Assembly Bill 1903, authored by Oakland Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, aimed to reshape how disputes over alleged construction defects are resolved between builders and homeowners. Wicks and other supporters argued the measure would reduce costly litigation that has made developers wary of building condos in California for decades.

The bill had wide backing from real estate groups, pro-housing “Yes In My Backyard” advocates and several city governments. It cleared the Senate without a single no vote late Monday night, after 11:15 p.m. But it never made it back to the Assembly floor for the final procedural vote — known as concurrence — needed to send it to the governor’s desk. When the legislative session officially ended at midnight, the bill died without ever facing formal opposition.

Wicks did not hide her frustration. In a statement issued Tuesday, she said she was “incredibly disappointed and frustrated” that the bill “was ultimately held by the Senate,” after what she described as months of negotiation and coalition-building.

“I had a bill Friday morning that I truly believe would have unlocked condo construction to serve our working-class families desperate for homeownership opportunities,” Wicks said.

A spokesperson for Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, a Santa Barbara Democrat, did not respond to requests for comment on why the bill stalled.

For much of the year, the measure faced resistance from the Consumer Attorneys of California, a powerful lobbying group representing trial lawyers, as well as several homeowners associations. They argued the bill would make it too difficult for homeowners to pursue legal action against builders responsible for legitimate construction flaws.

That opposition eased over the weekend after Wicks agreed to soften the bill’s language. The revised version dropped provisions that would have limited which defects could be litigated and how they could be identified. Instead, it simply required homeowners to document defects clearly, give builders a chance to make repairs, and release builders from further liability once repairs were completed.

Despite the compromise, the bill ran out of time. Wicks said she remains hopeful that a similar, potentially stronger proposal could return in a future legislative session.

A representative from the Consumer Attorneys of California did not respond to a request for comment before publication.

Sacramento’s final hours of a legislative session are notoriously chaotic. State law requires most bills to be finalized by the end of August in even-numbered years, and legislation must sit in print for 72 hours before a vote can occur. According to longtime Capitol lobbyist Chris Micheli, a handful of bills almost always fail to cross the finish line simply due to time constraints.

This isn’t the first high-profile housing bill to meet such a fate. In 2020, Wicks made headlines when she stood on the Assembly floor, wearing a mask and holding her newborn daughter, to plead unsuccessfully for the passage of Senate Bill 1120, a proposal to allow duplex construction in single-family zoned neighborhoods. That policy eventually passed the following year in a different form.

Another bill this session, Senate Bill 1013 by Riverside Democratic Sen. Sabrina Cervantes, which sought new restrictions on automated license plate readers, met a similar end when it was held in the Assembly without a final vote — reportedly the result of political tension between the two chambers, according to Politico.

Whether AB 1903’s demise was the result of simple scheduling problems or deliberate maneuvering remains unclear. Dan Dunmoyer, president of the California Building Industry Association, which supported the bill, suspects it may have been a bit of both.

“It appears this bill was slow-walked — or not walked at all,” Dunmoyer said. “But I can’t tell if this is truly hostage-taking or things just got jammed up.”

The final negotiations over the bill’s language took place between Wicks and Sen. Tom Umberg, a Santa Ana Democrat who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee. Umberg, who shared concerns raised by trial attorneys and homeowners associations, reportedly continued negotiating until just hours before the 72-hour print deadline expired Friday evening.

“The chair was moving the goal posts and running out the clock,” said Michael Lane, a lobbyist with the Bay Area-based think tank SPUR. “There’s probably lots of blame to go around, but I think he was being very sly.”

Umberg’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

At the heart of the debate is a long-standing concern among builders and housing advocates: that California’s legal environment discourages condominium construction. Because condos share structural elements, builders say they are especially vulnerable to defect litigation involving multiple homeowners banding together, often through homeowners associations.

In a state where new housing production tends to split between expensive single-family homes and rental apartments, condos have long been viewed as a potential middle ground — offering more attainable ownership opportunities. Yet developers have shied away from building them in large numbers over the past two decades, a trend the bill’s supporters attribute largely to litigation risk.

While comprehensive statewide data on construction defect lawsuits is limited, developers say the threat is significant. “One hundred percent of our condos are sued for defect,” Dunmoyer said in an earlier interview. “If the trial lawyers convince the legislature that it’s okay to file a defect claim when there’s no defect, then we just don’t build condos. It’s not complicated.”

A recent study by Economic & Planning Systems estimated that litigation risk adds roughly 1.9 to 4.4 percent to the cost of condo construction. While that may seem modest, advocates argue it’s enough to push many multifamily developers toward building rental units instead — a dynamic that, for now, remains unchanged as California lawmakers look toward next session to try again.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Condo Construction Bill Won Lawmaker Support — So Why Did It Still Fail? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Assembly Bill 1776, known as the Compete Act, cleared both chambers of the Legislature after its author, Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry of Davis, agreed to soften several provisions that had drawn fierce opposition from the California Chamber of Commerce and major biomedical and pharmaceutical companies.

As passed, the bill would let the state attorney general and local district attorneys sue individual companies over alleged anticompetitive conduct. Currently, California’s century-old antitrust law, the Cartwright Act, only allows such lawsuits when multiple businesses are accused of colluding together — leaving prosecutors with little recourse against a single dominant company accused of abusive market behavior.

Aguiar-Curry said the measure responds to decades of business consolidation that has reshaped entire industries since the late 1990s. She based the legislation on findings from a three-year study by the Legislature’s California Law Revision Commission, which examined whether the 1907-era Cartwright Act needed modernizing.

“This is a strong step forward for antitrust enforcement and helps our public enforcers take on monopoly behavior while protecting our workers, consumers, and small businesses,” Aguiar-Curry said.

Sen. Angelique Ashby, D-Sacramento, backed the bill on the Senate floor, pointing to local examples of how market concentration hurts everyday businesses.

“Here in Sacramento, our independent venues struggle to compete in a world where only a few companies control platforms,” Ashby said. “Across the state, our independent bookstores are being undercut by massive chains. Restaurants have fewer suppliers and pay higher prices for things” like ingredients and basic supplies.

The bill passed the Senate 30-9 and the Assembly 55-15, with most Republicans voting no. Neither chamber engaged in extended floor debate before the votes.

Consumer groups, labor unions and small business advocates rallied behind the legislation, arguing it would stop large corporations from squashing competitors and suppressing wages. Even after the bill was scaled back, supporters called its passage a significant victory.

“What is going to the governor is a bill that lets California’s attorney general and district attorneys go after the dominant corporations that block competitors, squeeze out small businesses, suppress wages, and drive up prices,” said Teri Olle, vice president of Economic Security California Action, a group pushing for stronger antitrust enforcement.

The California Chamber of Commerce, which represents nearly 12,000 businesses statewide, fought hard against the bill throughout the session, calling it one of its top legislative priorities to defeat. Chamber officials took particular issue with an early version of the bill that would have allowed private individuals and companies — not just prosecutors — to sue businesses directly over alleged anticompetitive practices.

“We think it’s very, very, very, very flawed and dangerous,” Ben Golombek, the chamber’s head of policy, said during an August panel discussion.

The chamber placed the bill on its annual list of legislative “cost drivers,” put up billboards near the state Capitol criticizing Aguiar-Curry by name, and later launched a seven-figure advertising campaign against the measure. Once the author removed the private right of action and made other changes, the chamber dropped its formal opposition.

Questions remain about how much the new authority could cost the state. The Department of Finance opposed the bill, citing uncertainty over how many cases the attorney general’s office might pursue and whether existing funding sources — the Unfair Competition Law Fund and the Attorney General Antitrust Account — would be enough to cover the expense.

That concern carries weight given Attorney General Rob Bonta’s active record challenging corporate consolidation. Bonta recently led opposition to Paramount Skydance’s acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, signaling his office’s willingness to take on major antitrust fights if the bill becomes law.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Lawmakers Pass Bill Strengthening State’s Power to Sue Big Businesses Over Monopoly Practices appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Members of the Assembly and Senate have balked at several of the governor’s proposed changes, including limits on compensation for pain and suffering, restrictions on how much insurance companies can recover after paying out claims tied to utility-caused fires, and caps on what local governments can collect for destroyed public infrastructure. That’s according to internal legislative memos and sources familiar with the closed-door talks, which CalMatters obtained.

The proposals are part of a broader wildfire liability package Newsom has been quietly hammering out as he nears the end of his final term. Neither his office nor legislative leaders have made the actual bill language public, raising concerns that a sweeping and consequential set of policies could be rushed through with little opportunity for public input before the session ends Aug. 31.

If no deal is reached by Friday — the deadline for publishing bill text ahead of a vote — the contentious issue of utility liability could be left for the next governor to sort out.

Speaking to reporters last week, Newsom acknowledged he’s willing to adjust his plan but said the state can’t afford to wait.

“I feel very strongly that we need to move on this,” he said.

According to his staff, Newsom’s goal is twofold: speed up payouts to wildfire victims while protecting utilities from lawsuits that could rattle investors and potentially drive up customer rates. But critics — including local governments, insurers, consumer groups and wildfire survivors — say the plan lets utilities off the hook too easily.

Although any resulting changes would only apply to future fires, the negotiations have angered a group of Eaton Fire survivors who traveled to Sacramento this week to voice their opposition. Earlier this month, investigators determined that Southern California Edison equipment sparked the January 2025 Eaton Fire, which killed 19 people and destroyed more than 9,400 structures in the Altadena area.

“My job is not to ensure that we’re increasing profits for shareholders for these companies,” state Sen. Sasha Renee Perez, a Democrat representing Altadena, told a crowd of protesters Tuesday. “And we certainly, as a Legislature, are not going to negotiate with companies that want to act like terrorists.”

Points of Disagreement

Perez’s comments referenced recent reporting that executives from Pacific Gas & Electric and Edison have signaled to Wall Street that they may take unspecified steps to protect shareholders if the Legislature doesn’t act this year to reduce their wildfire liability exposure.

There is some common ground. Newsom and legislative Democrats agree on curbing executive bonuses at utilities following major fires and increasing penalties for safety violations. Senate negotiators, according to sources, want to go further by pushing regulators to more closely scrutinize utility spending and potentially tie rate hikes to inflation.

Lawmakers and the governor also generally agree on funding wildfire mitigation efforts and using future insurance-related tax revenue to help homeowners fireproof their properties. There’s also broad support for limiting attorney fees for those representing fire victims in litigation, though the Senate version would extend that cap to utility attorneys as well.

Where the sides split sharply is on Newsom’s proposal to eliminate subrogation — the legal mechanism that allows insurance companies to seek reimbursement from utilities after paying out fire-related claims. Neither Assembly nor Senate leaders support scrapping that right, according to internal counterproposals and Senate sources.

Insurance industry representatives have warned that eliminating subrogation would drive up their costs and, in turn, homeowners’ premiums.

Insurance Concerns Loom Large

State Sen. Ben Allen, a Democrat running for insurance commissioner whose district includes the fire-ravaged Pacific Palisades, warned that solving the utility rate problem by gutting subrogation could backfire by making insurance even less affordable.

“I fear we will create a massive new strain on the insurance system that could break basic questions of affordability for Californians,” Allen said, adding that it could worsen an already fragile insurance market statewide.

Lawmakers do appear aligned with Newsom on restricting the number of financial intermediaries — such as hedge funds — that can profit from wildfire claims. Both chambers want to prevent insurers from selling subrogation rights to outside investors, though the Senate’s version would allow exceptions with approval from the state insurance commissioner, a provision that could help smaller insurers needing quick cash after a major fire.

Assembly leaders are also resisting Newsom’s push to limit how much local governments can recover for destroyed infrastructure by tying reimbursement to depreciated value rather than full rebuilding costs. That proposal drew sharp criticism from the California State Association of Counties, the League of California Cities, and school district advocacy groups.

Facing pressure from the California Professional Firefighters union, Newsom appears to be softening his stance. In a letter sent Monday, the union thanked the governor for what it described as adjustments meant to protect local governments from the proposal’s impact, while still voicing overall support for his broader wildfire package. A Newsom spokesperson did not respond to questions about the change.

Who Counts as a Survivor?

Perhaps the most emotionally charged part of the debate centers on how to determine which wildfire survivors deserve compensation for pain and suffering — and how much.

Newsom’s original plan would limit noneconomic damages to those who lost a family member or suffered physical injury. Others could qualify only if they were within the fire’s burn perimeter and forced to evacuate, with payouts capped at $150,000 per person to protect the state’s wildfire fund, which draws money from both utility shareholders and ratepayers.

In response to backlash, the Assembly has proposed expanding who qualifies for those damages and removing the cap altogether, while the Senate’s version would keep eligibility broad but require survivors outside the burn zone to provide stronger proof that the fire caused their trauma.

Even so, weeks of protests by Eaton Fire survivors suggest there’s no easy way to satisfy everyone. Members of the Every Fire Survivors Network argue that any effort to rank or categorize victims is fundamentally unfair.

“We are the real wildfire survivors,” several dozen protesters chanted outside the Governor’s Mansion in Sacramento on Monday night, timed to coincide with an end-of-session reception Newsom was hosting for lawmakers.

Among them was Gayle Nicholls-Ali, whose Altadena home burned to the ground in the fire and who is now in the process of rebuilding. Her son’s house nearby survived structurally but suffered extensive smoke damage. He and his wife have been living in a donated RV parked on the property while they wait for insurance approval to begin repairs.

Under Newsom’s plan, it’s unclear whether her son would even qualify for noneconomic damages, since he evacuated but didn’t lose his home or suffer physical injury.

“The mental stress alone” has taken a heavy toll on the family, Nicholls-Ali said. A retired public school teacher, she and her husband have called Altadena home for more than three decades. Her son, she said, had always dreamed of settling down in the same community.

“He wanted to live near home,” she said.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Lawmakers Reject Core Elements of Newsom’s Wildfire Plan as Deadline Nears appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original source: CalMatters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original source: CalMatters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original source: CalMatters

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

That expectation did not last long.

Only months into his term, Davis publicly bristled at legislative leaders who were pursuing priorities different from his own. In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board, Davis said lawmakers’ role was to carry out the agenda he had campaigned on, arguing that he alone had won a statewide mandate.

The remarks landed hard in Sacramento. Davis was already at odds with Senate President Pro Tem John Burton and Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, who wanted to focus on health insurance while the governor put education proposals at the center of his agenda. The conflict grew so bitter that Burton and Villaraigosa effectively cut off communication between Davis’ aides and legislative staff.

The episode became an early example of a recurring force in California politics: Even when the governor and legislative leaders belong to the same party, the rivalry between the executive branch and the Legislature often shapes — and sometimes stalls — the state’s agenda.

That dynamic is surfacing again as Gov. Gavin Newsom enters the final stretch of his governorship and looks toward what is widely expected to be a presidential campaign.

This time, the conflict centers on the state budget and the size of California’s ongoing deficit. Newsom is seeking to close a series of multibillion-dollar shortfalls that followed years in which state spending outpaced revenue. His revised budget proposal totals $349.4 billion, and he has described it as balanced not only for the coming fiscal year but also for the first budget cycle after he leaves office.

To get there, Newsom’s plan restrains spending in areas that are central to Democratic lawmakers’ priorities, including education, health care and social services. Those programs are closely watched across Southern California and the Inland Empire, where large numbers of residents rely on state-funded services such as Medi-Cal, California’s health insurance program for low-income residents.

Since Newsom released his revised budget in May, lawmakers have faced pressure from advocates who oppose reductions to safety-net programs. Organizations representing health care providers, schools and social service programs have warned that cuts or delays could affect vulnerable Californians and local agencies that already operate under tight budgets.

Legislative leaders responded last week with their own budget plan, released ahead of Monday’s constitutional deadline for passing a spending blueprint. Their proposal would restore many of the reductions Newsom recommended or postpone them for the next governor to address. Compared with Newsom’s plan, the Legislature’s version would increase spending by more than $6 billion.

That difference is at the heart of the dispute. Newsom is pushing for a tighter budget that reduces the gap between revenue and spending. Legislative leaders are betting that state revenues will improve and want to avoid deeper cuts now.

Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, a Santa Barbara Democrat, said the Legislature’s approach is intended to prevent severe reductions to programs that many Californians depend on to get by.

The passage of a budget bill by the deadline does not end the negotiations. Newsom and lawmakers now have until the start of the new fiscal year on July 1 to reach agreement on a final spending plan that authorizes specific expenditures.

The coming negotiations will test how much influence Newsom retains as his time in Sacramento winds down. Governors typically have significant leverage in budget talks, but that power can weaken as they approach the end of their tenure. Lawmakers, meanwhile, must answer to districts where constituents may be more concerned about health care, schools and public benefits than about the governor’s long-term political future.

The tension is familiar. California governors often enter office claiming a statewide mandate, while legislators argue that they represent the needs of their communities and must protect the programs their constituents rely on. Party unity can narrow ideological differences, but it rarely erases the institutional competition between the branches of government.

For Davis, that rivalry emerged almost immediately. For Newsom, it is playing out near the end of his governorship, with the stakes centered on how California manages a difficult budget and who will bear the consequences of closing the gap.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Capitol Tensions Flare as Newsom and Lawmakers Clash Over Budget appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The measures now move to the opposite houses of the Legislature, a point where similar efforts have struggled in past years. If approved, the bills would affect drivers statewide, including across Southern California and the Inland Empire, where DUI enforcement and roadway safety remain frequent concerns for law enforcement and families of crash victims.

Hearings this spring exposed a sharp policy divide. Families who have lost loved ones in crashes, along with lawmakers pushing for tougher penalties, argued that California has too often allowed dangerous drivers to remain on the road. Progressive organizations, including the ACLU and other advocacy groups, urged lawmakers to focus more heavily on road design, traffic calming and prevention rather than expanding criminal penalties.

At a March hearing of the Assembly Public Safety Committee, Danica Rodarmel, speaking for Debt Free Justice California, opposed broader requirements for ignition interlock devices — in-car breathalyzers used by some DUI offenders. She said the systems can be costly and difficult for some drivers to manage.

“If we’re serious about prevention, we have to design systems that people can easily comply with,” Rodarmel told lawmakers. “I also understand that these concerns sound really minuscule when we’re talking about it compared to lives.”

Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, a Southern California Democrat who is again trying to expand use of the devices, responded by focusing on the stakes.

“I could not agree more with that sentiment,” she said.

Among the bills still moving forward are two measures, AB 1662 and SB 953, aimed at closing what supporters call a diversion loophole. California’s diversion program is intended to help lower-level offenders avoid the long-term consequences of a criminal conviction. But in some cases, judges have granted diversion to drivers accused of killing someone, meaning the cases were not reported to the Department of Motor Vehicles and the drivers kept clean records. Critics say that can leave a driver facing less lasting punishment than someone cited for speeding.

AB 1830 would expand ignition interlock requirements. Most states require all people convicted of DUI to install the devices, but California currently mandates them mainly for repeat offenders or DUI crashes involving injuries. Even those requirements are not always enforced by courts, according to prior reporting on the issue.

AB 1546 would increase consequences for repeat DUI offenses. Under current law, prosecutors generally must wait until a fourth DUI within 10 years before charging the offense as a felony. The bill would make a third DUI within that period a “wobbler,” allowing prosecutors to pursue either misdemeanor or felony charges. It also would extend ignition interlock requirements or license suspensions for drivers with four or more DUIs in a decade.

SB 1198 would lengthen license suspensions and vehicle impoundment periods for drivers convicted of reckless driving.

Three other bills remain alive but have been narrowed.

SB 907 originally included five major provisions to increase DUI penalties. The remaining portions would add prison time for some repeat DUI offenders, enhance penalties for hit-and-run cases involving drivers with prior DUIs, and make it easier to charge repeat drunken drivers with murder if they kill someone. Removed provisions would have classified vehicular manslaughter as a violent felony in some cases and added prison time for fatal crashes involving multiple victims.

AB 1685 would change how vehicular manslaughter convictions count against a driver’s license. Currently, a vehicular manslaughter conviction counts as two points; a speeding ticket counts as one, and four points in 12 months can trigger a suspension. The original bill would have made all vehicular manslaughter convictions count as three points. As amended, it adds a third point only when the driver was intoxicated and acted with gross negligence.

AB 1687 would address license revocations for serious repeat offenses. State law now requires the DMV to revoke a license for three years after most felony vehicular manslaughter convictions or a third DUI. The bill initially would have required an eight-year revocation. The current version would allow, but not require, the DMV to impose the longer period.

Several other proposals have stalled or failed.

AB 1723 and AB 1874 sought to change when license revocation periods begin. Courts have sometimes failed to report manslaughter convictions to the DMV. When those cases were later flagged, the DMV has treated the revocation as if it began on the conviction date, meaning some drivers never actually lost their licenses. One proposal would have required the revocation period to begin when the DMV takes action; the other would have started the period when a driver is released from jail or prison after a manslaughter conviction.

AB 1686 would have allowed prosecutors to charge a second or third DUI as a felony, rather than generally waiting until a fourth DUI.

AB 1747 would have made all DUI vehicular manslaughter cases felonies. Under current California law, a driver who kills someone while intoxicated can still face a misdemeanor if prosecutors determine the driver did not act with gross negligence. The bill failed in the Assembly Public Safety Committee after labor and human rights groups argued that existing law gives prosecutors appropriate discretion.

AB 1748 would have doubled the license suspension for a first-time DUI from six months to one year, lengthened suspensions for repeat offenders and required permanent license revocation after five DUI convictions within 10 years. It was rejected by the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

AB 2276 proposed a pilot program for “intelligent speed assistance” technology. Similar in concept to ignition interlock devices for DUI offenders, the proposal would have tested technology intended to prevent people convicted of reckless driving from speeding.

AB 1605 and AB 1867 were modeled on a Utah law restricting alcohol sales to repeat DUI offenders. The California proposals would have required the DMV to mark licenses with language such as “No alcohol sales” or “Repeat serious DUI offender.” One version included a lifetime ban on alcohol purchases for the most serious repeat offenders. The bills did not advance.

AB 1814 would have expanded law enforcement training requirements for field sobriety testing, drug recognition or impaired-driving investigations. The proposal failed to meet a key May legislative deadline.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Eight “License to Kill” Bills Advance in State Legislature appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

BELLINGHAM, Wash. (AP) — A ban on dozens of semi-automatic rifles cleared the Washington state Legislature on Wednesday and the governor is expected to sign it into law.

The high-powered firearms — once banned nationwide — are now the weapon of choice among young men responsible for most of the country’s devastating mass shootings.

The ban comes after multiple failed attempts in the state’s Legislature, and amid the most mass shootings during the first 100 days of a calendar year since 2009.

The Washington law would block the sale, distribution, manufacture and importation of more than 50 gun models, including AR-15s, AK-47s and similar style rifles. These guns fire one bullet per trigger pull and automatically reload for a subsequent shot. Some exemptions are included for sales to law enforcement agencies and the military in Washington. The measure does not bar the possession of the weapons by people who already have them.

The law would go into effect immediately once it’s signed by Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee, who has long advocated for such a ban. When the bill passed the state House in March, Inslee said he’s believed it since 1994 when, as a member of the U.S. Congress, he voted to make the ban a federal law.

After the bill passed, Inslee said the state of Washington “will not accept gun violence as normal.”

Inslee said lives will be saved because of the semi-automatic rifle ban and two other measures approved by the Legislature this session: one that introduced a 10-day waiting period for gun purchases and another to hold gunmakers liable for negligent sales.

Republican state lawmakers opposed the ban, with some contending school shootings should be addressed by remodeling buildings to make them less appealing as targets and others saying it infringes on people’s rights to defend themselves.

“HB 1240 clearly violates our state and federal constitutions, which is why it will end up in court immediately,” Sen. Lynda Wilson of Vancouver said.

The U.S. Congress reinstating a ban on semi-automatic rifles appears far off. But President Joe Biden and other Democrats have become increasingly emboldened in pushing for stronger gun controls — and doing so with no clear electoral consequences.

Nine states including California, New York and Massachusetts, along with the District of Columbia, have already passed similar bans, and the laws have been upheld as constitutional by the courts, according to Washington’s Attorney General Bob Ferguson.

In Colorado, lawmakers debated on Wednesday about similar gun measures, but a sweeping ban on semi-automatic firearms faces stiffer odds.

Lawmakers in the Texas Capitol set aside a slate of proposed new gun restrictions without a vote after hours of emotional appeals from Uvalde families whose children were killed last year. The hearing didn’t end until the early morning hours Wednesday.

During debate on the Washington state bill, Democrats spoke of frequent mass shootings that have killed people in churches, nightclubs, grocery stores and schools.

Sen. Liz Lovelett of Anacortes said that kids’ concerns about school shootings need to be addressed.

“They are marching in the streets. They are asking for us to take action,” Lovelett said. “We have to be able to give our kids reasons to feel hopeful.”

Another gun-control bill that passed in Washington this session would allow people whose family members die from gun violence to sue if a manufacturer or seller “is irresponsible in how they handle, store or sell those weapons.” Under the state’s consumer-protection act, the attorney general could file a lawsuit against manufacturers or sellers for negligently allowing their guns to be sold to minors, or to people buying guns legally in order to sell them to someone who can’t lawfully have them.

A second bill would require gun buyers to show they’ve taken safety training. It would also impose a 10-day waiting period for all gun purchases — something that’s already mandatory in Washington when buying a semi-automatic rifle.

Some gun-control legislation in other states has been struck down since last year’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which set new standards for reviewing the nation’s gun laws. The ruling says the government must justify gun control laws by showing they are “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Semi-automatic rifle ban passes Washington state Legislature appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

In less than 10 weeks, by July 1, California’s Reparations Task Force is set to deliver final recommendations to the Legislature for how the state can begin to undo 300 years of harm from slavery and racism.

With the clock winding down, two key questions remain unanswered: How much would the proposed reparations cost? And will the Legislature support the recommendations of the task force?

The first-in-the-nation task force was appointed in 2020 to study whether and how the state government should issue reparations for residents who are descendants of enslaved persons.

At a task force meeting March 29 and 30, state Sen. Steven Bradford, a Democrat representing Gardena, said it will be an “uphill fight” to get the Legislature to seriously engage with the recommendations.

Some new data is bearing that out.

Back in 2020, 12 legislators voted against the law that created the reparations task force, while 58 lawmakers voted in favor of it.

Recently, in an informal emailed poll of the 80 Assemblymembers by CalMatters, just three legislators stated their support for the task force’s years-long effort. The rest did not respond.

Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, a Democrat from Inglewood, said she “strongly supports monetary reparations for the descendants of formerly enslaved people and believes the Legislature would support the final recommendations from the Task Force.”

Assemblymember Damon Connolly, a Democrat from San Rafael (near San Francisco), said he also supports reparations and the task force’s preliminary recommendations, which he said are long overdue.

“These recommendations are the culmination of collaboration between experts who understand the scope and legacy of how racism and disenfranchisement have had long-term socioeconomic impacts on California’s African-American communities,” he said in a statement. “This report contains recommendations that are common-sense and comprehensive — changes that should have been considered long ago.”

Heavy lifting

Assemblymember David Alvarez, a Democrat from San Diego, noted the historic work of the task force but stopped short of saying he supports the preliminary recommendations.

“I appreciate the work the Reparations Task Force has done,” he said. “The Task Force is led by well-respected members of the African American community who have taken the time to study and discuss these historical effects over the last two years. Once the Task Force concludes their meetings and releases a final report with recommendations, I will review the complete findings.”

Bradford and Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer, a Democrat from Los Angeles, are both on the task force.

Bradford described the heavy lifting that remains to be done to get the Legislature to approve reparations. He highlighted a prior failed effort last session to get a constitutional amendment outlawing involuntary servitude placed on the California ballot.

“Something as simple as removing that from our state constitution, where other states have, and we couldn’t even do that,” he said.

(Opponents of that measure noted that removing the language that allows involuntary servitude from Calilfornia’s constitution would result in tens of millions of dollars in extra state cost because prisoners would have to be paid for their work during incarceration.)

So far, news coverage of the reparations task force’s work has largely focused on what dollar amount the task force might recommend the state pay descendants of formerly enslaved people.

The figure that went around the world recently was $800 billion. But many news reports confused that number, saying it was a recommendation for reparations payouts when it actually was a partial estimation of financial losses that economists said Black people experienced over decades of inequalities.

Dollars “least important”

So far, the task force has yet to vote on specific dollar amounts at its meetings.

“We did not, at this last hearing, arrive at a single dollar figure. We’re not there yet,” said Cheryl Grills, a task force member and clinical psychologist. Grills is also a founding member of Community Coalition, which does outreach work in South L.A. communities.

The news media’s preoccupation with a final dollar figure has become a point of frustration, task force members said. The task force and its experts have produced thousands of pages of documentation, data and research into various categories of injustice — everything from encounters with the criminal justice system to barriers to homeownership.

“We want to make sure that this is presented out in a way that does not reinforce the preoccupation with a dollar figure, which is the least important piece of this,” said Grills.

“It’s important, but it’s the least important in terms of being able to get to a point in our country’s history and in California’s history where we recognize that the harm cuts across multiple areas and domains and that the repair needs to align with that.

“It’s really unfortunate. I’m actually sad to see that our news media is not able to nuance better. It’s almost like, ‘What’s going to be sensational’ as opposed to what’s important.”

The task force at its March 29 meeting decided that descendants of American slaves in California would have at least two pathways for claiming compensation for the injustices and legacy of chattel slavery.

Two options

One of those avenues would be a baseline amount that would potentially apply to all descendants of American slaves who meet a California residency requirement. That compensation would be for the general community harm and legacy of slavery as well as the state’s role in perpetuating racism. The amount has not been decided.

The other route would be people applying for redress for specific injustices experienced under one of five categories outlined in a 40-page report compiled by economists working with the state Department of Justice.

Those five categories of harm include health, disproportionate mass incarceration and over-policing, housing discrimination, unjust property taken by eminent domain and the devaluation of Black-owned businesses.

Those category payments would be in addition to or instead of baseline compensation, task force members said.

Task force members do not appear to agree about whether or not the group should decide on a dollar figure recommendation to the Legislature. In an interview with CalMatters last week, Jones-Sawyer said the dollar amount would be up to the Legislature and governor to decide, while other task force members said the exact figure hasn’t been decided on yet.

The panel’s chair, Kamilah Moore, told KCRA, a television station in Sacramento, that it’s up to the state Legislature to ascribe a dollar amount, based on methodology economists recommended and which the task force approved.

“The task force is pretty much done regarding the compensation component. Our task was to create a methodology for calculation for various forms of compensation that correspond with our findings,” she told the station.

Hearts and minds

Jones-Sawyer said he agrees with Bradford that task force members have their work cut out for them. But he stressed the impact the task force’s interim report may have on “changing hearts and minds.”

“Any legislation is difficult. Period,” said Jones-Sawyer. “Some obviously are easier than others, but all of them require a lot of work.

“As I’ve spoken to individuals who didn’t even understand why we wanted to do this, there have been a few who have read the report and it was eye-opening for them,” he added. “For people who read the interim report, to hear them say ‘I didn’t know’ was probably the most gratifying thing I could hear.”

Jones-Sawyer said one of the most important recommendations from the report “doesn’t cost a dime” — an apology letter from the state of California.

“I think that one is as important as the others,” he said.

The task force decided at its last set of meetings that California should issue a formal apology “for the perpetration of gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity on African slaves and their descendants.”

Donald Tamaki, a task force member and lawyer from San Francisco, said apologizing would acknowledge lost and often untold history.

“Our history has been so buried, so erased, so denied, I think that is an essential element of our mission,” he said.

Jones-Sawyer said he believes Gov. Gavin Newsom is taking the reparations responsibility seriously.

“I think the governor will do an excellent job in showing that he’s sincere about it, and that he believes in the apology that comes out of the state of California,” said Jones-Sawyer.

A divided public

Support for the reparations movement is pouring in from outside organizations. Tamaki and Grills have been reaching out to organizations throughout California, asking them to endorse the task force’s work. In a few weeks, endorsements grew from 30 to more than 130 organizations.

However a few people who phoned into the task force meetings during the public comment periods took on an angry tone.

Some callers and emailers said they might move out of California if Black people are paid reparations. Support and opposition among published emails to the task force were close — at least 104 expressed support for some form of reparations for Black residents while at least 93 said they were against it.

Many of the skeptics questioned whether other oppressed groups should get reparations.

“The most problematic issue is that California was not a slave state in the first place,” an email reads. “Many ethnic groups have been discriminated against in California — Indians, Asians, Latinos, LGBTQ+. If you open reparations to one group, you must do the same for all discriminated groups.” The writer’s name was redacted.

According to the task force’s interim report, despite California entering the Union in 1850 as a free state, its early state government supported slavery. In 1852, California passed and enforced a fugitive slave law that was harsher than the federal fugitive slave law and made the state more hospitable to slavery than other states, the report states.

Adding to that, in the latter 1850s, the California Supreme Court upheld the rights of an enslaver to retain ownership of Archy Lee, a 19-year-old Black man Charles Stovall took to California from Mississippi. The justices decided in Stovall’s favor because he had a persistent illness and had not known California’s laws, the task force reported.

Listening sessions

Nationally, views on reparations in general vary widely by race. A 2021 Pew Research Center study found 3 in 10 U.S. adults say descendants of people enslaved in the United States should be repaid in some way, such as with land or money. About 7 in 10 (68%) say these descendants should not be repaid, the study found.

Broken down by race, 77% of Black Americans support reparations, compared to 18% of white Americans.

The next set of task force meetings is scheduled to start May 6 in the East Bay Area. So far, an exact location has not been publicized.

In addition to task force meetings, some community groups, including the Coalition for a Just and Equitable California, are holding listening sessions about reparations across California. There will be a town hall in Riverside on April 21 involving Moore and a listening session in San Diego on April 29 with Montgomery-Steppe.

DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the various author’s articles on this Opinion piece or elsewhere online or in the newspaper where we have articles with the header “COLUMN/EDITORIAL & OPINION” do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints or official policies of the Publisher, Editor, Reporters or anybody else in the Staff of the Hemet and San Jacinto Chronicle Newspaper.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post California’s reparations task force could face uphill battle in legislature appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.