own agencies or local oversight bodies.

The issue reaches into Southern California agencies as well.

In 2022, Orange County District Attorney’s Office investigator Eric Franke referred to a security guard who had asked him to leave a building as an “angry Black lady,” according to records. In another incident, he made a remark that Mexican people drink excessively. Franke received a written reprimand and remained employed by the district attorney’s office.

The Orange County District Attorney’s Office said it takes biased conduct seriously and noted that Franke was disciplined. Franke did not comment.

In separate cases, Los Angeles Police Department Officer Armando Magana and San Diego Police Department Officer Alan Dyemartin mocked people for not speaking English. Magana’s case occurred in 2015, and Dyemartin’s in 2018. Both officers received reprimand letters and kept their jobs. The LAPD declined to comment on Magana’s case. A San Diego police spokesperson said the department takes prejudiced behavior seriously and disciplined the employee involved. Magana declined to comment, and Dyemartin did not respond to requests for comment.

Legal scholars, police officials and civil rights advocates said sustained findings of explicit bias can damage public confidence, raise questions about an officer’s credibility in court and harm efforts to recruit and retain a diverse workforce.

Vida Johnson, a Georgetown University law professor who has testified before Congress on white supremacy and policing, said officers who show clear bias should not remain in the profession.

“With such an important job, if someone is exhibiting any type of bias against a member of their community, I just don’t think they should have that job,” Johnson said.

Experts said biased behavior by officers can discourage residents from seeking help from law enforcement. Stefan Vogler, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, said marginalized communities may feel both heavily policed and inadequately protected — a dynamic researchers describe as the “overpolicing, underprotection” paradox.

“They’re not getting the services that they’re promised by the state,” Vogler said.

Bias findings can also affect criminal cases. Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brady v. Maryland decision, prosecutors must disclose evidence that could undermine the credibility of law enforcement witnesses. Former Los Angeles police commissioner Richard Drooyan said documented bias can make it difficult to rely on an officer’s testimony without supporting evidence.

Reporters requested information from district attorneys’ offices in counties where officers in the investigation had been disciplined for biased conduct, seeking to determine whether the officers appeared on so-called Brady lists. The Madera County District Attorney’s Office said it does not maintain such a list. Several offices said they could not locate Brady material involving the officers in question, while most declined to say whether the officers were on their lists, citing disclosure exemptions.

The investigation also found dozens of cases involving anti-Black bias, including 23 officers disciplined for using the n-word. Some officers shared or made comments mocking George Floyd after he was murdered by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin in 2020.

Ben Grunwald, a Duke University law professor, said the stakes are especially high because police officers have the power to detain, arrest and use force.

“The idea that these decisions that are really high stakes might be influenced by things like racism, sexism, homophobia — those should raise really serious concerns for everyone,” he said.

Bias also appeared in correctional settings. Of 61 correctional officers identified in the review, more than half were still employed at the end of 2024, according to state controller data. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which employs more law enforcement officers than any other state agency, would not confirm whether those officers remain employed today.

In two cases at Pelican Bay State Prison, officers made casual remarks about killing or shooting Black people and received reprimands. At California Men’s Colony, an officer mocked a transgender inmate by telling the person to put on lipstick before going to the yard; that officer received a temporary salary reduction.

In response to the investigation, a CDCR spokesperson said the department takes corrective and disciplinary action when warranted and has adopted new staff misconduct rules intended to reduce bias, improve transparency and strengthen accountability.

James King, program director for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and a formerly incarcerated person, said biased language from correctional officers carries particular weight because incarcerated people depend on staff for safety, basic needs and access to rehabilitative programs.

“It becomes much deeper than mere words because there’s so much power and authority behind those words,” King said.

Most of the cases reviewed — 79% — involved conduct directed at or made in the presence of other people in the justice system, including fellow officers, court employees, civilian staff and, in one case, a judge during court proceedings.

In Orange, a Black police officer reported seeking work at another law enforcement agency because of racist jokes and homophobic slurs used in the workplace by Orange Police Sgt. Darrin Hall between 2020 and 2022, records show. Hall received notice that he would be demoted and retired later that month. The Orange Police Department declined to comment, citing personnel confidentiality.

Drooyan said bias among officers can damage morale and create safety concerns, particularly when officers must depend on one another in dangerous situations.

“When they get into a tough situation, if they can’t trust each other, I think it becomes problematic,” he said.

Grunwald said the findings also present a challenge for departments working to diversify their ranks and retain officers of color.

The review found that 39% of the 148 officers identified were suspended, demoted or had their pay reduced. About 20% received reprimand letters or were ordered to complete training — measures that may not remain permanently in personnel files.

Experts cautioned that the cases likely represent only a small portion of biased conduct in policing.

Johnson pointed to fear of retaliation, difficulty filing complaints and the long-standing culture of silence in law enforcement as reasons many incidents may never be reported.

State data show that more than 19,600 complaints alleging prejudiced behavior by California law enforcement officers were filed between 2016 and 2024. Agencies sustained 349 of those complaints. The figures do not include complaints involving racially biased traffic stops.

The review was limited to records available under California public records laws, meaning reporters could only examine certain sustained misconduct cases.

King said the findings should not be dismissed as isolated misconduct by a few officers. He argued that law enforcement agencies can develop workplace cultures that are difficult to change through training or hiring alone.

Sheryl Victorian, police chief in Waco, Texas, said agencies must respond promptly and appropriately when biased conduct occurs, whether through reprimands, retraining or more serious discipline.

“If nobody actually addresses the behavior when it occurs, then they continue to talk that way, and that behavior becomes acceptable,” she said.

Some officers successfully appealed discipline, with penalties reduced in at least 38 cases. Others resigned before disciplinary proceedings were completed.

The investigation relied on records collected through the Police Records Access Project, which obtains misconduct files from law enforcement and oversight agencies throughout California. Reporters searched files and summaries for terms associated with prejudice and slurs, then reviewed cases to determine whether agencies had sustained allegations involving explicit bias against protected groups. Certification and employment records from POST and the state controller’s office were used to assess whether officers remained employed in law enforcement.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Officers Disciplined for Bias Rarely Lose Their Jobs appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

California Forever, the company behind the controversial proposal, has hired former state Senate President Darrell Steinberg and former Senate Majority Leader Bob Hertzberg, both Democrats with deep experience in state government and environmental law. The move comes as the group presses state lawmakers for expedited review of plans tied to thousands of acres it has acquired in the outer Bay Area.

The proposal has drawn statewide attention because of its scale and its potential implications for land use, housing, environmental review and economic development policy across California. The project is envisioned for an underdeveloped stretch of Solano County between Travis Air Force Base and Rio Vista, where backers have promoted the idea of a new city that could eventually rival Cleveland in size.

The latest strategy focuses less immediately on building an entire city from scratch and more on creating a manufacturing hub near Suisun City. Under the plan, Suisun City could annex land already purchased by California Forever, allowing the project to move through existing industrial planning channels and potentially shorten the approval process.

Supporters say the proposal could bring billions of dollars in investment and tens of thousands of jobs to the region. Steinberg has argued that California and Solano County must be able to respond quickly to major economic opportunities rather than let them be delayed for years by lengthy review processes.

“The state and county need the ability to say yes now to these numerous opportunities,” Steinberg said, according to CalMatters.

But the effort remains sharply contested. Environmental advocates and some local officials warn that accelerating approvals could weaken protections for open space and farmland in a region long viewed as a greenbelt between Bay Area communities and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Suisun City Councilmember Princess Washington questioned the pace sought by the developers, saying it is highly unusual for a project of this size to move as quickly as California Forever wants.

“It’s unheard of for a project to be done as quickly as they want it to be done,” Washington said.

The debate places California Forever at the center of a broader statewide conflict familiar in Southern California and the Inland Empire: how to balance the need for housing, jobs and industrial growth with environmental review, local control and preservation of undeveloped land.

For now, the project’s future depends in part on whether its political team can persuade state lawmakers to give the Solano County plan a faster route forward — and whether opponents can slow or block changes they say would come at too high a cost.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Billionaires Behind Proposed Bay Area City Enlist California Political Power Brokers appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

California Forever, the billionaire-backed development company behind the proposal, is seeking state legislation that would speed environmental review for a large shipyard and manufacturing project it says could anchor the broader development. The company also wants a path for its land to be brought into Suisun City if county land-use rules block construction.

To press its case, California Forever has enlisted two prominent Democratic figures with deep experience in state environmental law: former Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and former Senate Majority Leader Bob Hertzberg. The developers are arguing that California must move quickly to compete with Texas and other states for a potential shipbuilding tenant.

The company’s pitch now centers on Saronic Technologies Inc., a defense firm that makes autonomous vessels for national security uses and is considering whether to build its next factory in California or Texas. Supporters say a fast-track process is needed to keep the company, and the jobs it could bring, in California.

The latest proposal marks another shift for California Forever, which has spent nearly a decade advancing the idea of a new community in eastern Solano County. The initial vision emphasized a walkable city with homes, bike lanes and neighborhood amenities. Over time, the plan expanded to include a shipbuilding complex and a manufacturing district.

Backers include the state’s influential building trades unions, real estate interests, peace officers and pro-housing advocates. They argue the project could generate major economic growth and, according to a Bay Area economic analysis, eventually support hundreds of thousands of jobs statewide.

Steinberg and Hertzberg said the developers are seeking permission to rely on a 2008 environmental impact report for the shipyard site, cap legal challenges to the project at 270 days and allow Suisun City to annex California Forever-owned land if necessary.

In a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders, supporters warned that without action, California could lose billions of dollars in investment and tens of thousands of jobs to Texas and other states as soon as this summer.

But the proposal has drawn sharp criticism from local residents, environmental advocates and some lawmakers, who say the public has not been given enough information about a project that would transform large stretches of farmland and sensitive habitat.

State Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, a Napa Democrat whose district includes the area, said a project of this size and location is precisely the kind of development that should undergo a full review under the California Environmental Quality Act.

“A central question for the people of Solano County is: Is this going to be for the community or is this a conversion project that leaves them behind?” Cabaldon said.

Opponents also accuse California Forever of trying to bypass local voters by negotiating with state officials. Since 2018, the company and its affiliates have quietly acquired tens of thousands of acres in Solano County. The project’s backers were not publicly identified until 2023, when they were revealed to include wealthy venture capitalists and technology figures led by Jan Sramek, a former Goldman Sachs trader and real estate developer.

Among the investors is Marc Andreessen, co-founder of the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. Andreessen also holds investments in Saronic, the defense company considering the Solano County location.

California Forever’s land-buying campaign began through a subsidiary, Flannery Associates, which eventually acquired about 62,000 acres. The secrecy surrounding those purchases created lasting distrust among farmers and residents, some of whom accused the company of using aggressive tactics to pressure landowners to sell.

The company’s original effort depended on winning local support because Solano County has an “orderly growth” policy, adopted by voters in 1984, that requires voter approval before development can occur on certain unincorporated agricultural lands.

In 2024, California Forever introduced the East Solano Plan, which proposed rezoning 17,500 acres for a dense new city that could house up to 400,000 people. The measure was expected to go before county voters, but the company withdrew it after organized opposition, weak polling and a county review that identified gaps in the proposal. Sramek later acknowledged the campaign had likely moved too quickly and said the plan would return to voters in 2026.

Since then, the company has reworked its strategy. The East Solano Plan has been reframed as the Suisun Expansion Plan and the Solano Shipyard. In January 2025, the Suisun City Council directed its city manager to explore annexing nearby land, a process that is now underway but could take years.

Critics say the annexation approach appears designed to avoid the countywide vote required under Solano’s growth rules.

“The annexation and the ship building have been a clear way to work around the need for voter support in Solano County,” said Nate Huntington, a member of Solano Together, a grassroots group formed in response to the land purchases.

Huntington noted that California Forever has not submitted a formal shipyard proposal to the county.

“All of this has been happening in backrooms of Sacramento, and it’s not been publicly available,” he said.

California Forever is now presenting the project to state leaders as a rare chance to attract advanced manufacturing and defense-related shipbuilding to California, along with new housing for workers.

Steinberg and Hertzberg said legislation is being considered but would move forward only after California Forever signs a lease with a manufacturer or shipbuilder. Their proposal would allow the governor to designate construction on the company’s land as an “environmental leadership development project,” a category that accelerates court review of legal challenges. Steinberg authored the 2013 law that created that streamlined process.

California law generally requires public agencies to prepare environmental studies for projects that may significantly affect land, air, water, wildlife or surrounding communities. Rather than initiating a new environmental review for the shipyard, Steinberg and Hertzberg’s approach would rely on a 2008 Solano County report that identified part of the area for water-dependent industrial use. Most of California Forever’s planned 7,500-acre shipyard footprint does not carry that designation.

Steinberg said the older report remains adequate because the site has not substantially changed. Requiring a new report, he said, would add years of delay and could cost California major economic opportunities.

Cabaldon disagreed, saying the current proposal is significantly different from what was considered nearly two decades ago.

“Just the notion that you would just say, ‘We are not going to do any assessments at all and we’ll just rely on this old one’ — that is not consistent with what the public interest is,” he said.

The proposal also calls for housing tied to the jobs that supporters say the shipyard and manufacturing projects would create. Steinberg and Hertzberg said nearby cities and Solano County would have the first opportunity to approve housing. If local governments could not meet the timeline sought by employers, Suisun City could annex adjacent California Forever land as a last resort.

That provision is one of the most controversial pieces of the plan because it could allow development to proceed outside the county’s voter-approved growth process.

“The shipbuilders and manufacturers need certainty on a much faster timeline,” Steinberg said.

Cabaldon questioned whether the housing argument is grounded in realistic job projections, noting that Saronic works in automation. He said there has been no evidence that the project would generate enough ongoing jobs to require housing on the scale California Forever has proposed.

The company gained a major political ally in January when it announced a 40-year agreement with the Napa/Solano Building Trades Council and the Northern California Carpenters Union to use union labor on the development. The deal brought powerful labor organizations into the campaign for state action.

Labor support intensified after a county court in Texas approved substantial tax incentives aimed at attracting Saronic to Brownsville. Saronic has said its search for a new site remains active.

The California Alliance for Jobs, a coalition of construction companies and workers, recently sent letters urging legislative leaders to accelerate approval of the California Forever expansion and shipyard.

“We champed at the bit to go all in to get this project moving, and to get legislation through Sacramento this session,” said Joshua Arce, the alliance’s chief executive.

Suisun City Councilmember Princess Washington, who has consistently opposed the annexation effort, said she believes labor support is being used to pressure officials into approving the project quickly.

“Processes are slow, but they’re done that way through government to ensure that it’s being done correctly, that all parties of interest are being treated fairly, and there’s checks and balances,” Washington said.

California Forever spokesperson Jim Wunderman said in a statement that any shipyard project would follow California environmental and land-use laws. He said county supervisors already approved use of the 2008 environmental document and that legislation would help the project meet prospective employers’ timelines.

Wunderman also said that directing growth through Suisun City is consistent with local preferences for placing new development within existing cities.

California Forever has maintained a steady presence in Sacramento. Since 2024, the company has spent at least $330,000 lobbying the Legislature and governor’s office on bills and related government actions, according to campaign finance records.

Steinberg and Hertzberg said they were hired in April as special counsel rather than lobbyists, meaning they spend less than one-third of their time communicating with public officials.

Jordan Grimes, legislative director for Greenbelt Alliance, said he was disappointed to see Steinberg advocating for the project. The environmental group has supported streamlining reviews for housing but has opposed California Forever’s proposal.

California Forever reported spending $90,000 last year lobbying the governor’s office and the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, known as GO-Biz, on federal shipbuilding activity and business attraction efforts in California.

GO-Biz spokesperson Willie Rudman said the agency has discussed state incentive programs with Saronic and explained how they work, but does not offer incentive packages to individual companies.

Last fall, GO-Biz helped organize a bid to bring Saronic to Solano County. County staff said during a Board of Supervisors meeting that the agency supported a legislative effort that would override the county’s orderly growth law. Supervisors moved quickly to adjust boundaries for the proposed Solano Shipyard, but Assemblymember Lori Wilson, a Democrat from Suisun City, said there was not enough time left in the legislative session to introduce a bill.

Wilson said the proposal has remained under discussion since then, but that California Forever has not requested action from her office.

Cabaldon said warnings that California could lose the shipyard to Texas are a familiar negotiating tactic in economic development. He said Saronic’s final decision is more likely to be driven by national defense needs than state incentives.

“We have to negotiate with our eyes open,” he said.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Tech Billionaires Turn to Democratic Insiders in Revived Bid to Build Bay Area City appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

For decades, Los Angeles has been a national example of coalition politics, where candidates build governing majorities by stitching together groups with different interests and histories. The model has shifted repeatedly as the city has changed.

Former Mayor Tom Bradley, Los Angeles’ first Black mayor and its longest-serving chief executive, built one of the city’s most durable coalitions. Elected in 1973, Bradley joined Black voters with liberal voters then concentrated on the Westside, a base strong enough to carry him through four additional mayoral victories.

Richard Riordan, a moderate Republican and Catholic who succeeded Bradley, reworked the city’s political map in 1993 by winning support from the San Fernando Valley, moderate voters in central Los Angeles and Latino voters. That coalition helped him win reelection easily, but it has proved impossible for later Republicans to duplicate as GOP registration in the city has fallen to less than 15% of voters.

Other mayors have risen or fallen depending on how well they held together key voting groups. James Hahn won with backing from the Valley and Black voters, but lost support after opposing San Fernando Valley secession and declining to reappoint Police Chief Bernard C. Parks. He was defeated when he sought a second term. Antonio Villaraigosa later drew strong support from Latinos and liberals and served two terms. Eric Garcetti carried that coalition through the COVID-19 era.

Bass’ 2022 victory reflected, in part, a return to the Bradley-style formula. She began with strong backing from Black voters and expanded her support among progressives with help from organized labor. That coalition was enough to defeat Rick Caruso, a former Republican running as a Democrat who spent more than $100 million of his own money on the campaign.

This year, however, Bass faces a different kind of challenge. Raman is also a woman of color, but she is younger and positioned further to the left politically. That creates an unusual test for Bass: a coalition built to defeat a well-funded, more conservative opponent now must be reoriented against a progressive challenger.

Early results from the election earlier this month showed Bass performing well in central Los Angeles, where many Black and Latino voters live. Raman led in younger, more progressive neighborhoods such as Silver Lake, Echo Park and parts of the southeast San Fernando Valley.

The returns also revealed possible openings and limitations for both candidates. Spencer Pratt, despite running without traditional qualifications or a detailed policy platform, won precincts on the Westside and in the western San Fernando Valley. Even so, Bass often finished second in those areas, a notable result given that Pratt’s campaign capitalized on frustration with City Hall and with Bass in particular.

If Bass becomes the more moderate or conservative option in a runoff, that could make it harder for Raman to pick up votes in those precincts. Raman, who received 28.5% of the vote, would need to expand well beyond her existing base to cross the 50% threshold.

One group that may matter more than in past Los Angeles elections is newer residents. At a recent event hosted by UCLA’s Blueprint magazine and co-sponsored by CalMatters, City Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson said people who have arrived in Los Angeles more recently often bring different political priorities than longtime residents.

Housing is one major example. Many newer Angelenos strongly support building more housing density, arguing that it could help address high rents and homelessness. But Harris-Dawson noted that for many longtime residents, particularly Black families who migrated from the South, Los Angeles represented something different: a place where they could buy a home, have a yard and enjoy space that had been denied to them elsewhere.

For those residents, single-family neighborhoods are not simply inefficient land use. They are tied to opportunity, stability and freedom.

Public safety may also be viewed differently depending on a voter’s history with the city. Some of Pratt’s supporters, including people commenting on social media who have not lived or worked in Los Angeles, portrayed the city as being in severe decline. Newer residents or those from more insulated neighborhoods may share that view, especially in a city that still struggles with serious violence. Last year, Los Angeles recorded 230 homicides.

But longtime Angelenos may see the same number through a different lens. The city once recorded more than 1,000 killings in a year. Many residents also remember the 1992 unrest following the acquittal of Los Angeles police officers in the beating of a Black motorist, part of a broader history of police abuse and racial tension.

In that context, current crime levels can be seen as both deeply troubling and significantly improved from earlier decades. Whether voters focus on the danger that remains or the progress made may shape how they respond to candidates’ messages.

New residents can bring urgency, energy and expectations for change. They may be less attached to older political habits and less willing to accept longstanding conditions. At the same time, longtime residents can view some of those criticisms as lacking historical understanding.

That divide could become one of the defining features of the mayoral race. Bass is expected to draw her strongest support from voters with deeper roots in the city, while Raman appears positioned to appeal to newer arrivals and younger progressive voters.

Los Angeles politics has long been shaped by coalitions of race, class, ideology and neighborhood. This election may add another major bloc to the calculation: voters divided by their relationship to the city’s past.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Nithya Raman Could Further Reshape L.A.’s Shifting Political Alliances appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The Master Plan for Higher Education, adopted by the Legislature in 1960, was designed to create a coordinated, affordable system with distinct missions for community colleges, the California State University system and the University of California. Community colleges were expected to focus on vocational training, adult education and preparing students to transfer to CSU and UC campuses. The CSU system would provide bachelor’s degrees and master’s programs in fields such as education, engineering and other professions, while UC would serve as the state’s primary research institution and offer doctorates in addition to undergraduate and graduate degrees.

But the clean division of responsibilities envisioned in the plan has eroded over time. Economic pressures, political decisions and changing student needs have pushed the three systems into competition rather than cooperation. In addition to seeking state funding for campus growth and operations, the systems have increasingly battled over academic territory.

In recent decades, community colleges have sought authority to offer four-year bachelor’s degrees in select career fields, arguing that such programs can provide lower-cost, locally accessible pathways for students. CSU leaders have often resisted those efforts, saying some proposed programs duplicate existing university offerings. At the same time, CSU has pushed to expand doctorate programs, a move the UC system has viewed as encroaching on its traditional role.

Those conflicts have exposed the limits of a higher education structure created for a different era. Rather than broadly reconsidering the missions of the three systems, lawmakers have addressed disputes piecemeal, approving individual expansions with restrictions meant to ease opposition. The result is a patchwork of community college bachelor’s programs and CSU doctorate offerings governed by academic and geographic limits.

The latest dispute emerged in February, when the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office approved three new bachelor’s degree programs at Mesa College, Moorpark College and Southwestern College despite objections from CSU officials, who argued the programs overlapped with existing university offerings.

Soon after, lawmakers introduced two bills intended to make it easier for community colleges to add bachelor’s degree programs. Senate Bill 960 and Assembly Bill 2694 would limit the ability of CSU to block proposed community college programs on the grounds that they duplicate existing degrees within certain geographic areas.

The measures are opposed by four-year universities, whose concerns come as the CSU system faces stagnant or declining enrollment. Still, the proposals are advancing, reflecting continued legislative interest in expanding degree options at community colleges.

The debate carries consequences for students across California, including those in Southern California and the Inland Empire, where access, affordability and proximity to degree programs remain major concerns. Community colleges often serve students who are place-bound by work, family responsibilities or transportation barriers, while CSU and UC campuses remain key destinations for students pursuing traditional four-year and graduate degrees.

The competition is likely to intensify as California’s population growth slows or declines. Fewer K-12 students ultimately mean fewer college applicants, and enrollment plays a major role in how much state funding campuses receive.

That demographic shift adds urgency to calls for a comprehensive update of California’s higher education plan. Supporters of a new approach argue the state needs a system designed around current workforce demands, student access and regional needs, rather than continued disputes over institutional boundaries established in 1960.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California College Dispute Points to Need for Updated Higher Education Plan appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

California saw a slight improvement in homelessness last year, but the crisis remains vast: an estimated 182,000 residents across the state still lack stable housing. In Sacramento, lawmakers are considering a mix of policy changes that reflect ongoing debates over housing, addiction treatment, local authority and accountability for public spending.

One closely watched proposal comes from Assemblymember Matt Haney, a San Francisco Democrat, who is again trying to clarify whether state homelessness dollars may be used for sober housing.

Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed Haney’s similar bill last year, surprising advocates who had supported the measure. That proposal, Assembly Bill 255, would have allowed cities and counties to spend up to 10% of certain state homelessness funding on “recovery housing,” where residents are required to remain sober.

The idea challenged California’s longstanding “housing first” approach, which generally emphasizes placing people into housing without requiring sobriety, treatment participation or other preconditions.

In his veto message last year, Newsom said state funding already could be used for sober housing. His administration pointed to guidance posted shortly after the veto as evidence that such funding was permissible.

Haney argues the guidance has not been clear enough. He said providers still believe they cannot use state money for sober housing, and he is not aware of any providers who have done so since the veto.

His new measure, Assembly Bill 1556, would spell out requirements for sober housing providers seeking state funds. Providers would need a relapse policy intended to help residents return to sobriety. The policy could also allow eviction if a resident continues using drugs or alcohol and does not comply with program rules.

That provision has drawn concern from critics who warn it could push vulnerable people back into homelessness. Sharon Rapport, director of California state policy for the Corporation for Supportive Housing, said the bill could redirect money away from low-barrier housing for people who are not ready or able to stop using substances.

Unlike Haney’s previous bill, AB 1556 does not cap how much state funding could be used for sober housing. It also does not provide additional money, meaning funding decisions would come from existing homelessness resources.

Rapport said the concern is heightened by the Trump administration’s support for prioritizing sober housing with federal dollars.

Haney said this year’s discussions with the governor’s office have been more productive and that he expects a different response if the bill reaches Newsom’s desk.

Another major proposal would require the state to calculate what it would actually take to end homelessness.

Assembly Bill 1165, by Assemblymember Mike Gipson, a Gardena Democrat, would direct the California Department of Housing and Community Development to produce a financial plan by January 2028. The plan would have to identify the cost of meeting the housing needs of people currently experiencing homelessness, as well as those expected to fall into homelessness in the future. It also would include performance measures to track progress.

California has already estimated that it must plan for 2.5 million homes over the next eight years to meet housing demand and reduce the affordable housing shortage. Gipson’s bill would require the state to go further by identifying the resources needed and creating a road map to reach those goals.

The Corporation for Supportive Housing has estimated that ending homelessness in California would cost $8.1 billion annually for 12 years. By comparison, the budget plan recently proposed by the Legislature includes $900 million for Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention grants, the state’s primary homelessness funding program.

Supporters say AB 1165 could improve accountability, particularly after a 2024 audit found California had not adequately tracked homelessness spending or measured outcomes. However, the bill does not itself provide new funding, which could make implementing any resulting plan difficult in a tight budget year.

A separate proposal, Assembly Bill 1924, would require the California Interagency Council on Homelessness to create a statewide homelessness prevention strategy by July 2027.

Prevention programs have gained attention because keeping people housed is typically less costly and less disruptive than helping them after they have become homeless. Some organizations have found that targeted financial assistance of several thousand dollars can be enough to help at-risk residents avoid losing housing.

Like AB 1165, the prevention bill does not include new funding.

Lawmakers are also debating how much homelessness data cities should be required to report to the state.

Senate Bill 866, by Sen. Catherine Blakespear, a Democrat from Encinitas, would require more cities to submit data about homelessness, services and outcomes, even if they do not receive state homelessness funding.

Currently, counties, regional homeless services agencies known as continuums of care, and the state’s 14 largest cities are eligible for funding through the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention program. In exchange, they must report information about their homeless populations, available services and progress in moving people off the streets.

Blakespear argues that homelessness does not stop at city or county lines and that statewide data is needed to understand and address the crisis.

The proposal has faced significant opposition from local governments. The League of California Cities and dozens of cities oppose the bill, saying it would create new reporting responsibilities without providing the staff or funding needed to carry them out.

In response, Blakespear agreed to exempt cities with populations of 50,000 or fewer, which would remove about half of California’s cities from the requirement. Still, some lawmakers remain opposed.

Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil, a Modesto Republican, criticized the bill as an unfunded mandate and questioned why it was moving forward despite broad opposition from cities.

Another bill could affect people cited for minor offenses, including many unhoused residents who receive tickets while living outdoors.

Assembly Bill 2122, by Assemblymembers Ash Kalra and Josh Lowenthal, does not specifically mention homelessness. But advocates say it could have major consequences for people who are cited for infractions and then miss court dates.

As cities across California increase enforcement of laws related to camping and public spaces, unhoused people can be cited for unauthorized camping, loitering, trespassing, public urination, park rule violations and other offenses. Police typically issue a paper citation with a court date.

For people living outside, getting to court can be difficult. They may lack transportation, have no safe place to leave belongings or pets, or lose track of court dates while facing the instability of street homelessness. Missing a court date can lead to a bench warrant, meaning the person could be jailed during a later police encounter.

AB 2122 would prohibit someone from being jailed for missing court after being cited for an infraction. It also would prevent courts from issuing arrest warrants for failure to pay traffic tickets.

The bill applies only to infractions, and cities classify offenses differently. Conduct treated as an infraction in one jurisdiction could be a misdemeanor elsewhere.

The California State Sheriffs’ Association opposes the bill, arguing it would weaken accountability for people who fail to appear in court.

Lawmakers are also revisiting the issue of RVs and other vehicles used as shelter, a concern visible in many California communities as more people live in cars, vans, trailers and motor homes parked along streets.

Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez, a Los Angeles Democrat, carried legislation last year intended to make it easier for local governments to dispose of inoperable RVs left on public streets. He said the goal was to address vehicles that create neighborhood blight and public safety concerns.

The bill was narrowed to apply only to Los Angeles and Alameda counties. But the final language created an unintended problem: the counties themselves could use the law, but cities within those counties could not. The issue became clear when the Los Angeles City Council approved an RV disposal program and a court later blocked it.

Assembly Bill 647 is intended to correct that mistake. It would allow cities in Los Angeles and Alameda counties to destroy RVs valued at $4,000 or less.

Opponents warn the measure could encourage cities to seize more RVs that people are living in, leaving them with no shelter other than the street.

Together, the bills illustrate the competing pressures facing California as homelessness remains one of the state’s most visible and difficult problems. Lawmakers are weighing calls for accountability, treatment-focused housing and local enforcement tools against concerns that some proposals could deepen instability for people already living without permanent homes.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Lawmakers Take Up New Homelessness Bills as Key Measures Advance appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Assembly Bill 1751 would speed approval for new townhouse projects in California. Developers using the streamlined process would have been required to pay construction workers at least $28 an hour.

That wage requirement was removed during a hearing before the Senate Housing Committee after Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, an Oakland Democrat and co-author of the bill, said the change was necessary because of firm opposition from the State Building and Construction Trades Council.

Sen. Jesse Arreguín, a Berkeley Democrat who chairs the committee, made removal of the wage provision a condition for moving the bill forward. He said lawmakers would continue working on a separate approach to establish a minimum pay standard that could gain support from all sides, including the Building Trades.

The State Building and Construction Trades Council represents unionized electricians, plumbers, sheet metal workers and other skilled trades. The coalition had opposed the measure since its introduction in April, arguing that the proposed wage floor could weaken federally determined prevailing wage standards, which set higher pay requirements on publicly funded construction projects.

California’s unionized carpenters, who often clash with the Building Trades over housing policy, disagreed. They argued that residential construction workers are rarely employed on projects governed by federal public works wage rules. AB 1751 is sponsored by the New California Coalition, a centrist advocacy organization made up largely of business groups.

After lawmakers agreed to remove the wage requirement, the Building Trades shifted to a neutral position on the bill. Many of its members attended the hearing in opposition before the change was made.

The bill advanced out of the Senate Housing Committee, though several Democratic lawmakers voiced disappointment that the pay provision had been stripped.

Sen. Lena Gonzalez, a Long Beach Democrat, said some workers need wages above the state minimum.

Wicks also expressed frustration, saying raising the floor from $16 to $28 should have been a straightforward step for Democratic lawmakers.

AB 1751 still faces uncertainty. Sen. Maria Elena Durazo, a Democrat who serves on the Housing Committee, said the latest amendments did not resolve her concerns that the bill would bypass local control over land-use decisions. Durazo chairs the Senate Local Government Committee, where the measure is scheduled to be heard next.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Construction Workers Help Defeat Proposed $28 Minimum Wage appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Water pooled along the mostly dirt roads inside the mobile home park, mixing with waste from septic systems that regularly backed up. On wet mornings, parents loaded their children into cars and drove them through the contaminated mud to the front entrance so they could catch the school bus.

Summer brought a different hardship. In the Coachella Valley, afternoon temperatures often climb above 110 degrees. The park’s aging electrical system frequently failed, cutting power to older, poorly insulated mobile homes and leaving families without air conditioning. Rubi Castro, a mother of four, remembers placing her children in large buckets of cold water until the electricity came back on.

That chapter ended in late April, when Shady Lane reopened after a major rehabilitation.

The project, partly funded through a state program created to help restore California’s aging mobile home parks, replaced the park’s failing infrastructure. Shady Lane now has an upgraded electrical system capable of handling heavy air-conditioning use, new connections to local water and sewer service, paved roads and a shaded playground. Its 32 deteriorating mobile homes were replaced with new manufactured homes, and eight additional units were added.

Castro, speaking in June on a day when temperatures reached 113 degrees, said the heat has been intense since residents returned in April. But inside her new home, she said, the air conditioning has made life comfortable.

“It feels like we live in winter,” she said.

For the first time in years, she added, she is looking forward to the rain.

Shady Lane’s transformation under the ownership of the nonprofit Caritas Corporation is one of the first visible results of a broader overhaul inside California’s housing agency. In 2023, state officials reworked a little-used program that had been intended to provide financial help to struggling mobile home parks but had largely sat dormant for a decade because of a complicated application process and narrow eligibility rules.

The revamped effort, now known as the Manufactured Housing Opportunity and Revitalization program, or MORE, expanded the kinds of projects that could receive state help.

Shady Lane received $10.6 million through the program, in addition to funding from Riverside County and the city of Coachella. It was one of 28 parks awarded money and became the first rehabilitation project completed under the new version of the program. State housing officials say construction has started at 19 other mobile home parks.

In a state where affordable housing remains scarce and expensive to build, the completed project represents a rare success story. But it also highlights the scale of the challenge: California has thousands of older mobile home parks that provide some of the last relatively affordable housing options for low-income residents, and many need costly repairs.

According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development, the state has 4,635 mobile home parks with nearly half a million homes. Most units are occupied by their owners. Manufactured homes are generally far less expensive than similarly sized single-family homes or townhomes, making them a critical housing option for many Californians with limited incomes.

“While it is not as flashy or glamorous as a large, beautiful new rental apartment building, it is a vital source of affordable housing,” said Betsy McGovern-Garcia, vice president of Self-Help Enterprises, an affordable housing developer in the San Joaquin Valley that manages two mobile home parks.

Even with MORE funding, some projects remain delayed by permitting issues or have had to scale back because available funding is not enough to cover their original plans. Housing advocates say the nearly $140 million awarded to more than two dozen parks, covering more than 1,000 mobile homes, is likely only a fraction of what is needed statewide.

For now, there is no additional state money in sight.

The MORE program grew out of a bureaucratic overhaul of a 1980s state loan effort called the Mobilehome Park Resident Ownership Program. As the name suggested, the original program was designed to help mobile home owners, who typically own their homes but not the land underneath them, buy their parks and operate them as resident cooperatives. The program was later broadened to help nonprofits and local governments purchase parks.

After an early wave of acquisitions, however, the program fell into disuse. From 2013 to 2023, it issued only one loan despite having tens of millions of dollars available.

The 2023 overhaul expanded the program to address another urgent problem: the poor physical condition of many mobile home parks. Funds could now be used not only for purchases, but also for repairing and replacing park infrastructure and, in some cases, deteriorated homes. Private park owners became eligible to apply. The state simplified the application process and made loan terms more flexible, including the possibility that many loans could be forgiven.

Lawmakers also added $200 million in one-time funding through two budget bills.

“It better responds to the range of challenges facing park residents and owners,” said Brian Augusta, a housing policy lobbyist who supported the changes.

Roughly two-thirds of the money awarded through the program went to repair and rehabilitation projects.

Caritas Corporation had been the only organization to receive funding during the final decade of the old program. State housing officials encouraged the nonprofit to return that money and apply under the revamped program instead.

“It is an excellent program, much simpler,” said Tracy Bejotte, chief operating officer for Caritas. “They really got it organized.”

Bejotte said Shady Lane is evidence that the changes can work.

Residents agree the difference is dramatic.

“Before, it was a hard and dangerous place,” said Joel Beltran, who sells fruits and vegetables at a local store and lives in the park with his wife and five children. He remembers sparks coming from outlets in his former home.

“Today, it is like Disneyland,” he said.

The high cost of maintaining and repairing homes affects communities across the country, but California’s mobile home parks present a particularly difficult case. Residents are less likely to have the savings needed for repairs and less likely than traditional homeowners to rely on insurance or home-equity loans. Affordable insurance for manufactured housing can be difficult to find, and banks often do not view mobile homes as strong collateral.

The problem is especially acute for older units. Homes built before 1976, when stronger federal standards took effect, are more vulnerable to moisture, mold and fire damage. Many are poorly insulated, making them uncomfortable and potentially dangerous during extreme heat or cold.

Andrew Rumbach, a researcher at the Urban Institute who studies mobile home parks, said many pre-1976 units “probably are no longer fit to live in.” Those older homes are particularly common in California. Rumbach and his colleagues estimate that nearly 40% of the state’s mobile homes were built before the federal standards were adopted, one of the highest shares in the country.

Even when individual homes are in decent condition, the parks themselves often are not. Many were built in less desirable areas on the edges of cities and are more likely to lack reliable utility service. Increasingly, they also face wildfire risks. In many parks, sewer, water and electrical systems are owned and operated by the park owner.

“These systems are often run by whoever manages the park, which may be an absentee owner or a property manager,” said Gregory Pierce, a UCLA researcher who studies urban planning and water insecurity. “Even if they have the best intentions, that person may not be trained to operate a water system.”

While Shady Lane is largely complete, another project funded through MORE has moved slowly.

Buena Vista Mobile Home Park in Palo Alto, owned and managed by the Santa Clara County Housing Authority, received the largest rehabilitation award under the program: $24.6 million.

The money, awarded in winter 2023, was initially intended for a sweeping redevelopment. Older mobile homes would be replaced with new models, leaky gas lines and deteriorating roads would be upgraded, and the housing authority proposed a mid-sized apartment complex with a community center for renters in the park.

But in 2024, those plans were sharply reduced. Housing authority officials cited unexpected cost increases, inadequate funding, resident opposition and a state deadline requiring the mobile home renovation money to be spent by mid-2027. Under a revised plan released late last year, the work will focus only on shared infrastructure, including water, gas, electrical and sewer lines.

Residents of 49 homes were told they would be relocated during an estimated eight months of construction and then return to their existing homes. The move-out date was originally expected in February but has been delayed until September.

“It keeps getting pushed back again and again,” said Sabrina Ramirez, a child care worker who has lived at Buena Vista since 1999.

The uncertainty has been stressful, she said. But the summer delay has helped protect the dozens of outdoor plants she began cultivating during the pandemic, which now surround her 1960s-era home.

“My jungle is delighted,” Ramirez said. “I did not want to move them earlier in the year.”

She and other plant-loving residents have been working with neighbors outside the park to care for flowers, succulents and fruiting vines once construction begins.

The MORE program ultimately distributed $136 million in grants for repairs, replacements and acquisitions in 2023. It rejected applications seeking another $186 million.

That gap between requests and available funding reflects a deep need, but it may still understate the problem, said Kate Rose, deputy director of the Sacramento-based California Coalition for Rural Housing. Some park owners may not have known about the new program in time to apply. Others, particularly small family owners, may not have had the capacity to complete applications before the deadline.

For projects that were not selected, or that never applied, there is no clear source of future help. Most of the money came from one-time state budget allocations, and California’s tight budget for the coming year includes no new funding for the program. The remaining money came from a special fund supported by mobile home park permit fees. According to the latest state figures, that fund had $27 million and has grown by less than 0.5% over the past two years.

Rose described that amount as insignificant compared with statewide need and not enough to support another major round of funding.

That leaves few options for owners trying to stabilize older mobile home communities.

When Self-Help Enterprises acquired La Hacienda Mobile Home Park in Fresno, McGovern-Garcia said, the nonprofit did not have a long-term revitalization plan.

“We just knew there had to be an intervention,” she said.

After years of legal disputes and conflict between residents and the previous owner, the park was in poor condition. All but one of the homes were built before 1980, McGovern-Garcia said. Nearly two dozen were abandoned and boarded up. Most had moisture damage and mold.

Self-Help applied for a $3.7 million improvement grant with the hope of offering homeowners low-cost or deferred-interest loans to replace their homes. The application was not funded.

“It would have completely changed the trajectory of the community,” McGovern-Garcia said. “It is like getting the golden ticket in the mobile home world.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Stepped In to Help Aging Mobile Home Parks. What Happened Next? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing LLC is proposing a nearly 1 million-square-foot “hyperscale” data center campus in Imperial County, a desert region better known for agriculture, geothermal energy and its proximity to the U.S.-Mexico border. The facility would be roughly the size of 16 football fields, according to project estimates.

The company has said the data center would create about 100 permanent jobs and generate an estimated $28.7 million in annual tax revenue, a potentially significant sum for one of California’s poorest counties.

But the proposal has drawn sharp scrutiny from residents and elected officials who have raised concerns about land use, environmental review, air quality and whether the rural county is prepared to host such a large technology project.

In April, project developer Sebastian Rucci won an important approval when the Imperial County Board of Supervisors agreed to consolidate several parcels of land needed for the facility. After months of public backlash, however, supervisors reversed course last week by calling for a 45-day moratorium and creating a public commission to review zoning policies tied to the project.

The city of Imperial has also sued, challenging the project’s review under California environmental law. At the same time, local voters are gathering signatures for a proposed ballot measure that would prohibit new data centers across Imperial County, similar to a ban recently adopted in Monterey Park.

State Sen. Steve Padilla, a Democrat from Chula Vista, is pushing legislation that would increase oversight of data centers in California. One of his proposals is aimed specifically at Imperial County and would expand the county air board from five members to 10, adding representation for public health, environmental groups and agriculture.

“They can’t just come in and claim that they … have a right to build the biggest data center in the state without any oversight,” Padilla said during a town hall in El Centro.

Rucci is preparing to fight the county’s moratorium in court. He plans to seek a temporary restraining order, arguing that county officials failed to demonstrate an actual emergency, did not clearly identify potential harms from the project and did not disclose the specific concerns raised by residents.

He has defended the proposal as a relatively low-impact use compared with other types of development.

“People can’t just emotionally say that ‘I dislike data centers,’” Rucci said. “It’s just a building, but with a lot less intensive use than other uses.”

The dispute places Imperial County at the center of a growing statewide debate over data centers, which are expanding as demand rises for cloud computing and artificial intelligence infrastructure. While developers often tout tax revenue and limited long-term staffing needs, critics have questioned the facilities’ energy demands, environmental effects and compatibility with surrounding communities.

For Imperial Valley residents, the question now is not only whether the massive project should be built, but who gets to decide how such facilities fit into the region’s future.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Developer Presses Ahead With Plan for California’s Largest Data Center appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Summer brought a different danger. In the unincorporated Coachella Valley, afternoon temperatures routinely climb past 110 degrees, and the mobile home park’s old electrical system often could not keep up with the demand from air conditioners. When the power failed, the aging, poorly insulated homes became stifling. Rubi Castro, a mother of four, recalled cooling her young children in large buckets of cold water while waiting for electricity to return.

That changed in late April, when Shady Lane reopened after a major renovation backed in part by a state program created to preserve and improve California’s aging mobile home parks.

The rebuilt community now has an upgraded electrical system designed to handle dozens of air conditioners, connections to local water and sewer utilities, paved roads and a shaded playground. The park’s 32 older mobile homes were replaced with new manufactured units, and eight additional homes were added. The project now provides 40 homes for more than 140 residents.

Castro, speaking on a June day that reached 113 degrees, said she had been comfortable since moving back in April. Inside her new home, she said, “it feels like we live in winter.” After years of dreading storms, she added that she now “can’t wait to experience the rain.”

The transformation of Shady Lane under the ownership of the nonprofit Caritas Corporation is one of the first visible results of a major revamp inside California’s housing bureaucracy.

For years, a state program intended to help struggling mobile home parks was so difficult to use that it sat largely dormant. In 2023, the state reworked and renamed it the Manufactured Housing Opportunity and Revitalization program, known as MORE, giving it a broader mission and more money to address one of California’s most overlooked forms of affordable housing.

Shady Lane received $10.6 million through the program, along with support from Riverside County and the city of Coachella. It was one of 28 parks awarded funding and is the first rehabilitation project completed under the revised program. Another 19 projects have broken ground, according to the state Department of Housing and Community Development.

For a state struggling with high housing costs and an affordable housing finance system often criticized as slow and expensive, the completion of Shady Lane is a rare success story. But the early record of the MORE program also shows how difficult it remains to repair and preserve older mobile home communities.

California has 4,635 mobile home parks, according to the state housing department, with space for nearly half a million homes. Most units are owner-occupied, and they are often far less expensive than comparable single-family houses or townhomes. For many lower-income Californians, they represent one of the few realistic paths to homeownership.

“While it’s not as shiny or flashy as a big beautiful new rental apartment, it’s a vital source of affordable housing,” said Betsy McGovern-Garcia, vice president of Self-Help Enterprises, an affordable housing developer in the San Joaquin Valley that manages two parks.

Still, even projects that secured MORE funding have run into permitting delays, funding gaps or reduced ambitions. The state awarded nearly $140 million to more than two dozen parks with more than 1,000 mobile homes, but advocates say that addresses only a small portion of the need. No new major funding round is currently expected.

The MORE program grew out of a 1980s state loan program called the Mobile Home Resident Ownership Program. Its original purpose was to help mobile home residents buy the land beneath their homes and operate parks as resident-owned cooperatives. Later, the program was expanded to help nonprofits and local governments acquire parks.

After early activity, the program faded. From 2013 to 2023, it issued only one loan despite tens of millions of dollars sitting available.

The 2023 overhaul widened the program’s purpose. Money could now be used not only to buy parks, but also to repair and replace infrastructure and, in some cases, dilapidated homes. Private owners became eligible to apply. The application process was simplified, and loan terms became more generous, with the possibility that many loans could eventually be forgiven.

Lawmakers also added $200 million through two one-time budget measures.

“It’s more responsive to the range of challenges that park residents and park owners are seeing,” said Brian Augusta, a housing policy lobbyist who supported the changes. About two-thirds of the money awarded through the program has gone to repair and rehabilitation work.

Caritas Corporation was the only organization to receive money through the previous version of the program in the decade before the revamp. State housing officials encouraged the nonprofit to return that money and reapply under the new program.

“It’s a great program, much easier,” said Tracy Bejotte, Caritas’ chief operating officer. “They really got their act together.”

For residents, the change is visible. Joel Beltran, a produce vendor who lives at Shady Lane with his wife and five children, said the park had once been a difficult place to live. He remembered sparks coming from outlets in his old mobile home.

“Today, it’s like Disneyland,” he said.

The need for repairs in California’s mobile home parks is widespread. Lower-income residents often lack the savings to fix their homes and may have fewer options for insurance or loans than traditional homeowners. Manufactured homes, especially older ones, are often difficult to insure affordably, and lenders may be reluctant to use them as collateral.

Homes built before 1976, when stronger federal manufactured housing standards took effect, are especially vulnerable to moisture, mold and fire damage. They often have poor insulation, making them uncomfortable and potentially dangerous during extreme heat or cold.

Andrew Rumbach, a mobile home park researcher at the Urban Institute, said many pre-1976 units are “probably no longer suitable to be living in.” California has an especially large share of those older units. Rumbach and his colleagues estimate that nearly 40% of the state’s mobile homes were built before the federal standards took effect, one of the highest shares in the country.

Even where the homes themselves are sound, the parks often rely on aging infrastructure. Many were built on cheaper land at the edges of communities and may not be connected to public utilities. Some are increasingly exposed to wildfire risk. Water, sewer and electrical systems are frequently owned and operated by park owners rather than public agencies.

“These systems tend to be run by whoever runs the park, which may be an absentee owner or a property manager,” said Gregory Pierce, a UCLA researcher who studies urban planning and water insecurity. “Even if they have the best of intentions, that person may not be well-equipped to run a water system.”

While Shady Lane has been largely completed, other MORE-funded projects have moved more slowly. Buena Vista Mobile Home Park in Palo Alto, owned and managed by the Santa Clara County Housing Authority, received the largest award among the 28 funded rehabilitation projects: $24.6 million.

The money, awarded in winter 2023, was originally intended to support a broad redevelopment. Plans called for replacing decades-old mobile homes, leaky gas lines and deteriorating roads. For renters living in the park, the housing authority proposed a mid-sized apartment complex with a community center.

By 2024, however, the project had been sharply reduced. Housing authority officials cited cost overruns, insufficient funding, resident opposition and a state deadline requiring the mobile home park funds to be used by mid-2027. Under a revised plan released late last year, the work will focus only on shared infrastructure, including water, gas, electric and sewer lines. Residents in 49 homes are expected to relocate during about eight months of construction and then return to their existing units.

The move-out date was initially set for February but has since been delayed to September.

“It keeps getting pushed back and pushed back,” said Sabrina Ramirez, a childcare worker who has lived at Buena Vista since 1999. The uncertainty has been stressful, she said, though the delay has benefited the many outdoor plants she began tending during the pandemic around her 1960s-era home. “My jungle’s loving it. I did not want to move them during the beginning of the year.”

Ramirez and other residents with plants are working with neighbors outside the park to care for flowers, succulents and fruiting vines while construction is underway.

The MORE program awarded $136 million in repair, replacement and acquisition funding in 2023, while denying applications totaling another $186 million.

That gap reflects the scale of the need, said Kate Rose, deputy director of the California Coalition for Rural Housing. It may also understate the problem. Some park owners may not have known about the revamped program in time to apply, while smaller owners may not have had the capacity to complete applications before the deadline.

For parks that were not funded, there is little immediate relief available. Much of the program’s money came from one-time state budget allocations, and the next state budget does not include another infusion. The remaining source is a special fund supported by park permit fees. At last count, that fund held $27 million and had grown by less than half of 1% over the previous two years. Rose called that amount “peanuts” compared with the statewide need.

That leaves owners of older parks with limited options.

When Self-Help Enterprises acquired La Hacienda Mobile Home Park in Fresno, McGovern-Garcia said the organization did not have a complete long-term revitalization strategy. “We simply knew there had to be an intervention,” she said.

The park had endured years of legal conflict and tension between residents and the previous owner. Its condition reflected that history. All but one of the units were built before 1980, McGovern-Garcia said. Nearly two dozen homes had been abandoned and boarded up, and many of the remaining units had water damage and mold.

Self-Help applied for a $3.7 million MORE grant to help homeowners replace their units with low-cost or interest-deferred loans. The application was denied.

“It would have changed the entire trajectory of the community,” McGovern-Garcia said. “It really is like getting Willy Wonka’s golden ticket for the mobile home world.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Offered Aging Mobile Home Parks a Lifeline. Did It Work? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.