After appearing all but finished earlier this year, a $7.5 billion science research bond measure has been revived through a last-minute agreement between state lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom. The proposal, Senate Bill 895, is authored by San Francisco Democrat Sen. Scott Wiener and cleared the Legislature Monday with broad bipartisan support. It now heads to the governor’s desk for a signature.

The bond’s path to this point has been anything but smooth. It began life more than a year ago as an ambitious $23 billion request, was later trimmed to $12 billion, and appeared headed nowhere after missing a June deadline to qualify for this year’s ballot — at one point shrinking to just $5 billion. Wiener, along with an unusual alliance of the University of California system and the union representing graduate student researchers, kept pushing to keep the effort alive over the summer.

That persistence has paid off. For the first time, leadership in both the Assembly and Senate, along with Newsom, are united behind the measure, which underwent significant last-minute changes.

“We have performed a ritual legislative resurrection of the bill,” Wiener said during a Friday press conference announcing the deal.

Under the proposal, $1 billion would go toward building new science facilities at UC and Cal State campuses and establishing a system of scientific review panels to evaluate research proposals on their merits. The remainder would fund a broad spectrum of priorities, including biomedical research, wildfire prevention and water supply projects. Some money would also support efforts to commercialize scientific breakthroughs and create opportunities for researchers early in their careers.

Bonds function as a form of government debt, repaid gradually over time. Under this measure, public and private research institutions — universities, medical centers, labs and other organizations — would be eligible to apply for grants or loans. A newly created California Foundation for Science and Health Research Council would be tasked with developing detailed guidelines for how the money gets distributed.

Supporters frame the bond as a defense mechanism against the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to slash research funding at UC campuses and elsewhere. The Department of Justice has argued in court that some federal grants it canceled ran afoul of the president’s restrictions on research tied to diversity initiatives and climate change — even though many of the affected projects focused on disease research, including work on cancer, dementia and new pharmaceutical treatments.

Federal money makes up roughly half of all research funding across the UC system — about $3 billion in federal grants during the 2024-25 fiscal year alone. Last year, the White House suspended or canceled more than 1,000 California science grants funded through the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation. Court filings later revealed the administration used bulk keyword searches for terms associated with diversity and climate topics to identify grants for elimination. Most of those grants have since been restored, at least temporarily, following lawsuits filed by university researchers — though at least one major legal challenge remains unresolved.

The administration has also floated a plan to let political appointees decide which science grants receive funding, a break from the long-standing practice of using independent peer-review panels of scientists to make those calls.

That shift, along with broader anxiety about federal interference in research, has already prompted some prominent American scientists to relocate abroad, drawn by new incentive packages from other countries. Dr. Harold R. Collard, vice chancellor for research at UC San Francisco, said during Friday’s announcement that California’s bond measure could help retain researchers who might otherwise leave — and attract new talent to the state. Economic research suggests every dollar spent through NIH grants generates roughly $2.57 in broader economic activity.

The bond’s rocky road through the Legislature appears to have stemmed largely from timing concerns. Lawmakers and political observers say the measure initially stalled in the Assembly amid worries it would compete for voter attention — and campaign resources — with a separate, higher-priority bond: an $11.25 billion housing measure set for the November ballot aimed at expanding affordable housing construction statewide. Advocates for that measure worried a second large bond on the same ballot could hurt both efforts.

“I think there’s some legitimate political concerns about placing something competing with the housing bond,” said Chris Micheli, a longtime Sacramento lobbyist and law professor, when the science bond first hit a wall in June.

Wiener confirmed that was indeed part of the calculation. “We already placed a housing bond on the ballot,” he said Friday. “There are a lot of items on the state ballot, and I understand why some people were concerned about placing yet additional items on the ballot for November. That’s why we were able to, after the deadline passed, work collaboratively toward March of 2028.”

The housing bond has faced its own version of this dance before — it was bumped in 2024 to make way for two other $10 billion bond measures covering school construction and climate resilience.

Complicating matters further, California voters will actually see a different science-related bond measure this November. Proposition 38, backed by a wealthy private funder, would direct $8.4 billion toward immunology and immunotherapy research, with particular focus on Alzheimer’s, cancer and heart disease. According to CalMatters reporting, roughly half of that funding appears likely to benefit a single research institute closely tied to the measure’s billionaire backer.

Wiener doesn’t see that measure as competition for his own bond effort, given the different scope and timeline. “That ballot measure primarily funds one particular institute. It’s not a broad science policy funding measure, and so it’s just very different,” he said.

Now the real work begins: persuading California voters, more than two years from now, that investing billions more in scientific research is worth the cost.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California May Ask Voters in 2028 to Restore Science Funding Cut by Trump appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Across the country, unapologetically left-leaning candidates are having a moment. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, Michigan Senate hopeful Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, and Randy Villegas in California’s 22nd Congressional District have all ridden a wave of populist enthusiasm to victory or contention. But in the race to succeed former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in Congress, San Francisco voters are split between two Democrats who both describe themselves in progressive terms — and whose disagreement over housing policy may prove more consequential than any national trend.

San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan, who has Pelosi’s backing, portrays herself as a champion of working families who won’t be swayed by corporate political money or the tech industry that has thrown its support behind her rival, state Sen. Scott Wiener. Chan has called Wiener, a longtime LGBTQ rights advocate who made national headlines for legislation aimed at exposing the identities of ICE agents, a “corporate Democrat funded by billionaires.”

But Chan’s record — marked by opposition to development projects and rezoning efforts in her own district — could turn off some progressive voters, particularly newcomers to city politics. For decades, San Francisco residents have resisted new construction, often prioritizing neighborhood preservation over adding housing supply.

That resistance has helped fuel the city’s housing crisis. Rents have climbed to record highs as the Bay Area’s AI-driven tech boom pours money into the local economy; one recent industry report found the average one-bedroom apartment now rents for more than $4,000 a month.

“Progressivism in San Francisco has become tightly wound up with an identity that refuses to accept a lot of things,” said Jane Natoli, a housing advocate who lives in Chan’s district and supports Wiener. “For some reason, especially on housing, San Francisco progressives have mostly just said no.”

In June’s primary, voters favored both Wiener and Chan over Saikat Chakrabarti, a former aide to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who energized younger voters with rhetoric reminiscent of Mamdani and Sen. Bernie Sanders. The tech entrepreneur agreed with Wiener on the need to build more housing but coupled that stance with a broader anti-establishment, anti-capitalist message.

“I liked him a lot because his approach to YIMBY politics was conciliatory,” said Alex Vanscoy, Chakrabarti’s former field director. Vanscoy now backs Chan, who has pledged to refuse money from corporate political action committees. “Taking lobbyist money is a very serious thing to me,” Chan said.

Both candidates agree that affordability is the top concern for San Franciscans and that the city faces a housing shortage across every income level. Where they diverge sharply is on what role the state and federal governments should play in solving it.

**What’s driving the housing crisis?**

Wiener believes the state must require — not simply encourage — local governments to build more housing, particularly in cities and counties that have long resisted new development. A leading voice in the YIMBY and “abundance” movements, he authored legislation, now law, that cut red tape for certain housing permits, a move that pleased both labor groups and developers. Local officials have told the Legislature that the streamlining law has slashed average permitting timelines from years down to three to six months.

Chan, by contrast, has largely opposed new housing and development proposals in her district, saying her priority is protecting tenants from eviction and shielding small businesses from the disruption of construction. She often points to the “urban renewal” of the Fillmore District from the 1950s through the 1970s, which devastated San Francisco’s Black community, as a cautionary tale she doesn’t want repeated elsewhere. That painful history, in fact, helped give rise to the city’s modern progressive movement.

“I think we’re starting to see the real dividing line,” said Eric Kingsbury, a Wiener supporter and chair of the San Francisco County Central Committee, the local arm of the Democratic Party. “I really expect to see a lot of discomfort, because if you’re pro-housing and you’re a progressive person, you have a candidate in this race, and that’s Scott Wiener.”

Chan, one of the board’s four most progressive supervisors, recently voted against Mayor Daniel Lurie’s residential rezoning plan — a state-mandated overhaul designed to allow taller, denser housing near transit stops and major corridors. She previously led a lawsuit against the state, arguing its housing mandates unfairly targeted San Francisco. Chan said she opposed Lurie’s plan because it lacked sufficient protections against the demolition of rent-controlled housing and the displacement of tenants and small businesses.

“We can still demand accountability, we can still conduct environmental reviews, and at the same time make government more efficient,” Chan said.

“It’s ridiculous when people say I’m against development,” said Norman Yee, a former San Francisco supervisor who supports Chan. “All she wants is to make sure, first, that tenants aren’t displaced, and second, that community concerns are addressed.”

In 2021, Chan helped block a nearly 500-unit mixed-income housing proposal slated for a vacant parking lot just a block from a BART station — a decision that drew a scathing rebuke from the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board, which accused the city’s then-eight progressive supervisors of sabotaging “seemingly every serious attempt to address this city’s housing crisis.”

Beyond housing, Chan also fought a plan to add dedicated bus lanes along a corridor that, before the pandemic, carried one of the busiest bus routes in the country, objecting to the loss of parking spaces and warning of harm to small businesses during construction. The city’s transit agency approved the project anyway.

Chan has also pushed back against Sacramento’s growing role in local planning and zoning decisions, arguing that corporate developers and Wall Street real estate interests have persuaded lawmakers like Wiener to let them bypass local review processes. Wiener has dismissed the charge as misleading and “trivial.”

Chan points to her support for a recently opened affordable senior housing project — 98 units built on the site of a former funeral home — as proof she isn’t anti-development. No existing tenants were displaced, she noted, since the building went up on vacant land.

“I always joke that if anyone got displaced from that site, it would be a ghost from the funeral home,” Chan said.

In her campaign launch video, Chan promises to deliver “real affordable housing, not Sacramento’s version that destroys our neighborhoods.”

Wiener countered that the project, which opened last November, was made possible largely because of his own Senate Bill 35 — a landmark law he authored to speed up housing permits — along with roughly $60 million in state funding.

“If what you want to do is make it harder and more expensive to build housing, or even impossible, then that’s not progressive,” Wiener said. “That’s conservative.”

It remains unclear whether San Francisco voters who backed Chakrabarti, who won about 18% of the primary vote in June, will now consolidate behind Chan or Wiener heading into November.

**Other flashpoints**

Housing isn’t the only issue shaping the race.

Wiener, who is Jewish, drew criticism from some progressives after initially declining to use the word “genocide” to describe the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Following public pressure after a tense candidate forum, Wiener reversed course, explaining his shift in a video posted to social media.

The about-face proved awkward and alienated enough members of the Jewish community that Wiener stepped down as chair of the Legislature’s Jewish caucus. Others dismissed the change as symbolic and overdue. Months later, pro-Palestinian demonstrators confronted him so aggressively during the city’s Trans March that he was forced to leave the event.

Wiener’s wavering on the word “genocide” has bred distrust among younger voters, said Kaizen Betts-LaCroix, another former Chakrabarti staffer now supporting Chan. Betts-LaCroix said Chan’s unequivocal opposition to U.S. military aid for Israel, along with her refusal to accept corporate PAC money, are the main reasons behind the endorsement.

Wiener’s campaign has also faced backlash over aggressive attack tactics, including repeating a misleading claim that Chakrabarti actually lived in Maryland, and a now-deleted AI parody chatbot that impersonated Chan and mocked her record of blocking housing and other development projects.

Pelosi, who has used her considerable influence to boost Chan’s candidacy, quickly condemned the chatbot and rallied prominent Democrats — including seven congresswomen and former Mayor Willie Brown — to join her in denouncing it.

“Women have spent generations fighting to have our voices heard in the halls of power,” Pelosi wrote on social media. “We shouldn’t have to now fight AI for putting words in our mouths.”

Within days, Wiener’s campaign took down the site, pulled billboards promoting it, and apologized for offending voters, acknowledging that the stunt had “missed the mark.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post How Soaring Housing Costs in San Francisco Have Shaped the Race to Succeed Pelosi appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

While much of the country watches insurgent left-wing candidates like New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani energize voters, San Francisco’s own version of that political moment looks different. Here, the choice isn’t between establishment and outsider — it’s between two Democrats who both claim the progressive mantle but disagree fundamentally on how to solve the city’s housing affordability crisis.

San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan, who has Pelosi’s backing, has cast herself as a champion of working-class renters and small businesses, someone unswayed by corporate money or the tech industry dollars fueling her rival’s campaign. She has repeatedly labeled state Sen. Scott Wiener — a longtime LGBTQ rights advocate who drew national attention for legislation aimed at unmasking ICE agents — as a “corporate Democrat bankrolled by billionaires.”

But Chan’s record of blocking housing developments and resisting zoning reforms in her district may not sit well with younger or newer voters who see unchecked rent increases as the more urgent crisis. San Francisco has a long history of favoring neighborhood preservation over new construction, a pattern many observers say helped create the shortage the city faces today. Rents have climbed to record highs amid the Bay Area’s artificial intelligence boom, with one industry report putting the median one-bedroom rental above $4,000 a month.

“Progressivism in San Francisco has really become very tied to this identity where it doesn’t say ‘yes’ to a lot of stuff,” said Jane Natoli, a housing advocate who lives in Chan’s district and supports Wiener. “For whatever reason, especially on issues such as housing, San Francisco progressives have largely said ‘no.'”

In June’s primary, voters passed over former Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aide Saikat Chakrabarti, who drew enthusiasm from younger, more left-leaning voters with a message that blended Bernie Sanders-style populism with strong support for new housing construction. Alex Vanscoy, who served as Chakrabarti’s field director, said he appreciated the candidate’s approach because it combined an anti-corporate stance with support for building more homes. Now Vanscoy backs Chan, who has pledged to refuse corporate PAC money. “Taking money from lobbyists is a huge issue to me,” Chan has said.

Wiener and Chan both agree that affordability tops the list of concerns for San Francisco residents and that the city needs more housing at every income level. Where they diverge sharply is on what role state and federal government should play in getting that housing built.

Wiener argues local governments — particularly ones that have long slow-walked new development — need to be held to their housing commitments, not simply allowed to promise progress without delivering it. As one of the state’s leading voices in the “abundance” and Yes In My Backyard movements, he authored legislation, since signed into law, that streamlined permitting for certain housing projects. City officials have told state lawmakers the changes cut typical permit wait times from years down to three to six months.

Chan, by contrast, has consistently opposed development and zoning changes she believes threaten existing tenants and neighborhood small businesses. She has pointed to the destructive “urban renewal” of the Fillmore District in the mid-20th century — displacement that devastated the city’s Black community — as a cautionary tale she doesn’t want repeated elsewhere. That history, in fact, helped shape the very brand of progressive politics now on display in this race.

“I think we’re starting to see the real divide show up,” said Eric Kingsbury, who chairs the San Francisco Democratic Party’s county committee and backs Wiener. “I would really expect to see a lot of discomfort, because if you are pro-housing and you’re an otherwise progressive person, you have a candidate in this race, and it’s Scott Wiener.”

Chan, among the board’s most left-leaning supervisors, recently voted against Mayor Daniel Lurie’s rezoning plan, a state-mandated effort to allow taller, denser housing near transit corridors. She previously supported a lawsuit challenging the state’s housing mandates as unfairly targeting San Francisco, and she has said her opposition to Lurie’s plan stems from its lack of protections against the loss of rent-controlled units and the displacement of tenants and merchants.

“We can still have accountability, we can still have environmental review and improve government efficiency at the same time,” Chan said.

Former Supervisor Norman Yee, a Chan supporter, pushed back on the idea that she opposes growth altogether. “I think for people to say that she’s anti-development is kind of ridiculous,” Yee said. “All she wants is to make sure that number one, tenants don’t get displaced, and two, to make sure that community concerns are addressed.”

Still, Chan’s record includes helping derail a proposed 500-unit mixed-income project near a BART station in 2021 — a decision that prompted a scathing San Francisco Chronicle editorial accusing the board’s progressive majority of undermining nearly every serious attempt to address the housing shortage. She has also opposed transit improvements, including a dedicated bus lane on Geary Boulevard, over concerns about lost parking and disruption to nearby businesses. The city’s transit agency approved the project regardless.

Chan maintains that state intervention in local zoning serves corporate developers and Wall Street real estate interests more than everyday residents, an argument Wiener dismisses as unfounded and outdated. She points to her support for a 98-unit affordable senior housing project — built on the site of a vacant funeral home, meaning no renters were displaced — as evidence she isn’t opposed to development done the right way. “I always make this joke that if anybody got evicted from the site, it was a ghost from the funeral home,” Chan said. In campaign materials, she has promised to “build real affordable housing, not the Sacramento version that destroys our neighborhoods.”

Wiener counters that the same project was made possible in large part by his own Senate Bill 35, a state law designed to speed up housing approvals, along with roughly $60 million in state funding. “If you’re trying to make it harder and more expensive to build housing, or even impossible to build, then that’s not progressive,” Wiener said. “That’s conservative.”

Whether the roughly 18% of primary voters who backed Chakrabarti will now side with Chan or Wiener remains an open question heading into November.

Housing isn’t the only flashpoint in the race. Wiener, who is Jewish, drew criticism from some progressives after initially declining to describe the humanitarian crisis in Gaza as a genocide. Following a heated candidate forum and mounting public pressure, he reversed course, explaining his shift in a video posted to social media. That reversal proved costly: he stepped down as chair of the Legislative Jewish Caucus after backlash from members of the Jewish community, while others dismissed the change as insincere. Months later, pro-Palestinian demonstrators confronted him so forcefully at the city’s trans march that he left the event early.

Kaizen Betts-LaCroix, another former Chakrabarti staffer now supporting Chan, said Wiener’s shifting position on Gaza has damaged his credibility with younger voters, adding that Chan’s firm opposition to military aid for Israel and her refusal of corporate PAC money were key reasons for their support.

Wiener’s campaign has also faced its own controversies, including repeating a since-debunked claim that Chakrabarti actually lived in Maryland, and launching a satirical AI chatbot mimicking Chan that mocked her housing record. Pelosi quickly condemned the chatbot, rallying several prominent Democrats — including seven congresswomen and former Mayor Willie Brown — in opposition. “Women have spent generations fighting to have our own voices heard in the halls of power,” Pelosi wrote on social media. “We should not have to now fight against artificial intelligence putting words in our mouths.” Within days, Wiener’s campaign took the chatbot offline, removed related billboards and apologized, acknowledging the effort had “missed the mark.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post San Francisco’s Sky-High Housing Costs Take Center Stage in Race to Succeed Pelosi appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Still, the intensity of that response caught the Democratic lawmaker from San Francisco by surprise.

“It did touch a nerve,” Weiner said in an interview. “The day that I announced the original version of the bill, one of my very best friends in the world texted me to tell me what a terrible idea it was. And then 10 minutes later, his boyfriend texted me to say, ‘thank you for getting my boyfriend to slow down.’”

Your car probably tells you when you’re running out of gas. It might alert you when you drift out of your lane. Now California lawmakers want to go a step further, requiring technology in your car to warn you when you’re speeding.

Safety advocates say speed assistance technology can reduce traffic deaths, but critics say California is moving too fast.

“What they’re trying to do is to impose their will on the rest of the country,” said Jay Beeber with the National Motorists Association, a driver advocacy group.

To understand why Wiener’s bill has been so divisive, it helps to know how speed assistance technology works. There’s an “active” version, which can physically stop drivers from exceeding the speed limit. But there’s also a “passive” version of speed assistance that only warns the driver when they’re going too fast.

After the initial pushback, Wiener changed his bill from active to passive speed assistance. And while some safety advocates might be disappointed, Wiener defends the decision.

“We listened and we heard,” Wiener said. “Once we looked at the studies, we saw that the passive speed limiter is also highly effective. And so I was comfortable making that change.”

There were political calculations involved, as well.

“The bill would not have passed with the active speed limiter,” Wiener conceded. “And it did pass with the passive speed limiter.”

The bill approved by the California legislature over the weekend would require all new cars sold in the state to warn drivers if they’re going more than 10 miles per hour over the speed limit. California would be the first state in the country to mandate speed assistance technology, starting with the 2030 model year.

The bill has some big backers, including the National Transportation Safety Board.

“Broad deployment of intelligent speed assistance would reduce the frequency of speeding and speeding-related crashes… saving lives and preventing injuries,” the NTSB wrote in support of the California bill, “and we applaud you for pursuing this policy.”

The NTSB can make recommendations, but it cannot force automakers to add speed assistance.

Critics of California’s bill say it’s too much, too soon.

“The technology is not perfect,” Beeber said in an interview. “You’re gonna have a lot of false positives.”

It’s easy for speed assistance technology to get confused, Beeber says, especially between highways and nearby surface streets with vastly different speed limits. He thinks that will annoy and potentially distract drivers.

“Unfortunately our cars right now are kind of in the business of distracting us,” Beeber said. “I think this increases distracted driving.”

The auto industry doesn’t like the speed assistance bill, either.

Speed assistance systems “rely on clear and visible speed limit signs placed at regular intervals to function properly,” wrote the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, an industry trade group, in comments opposing the bill.

“That sort of infrastructure is in place in Europe,” where passive speed assistance is already mandatory. “But it is severely lacking in the U.S. As a result, many/most intelligent speed assist systems are glitchy and unreliable in the U.S.,” the group wrote.

“It’s another example of California’s overreach,” said Karen Bailey-Chapman, with the Specialty Equipment Market Association, an industry trade group, in an interview.

California is a huge market for carmakers, and Bailey-Chapman says the state is trying to bully its way into setting policy for the whole country.

“We believe that the authority for regulations stands firmly within the federal government,” she said.

But the bill’s sponsor, Scott Wiener, says California can’t wait for federal regulators.

“I would love for the federal government to require this technology nationally,” he said. “But there is no indication – no real indication – that the federal government’s going to do that.”

Wiener compares the situation to the early 1960s, when Wisconsin moved to require seat belts more than six years before the federal government did.

“How many lives have been saved because Wisconsin stepped out ahead of the federal government in 1962 and required seatbelts, which started a domino effect nationally?,” he asked.

California’s speed assistance bill now heads to the desk of Governor Gavin Newsom, who has until the end of the month to decide whether he’ll sign it into law.

The post Should your car warn you that you’re speeding? California lawmakers vote yes appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.