While neither the tribe nor seller Kelly Roberts disclosed financial details when the sale was announced in early May, county transaction records indicate the deal was finalized on May 28. The acquisition adds the Mission Inn to a growing collection of hospitality properties owned by the tribe through its San Manuel Investment Authority.

    The estimated purchase price was confirmed through filings reviewed by the Riverside County Assessor-Clerk Recorder’s Office. The transactions were completed through entities controlled by Roberts, a former Orange County resident and billionaire businesswoman.

    “The sale price is within $1,000 of the actual price,” said Melissa Garcia, chief deputy assessor-clerk recorder for Riverside County.

    County officials noted that the final valuation could be refined in the coming months as additional documentation is reviewed and processed to establish the complete chain of title and updated property assessments.

    “This could take a few months,” Garcia said.

    Records show the sale involved several separate properties. One transaction transferred ownership of the 238-room Mission Inn itself, while another included the adjacent parking structure located between Fifth and Sixth streets and bounded by Main and Orange streets. The deal also encompassed a vacant parcel and annex building that houses a bookstore along with offices for the Mission Inn Foundation and Museum.

    Based on transfer taxes and associated fees filed with the county, the hotel property accounted for roughly $29.23 million of the total sale price. The garage, vacant land and annex building were valued at approximately $3.68 million.

    Those figures were derived using documentary transfer taxes and local city taxes assessed during the transfer of ownership, according to county officials.

    A separate filing documented the transfer of the property’s alcoholic beverage license. The license was sold for $331,394.16 to Mission Inn Riverside BevCo LLC, a limited liability company operated by the San Manuel Nation.

    The filings were submitted by Historic Mission Inn Corp. and Mission District Associates LLC, both controlled by Roberts. County records identify attorney Patrick O’Brien as the designated agent authorized to receive legal notices and government correspondence on behalf of those entities.

    The buyer was listed as Mission Inn Riverside LLC, a company established by the tribe on April 24. Corporate filings with the California Secretary of State show the entity was created specifically to facilitate the purchase of the downtown Riverside properties.

    “The San Manuel Investment Authority is continuing to abide by the confidentiality of the agreement and aren’t able to provide additional comment,” said San Manuel spokesman Kenneth Shoji.

    Representatives for Roberts and her attorney did not respond to requests seeking additional comment regarding the transaction.

    Officials with the Riverside County Assessor-Clerk Recorder’s Office cautioned that large-scale property transactions often involve multiple documents and filings, meaning additional records connected to the sale could still emerge.

    “It is important to note that large or complex property transfers may be recorded through multiple documents,” said county spokesman Steven Nguyen. “As a result, the information reflected in any single recorded document may represent only one portion of the overall transaction.”

    The sale marks the end of an era for the Roberts family, which played a pivotal role in preserving the iconic Riverside landmark.

    Duane and Kelly Roberts became closely associated with the Mission Inn after stepping in to save the property from an uncertain future. The hotel had closed during the mid-1980s and passed through several owners before Duane Roberts purchased it in 1992 for $15.6 million.

    Before that acquisition, the Riverside Redevelopment Agency had purchased the property in 1976 and later sold it to Carley Capital Group in 1985. Carley launched a major restoration effort but filed for bankruptcy in 1988. According to a previous Press-Enterprise report, Chemical Bank and the redevelopment agency ultimately completed the $50 million renovation project before Roberts took ownership.

    Duane Roberts, widely credited with helping spark the revitalization of downtown Riverside through the reopening of the Mission Inn, passed away on Nov. 1, 2025.

    When the sale was announced earlier this year, Kelly Roberts said she planned to relocate to Palm Beach, Florida, as she entered a new chapter in life. Florida remains a popular destination for wealthy residents because it does not impose state income taxes, estate taxes or luxury taxes on qualifying residents.

    For the San Manuel Nation, the acquisition continues a decades-long strategy of expanding beyond gaming and diversifying its investment portfolio.

    The tribe began broadening its holdings in the early 2000s with investments in the Four Fires Residence Inn by Marriott in Washington, D.C., and the Three Fires Residence Inn in downtown Sacramento.

    In 2021, the tribe made headlines with its $650 million purchase of the Palms Casino Resort in Las Vegas, marking a significant expansion of its gaming interests beyond California.

    Its hospitality portfolio also includes the Waldorf Astoria Monarch Beach Resort & Club in Dana Point, the Bear Springs Hotel in Highland, and The Draftsman hotel in Charlottesville, Virginia.

    The tribe further expanded its real estate holdings in 2016 with the acquisition of the historic Arrowhead Springs Hotel property in San Bernardino’s Waterman Canyon from Cru, formerly known as Campus Crusade for Christ, which had owned the 1,900-acre site since 1962.

    With the addition of the Mission Inn, one of Southern California’s most recognizable historic landmarks now joins an expanding portfolio of hospitality properties owned and operated by the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation.

Source: Riverside County Assessor-Clerk Recorder records; statements from Melissa Garcia, Steven Nguyen, Kenneth Shoji; Southern California News Group reporting.

The post San Manuel Nation Completes $33.2 Million Purchase of Riverside’s Historic Mission Inn appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The milestone comes as SpaceX completed what analysts are calling the largest initial public offering (IPO) in U.S. history. Investor demand pushed the company’s valuation beyond $2 trillion during its first day of trading, instantly elevating Musk’s fortune to an estimated $1.1 trillion on paper.

The achievement marks a remarkable rise for a company that began in 2002 with the ambitious goal of reducing the cost of space travel and eventually making humanity a multi-planetary species.

Today, SpaceX operates the world’s most active launch program, provides satellite internet service through Starlink, transports astronauts and cargo for NASA, and is developing the massive Starship rocket system intended for missions to the Moon and Mars.

From PayPal Millions to Trillion-Dollar Wealth

Musk’s journey began long before rockets dominated headlines.

After co-founding Zip2 and later helping create X.com, which evolved into PayPal, Musk reinvested much of his fortune into a series of high-risk ventures including Tesla and SpaceX. At various points, he reportedly came close to exhausting his personal finances while attempting to keep both companies afloat.

Those risks have since transformed into one of the largest accumulations of wealth in modern history.

While Tesla helped establish Musk as the world’s richest person, financial analysts say SpaceX has now become the largest contributor to his fortune. Reuters calculations estimated that Musk’s SpaceX holdings alone were worth hundreds of billions of dollars before the company’s public offering. Following the IPO, those holdings surged dramatically in value.

Historic SpaceX Launch Activity

The financial milestone arrives during one of the busiest periods in SpaceX history.

The company continues conducting frequent launches from facilities in Florida, California and Texas, deploying Starlink satellites while supporting government and commercial missions around the globe.

SpaceX’s reusable Falcon 9 rocket has become the workhorse of the modern space industry, regularly launching satellites, scientific payloads and astronaut crews. Meanwhile, development continues on Starship, the largest and most powerful rocket ever built.

NASA has selected a version of Starship to help return astronauts to the Moon under the Artemis program, while Musk has repeatedly stated that the vehicle is central to his long-term vision of establishing a permanent human settlement on Mars.

The company has also expanded beyond traditional spaceflight. Through Starlink, SpaceX now provides internet connectivity to millions of users worldwide, including customers in rural and underserved regions where conventional broadband infrastructure is limited. Starlink has become one of the company’s most important revenue-generating businesses.

Not Everyone Is Convinced

Despite the enthusiasm surrounding the IPO, some analysts caution that SpaceX’s valuation reflects enormous expectations about future growth.

Research firm Morningstar recently estimated the company could be worth less than half of its IPO valuation, citing concerns about competition in artificial intelligence, the long-term economics of satellite broadband and the challenges associated with future projects.

Others argue that investors are betting not only on current operations but on Musk’s vision for future industries that do not yet fully exist, including orbital data centers, advanced artificial intelligence systems and eventual Mars colonization.

Even supporters acknowledge that much of Musk’s wealth exists on paper through stock ownership rather than cash holdings. Like other billionaire fortunes, the value can fluctuate significantly with market conditions.

A New Chapter in American Business

Whether SpaceX ultimately justifies its record-breaking valuation remains to be seen. What is certain is that the company has already reshaped the global space industry.

Reusable rockets, routine commercial launches and privately developed spacecraft were once considered unlikely goals. Today they are standard features of a sector largely transformed by SpaceX’s innovations.

For Musk, the trillion-dollar milestone represents more than a personal financial achievement. It underscores the growing influence of private technology companies in industries once dominated exclusively by governments.

As SpaceX continues launching rockets, expanding satellite services and pursuing missions beyond Earth, the company appears poised to remain at the center of both financial markets and the future of space exploration for years to come.

The post Elon Musk Becomes the World’s First Trillionaire as SpaceX Reaches Historic Milestone appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

    The rules do not change the basic idea of investing. People can still buy shares, sell shares, collect dividends and hold stocks for the long term. But the “plumbing” behind the market — how trades settle, how prices are quoted, how short selling is reported and how stock lending is tracked — is being updated.

    For local investors, the most important change is already here: the move to T+1 settlement. In simple terms, when a person sells a stock, the trade now generally settles one business day after the transaction date, instead of two. That means if an investor sells shares on Monday, the money is usually available after settlement on Tuesday, rather than Wednesday.

    This may sound like a small technical change, but it matters. Faster settlement reduces the amount of time between a trade being made and the trade becoming final. Regulators say this lowers risk in the system because money and shares are exchanged sooner. It can also make cash available faster for investors who sell stock and need the proceeds.

    However, faster settlement also gives investors and financial firms less time to fix mistakes. If an investor sells a security and plans to use the money quickly, they need to understand when the cash is truly settled. Moving too fast without understanding settlement rules can create problems, especially in cash accounts.

    Another major change involves the way stock prices are quoted. The Securities and Exchange Commission adopted changes to parts of Regulation NMS, the system that helps govern modern U.S. stock trading. One key piece involves “tick sizes,” which are the minimum price increments used when stocks are quoted. For many years, most stocks were quoted in pennies. Under the new structure, some stocks may be quoted in smaller increments, allowing tighter pricing.

    For everyday readers, this means the difference between the buy price and sell price — known as the spread — could become smaller for certain stocks. A smaller spread can reduce trading costs, especially for heavily traded stocks. At the same time, smaller increments can also make the market more complex, particularly for brokers, exchanges and professional traders.

    The SEC also moved to reduce certain exchange access fees. These are fees charged when traders access quotes on exchanges. While most everyday investors never see these fees directly, they can influence how orders are routed and how brokers compete for execution quality. Regulators say the goal is to make pricing more transparent and reduce conflicts that may affect where orders are sent.

    There is also a growing debate over one of the most important rules in the stock market: the order protection rule, sometimes called the trade-through rule. This rule was designed to prevent trades from being executed at worse prices when a better price is available on another exchange. In plain English, it was meant to help protect investors from getting an inferior price simply because their order went to the wrong trading venue.

    In June 2026, the SEC proposed eliminating that rule. Supporters of repeal argue that the market has changed since the rule was created in 2005. Trading is faster, technology is stronger, and brokers already have a duty to seek good execution for customers. Critics worry that removing the rule could weaken investor protections and make it harder for ordinary traders to know whether they received the best available price.

    This proposal is not yet final, but it shows the direction of the current debate: regulators are asking whether older rules still make sense in a market dominated by high-speed trading, off-exchange market makers, dark pools and commission-free trading apps.

    Short selling is another area facing new transparency requirements. Short selling happens when an investor borrows shares and sells them, hoping to buy them back later at a lower price. It is legal, but controversial, because short sellers profit when stock prices fall. Regulators have adopted rules requiring certain large investment managers to report short positions on Form SHO when they meet specific thresholds.

    The goal is not to ban short selling. Instead, regulators want more visibility into large short positions and short-sale activity. After the meme-stock events of 2021, many retail investors became suspicious of short sellers and hedge funds. New reporting rules are intended to give regulators and the public better information, though some compliance dates have been delayed.

    Securities lending is also being brought into the spotlight. When shares are lent out — often so another investor can short the stock — the transaction has historically been difficult for the public to see clearly. New securities lending rules are designed to create a reporting system through FINRA called SLATE, short for Securities Lending and Transparency Engine.

    Once fully implemented, this system is expected to provide more information about stock loans, lending rates and market activity. For ordinary investors, this could eventually make it easier to understand when a stock is heavily borrowed and how expensive it is to borrow. That information can be important because high borrowing costs sometimes signal heavy short interest or limited share availability.

    Another important change involves large investors who buy significant stakes in public companies. Updated beneficial ownership rules shortened some filing deadlines for investors who cross major ownership thresholds. The purpose is to give the market faster notice when a large investor has built a meaningful position in a company.

    This matters because large ownership stakes can influence stock prices. If an activist investor, hedge fund or major institution quietly builds a large position, other shareholders may want to know. Faster reporting gives the market more timely information.

    For local readers, the biggest lesson is simple: the market is becoming faster, more transparent and more complicated at the same time. Faster settlement may help investors get access to money sooner. Smaller tick sizes may reduce some trading costs. Short-sale and securities-lending reporting may improve transparency. But these changes do not remove risk.

    Stocks can still fall. Companies can still disappoint investors. Fast trading does not guarantee smart trading. Commission-free apps have made investing easier, but they have also made it easier for people to trade too often, chase hype or misunderstand the rules.

    Investors should know the difference between settled cash and unsettled cash, understand whether they are using a margin account or cash account, and avoid making trades based only on social media excitement. The new rules may improve the market’s structure, but they do not replace patience, research and risk management.

    The stock market is no longer just a place for Wall Street professionals. Millions of working Americans now own stocks through retirement accounts, brokerage apps and employer plans. That makes these rule changes important beyond New York or Washington, D.C.

    The new era of stock market regulation is not about one single rule. It is about a broader shift toward faster settlement, tighter pricing, more disclosure and a debate over how much protection investors need in a technology-driven market. For the average investor, the message is clear: the market may be moving faster, but understanding the rules matters more than ever.

    Sources: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, FINRA, Reuters and federal securities rule releases.

The post New Stock Market Rules Are Changing How Americans Trade, Settle and Understand Wall Street appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

At their core, prediction markets allow participants to buy and sell contracts based on whether they believe a specific event will occur. The price of these contracts fluctuates as traders place bets on what they think is most likely to happen.

For example, a prediction market might ask, “Will a particular candidate win an upcoming election?” A contract tied to a “Yes” outcome may trade for 65 cents. In simple terms, the market is suggesting there is roughly a 65% chance of that event occurring. If the event ultimately happens, the contract settles at $1. If it does not occur, the contract becomes worthless.

Supporters of prediction markets argue that they can provide valuable insights because participants have financial incentives to make accurate forecasts. Unlike opinion polls, which simply ask respondents what they think, prediction markets require traders to put money behind their beliefs.

These markets have been used to forecast political races, economic trends, corporate earnings reports, and even the likelihood of certain legislative actions. Some researchers believe that prediction markets can sometimes be more accurate than traditional forecasting methods because they aggregate information from many different participants.

However, prediction markets are not without controversy. Critics argue that market prices can be influenced by speculation, misinformation, or sudden news events that may temporarily distort public expectations. Additionally, regulatory questions have emerged regarding whether certain prediction markets resemble gambling or financial derivatives.

For individual participants, prediction markets can be both educational and risky. Traders who correctly anticipate outcomes may earn profits, while those who make incorrect predictions can lose money. As with any form of speculation, participants should understand the rules, fees, and risks before investing funds.

Several online platforms now offer prediction market contracts on a variety of topics. Depending on the platform and jurisdiction, users may be able to trade contracts tied to elections, economic indicators, sports outcomes, entertainment awards, and other real-world events.

As technology continues to evolve, prediction markets are attracting increasing attention from investors, academics, policymakers, and everyday consumers interested in measuring collective expectations about the future. Whether viewed as a forecasting tool, an investment opportunity, or a form of speculation, prediction markets represent a growing intersection of finance, data, and public opinion.

How Prediction Markets Work at a Glance

1. A question is created about a future event.
2. Traders buy “Yes” or “No” contracts.
3. Contract prices move based on market demand.
4. Prices often reflect the market’s estimated probability of an outcome.
5. When the event is resolved, winning contracts pay out while losing contracts expire.

Important Reminder

Prediction markets involve risk. Participants should only use money they can afford to lose and should carefully review the rules and regulations governing any platform before trading.

Interested in Learning More About Investing?

Prediction markets are just one way people attempt to forecast future events. If you’re interested in exploring stocks, ETFs, and financial markets, you can learn more through this resource:

👉 Start Here

Disclosure: We may both receive a referral reward if you sign up through this link.

The post Understanding Prediction Markets: Betting on Future Events or Measuring Public Expectations? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The boards at the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System are facing campaigns from groups that want them to pull money out of companies associated with the Trump administration, scale back investments in fossil fuels and break with private equity firms over their labor records.

The list includes electric car maker Tesla, surveillance company Palantir, private companies that operate immigrant detention centers, ExxonMobil, Chevron and private equity firm Apollo Global Management.

To some extent, divestment campaigns are routine business at CalPERS and CalSTRS, which hold assets worth a combined $1 trillion and are headquartered in the capital of a deep blue state. 

But the combination of Trump-era politics and a concerted push by labor in the Legislature to force the pension funds to open the books on private equity holdings is attracting the focus of a more diverse mix of advocates.

“It’s politics,” said Richard Costigan, a Republican who served on the CalPERS board from 2011 to 2019 as an appointee of Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown. “When you look at Palantir and Tesla, it’s driven by politics. Seriously, why would you not invest in Palantir?”

The rebuttal: Despite their earnings and stock value today, the companies affiliated with the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement program are taking on serious reputational risk that could backfire on the funds. Separately, they say putting money into fossil fuel companies poses hazards both for the environment and for pension systems banking on long-term investments.

The pension funds “should be aligning their investments with the values of their state, the values of their members, and the long-term interests of their members,” said Richard Brooks, the climate finance program director at the advocacy organization Stand.Earth.

He recently released a study tallying CalPERS and CalSTRS investments in companies that participate in the Trump administration immigration sweeps, such as Palantir and private prison companies CoreCivic and GeoGroup. 

“I see a disconnect right now,” he said.  

Staff at CalPERS and CalSTRS oppose divestment and they consistently fight legislation that would tie their hands. Both systems are underfunded and owe tens of billions more than their assets, a crisis that in 2012 led the Legislature and then-Gov. Jerry Brown to pass a law mandating less generous pension benefits for employees hired after that year. 

But CalPERS and CalSTRS have pulled money out of industries in the past. CalPERS divested from firearms in 2013 and from tobacco in 2016. They’re also barred by state law from investing in coal as well as in businesses connected to Iran.

They’re governed by boards of directors that are made up of public employee union leaders, appointees of state Democratic leaders and the state controller and state treasurer, both of whom are Democrats. 

In short, they’re people who are aligned politically with the mostly liberal groups that are pressing them to change policies. 

That doesn’t mean it’s an easy call for them to withdraw investments from any industry.

“It’s so tricky. How do you divest from all of that is anti-union? The quick answer is you can’t,” said Kenny Waggoner of Ducenta Squared Asset Management, who advises union benefit plans.

He gave an example of a real estate investment trust with stakes in large warehouses — the kind operated by Amazon. Members might question an investment in a company with a reputation for fighting unionization, but the rent from the warehouse might be the best return available to support their pensions.

Here’s a look at the main friction points before CalPERS and CalSTRS.

Tesla volatility

A long–running campaign to persuade CalPERS to break with electric car maker Tesla peaked in September when the pension board commissioned a risk assessment on whether it should own stock in the electric car maker.

Tesla delivered returns for CalPERS over time. It’s considered one of the “magnificent seven” tech stocks that drive markets today.  

The company’s critics characterize it as a volatile risk under Trump ally Elon Musk, pointing to Tesla’s drop in sales last year along with regulatory challenges it’s facing with its self-driving cars. CalPERS as a Tesla shareholder has consistently voted against Musk’s pay packages.

“Tesla’s past gains don’t erase the present picture,” CalPERS board Mulissa Willette said at the meeting where she requested the risk analysis. 

In March, the board held a closed-door discussion on “owning Tesla”. Afterward, a board member said in open session that CalPERS would not sell off its holdings in the company. 

“While we are unable to provide specifics regarding the discussion, we can note that the company has been one of the top 10 drivers of performance in our global equity portfolio and is a key holding for our climate transition portfolio,” CalPERS board member Kevin Palkki said. “After our closed session discussion, we collectively agreed to make no changes at this time.” 

Immigration and surveillance

Palantir, a California company that supported the U.S. military during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, became a focus of public pension divestment campaigns during Israel’s assault on Gaza because of its work with the Israeli Ministry of Defense. The Berkeley Unified School District, for example, in September passed a resolution calling on CalSTRS to divest from the company. 

Now Palantir is facing more scrutiny because of its work with the Department of Homeland Security, which is carrying out the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

The climate advocacy organization Stand.Earth called attention to CalPERS’ and CalSTRS’ holdings in Palantir and six other companies working with Homeland Security in a study it published last month highlighting public pension investments in companies that Stand.Earth described as enabling “repression and violence”.

Fossil fuels

California lawmakers were close to forcing CalPERS and CalSTRS to divest from fossil fuels three years ago when a bill to do that passed the state Senate. But it didn’t become law.

Both of the big pension funds opposed the bill, although one of their board members, state Treasurer Fiona Ma, supported it.

Advocates and public employees who don’t want their pensions to support industries that drive climate change have pressed the funds to divest from oil and gas for a decade. 

California’s third largest public pension fund, the University of California Retirement Plan, divested from fossil fuels in 2020. At the time, its leaders cited financial reasons, finding that fossil fuels have a poor long-term outlook.

The UC Retirement Plan is in better shape than CalPERS and CalSTRS. The UC plan’s assets are worth 92% of what it owes over time to its beneficiaries, while CalPERS’ and CalSTRS’ portfolios are worth about 80% of what they owe.

Labor’s attention on private equity

Two bills in the Legislature this spring pit unions against unions in questions over how CalPERS and CalSTRS should do business. 

One would compel the funds to release more information about their private equity holdings, a change that CalPERS staff contends would so severely undermine its ability to invest with those firms that it would have to increase its charges to employers by more than $6.1 billion a year. 

The measure by Democratic Sen. Dave Cortese of San Jose has support from unions that represent grocery store workers and hotel employees, none of whom have pensions in CalPERS or CalSTRS. Public sectors have not yet taken a stand on the proposal  

The second one, carried by Democratic Assemblymember Robert Garcia, would direct the funds to commission a study on their labor standards for construction and development projects. The State Building and Construction Trades Council has urged CalPERS and CalSTRS to heighten their existing labor standards and is supporting the bill.

The California School Employees Association, whose members have CalPERS pensions, is on the record opposing the trades’ bill. 

“CSEA’s position is that investment and divestment decisions regarding CalPERS funds should be made by the CalPERS Board and its investment professionals, not by the Legislature,” Aaron Latham, the union’s spokesperson, said in a written statement. 

The post How California’s 2 biggest pension funds became a battleground for Trump politics and more appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The Department of Environmental Health is seeking across-the-board adjustments that all of the county’s trash collectors — Burrtec Waste, CR&R Inc., Desert Valley Disposal Inc. and Waste Management Inc. — want to incorporate into their contracts with the county.

Based on the county agency’s request Tuesday, the board scheduled the public hearing for May 12.

Officials said the adjustments are necessary to keep pace with inflation. The waste haulers are permitted to seek rate adjustments every year based on rising landfill, transportation and other costs. They generally base their proposed increases on the previous year’s estimated changes to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index for the region.

The board rarely denies adjustment requests. However, in 2020, then- Supervisor Kevin Jeffries opposed increases, arguing financial hardships tied to the COVID lockdowns made it an inopportune time to hike fees on residents. The increases were approved despite his opposition.

The proposed Burrtec hike would impact customers in Bermuda Dunes and Thousand Palms, boosting monthly rates from an average $31.09 to $32.18.

Residents serviced by CR&R, which deploys trucks to De Luz, Gilman Hot Springs, Lakeland Village, Cherry Valley, Cabazon and surrounding locations, would see their bills go from between $35.73 and $37.88, to between $36.86 and $39.08.

Desert Valley Disposal customers, most of whom reside in North Palm Springs and Painted Hills, would be on the hook for a $1.28 increase, going from an average $37.78 to $39.06.

Waste Management’s new fee structure would increase from between $35.73 and $37.88, to between $36.86 and $39.08 per month for residential collections in El Cerrito, Highgrove, Winchester, Woodcrest and neighboring communities, according to the Department of Environmental Health.

In some cases, fees would increase beyond the averages under so-called “hard-to-reach” service plans, which apply when properties are especially remote.

Waste collection for the county occurs in defined “franchise areas,” which currently number 11. Most of the existing franchise agreements have been in place since the late 1990s.

If approved during the May 12 public hearing — when anyone can speak on the proposed increases — the new fees would take effect on July 1.

The post Rate Increases Proposed For Trash Services In Riverside County appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The company said it was making the cuts for the sake of efficiency and to allow new investments in parts of its business, as first reported by Bloomberg, which also said the company will leave about 6,000 jobs unfilled.

Also Thursday, Microsoft said it was offering voluntary buyouts to thousands of its U.S. employees.

The software giant plans to make the offers in early May to about 8,750 people, or 7% of its U.S. workforce, according to two people familiar with the plan who were not authorized to speak about it publicly.

While an alternative to the sudden layoffs removing tech workers from peers like Meta and Oracle, the savings are likely tied to a similar industry upheaval that is requiring huge spending on the costs of artificial intelligence. Meta has already warned investors that its 2026 expenses will grow significantly — to the range of $162 billion to $169 billion — driven by infrastructure costs and employee compensation, particularly for the artificial intelligence experts it’s been hiring at eye-popping pay levels.

Wedbush analyst Dan Ives welcomed Meta’s cuts in a note to investors Thursday.

He said he sees it as part of a strategy of using AI tools to “automate tasks that once required large teams, allowing the company to streamline operations and reduce costs while maintaining productivity driving an increased need for a leaner operating structure.”

Microsoft, based in Redmond, Washington, has spent billions of dollars operating an ever-expanding global network of data centers powering cloud computing services, AI systems and its own suite of productivity tools, including the AI assistant Copilot.

CNBC reported earlier Thursday on a memo from Microsoft’s chief people officer, Amy Coleman, announcing the voluntary retirement plan.

“Our hope is that this program gives those eligible the choice to take that next step on their own terms, with generous company support,” Coleman wrote, according to CNBC.

The post Meta slashes 8,000 jobs, or 10% of its workforce, as Microsoft offers buyouts appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The emails suggest that Amazon employees were coordinating with vendors to encourage major retailers like Walmart and Chewy to raise prices on products listed on their platforms. In one instance, Amazon is accused of increasing prices on a popular set of dog treats and working with the manufacturer to persuade Chewy to match the hike. Amazon allegedly sent the manufacturer a list of products with price increases, instructing them to ensure Chewy followed suit. Just two days later, the manufacturer reportedly confirmed that the price increase had been applied on both platforms.

In another case, Amazon reportedly sent links to Levi’s showing that Walmart was selling Dockers khaki pants at a lower price than Amazon. The next day, Levi’s allegedly told Amazon it had coordinated with Walmart to raise the price of the pants to $29.99, which was then mirrored by Amazon shortly after.

Bonta’s office argues that these actions demonstrate Amazon’s attempt to manipulate the market by colluding with vendors and other retailers to raise prices for consumers, an allegation that the company strongly denies.

“The evidence uncovered today is clear as day: Amazon is working to make your life more unaffordable,” Bonta said, criticizing Amazon for price-fixing. “The company is price-fixing, colluding with vendors and other retailers to raise costs for Americans beyond what the market requires.”

In response, Amazon dismissed the claims, accusing Bonta’s office of a “transparent attempt to distract from the weakness of its case.” The company stated that it remains proud of offering low prices to customers and would address the allegations in court.

Walmart, Levi’s, and Chewy, while mentioned in the filings, are not named as defendants in the case.

These revelations are part of an ongoing antitrust lawsuit filed by Bonta’s office in 2022, accusing Amazon of manipulating prices across various online platforms to create an artificial price floor that limits competition while allowing Amazon to retain its competitive edge. Bonta contends that by controlling prices in this manner, Amazon can present itself as offering the best deals, even as it benefits from reduced competition.

The newly unsealed records were part of a motion filed in February by Bonta, seeking an injunction to halt Amazon’s alleged price-fixing practices. Amazon’s trial is scheduled to begin in January 2027, and the company continues to deny the core allegations, arguing that its practices encourage competition rather than stifle it.

This is not the first time Amazon’s pricing practices have come under scrutiny. In a separate release, the Guardian reported last week on additional court documents showing how Amazon’s tactics allegedly pressured smaller companies to raise their prices in order to compete on its platform.

The post California Sues Amazon Over Alleged Price-Fixing Tactics appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

In 2020, voters approved Proposition 22, a ballot initiative that exempted Uber and other app platforms from labor law and allowed them to keep classifying their workers as contractors instead of employees. The measure included a promise that drivers would have an appeals process.

Rideshare Drivers United, a drivers group that says it has about 20,000 members in California, said Monday that because Uber has violated Prop. 22 by not delivering on all its promises, it should not be allowed to continue to assert that its drivers are independent contractors. 

“Uber has not met the conditions to take advantage of Prop. 22,” Shannon Liss-Riordan, a Massachusetts-based lawyer who has challenged Uber and other gig companies for years and is representing the California group, told CalMatters.

Many deactivated drivers report that they struggle to appeal their cases. They say they are initially sent to sites where they appear to be talking with bots, then eventually reach agents who are working from a script and appear to be in another country. Rarely do they reach people who are empowered to truly help them, they say. 

Liss-Riordan said at a news conference in San Francisco that she is seeking a declaration from the court saying that the company is violating the law it wrote, which she said should help drivers who are pursuing individual arbitration of their cases. 

“We’re going to seek back pay and other damages for them if they were unfairly deactivated, and we’re also going to be seeking their rights under the labor code,” she said.

Among the promises of Prop. 22: guaranteed minimum earnings of 120% of minimum wage for active ride or delivery time; health care stipends for those who qualify; occupational accident insurance and accidental death insurance; and “mandatory contractual rights and appeal processes,” according to the initiative’s text. The text does not specify what the requirements for an appeals process should be.

Devins Baker said he has driven for Uber and Lyft in the Bay Area for eight years and was deactivated by Uber right before Christmas in 2024. 

He told CalMatters that he thinks Uber deactivated him after he had to brake hard to avoid hitting a person who darted across the freeway, causing his passenger — who was not wearing a seatbelt — to fall out of his seat. 

“I don’t know because we never find out which passenger complained,” Baker said, adding that he thinks some people report drivers to try to get a free ride from Uber.

Baker got emotional during the news conference, saying he is trying to “keep it together” and is scrambling to find other ways to make money so he will not become homeless.  

Uber spokesperson Ramona Prieto called Liss-Riordan an “opportunistic trial lawyer” in an email to CalMatters and said the company will “fight this publicity stunt in court.” Prieto said the company provides drivers with a clear appeals process, and pointed to a company blog post from last week that explains what drivers can expect when they challenge deactivations. 

‘It has turned my life upside down’

Another deactivated driver from the Bay Area, Mirwais Noory, said Uber kicked him off the app in November 2024 over what the company said were safety concerns. He said he tried to show Uber dashcam video to plead his case, to no avail.

Getting deactivated caused financial hardship as he tries to support four children, he said. He has found work as a security guard since then, and now occasionally drives for Lyft. 

“I’m the only one with income,” Noory told CalMatters. “It has turned my life upside down.”

Jason Munderloh, chair of the Bay Area chapter of Rideshare Drivers United, said at the news conference: “Once they’re deactivated, there is no unemployment insurance (because drivers are not considered employees). This leads to poverty and desperation.”

“The minute someone joins RDU, their first concern is pay and the second is deactivations,” Nicole Moore, president of Rideshare Drivers United, told CalMatters ahead of the news conference.

Uber, a multibillion-dollar company based in San Francisco, was the lead backer of the $205 million Prop. 22 campaign that was also funded by DoorDash, Lyft, Instacart and Postmates. Uber spent a total of $59.5 million in cash and in-kind contributions, and Postmates — which Uber bought in a deal that was completed in 2020 — spent $13.3 million.

The lawsuit filed Monday in San Francisco Superior Court is the latest of many legal challenges against Prop. 22, which CalMatters has found has no state agency assigned to enforce it. The state Supreme Court upheld the gig-work law in 2024.

The plaintiffs also allege Uber deactivates drivers based on grounds not specified in its “Platform Access Agreement,” and that the company does not provide drivers with enough information about their earnings to determine that they are receiving 120% of minimum wage.

Separately, Uber is facing a lawsuit by the state Justice Department and the cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego over thousands of wage-theft claims that predate Prop. 22. A trial for that lawsuit as well as a similar one against Lyft is scheduled for December 2027.

The post Rideshare drivers sue Uber over being kicked off app in new challenge to California law appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The hospital’s parent company, Southwest Healthcare, announced that the new seven-story tower began receiving patients on Monday. The project, which cost about $400 million, adds a 217,444-square-foot advanced acute care facility at the hospital’s campus on Inland Valley Drive.

With the addition of the new tower, Inland Valley Hospital increases its licensed acute care bed count from 120 to 202 — a jump aimed at keeping pace with the region’s rapid population growth and rising demand for medical services.

Hospital officials say the expansion strengthens services already offered at the facility, including Level II trauma care, a certified primary stroke center, and an advanced total joint replacement program. Inland Valley is also known for its nationally recognized weight-loss surgery program.

Even before the expansion, the hospital handled a high volume of patients, performing more than 4,000 surgeries annually and seeing roughly 4,000 visits each month in its emergency department.

“This is an important and exciting moment for our organization and the communities we serve,” said Jared Giles, CEO of Southwest Healthcare Inland Valley Hospital and Rancho Springs Hospital. He noted that the new tower opened following approval from the California Department of Public Health and credited staff for managing the complex transition into the new space.

The project has been years in the making. Ground was first broken on Oct. 7, 2021, in a ceremony that also marked the start of expansion work at nearby Rancho Springs Hospital in Murrieta.

The investment in both facilities represents the largest financial commitment to date by Universal Health Services, the Pennsylvania-based company that operates Southwest Healthcare hospitals across the region.

Inland Valley Hospital itself has been serving the area since it first opened its doors in 1987.

The post $400M Inland Valley Hospital Tower Opens, Expanding Care in Southwest Riverside County appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.