The lawsuit, filed last week by Tower Bridge Property Management and its owner, Tom Manning, targets a 2020 California law that bars landlords from turning away renters simply because they use a Section 8 voucher to help cover their rent. The program, formally known as the Housing Choice Voucher Program, is designed to help low-income tenants afford housing on the private market — though funding has never stretched far enough to serve every eligible household.

Tower Bridge, which oversees roughly 300 rental units in the Sacramento region, contends that the inspection and paperwork requirements tied to accepting voucher payments violate the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. Under the law, landlords who rent to voucher holders must first allow local housing authorities to inspect their units for health and safety issues, then submit documentation to both local and federal agencies.

The case, filed with backing from the libertarian-leaning Pacific Legal Foundation, mirrors arguments that have gained traction elsewhere. Earlier this year, a New York appellate court sided with a similar challenge and struck down that state’s ban on voucher discrimination. A conservative legal group in Virginia has raised a comparable argument there as well.

California is one of 15 states, along with Washington, D.C., that explicitly prohibit landlords from refusing tenants based on their use of housing vouchers. Since the law took effect, tenant advocacy groups have filed a string of civil rights lawsuits against landlords accused of skirting the requirement — often using undercover “testers” who pose as voucher holders to document rejections.

The issue drew national attention last month when a nonprofit watchdog organization accused Greystar, the country’s largest apartment landlord, of systematically denying housing to voucher holders nationwide, including in California properties.

The Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing Manning, has previously challenged other California housing policies, including developer impact fees and inclusionary zoning requirements that mandate affordable units in new construction.

It remains to be seen how the case will play out in California courts, but housing advocates are watching closely, given the precedent set in New York and the broader legal momentum against similar tenant protection laws in other states.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Landlord Challenges California Law Designed to Protect Low-Income Tenants appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The five-member board, which hears appeals involving hazardous waste facilities permitted by the Department of Toxic Substances Control, was established in 2021 to add a layer of oversight and give communities burdened by industrial pollution a stronger voice in state decision-making.

Gov. Gavin Newsom appointed Williams to the board in January, shortly after he stepped down as the governor’s deputy chief of staff. In a letter sent to Williams, and shared with the board and the department, a coalition of environmental groups raised alarms over his subsequent work for Axiom Advisors, a Sacramento lobbying firm whose client roster includes Clean Harbors, which operates a major hazardous waste facility, and GKN Aerospace, the company responsible for a chemical release that forced thousands of Orange County residents to evacuate in May.

Williams did not respond to requests for comment from CalMatters, and he did not address the letter during the board’s meeting Thursday. He has not been accused of breaking any law, and legal experts note his appointment fell within the bounds of what’s permitted.

The governor’s office defended the appointment, saying Williams underwent a thorough vetting process and that his lobbying work does not present a conflict because he does not represent clients with active matters before the board. Williams has also committed to recusing himself from any votes involving Axiom’s clients.

“Rhys Williams is an exceptionally qualified public servant with years of experience helping California navigate some of its most complex infrastructure, emergency management, and environmental challenges,” said Newsom spokesperson Anthony Martinez. “His appointment reflects his deep subject matter expertise, professionalism, and longstanding commitment to public service.”

But advocates argue that the appearance of divided loyalties alone is enough to undermine confidence in the board’s independence.

“They were alarmed by just the audacity of appointing somebody who is or has been tied to the toxic waste industry,” said Bradley Angel, executive director of Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice. “It does not bode well for impartiality or for upholding the stated mission of the Board of Environmental Safety, which is to protect the public from toxics and promote environmental safety, not promote polluter profits.”

Questions of impartiality

Records from Williams’ LinkedIn profile and lobbying disclosures filed with the California Secretary of State show that Axiom Advisors brought him on in May, roughly four months after he joined the state board. The firm publicly announced his hiring the following month, touting his government connections as a selling point for clients. “This appointment brings something very important to Axiom’s clients,” the announcement read. “Rhys’ extensive experience with the agencies that can move projects forward is invaluable to companies looking to do business here.”

Axiom’s client list includes GKN Aerospace, which uses the hazardous chemical methyl methacrylate to manufacture aircraft components such as cockpit canopies and passenger windows; Clean Harbors, which runs one of only two hazardous waste landfills in the state; and the California Building Industry Association, a trade group representing homebuilders and developers.

According to a source familiar with the discussions, Williams has attended meetings in his capacity as an Axiom lobbyist between GKN representatives and staff for state Sen. Tom Umberg, an Orange County Democrat pushing legislation to hold the company accountable and provide relief to affected residents. The toxic substances department does not directly regulate GKN as an aerospace manufacturer, though it could have jurisdiction if the company handles or transports hazardous waste.

Williams’ career in Sacramento dates back more than a decade. He joined Newsom’s staff in 2014 as chief of staff during Newsom’s time as lieutenant governor, later advising him on infrastructure and emergency preparedness issues throughout his governorship.

Before leaving for the board post, Williams earned close to $200,000 annually as deputy chief of staff. His new part-time position pays $93,135. Newsom has since also named him to the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, a role that comes with a $100 daily stipend. Asked in January about Williams’ departure from the governor’s office, spokesperson Izzy Gardon said the longtime aide had “earned his freedom” after more than ten years of service.

A board under scrutiny

Williams stepped into a board still working to shed criticism over how it has handled oversight of polluting facilities in its first five years of existence. In the coming months, the board is expected to weigh in on several contested permits tied to some of California’s largest hazardous waste operations.

The board’s formation followed years of frustration from residents and advocacy groups who said the Department of Toxic Substances Control routinely dragged its feet on permitting decisions and failed to shield vulnerable communities from pollution.

Chief among the incidents that spurred reform was the decades-long Exide lead battery contamination case in Los Angeles. Regulators eventually determined the Vernon-based battery recycler had been releasing lead and arsenic into the soil near thousands of homes for years, all while operating under nothing more than a temporary permit for more than three decades. State inspectors documented over 100 violations at the site yet allowed the plant to keep running.

In 2015, following an earlier bankruptcy filing, Exide agreed to shutter the plant for good and contribute $50 million toward the cleanup. When the company filed for bankruptcy a second time in 2020, a federal judge signed off on a settlement letting Exide walk away from the property entirely, over state objections, leaving California to shoulder the ongoing cleanup costs.

Critics say the pattern of delayed permitting and lax enforcement hasn’t gone away. Clean Harbors operated for two decades on an expired permit before the department finally issued a renewal last month. Phibro-Tech, a hazardous waste treatment and recycling facility in Santa Fe Springs, ran on a permit that lapsed in 1996 for nearly 30 years before receiving a new one in 2025; the board is set to rule on appeals tied to that permit in October. And Ecobat Resources, the only lead battery recycler west of the Rockies, operated for a decade on an expired permit before getting a renewal last year, with related appeals scheduled for board review in January.

Neither Phibro-Tech nor Ecobat are Axiom clients.

“The BES was supposed to be our firewall to safeguard communities,” said Matt Holmes, co-coordinator with the California Environmental Justice Coalition. While he credited the board with improving communication with affected communities, he said it has fallen short of its core mission. “We’ve been disappointed that the (board) really hasn’t been the firewall for toxic communities to get equal treatment from the state,” Holmes said, adding that the letter demanding Williams’ resignation was meant to clarify expectations for the board going forward.

What the law allows

Legal experts say there’s nothing inherently illegal or unusual about state board members holding outside jobs as lobbyists — the issue arises only if they end up advocating for companies whose matters they’re later asked to rule on. There’s no indication Williams has crossed that line: GKN Aerospace does not hold any hazardous waste permits regulated by the department, and it’s unclear whether he has direct ties to Clean Harbors or any other Axiom client that has drawn scrutiny.

Even so, USC government ethics professor Frank Zerunyan said Williams’ situation could raise concerns under broader common-law conflict-of-interest principles. “The fact that this person lobbies for a particular interest, does that make the people of California, which relies presumably on this person to be an objective commissioner or a board member for the purpose for which he is appointed, less trusting of California, or less trusting of that organization?” Zerunyan said. “That is the question.”

Environmental groups say the answer doesn’t hinge on whether Williams ever actually casts a vote involving an Axiom client. In their letter, they wrote that his ongoing association with the firm alone invites doubt: “For the duration of your tenure with the Board, the public may question whether your statements and activities (or lack thereof) could be consciously or subconsciously influenced by the interest of current Axiom clients, as well as the interests of potential clients Axiom may hope to attract.”

A pattern of political appointments

Williams is among more than a dozen former Newsom staffers and political allies the governor has placed in paid or unpaid roles across California’s many boards and commissions. Such appointments are a long-standing tradition in Sacramento, particularly as governors near the end of their terms, offering soft landings for aides leaving full-time government service while allowing the governor to retain influence over policy decisions.

“It is a time-honored tradition for California governors to appoint high-ranking staff to plum positions as a ‘reward’ for working in high-pressure, 24-7 jobs in the administration,” said Sacramento political consultant Steve Maviglio, who received a similar appointment to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board in 2003 under then-Gov. Gray Davis. Maviglio, who served as Davis’ press secretary, said it’s reasonable for governors to reward staffers who are “loyal and battle-tested,” though he acknowledged that “sometimes appointments are made for the sake of qualifying for pension benefits.” Davis’ successor, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, once pledged to shake up the state’s boards and commissions — only to later fill several of them with his own former staffers.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom’s Appointee to State Board Draws Conflict-of-Interest Concerns from Environmental Groups appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

“This is like the mothership of forestry in California right here,” said Stewart McMorrow, staff chief for wildfire resilience at Cal Fire, standing outside the seed bank at the agency’s Lewis A. Moran Reforestation Center.

Those frozen seeds are the backbone of California’s effort to regrow forests after wildfire, particularly for private landowners who depend on them to replant scorched property. But by the state’s own estimates, the supply isn’t close to sufficient for the scale of destruction California is now experiencing.

Decades of fire suppression combined with a warming climate have produced wildfires so intense that they are killing off forests that once depended on periodic, low-intensity fire to regenerate. Instead of bouncing back, some of these iconic California landscapes are transforming permanently into brush and scrubland.

Over the past 25 years, severe wildfires have scorched roughly 2.3 million acres of California forest so thoroughly that natural regrowth is unlikely, according to a working draft of the state’s new reforestation strategy obtained by CalMatters. That’s a serious problem for a state counting on its forests to store carbon, safeguard water supplies, filter air pollution and provide wildlife habitat. One recent analysis projects that by 2071, California could lose half of its existing forestland.

“Reforestation,” said Malcolm North, a research scientist with the U.S. Forest Service’s Pacific Southwest Research Station, “is pretty damn important.”

Yet Cal Fire estimates the state would need to roughly triple its seed bank capacity just to replant a quarter of the privately owned forestland that needs it — a tall order requiring more seeds, more storage, and more workers. And that doesn’t even touch federal land, which makes up more than half of California’s forests and accounts for most of the acreage awaiting replanting.

CalMatters reviewed the draft strategy, which is being developed by the USDA California Climate Hub alongside state and federal agencies, the nonprofit American Forests, and the Governor’s Wildfire and Forest Resilience Task Force. For decades, though, both Sacramento and Washington have allowed the funding and staffing needed for large-scale reforestation to erode.

“We need to focus on reforestation as an emergency, as a state,” McMorrow said. “We are slowly losing our forestland, and we’re not catching up.”

**A shrinking federal workforce**

Timber sales once financed much of the Forest Service’s replanting work. But as endangered species protections and other environmental rules tightened logging on national forests, and wildfires grew larger and more destructive, the agency’s budget and staffing took a hit. Non-fire personnel responsible for managing national forest lands dropped by nearly 40% between 1998 and 2015, according to a 2015 federal report.

A 2022 Forest Service document warned of a “critical need” for more staff dedicated specifically to reforestation work. Congress and the Biden administration responded in 2021 by boosting funding for a federal reforestation trust fund, a push backed by American Forests. Within a few years, the agency reported replanting about 285,000 acres nationwide in a single year — the highest total in more than 25 years.

Still, the need vastly outpaces what’s being done, and the process itself is slow. Crews first must remove dead and dying trees to reduce safety hazards and prevent future fires from reburning the same ground, according to a Forest Service spokesperson. Sourcing seeds and growing seedlings can then take another year or two before any planting begins.

Solomon Dobrowski, a landscape ecology professor at the University of Montana, said the federal government’s reforestation capacity didn’t disappear overnight — and won’t come back quickly, either. His research found that the reforestation backlog spans millions of acres across the West and could double or triple in coming decades.

“You don’t turn that ship around on a dime,” Dobrowski said.

Instead, the Trump administration slashed Forest Service staffing by 20% last year.

“It just makes me cry at night … it’s basically a child swinging a wrecking ball,” said Hugh Safford, a fire ecologist at UC Davis and former Forest Service regional ecologist. “Morale is down, capacity already was really minimal.”

Meanwhile, the fires keep coming.

**The gap keeps growing**

“This is one of the least-known impacts of climate change and megafires,” said Patrick Wright, director of the state’s wildfire task force, referring to forest loss.

The draft strategy obtained by CalMatters doesn’t come with dedicated funding attached. Instead, Wright said, its purpose is to get every agency and organization involved in reforestation working from the same playbook — streamlining permitting, prioritizing projects that protect water supplies and public safety, and expanding the pipeline of seeds, seedlings and trained workers.

It also encourages land managers to plant trees at lower densities with more natural spacing, moving away from the traditional tightly packed rows of seedlings. Researchers have linked dense plantings to more severe wildfires down the road.

The most sobering numbers in the draft concern the current pace of work. To meet the state’s existing post-fire replanting targets — which call for 280,000 acres per year starting in 2030 — California would need to expand its reforestation efforts by 35% annually. That kind of expansion would require substantial new funding, the report notes, since replanting can cost as much as $6,400 per acre.

Right now, the state is falling well short. Since 2020, land managers have replanted about 254,000 acres of severely burned forest — only around 16% of the forestland stripped bare by high-severity fire between 2020 and 2024. On federal land outside designated wilderness, the figure drops to just 8%.

Safford’s own research paints an even bleaker picture. Once wilderness areas and forests likely to regrow naturally are factored in, his recent study found the Forest Service replanted only 1.2% of its California lands burned by high-severity wildfire between 2016 and 2023.

It wasn’t always this way, Safford said. Replanting efforts largely kept up with wildfire losses until around 2006.

“And then,” he said, “it just falls to shit.”

**‘Nowhere near prepared’**

Despite public sparring between Gov. Gavin Newsom and President Donald Trump over forest management, state and federal reforestation efforts — and funding — often overlap on the ground.

Cal Fire funds research, issues grants for forest restoration on private, state and even federal land, and operates the Davis reforestation center, where rows of young conifer seedlings get misted in the summer heat.

McMorrow, dressed in Cal Fire’s navy uniform, can’t resist pulling weeds from around the seedlings as he walks the nursery rows.

One of the biggest bottlenecks, he said, is simply gathering enough seeds — getting trained climbers to the right trees at the right moment to collect ripe cones before they fall or rot.

“Believe me, I do it,” said McMorrow, who helped launch Cal Fire’s tree-climbing program. “We are trying to meet the demand that’s in front of us, and it’s crushing.”

Even so, the funding for Cal Fire’s reforestation work — pieced together from the state budget, federal grants and one-time allocations — remains a small and unpredictable slice of the agency’s multibillion-dollar budget.

The Davis facility actually shut down in the early 2000s amid statewide budget cuts, though the seed bank freezer kept running. It didn’t fully reopen until 2017, after lawmakers redirected a 2012 fee on wood products to bring it back to life. Now, upgrading and expanding the center carries an estimated $26.2 million price tag; this year’s state budget allocated just $1.2 million for preliminary planning.

Other funding sources are also uncertain. In May, California’s climate regulators — led by Newsom appointee Lauren Sanchez — voted to overhaul a major climate program in ways that could slash or eliminate up to $200 million a year earmarked for wildfire resilience, with reforestation grants competing against many other priorities for what remains. And while the Proposition 4 climate bond includes $1.5 billion for wildfire and forest resilience, state leaders are already spending it down quickly.

“The truth of the matter is that California is probably, infrastructurally speaking, in a better place than any other western state,” Safford said. “What that tells you is how piss-poor the capacity is in general in the Western U.S., because California is nowhere near prepared for the scale of this.”

**Hunting for cones**

On the shores of Jenkinson Lake in the Sierra Nevada foothills, Stella Krone and Elyse Wohlenberg wrestled with an oversized slingshot nearly as tall as they were, working together to stretch the bungee cord into place before Wohlenberg stepped clear.

“All clear?” Krone called out, aiming the slingshot toward a Douglas fir some 50 yards off. “Firing!”

Krone, Wohlenberg and dozens of others — some forestry professionals, others simply curious — had gathered for Cone Camp, a training program run by American Forests with support from Cal Fire and the U.S. Forest Service. Participants fanned out across the forest with slingshots and modified potato guns, learning to knock loose pine cones to check for ripeness before sending climbers up to harvest them for the seed bank.

But this year, cones were scarce. As Krone and another participant tugged on a rope slung over the canopy, only a scattering of last season’s dried-out cones dropped to the forest floor.

“So far, not a great cone year,” said Leana Weissberg, American Forests’ California director.

Undeterred, the group regrouped and moved on to try their luck at another tree.

“Let’s go,” Krone said. “We’re cone hunters for a reason.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California’s Wildfire-Scarred Forests Are Being Replanted Faster Than They Can Regrow appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Two major refineries — Phillips 66 and Valero’s Benicia facility — have shut down in recent months, cutting the state’s refining capacity by roughly 17% and leaving just six major refineries to supply California’s entire market for gasoline and diesel.

That matters more here than almost anywhere else in the country. California requires a specially formulated fuel blend designed to cut air pollution and prevent the kind of smog that once choked Los Angeles and much of the Inland Empire. Because so few refineries outside the state make this blend, and because no pipelines carry outside gasoline into California, the state functions almost like an energy island. When supply tightens, prices have nowhere to go but up.

With fewer refineries competing for business, the ones still operating have had more room to raise their margins. State data show refinery profit margins ran about 50% higher in the two months following the outbreak of the Iran conflict than they had over the prior year. Refining companies have also been earning more on the retail side — branded gasoline, sold through stations tied directly to refiners, now costs about 30 cents more per gallon than unbranded fuel.

Refinery operators argue that California’s environmental regulations, higher taxes and its cap-and-invest carbon market are driving up costs and pushing them toward the exits. They’ve asked the state for more financial support to keep running. In May, the California Air Resources Board responded by approving close to $2 billion in free pollution allowances for refineries, intended to encourage them to reduce emissions rather than shut down.

Yet even with that assistance, there’s no real assurance those refineries will stay open for the long haul. Most are more than a century old, and demand for their primary product — gasoline — is already sliding as more Californians switch to electric vehicles. Roughly one in four new cars sold in the state today is an EV, and that share is expected to keep climbing.

Given these realities, some experts argue California should stop trying to prop up aging refineries and instead prepare for their eventual closure. That means making sure fuel remains affordable for the drivers who still rely on gasoline — particularly lower-income households — by expanding marine fuel imports and building more storage capacity to guard against sudden price swings.

Another option under discussion is a new pipeline that could import petroleum products from out of state. One such project has already been proposed, which would link Texas to Arizona and reverse the flow of an existing pipeline that currently sends California-refined fuel eastward. More competition from imported fuel could help keep local refining margins in check and cushion the state from further refinery shutdowns.

As California moves through this transition, officials say it’s essential to protect refinery workers who lose their jobs and the communities that depend on refinery tax revenue. Lawmakers are also pushing for greater transparency from refining companies about the environmental cleanup costs tied to shuttering old facilities, so that communities already burdened by decades of industrial pollution aren’t left to deal with contaminated sites once the refineries are gone.

Nobody is suggesting California abandon its refining industry immediately — these facilities still supply fuel that millions of residents depend on daily. But as the state moves toward a cleaner energy future, some refinery closures appear unavoidable. The challenge now is managing that shift in a way that keeps fuel affordable, protects public health, and supports the workers and communities caught in the middle.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California’s Aging Refineries Don’t Deserve More Taxpayer Support — It’s Time to Let Them Go appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

A recent analysis from Southern Methodist University’s DataArts research center placed San Diego in the 90th percentile nationally for arts vibrancy, a measure that factors in the number of artists and arts organizations, spending on cultural programming, and government support. That’s a strong showing, putting San Diego among the top 100 communities out of nearly 1,000 studied. But it’s a step down from where the region stood in 2022, when it ranked in the 95th percentile.

“We see that big cities in general are really challenging places for arts and cultural organizations right now, with rising rents and inflation,” said Jen Benoit-Bryan, a professor of arts management and executive director of SMU DataArts.

The slide comes as San Diego’s peer cities — a group that includes Denver, Atlanta, Miami and Houston — are largely trending downward too, with the exception of Atlanta. Los Angeles ranked 12th nationally in the same study, and San Francisco came in second, helping California land eighth among states for arts investment and activity overall. New York held onto the top spot for a third consecutive year.

A separate study from the University of San Diego’s Nonprofit Institute paints an even starker picture locally. Researchers found that a third of San Diego arts nonprofits are in weak financial shape this year, and more than half have had to dip into reserve funds just to stay afloat.

That financial strain spilled into public view this spring when Mayor Todd Gloria proposed eliminating the city’s arts funding entirely as part of budget cuts. The move drew swift backlash from artists and cultural advocates. The City Council eventually restored a portion of that funding, and the Prebys Foundation stepped in with a $3 million commitment to help close the gap — but the arts sector still ended up with less support than before.

“We know San Diego is an arts-rich community, and arts and culture is very much a part of our fabric and our economic vitality,” said Christine Martinez, who manages Arts + Culture San Diego, a coalition representing roughly 150 organizations. “But looking at the report and seeing a slight decline over the last few years in our vibrancy is not a surprise.”

Martinez’s coalition is pushing a proposal to direct a share of local hotel tax revenue toward arts funding. San Diego County has already added $2 million in new arts money this year, a modest but notable counterpoint to the cuts happening elsewhere.

Behind the numbers is a workforce that’s increasingly stretched thin. Benoit-Bryan said the number of arts organizations per capita has been steadily declining across San Diego and its peer cities, and the region’s cultural workforce is shrinking too — likely, she said, because many workers simply can’t afford to stay in the field.

“We see that the compensation levels for the kind of workers in nonprofit cultural organizations are also lower than peers and have been declining over the last few years,” she said. “And federal dollars that are flowing into cultural organizations in San Diego are again lower than peers and in decline.”

The University of San Diego’s findings echo that concern. Tess Tinkler, director of research at the university’s Nonprofit Institute, said 80% of nonprofit leaders surveyed reported declining support from government sources, foundations, individual donors and corporate sponsors. Arts organizations in particular have seen wages stagnate for years.

“When we looked at wage gaps for arts organizations, they’re experiencing just no growth in wages over many years,” Tinkler said. “And that is worse than other nonprofits.”

Adjusted for inflation, wages for arts workers have essentially flatlined since 2012 — and have actually fallen in real terms, according to Tinkler. That’s happening even as San Diego remains one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation.

Healthcare costs add another layer of pressure for arts employers. “We are still able to cover the cost of healthcare for our employees, but we are stretched to the maximum to keep up,” said Jessica Hanson York, executive director of the Mingei International Museum in Balboa Park.

Advocates argue that arts funding shouldn’t be viewed as a luxury item in city budgets. The University of San Diego report pointed to research linking arts participation to stronger social connections, reduced anxiety and depression, and improved academic outcomes for young people. Nearly half of San Diegans surveyed said they had personally benefited from arts and culture nonprofits, and three-quarters said those organizations play an important role in the community. Supporters also note that the arts help drive tourism and local economic activity.

“When we have a loss of this kind of arts funding, it really does affect the community’s quality of life,” Tinkler said.

With traditional funding sources growing less reliable, some artists are building their own safety nets. Ramel Wallace, founder and CEO of the Holyfield, an organization supporting storytelling, music and education, said distrust of the nonprofit funding system has pushed many creatives toward alternative models — mutual aid networks, cooperatives, and lending circles where members pool money and take turns drawing from it.

Those systems can help cover the cost of art projects, Wallace said, but they’re just as often used to help artists cover rent, medical bills or other everyday expenses.

JerVae Anthony, a musician, performer and painter based in South San Diego, is building what she calls a solidarity fund to connect artists with technical, professional and financial support.

“I’m trying to build a program that seeks to use mutual aid and peer support to fill in those gaps, because some of us do require additional support, and it’s really important to make art-making accessible for all folks,” she said.

Through her network, Anthony has connected with hosts around the country willing to put up traveling artists free of charge. Fellow artists sometimes trade skills — a Photoshop tutorial over Zoom, for instance — or chip in to cover a month’s rent, groceries or a mobility device for someone in need.

Funding the effort requires a mix of grassroots hustle and traditional fundraising: grant applications, crowdfunding campaigns, and even a partnership with a church in North Carolina, Anthony said.

“It’s an important skill,” she said, “and I think networks are going to be how we get through these hard times.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Funding Cuts and Flat Wages Threaten Southern California’s Once-Thriving Arts Scene appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Attorney General Rob Bonta announced Thursday that California has joined 24 other Democratic-led states in a lawsuit challenging fresh conditions placed on U.S. Department of Homeland Security grants — funding that helps states prepare for and respond to disasters such as wildfires and earthquakes.

The suit, filed in federal court in Rhode Island, targets a set of new requirements tied largely to elections. Among them: a mandate that states use a federal system to verify voters’ citizenship, a requirement to rely on hand-marked paper ballots, and a directive to conduct post-election audits. The rules would also require states to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts and would give federal agencies broad discretion to cut off funding if states fall out of line.

At stake is money from programs like the Homeland Security Grant Program, created by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks to help states guard against terrorism and other major threats, including cyberattacks. California receives roughly $150 million a year through that program alone.

Bonta argued that the administration is treating public safety funding as leverage rather than a guaranteed resource already approved by Congress.

“Instead of ensuring these critical resources reach the communities that need them, Trump is attempting to use this funding as leverage to force states to adopt his preferred political agenda,” Bonta said during a press conference.

According to the lawsuit, states that don’t comply with the new election-related conditions risk losing at least 20% of their Homeland Security Grant Program funding — and potentially all of it.

The push comes as the Trump administration has intensified calls for stricter election procedures, including voter ID requirements, ahead of the November midterms, citing concerns about voter fraud. Democratic officials, however, argue these measures are less about security and more about limiting turnout among certain voter groups.

FEMA pushed back on the lawsuit in a statement, describing it as “partisan pushback” from Democratic officials who oppose what the agency called “common-sense measures designed to protect election security and safeguard the integrity of American democracy.” The agency added that “election security is national security” and that the new requirements are meant to “preserve election integrity.”

This isn’t the first time California and its allies have fought the administration over these grants. Twice last year, the administration attempted to withhold the same funding as part of its push to compel states to assist with immigration enforcement. Both times, courts sided with California and the coalition of states challenging the move.

In one of those rulings, U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy — a Trump appointee — wrote that conditioning essential funding on “what appear to be Defendants’ political whims is unconscionable and, at least here, unlawful.”

The latest filing marks the 79th lawsuit California has brought against the Trump administration since it returned to office.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Sues Trump Administration Over Disaster Aid Rules Tied to Election Policies appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

California hasn’t seen a wild grizzly in more than 100 years, even though the animal remains front and center on the state flag. Before the Gold Rush era, an estimated 10,000 grizzlies roamed the state. Settlers hunted the species to extinction here, and now a group of Democratic legislators is pushing to study whether the bears could ever return.

The proposal, which has already cleared the state Senate and is now before the Assembly, wouldn’t reintroduce grizzlies outright. Instead, it would direct the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to study the feasibility of bringing the apex predator back to the landscape.

Supporters include tribal nations, conservation groups and animal welfare advocates, who argue that grizzlies play a vital role in balancing ecosystems and that their disappearance left a lasting scar on California’s natural heritage.

Tiana Williams-Claussen, who directs the Yurok Tribe’s wildlife department, said the loss of the grizzly has had ripple effects that go far beyond biology. “I can see the ways in which my homeland has suffered from the loss of iconic species such as the grizzly, and that this loss lingers in our heart and in the attenuation of a millennia-old relationship,” she said.

Notably, the bill’s author and its coauthors all represent urban districts in Southern California — a detail not lost on critics in the state’s rural regions, where opposition runs deep.

Ranchers, hunting organizations and many rural residents argue the idea is unrealistic and potentially dangerous, especially in communities already dealing with growing conflicts involving mountain lions and wolves. Nearly every Republican in the state Senate voted against the bill.

Some opponents also raise concerns about fairness to the bears themselves. Elizabeth Washoe, a Native American resident of Modoc County, said uprooting grizzlies from their current habitats to place them in a dramatically altered California landscape would do the animals no favors.

“Where they’re at, they’re living a pretty good life, and we’d take them and put them here in a landscape that is so dramatically changed from what it was the last time that the bears were truly living a good life here,” Washoe said. “It feels egotistical.”

For now, the debate remains a study proposal rather than a concrete reintroduction plan — but it has reignited a long-simmering divide between California’s urban and rural communities over how to manage, and remember, the wild spaces that once defined much of the state.

In other news from across the state:

A federal appeals court has thrown out the fraud conviction of a man once at the center of a $1 million COVID-relief scheme tied to a state-funded parolee rehabilitation program. Attila Colar ran a rehab home called All Hands on Deck, which was the focus of a 2023 investigation revealing California had spent hundreds of millions of dollars on similar programs without tracking whether they actually helped participants find work or avoid reoffending.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that the trial judge should have removed a juror who expressed clear bias against Colar, who is Black and Muslim and represented himself for part of the trial. That juror said Colar’s comments amounted to little more than “discrimination, conspiracy theories, and police corruption,” language the appeals court said reflected personal bias the juror admitted he could not set aside.

Meanwhile, a fight is brewing over $200 million in unspent state funds originally intended to help schools install or upgrade air conditioning and heating systems. School officials argue the money was promised to campuses under a 2020 program funded by utility company fees and should be released to finish the work. Torrance Unified School District’s deputy superintendent, Keith Butler, called the funding freeze “unjustifiable,” saying the district simply wants to complete projects that were already underway.

Consumer advocates, however, contend the money should instead be refunded to utility customers whose bills rose to pay for a program the state ultimately shut down.

And in the Inland Empire, outgoing Cal State San Bernardino President Tomás Morales is set to receive a $340,000 salary in a new advisory role with the university system as he steps down from his current post. Morales had been a central figure in a $12 million legal settlement after two former female administrators accused him of gender discrimination and retaliation.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Grizzly Bears Once Called California Home — Should They Return? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Now, more than 100 years later and with California’s population having grown to roughly 34.5 million people, a coalition of tribes and environmental groups wants state lawmakers to at least study whether the grizzly could ever return.

Senate Bill 1305, introduced by state Sen. Laura Richardson, a Democrat from Inglewood, would direct the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to develop a roadmap examining whether reintroducing grizzlies to the state is realistic — and if so, under what circumstances. The bill doesn’t include funding to actually carry out that study, leaving the door open for a future Legislature or outside group to pay for it. Even under the best-case scenario, actually bringing grizzlies back to California would take years and require cooperation from a federal government that may not be inclined to help.

Still, the mere possibility has stirred up strong feelings on both sides, particularly along the state’s familiar urban-rural divide.

Groups representing ranchers, hunters and rural communities argue the idea is simply unworkable. California’s landscapes, they say, are already stressed by drought and wildfire, and rural residents are struggling to cope with rising conflicts involving mountain lions, expanding black bear populations and a growing number of wolves. Adding an 800-pound predator to that mix, they argue, would be reckless.

“I just don’t think that our California today is ready for a grizzly bear,” Assemblymember Heather Hadwick, a Republican, told the Assembly’s wildlife committee last month. Hadwick represents a vast, largely rural district in northeastern California that has already seen years of friction between residents and wolves preying on livestock.

On the other side, more than 40 tribes, environmental organizations and animal welfare groups back the legislation, framing it as both an ecological and cultural correction. The Yurok Tribe and the Tejon Tribe are cosponsoring the bill.

“I can see the ways in which my homeland has suffered from the loss of iconic species such as the grizzly, and that this loss lingers in our heart and in the attenuation of a millennia-old relationship,” Tiana Williams-Claussen, director of the Yurok Tribe’s wildlife department, told lawmakers last month.

A 2025 feasibility study conducted by a coalition of tribes, environmental groups and university researchers identified several regions that could potentially support grizzlies, including Yurok ancestral lands along the North Coast, the nearby Klamath Mountains and Trinity Alps, the southern Sierra Nevada — encompassing Yosemite, Kings Canyon and Sequoia national parks — and the Transverse Ranges stretching from San Bernardino County to Santa Barbara County.

The study estimated those areas combined could theoretically support anywhere from 424 to more than 1,700 grizzlies, though researchers suggested starting cautiously with an initial population of about 25 bears. Grizzly populations currently persist in Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Washington.

Supporters contend the bears would provide real ecological benefits. As grizzlies dig for food, they naturally till soil in ways that can help restore native forests, prairies and oak woodlands — potentially reducing wildfire risk in the process. Grizzlies also help keep prey populations in check and could indirectly ease human conflicts with black bears, since the larger grizzlies compete with — and sometimes prey on — their smaller relatives.

“The loss of grizzlies might have been one of those contributing factors to that (black bear population) overgrowth,” Williams-Claussen said.

So far, the bill has advanced along party lines, with only Republicans voting against it. It now awaits action in the Assembly Appropriations Committee when lawmakers reconvene Aug. 3. Richardson did not respond to a request for comment, and the bill’s coauthors are largely Democrats from urban Southern California districts.

One of those coauthors, state Sen. Henry Stern of Sherman Oaks, told a Senate committee this spring that a mountain lion recently attacked one of his neighbors — an experience, he said, that gives him some understanding of rural residents’ concerns. Even so, he argued that living alongside wildlife is simply part of what makes California special.

“We want to live in a California where — that risk — there’s some beauty in it,” Stern said. “To have that element in our lives, as opposed to just sterilizing our landscapes and our nature so that nothing else could ever be a risk … I think it makes us more human to have wildness in our lives.”

Not everyone convinced of the ecological case is on board, however. Elizabeth Washoe, a Native American from Modoc County, said she’s skeptical of urban lawmakers’ romanticized vision of grizzly reintroduction.

“There’s nothing I would love more than to see grizzly bears on the beach at Santa Barbara chasing rich people,” she said, only half-joking. But she argued reintroduction would ultimately be unfair to the bears themselves, given how dramatically California’s landscape and population have changed since grizzlies last roamed freely.

“The bears don’t have any say in it,” Washoe said. “Where they’re at, they’re living a pretty good life, and we’d take them and put them here in a landscape that is so dramatically changed from what it was the last time that the bears were truly living a good life here … I understand the idea of it, but to me it feels egotistical.”

Meanwhile, the state agency that would actually be tasked with conducting the feasibility study doesn’t seem eager to take it on. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has not taken an official position on the bill and, per department policy, does not comment on pending legislation, according to spokesperson Peter Tira. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office also declined to weigh in.

But there’s little sign the agency’s underlying stance has shifted since 2023, when a former department spokesperson told the Alta Journal that wildlife officials already struggle to manage existing predator conflicts, let alone plan for a new one.

“Bringing another predator into the state that we would have to manage and come up with some program to figure out what happens when the grizzly attacks a human or kills livestock does not seem feasible for us,” then-spokesperson Jordan Traverso said at the time.

The department’s resources are already stretched thin. A legislative analysis of this year’s bill found that Fish and Wildlife currently has the funding and staffing to complete only about 38% of its existing responsibilities, and warned the agency likely couldn’t absorb the additional workload the grizzly roadmap would require.

David Bess, who recently retired as the department’s top law enforcement official overseeing California’s game wardens, said the agency is already “drowning in work,” much of it tied to managing conflicts with predators that are already present across the state.

“I just don’t see where the department even has the capacity to do it,” Bess said.

Adding another layer of complexity, the Trump administration recently proposed shifting management authority over grizzly bears from the federal government back to individual states, even though the species remains protected under the federal Endangered Species Act. Environmental advocates worry that change could allow more conservative states to loosen protections and permit increased killing of grizzlies to satisfy ranching and hunting interests.

Andrea Zaccardi, carnivore conservation legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity — which supports California’s legislation — said the federal proposal wouldn’t directly affect California’s study, since any actual reintroduction effort would still fall under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s authority. But she said having grizzlies established in a state with strong environmental protections could prove valuable if other states move to aggressively reduce their populations.

“Hopefully, they would be managed more responsibly there,” Zaccardi said. Her organization has previously petitioned federal officials, unsuccessfully, to reintroduce grizzly bears to California.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Grizzly Bears Vanished From California Long Ago — Should They Return? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The California Schools Healthy Air, Plumbing, and Efficiency program, known as CalSHAPE, was created in 2020 to help schools assess the condition of their HVAC systems and then pay for needed repairs or replacements. But in 2024, the California Energy Commission halted the program early, citing budget pressures. The result: of more than 4,500 schools that completed assessments showing HVAC problems, only 172 actually received money to fix them.

A state audit released in 2025 found the commission’s own overly complicated application process was largely to blame, leaving districts at risk of missing deadlines tied to returning unspent ratepayer funds to utilities. Auditors recommended the commission either find a way to spend the remaining money or ask lawmakers to formally end the program early. Neither happened. Instead, roughly $200 million has simply sat unused while school advocates lobby for its release.

Local districts say they’re feeling the effects directly. In the Temecula Valley Unified School District, an assessment funded through the program’s first phase found that about a third of its heating and cooling equipment is near the end of its usable life. But before the district could apply for upgrade funding, the state stopped accepting applications.

“There are periods of the school year where it’s pretty much baking all day long, and some of the older units can’t keep up,” said Greg Page, an energy management specialist for the district. “Our team is working by emergency pretty much nonstop during those hot times.”

Torrance Unified School District ran into the same problem. After receiving $2.4 million to survey its facilities, the district identified 300 air conditioning units that had outlived their usefulness — but missed the window to seek money for replacements.

“This was money that was pulled back unjustifiably,” said Keith Butler, Torrance Unified’s deputy superintendent. “This is a good use of funds that has been set aside already — we just wanted it to go back out to finish the work.”

Butler said his district has been patching together temporary fixes to keep classrooms cool, but warned that some systems won’t last much longer. “We’ve been band-aiding what we have,” he said, “but there will be a point where they are not working in the not too distant future.”

The program was funded through a 2020 state law that required major utility companies — including Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Gas Company — to set aside a portion of their energy efficiency budgets for school facility upgrades. Combined, utilities contributed nearly $1 billion, of which $191 million remains unspent.

The funding mechanism has long been contentious. State finance officials warned before the program’s creation that it would raise utility rates, and a 2023 energy commission report confirmed that ratepayers had shouldered roughly $1 billion in costs. Utility rates have since climbed sharply — up 57% for Southern California Edison customers over the past five years, according to a report from the California Public Advocates Office, much of that driven by wildfire mitigation spending.

Some ratepayer advocates argue the program should never have been funded this way in the first place. “The fact that schools need new HVAC systems has nothing to do with producing electricity, delivering electricity, or generating electricity,” said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network.

But school advocates counter that halting the program now, after money has already been collected and earmarked, does little to help either students or ratepayers. If the leftover funds are returned to utility customers, the payout would amount to just $2 to $24 per household spread over a year — a figure critics call too small to be meaningful.

“We’re going to kneecap this program out of some philosophical argument about how programs should be funded?” said JuNelle Harris, founder of Clean Air Allies, a nonprofit focused on air quality in schools. “If the money is there and the program is working, why would we not use that money and try to make the program as successful as possible?”

Legislative efforts to resolve the standoff have stalled repeatedly. A 2024 bill aimed at speeding ratepayer refunds never received a committee hearing, and a 2025 proposal to extend CalSHAPE through 2030 was similarly blocked. State officials have pointed to Proposition 2, a $10 billion facilities bond, as an alternative funding source, but demand for those dollars already outstrips what’s available. Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, who authored the bond measure, said it was never intended to replace CalSHAPE, noting the program specifically directs a quarter of its funding toward underserved communities — and has actually exceeded that target, delivering 45% to those areas.

Now, lawmakers are considering a narrower fix: spending about $70 million in interest earned on the unused CalSHAPE funds on a separate initiative known as a virtual power plant program, which links home solar panels, batteries and smart thermostats to help utilities manage electricity demand during heat waves. School advocates are pushing to use that moment to reopen CalSHAPE applications instead.

Senate budget staff have recommended extending the program, but its ultimate fate now rests on closed-door budget negotiations between the Legislature and Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration expected to continue through August. A spokesperson for the governor declined to comment.

For families in districts still waiting on repairs, the outcome could determine whether classrooms remain livable during the hottest months of the school year — a growing concern as research continues to show that heat negatively affects student learning and test performance.

Original source: CalMatters

The post State Left $200 Million in School Air Conditioning Funds Unspent, Report Finds appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The verdict so far: progress, but not a turnaround.

For decades, MacArthur Park has carried a complicated identity. It was once a Los Angeles landmark celebrated in song and film, ringed by grand hotels and civic pride. In recent years, though, it has become better known for open-air drug use, petty crime and the kind of neglect that leaves sidewalks reeking and residents on edge.

City leaders have pledged to change that trajectory. While nobody expects the park to fully recapture its mid-century glamour, officials say the goal is more modest and more urgent: give the surrounding Westlake neighborhood — one of the most densely populated, immigrant-rich communities west of the Mississippi River — a park families can actually use.

Over the past year, the city has sent outreach teams and overdose-response workers into the park to connect with people struggling with addiction. The Los Angeles Police Department has also increased patrols, work that has helped disrupt what had become an open-air drug market along Alvarado Street on the park’s eastern flank.

The results are visible. The park looks and feels safer than it did a year ago. But it remains a work in progress, and its long-term future is far from settled.

A recent planning report captured that tension well, noting that while opinions vary widely about the park’s current state, nearly everyone agrees on what they want: a clean, well-maintained, safe green space that draws families and feels genuinely alive with activity.

That vision hasn’t fully arrived yet. But the city’s strategy is shifting from short-term intervention toward longer-term redesign, using urban planning to reshape how people experience the park itself.

That approach got its first real trial earlier this month when the city temporarily shut down car traffic on Wilshire Boulevard, the busy roadway that splits the park into northern and southern halves.

Normally, the boulevard acts as a hard barrier. Crossing from one side of the park to the other typically means ducking through pedestrian tunnels that many visitors find dark, unwelcoming and unsafe.

But on the weekend of July 17, cars were kept out, and for a few days, MacArthur Park functioned as a single, unbroken space — much as it did generations ago.

The turnout was strong. An estimated 2,000 people showed up Friday, and nearly double that number returned Saturday. Some came to watch World Cup matches on outdoor screens, others to check out organized activities, and many simply out of curiosity.

The park’s underlying problems didn’t disappear for the occasion. Along Alvarado Street, some visitors still noticed people struggling visibly with addiction, along with scattered litter. But elsewhere, the mood was different: kids kicked around soccer balls, food vendors did brisk business, and families lined up for carnival-style games alongside unhoused residents who joined in the fun.

Making the Wilshire closure permanent would be a significant undertaking, and the idea is still in its early stages. Still, it was the top recommendation to emerge from a recent city planning study, and it’s now headed into an environmental review process that will include extensive community input. So far, feedback on the concept has been largely positive.

Other physical changes are already reshaping the park. Earlier efforts to curb illegal vending — and the drug activity it enabled — included installing chain-link fencing along Alvarado and nearby streets. That helped push out dealers, but the fencing was unattractive and quickly became a magnet for dumped trash. In response, the city swapped the fencing for large, rounded concrete bollards designed to block vending carts without doubling as makeshift trash bins.

Some park visitors welcomed the removal of the fencing but pointed out that dealers simply relocated a few blocks away — a reminder that displacing a problem isn’t the same as solving it.

The next major shift is expected this fall, when the city plans to install a wrought-iron perimeter fence around the park. The goal is to better control access and make it easier to enforce nightly closures.

Not everyone supports the idea. Some Westlake residents see the fence as exclusionary or argue the money would be better spent on housing and addiction treatment. But like the Wilshire closure and the bollards, the fence reflects a broader theory guiding the city’s approach: that reshaping the physical space can help stabilize the social conditions around it.

The intent, city officials say, isn’t to push people out — it’s to draw law-abiding families and neighbors back in.

These challenges mirror struggles playing out in cities across California and the country, made harder at times by federal actions that have complicated local efforts. In MacArthur Park, city officials say progress has occasionally been undercut by the Trump administration’s use of the park as a staging ground for immigration enforcement operations, including scenes of ICE agents in military-style gear moving through the area in front of unsettled residents.

MacArthur Park is not a backdrop for federal enforcement theater. It’s the heart of a crowded immigrant neighborhood where families depend on the space for their children to play and where workers gather to catch a breath after long shifts.

Those residents deserve the same safety, cleanliness and peace of mind afforded to wealthier parts of the city. And the city’s commitment to delivering that is still being tested.

So far, the results are promising — but the work is far from finished.

Original source: CalMatters

The post MacArthur Park Has Grown Safer and Cleaner — Could Closing a Key Boulevard Help Even More? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.