A 181-page report prepared by researchers organized through the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research examines what California would need to decide before moving to a universal health care model financed through a unified system. Such a system could combine state and federal health care dollars with money now spent by employers and residents, and potentially require new taxes.

During a webinar Wednesday, the research team summarized its findings and responded to questions. On many of the most important details, however, the answer remained uncertain. The report does not prescribe one specific plan. Instead, it lays out the choices policymakers would face if they attempt to redesign how health care is paid for in California.

One of the biggest decisions would be whether the state should pursue a true single-payer model, in which California finances health care for all residents, or a more limited hybrid approach that preserves parts of the existing insurance system. Single-payer supporters often point to systems in the United Kingdom and parts of Western Europe as examples, though California’s health care landscape is far more fragmented.

State leaders would also have to decide whether California would continue paying the existing network of private and public health care providers or create a new state-run structure. Other questions include whether doctors and hospitals would be paid for each service they provide, or whether the state would keep some version of managed care, which now dominates both private insurance and public programs.

Federal funding would be another major hurdle. Medicare, Medi-Cal and other federal programs currently account for roughly half of health care spending in California. Any unified financing plan would likely depend on the federal government agreeing to redirect tens of billions of dollars to the state. The report also raises the issue of how such a system would treat undocumented immigrants, who are generally barred from federally financed health benefits.

The UC report suggests that a single-payer system could offer the greatest administrative efficiency by reducing billing complexity, paperwork and other costs associated with today’s mix of insurers and public programs. But researchers also noted that the same approach would likely be the most politically difficult to achieve.

For many progressives in California and across the country, single-payer health care has been a long-sought goal. Gov. Gavin Newsom embraced the idea during his 2018 campaign, saying at the time that he was tired of politicians claiming to support single-payer while arguing that it was too soon, too costly or someone else’s responsibility.

After taking office, Newsom shifted toward a more incremental strategy. He later described single-payer as an “aspirational” goal rather than a firm commitment, while his administration focused on expanding coverage through Medi-Cal and other programs.

Newsom did sign legislation in 2019 creating the Healthy California for All Commission to study the issue. At the time, he said the state needed input from experts in both the public and private sectors as California continued moving toward universal coverage.

The commission’s 2022 report supported the concept of unified financing but stopped short of calling specifically for a single-payer system. That work helped lead to the 2023 passage of Senate Bill 770, which directed further study by the University of California. The UC report, released in April, is the result of that effort.

In many ways, the report brings the debate back to where it began. When Newsom first promoted single-payer during his campaign, health policy experts already warned that transforming California’s enormous and costly health care system would be complicated. The new report reinforces that conclusion in extensive detail.

With Newsom nearing the end of his time as governor and widely viewed as a possible future presidential candidate, the question now is whether California’s pursuit of a unified health care financing system will continue — or remain largely an exercise in policy planning.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Single-Payer Health Care Could Work in California, but Fiscal and Political Hurdles Loom appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Jason Williams, a Marine Corps veteran and UCLA chemistry doctoral candidate, and Angel Fulgencio, who works in domestic violence intervention, say programs that help former service members move from military life into higher education are increasingly vulnerable. Both participated in UCLA’s Veterans in STEM program, which connects student veterans with research training, faculty mentors and hands-on lab experience.

The transition from active duty to a college campus can be difficult, they said. Many veterans are older than traditional college students, carry different life experiences and may be dealing with combat-related trauma, including post-traumatic stress disorder. Some also face financial instability, interrupted schooling or homelessness before reaching a classroom.

Those challenges make campus-based support programs especially important, Williams and Fulgencio argue. UCLA’s Veterans in STEM program, housed within the university’s Center for Developing Leadership in Science, helps veterans build research experience needed for jobs, graduate school and long-term careers in science and health fields.

Participants attend weekly training sessions, work in laboratories with faculty and mentors, and may take part in intensive summer research opportunities. Some later mentor other veterans entering the program.

But the program’s future became uncertain after federal officials froze millions of dollars in grant funding to UCLA, affecting research programs across the university. According to the veterans, the uncertainty forced a pause in admissions last spring, and students who completed the initial training were unable to move forward to the next stage.

The situation has drawn attention to Senate Bill 895, the California Science and Health Research Bond Act. The bipartisan proposal, sponsored by the University of California, would ask voters to approve $12 billion in funding for research grants, loans and facilities tied to medicine, science jobs and health-related innovation.

Supporters say the bond could help California maintain research programs and protect training opportunities while federal funding disputes continue. For student veterans, Williams and Fulgencio said, that could mean preserving access to programs that help turn military experience into academic and professional advancement.

Federal officials have described some university research cuts as an effort to eliminate “woke programs,” but the veterans say the impact reaches people who served the country and are now trying to build civilian careers. Although the National Science Foundation grant supporting the program has been reinstated for now, the broader legal fight remains unresolved.

Williams and Fulgencio argue that veterans strengthen higher education because they bring practical, real-world experience and different perspectives to research. Reducing support for those students, they said, ultimately weakens universities and undermines the nation’s broader interest in scientific progress.

California lawmakers would need to place SB 895 on the November ballot before voters could decide whether to approve the bond. For veterans pursuing higher education, supporters say the measure represents a chance for the state to reinforce both its commitment to former service members and its investment in research that benefits Californians.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Veterans’ Higher Ed Funding at Risk as $12 Billion Bond Proposal Offers Hope appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The UCLA Fetal Echo Symposium is a pivotal event that focuses on enhancing sonographers’ skills in detecting congenital fetal heart disease. This year’s conference featured a comprehensive curriculum designed for both low-risk and high-risk pregnancies, emphasizing the latest clinical techniques and innovations in fetal cardiac imaging.

Attendees engaged with world-class experts through didactic lectures, round-table discussions, and interactive sessions, including a live-scanning tutorial. Highlights also included personal testimonials from young patients who have overcome significant cardiac challenges, bringing a powerful, human element to the proceedings.

Tracy Francis, Director/Instructor of the Diagnostic Medical Sonography Program, expressed her gratitude for the experience: “One of the most enjoyable parts of the conference is when they bring up the children to share their experiences and how they are thriving. Many have faced major cardiac issues and have undergone multiple open-heart surgeries before the age of five! A big thank you to the MSJC Foundation for allowing our students to participate in this great event. They had a fantastic day and learned invaluable skills to implement in their future careers.”

MSJC is committed to providing students with opportunities that foster professional growth and excellence in the field. The knowledge the DMS students gained at the UCLA Fetal Echo Symposium will enhance their preparation for successful careers in diagnostic medical sonography.

About the DMS Program The Diagnostic Medical Sonography Program at MSJC is dedicated to training the next generation of skilled medical imaging professionals. Our curriculum combines theoretical knowledge with hands-on experience, preparing students for successful careers in the healthcare field.

About UCLA Fetal Echocardiography Symposium

The UCLA Fetal Echocardiography Symposium is an annual event that brings together experts in fetal cardiac imaging to share insights, techniques, and advancements in the field. With a focus on both education and patient experience, the symposium aims to improve outcomes for families affected by congenital heart disease.

About Mt. San Jacinto College

Mt. San Jacinto College (MSJC) is a comprehensive community college serving a 1,700-square-mile area from the San Gorgonio Pass to Temecula, with campuses in San Jacinto, Menifee Valley, Temecula Valley, and San Gorgonio Pass. MSJC offers courses and programs that satisfy the transfer requirements of four-year colleges and universities.

The post DMS Program Students Attend 14th Annual UCLA Fetal Echocardiography Symposium appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Others waved Palestinian flags, shouting “free Palestine,” and pressed union demands that the University of California divest from ties to Israel and the war in Gaza and grant all protesters amnesty from campus discipline.

The merger of union charges of workplace mistreatment with the goals of a wider pro-Palestinian campus movement has not only injected new fuel into antiwar activism, but has also become a challenging and potentially volatile labor dispute at three of the most prominent public universities in the nation.

The unique demands of United Auto Workers Local 4811 have labor experts debating over how the widely-watched strike — which has canceled some classes, blocked parking lots and prompted protests that disrupted classes — could come to an end while probably setting lasting precedents.

While unions typically strike over pay demands or benefit improvements during contract negotiations, this walkout is far different. The union charges that its rights have been violated. The university accuses union members of manipulating labor law to support political goals unrelated to everyday work and says it is breaking a no-strike agreement in its contract.

The escalating situation — union leaders say they are prepared to strike at possibly three more campuses next week — could have a lasting impact on how one of the country’s largest university systems deals with one of the biggest higher education unions.

That’s one reason why UC leaders said they are asking the state labor authority — the Public Employee Relations Board, or PERB — to order the union to halt its strike during a critical ending period of the term with finals and grading at hand.

“If what UAW has put together creates a precedent and a framework that PERB says is allowable, that will change all of our understanding about negotiations and what the framework looks like for labor,” said Missy Matella, UC’s associate vice president for systemwide labor relations. “Because if, for example, this is allowed, and if PERB says this is a lawful strike, then the University of California, the state of California, all of the public employers in the state of California will need to understand that labor peace is not guaranteed during contracts, even with a no-strike agreement.”

What led to the strike

The 48,000-member union includes graduate teaching assistants, researchers and other academic workers at UC’s 10 campuses and the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory who lead discussion groups, grade papers and administer exams, among other responsibilities.

They walked off the job alleging that their free speech rights to speak out about their workplaces were violated when UC leaders called in police to remove pro-Palestinian encampments at several campuses, resulting in arrests and suspensions. They also contend the university violated their rights as workers by failing to protect them when a violent mob attacked protesters at UCLA, including union members, and police took hours to intervene.

The union bases the charges on the experiences of dozens of members who protested at UCLA, UC San Diego and UC Irvine. The union also says universities unilaterally changed their job conditions when classes were moved online amid protests instead of bargaining over those work-related decisions.

The UAW filed unfair labor practice charges with the state labor board May 10.

On May 15, 79% of the 19,780 members who cast ballots voted to authorize the strike. The total voter participation amounted to 41% of all union members — meaning 33% of the total membership approved the authorization. The rates were significantly lower than a 2022 strike vote, in which 76% of members voted and 97% approved of a strike that led to increases in wages and benefits.

“It was always likely that the strike vote and participation would be lower than in the 2022,” said John Logan, a professor in the department of labor and employment studies at San Francisco State University. “These things do matter, but it’s arguably a respectable turnout and maybe even a higher than expected strike authorization, given that it’s… not a strike over pay and benefits.”

The university contends that the current strike is illegal because the union has a valid contract with a no-strike clause. Last week, the state labor board denied UC’s request to halt the strike on grounds that it was causing irreparable harm to students, research andoperations.

The university doubled down on its injunction request Wednesday, filing evidence citing the spread of strikes this week to UCLA and UC Davis and arguing that union members have disrupted classes and access to campuses. The strikes, it said, were “to the detriment of tens of thousands of students, faculty and other campus community members.”

In a response filed Thursday evening, the union said “the university has failed yet again” to prove its point and that its allegations are “speculative” and “unsubstantiated.” In some cases, the UAW put the blame for campus disruptions and blockages on pro-Palestinian undergraduates or other nonunion groups.

Union leaders also say the no-strike provision is irrelevant to the alleged violations they are claiming.

The state board is expected to again decide on the matter soon.

“We are urging the university to come to an agreement as soon as possible so we can resume teaching courses and research,” Jaime said.

Matella said in an interview that strikes were the wrong way to go.

“We have many arbitrations pending with UAW right now. So they absolutely have other mechanisms for resolving this conflict,” said Matella. “They’ve just chosen not to use them.”

Other academic worker unions, including those at USC, Harvard and New York University, have also filed unfair labor practice charges against their employers related to worker treatment during pro-Palestinian protests.

Union demands

The union is launching campus strikes one by one and has threatened to call on members on all campuses to strike through June 30.

Some of the union’s demands, such as amnesty from discipline for all people who took part in protests — union members or not — are relatively straightforward.

Others, including a demand that the University of California divest billions of dollars from “weapons manufacturers, military contractors, and companies profiting from Israel’s war on Gaza” are harder because UC leaders have declared opposition to divestment that targets Israel. Individual campuses have been more favorable to the demands — to a degree.

In an agreement with protesters to end their encampment at UC Berkeley, outgoing Chancellor Carol Christ said she supported examining Berkeley’s investments in “a targeted list of companies due to their participation in weapons manufacturing, mass incarceration, and/or surveillance industries” and would push University of California regents on divestment.

In a similar pact at UC Riverside, Chancellor Kim Wilcox said he would form a task force to “explore the removal of UCR’s endowment from the management of the UC Investments Office, and the investment of said endowment in a manner that will be financially and ethically sound for the university with consideration to the companies involved in arms manufacturing and delivery.”

Another union demand is for the researchers it represents to receive transitional funding so they can opt out from “funding sources tied to the military or oppression of Palestinians.” That would include those working for departments that were given portions of the $333 million the University of California received last year from the Department of Defense.

Legal debate

The strike reflects a growing national labor movement in which younger, liberal workers are increasingly unionizing and taking political stands, said David Lewin, a professor emeritus of management, human resources and organizational behavior at the UCLA Anderson School of Management.

Unions have long played a role in elections and even supported foreign policy positions, Lewin said, “but this is different.”

“Striking workers are taking a risk in supporting one side of a two-party conflict. It looks opportunistic because you have employees of the university striking at the end of a quarter or semester when final exams are being given, grades are due and people have to graduate. It puts a lot of pressure on the university.”

Time is running out for a resolution, Lewin said, because “as soon as most students are gone for the summer, the union’s leverage significantly decreases.”

He thinks the university’s claim that the strike is illegal is “stronger” than the union’s argument over free speech violations because “there are a lot of interpretations of what free speech means,” including protest rights that UC currently affords students and workers who continue to rally in support of Palestinians.

Some other labor experts take a different view.

The university’s messaging “is meant to intimidate the workers into not going on strike,” said Tobias Higbie, a UCLA professor of history and labor studies. “I wish the University of California would be a different type of employer, but apparently it’s not the way they want to go with this.”

Noah D. Zatz, a UCLA professor of law and labor studies, said union members were within their rights to stop working. Unfair labor practice strikes have precedent, he said, and go beyond “seemingly all-inclusive” no-strike clauses in contracts. That’s because because they rest on a union’s allegations that the employer violated labor law — in this case, California’s Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act — and not simply contract terms, he said.

UC “expresses incredulity that this has anything to do with employment and work. That’s strange considering the university is a massive employer,” Zatz said. “You have people who are employees engaging in protest activity on employer’s grounds suffering at the hands of their employer. The idea that this has nothing to do with employer relationships is very hard to take.”

What workers say

That’s the position workers promoted this week during pickets at UCLA.

Speaking at a rally, union member Yunyi Li called for “no business as usual” until UC leaders face up to alleged “unlawful actions.”

“UC can be on the right side of history by taking accountability for their actions by coming to an agreement with encampment organizers over amnesty, divestment and policing,” Li said to a crowd of hundreds gathered near the Bruin Bear statue. “We are all here because no worker or student should be forcefully expelled from their workplace or their school for peaceful protest, especially in the fight for something as righteous and as fundamental as a free Palestine.”

At UC Irvine, where no strike has been called, union member Mark Gradoni said he supported the members rallying elsewhere. Gradoni, a doctoral student in the history department, was arrested May 15 when police broke up a pro-Palestinian building occupation and encampment in Irvine.

On May 21, the university notified Gradoni of his interim suspension for violating campus policies on disruption and disorderly or lewd conduct, among others. A letter banned Gradoni from campus, in housing, or where any university programming is taking place and directed him to teach remotely.

“It’s pretty clear that the university feels threatened by students, faculty and workers asking for greater transparency and a greater stake in shaping our terms of employment and the way our university works,” Gradoni said.

Is there a way out?

Jaime, the union president, said all of the union’s demands were important but singled out one that he said would “do a lot to lower the pressure.”

“They could start by dropping the charges against workers — police and discipline charges,” he said. “Both completely have the potential to derail people’s lives.”

On divestment, Jaime pointed to deals struck at UC Berkeley and UC Riverside as “models” but said it was “too early to tell” what the results in those cases would be.

Amnesty from discipline, such as suspensions, has been promised to protesters at several universities across the U.S. as a condition of taking down pro-Palestinian encampments.

Mediation between UC and the UAW is ongoing, part of a multi-step process that could drag far beyond the end of this quarter, which is mid-June at several campuses.

UC has also filed its own unfair labor practice charge against the union, saying it violated its contract by striking.

Last week, the labor board issued a complaint against the union based on those allegations. The complaint sets in motion a process under which both sides will make their case. The complaint indicates the labor board’s view that, if the facts presented by UC are shown to be accurate, then the strike could be ruled illegal. The case is slow-moving — both sides have until mid-June to submit paperwork — and does not itself halt the strike.

The post UC strike also rears up as pro-Palestinian protests. That’s why the endgame is so tricky appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Kevin Smith | San Gabriel Valley Tribune

Students at UCLA and UC Riverside are demanding their schools cut ties with Starbucks until the coffee chain ends an alleged union-busting campaign against its baristas. In a show of solidarity, the students plan to deliver petitions with more than 1,500 signatures to the two universities this week.

“The issues of Starbucks workers and the experiences that students face are intersectional, and we must be in solidarity,” said David Ramirez, a UCLA student, former Starbucks worker and member of UCLA Students Against Starbucks. Starbucks spokesman Andrew Trull addressed union concerns in a statement released Monday, Jan. 29.

“As a company, we respect our partners’ right to organize, freely associate, engage in lawful union activities and bargain collectively without fear of reprisal or retaliation — and remain committed to our stated aim of reaching ratified contracts for union-represented stores in 2024,” he said. The move to organize has grown rapidly in recent years with workers at more than 385 Starbucks stores unionizing with Starbucks Workers United as they lobby for higher wages, increased staffing and consistent scheduling, despite heavy pushback from the coffee chain.

Locally, that includes locations in Long Beach, Los Angeles, Anaheim and Huntington Beach. The push for higher pay and better working conditions has resulted in the unionization of more than 9,500 Starbucks employees, according to the Starbucks Workers United website. The UCLA petition, which will be delivered Tuesday, Jan. 30 to the board of directors for Associated Students UCLA, demands that the school divest from Starbucks and terminate its licensing agreement with the company. The UC Riverside petition, to be delivered the following day to Chancellor Kim A. Wilcox and top decision-makers at the university, will likewise demand that the university not renew its contract with the coffee chain.

Speakers at both actions will highlight the employees’ bargaining demands and share stories about what unions mean to the next generation of workers, many of whom will be college students. “When we graduate, we want to enter a workforce where workers have a real voice on the job with their employers,” said Eren Whitfield, a UCR Student and member of UCR Students Against Starbucks. “Bringing people together for a common purpose has been our main goal.” Workers at a Starbucks at 5757 Wilshire Blvd. in Los Angeles voted to unionize earlier this month, marking the 33rd California location to join Starbucks Workers United.

The National Labor Relations Board must still certify the outcome of their vote. Andrew Gillespie, a shift supervisor at the coffee shop, said management tried to dissuade employees from joining the union. “At first, they said they wanted to let us know that the company was behind us,” the 26-year-old LA resident said. “But then they started posting signs and said our benefits could go away if we unionized. They also said, ‘We can make that raise you’ve been asking for happen if you vote no.’”

The raise management was referring to is an automatic pay hike workers already get each year, Gillespie said. Starbucks disputes that point and said it announced in November that all U.S. employees would receive a minimum of a 3% annual wage increase. Starbucks said it “will give all union-represented partners annual wage increases that are aligned to previous, historical practices for each store” — which may differ based on when workers began to pursue union representation.

“The starting wage for Starbucks employees in California is $17 an hour, but under the contract we drafted, no one would make less than $20 an hour,” Gillespie said. Starbucks’ board of directors recently released the findings of an independent third party assessment on the company’s adherence to its workers’ right to collective bargaining. The evaluation from Thomas M. Mackall, a senior counsel to the U.S. Council on International Business, found “there is no evidence Starbucks has or has used an ‘anti-union playbook,’ and that “the company has provided consistent reassurances to partners that Starbucks respects their right to collectively organize through fairly conducted elections.”

UC Riverside officials said full-time, non-management workers at the Starbucks on campus are university employees and are already represented by a union. “UC Riverside’s contract with Starbucks for its on-campus location expires in summer 2025,” they said. “Renewal conversations have not yet been initiated by the university, nor by Starbucks.” In November, UCLA students introduced a resolution at the student council calling on the university’s administration to kick Starbucks off of campus as a consequence for its “illegal union busting.”

That resulted in administrative law judges finding the company has “broken the law more than 270 times,” union officials said. In May 2023, students at Cornell University successfully demanded their university cut ties with Starbucks after the company closed all three of Ithaca’s stores – all of which had formed unions. By August 2023, the students won a victory when Cornell said it wouldn’t renew its existing contract with Starbucks when it expires in 2025.

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

The post UCLA, UC Riverside students petition to remove Starbucks from campuses appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The University of California system announced Tuesday it will pay nearly $375 million to more than 300 women who said they were sexually abused by a UCLA gynecologist, bringing a record amount in total payouts by a public university in a wave of sexual misconduct scandals by campus doctors.

The settlement followed previous deals with hundreds of other patients who said Dr. James Heaps groped them, made suggestive comments or conducted unnecessarily invasive exams during his 35-year career.

“Dr. Heaps sexually abused patients for years while UCLA Health put profits over their safety,” attorney Jennifer McGrath said in a statement. “Today’s settlement is the result of the bravery of these victims, and sends a message that healthcare institutions must protect vulnerable patients and act decisively at complaints of abuse.”

The university has agreed to pay nearly $700 million to Heap’s patients, dwarfing a $500 million settlement by Michigan State University in 2018 that was considered the largest by a public university. The University of Southern California, a private institution, has agreed to pay more than $1 billion to settle thousands of cases against the school’s longtime gynecologist.

Heaps, 65, who retired as the scandal unfolded, has pleaded not guilty to 21 felony counts for allegedly sexually assaulting seven women.

Women who brought the lawsuits said UCLA ignored their complaints and deliberately concealed abuse that happened for decades during examinations at the UCLA student health center, the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center or in Heaps’ campus office.

UCLA acknowledged it received a sex abuse complaint against Heaps from a patient in December 2017 and it launched an investigation the following month that concluded she was sexually assaulted and harassed, attorneys said.

Heaps, however, continued to practice until his retirement in June 2018. The university did not release its finding in the investigation until November 2019 — months after Heaps was arrested.

The university previously reached settlements with other patients of Heaps for $316 million. The most recent settlement with 312 women resolves the vast majority of claims against Heaps, the university said.

“The conduct alleged to have been committed by Heaps is reprehensible and contrary to our values,” UCLA said in a statement. “We are grateful to all those who came forward, and hope this settlement is one step toward providing some level of healing for the plaintiffs involved.”

The university said it would pay for the settlements through a combination of insurance, risk financing and capital bond proceeds.

Sex abuse by doctors on college campuses has led to massive settlements at Ohio State University, Johns Hopkins University and Columbia University.

Michigan State paid $500 million to 300 women and girls who said they were assaulted by Larry Nassar, who was a campus sports doctor and a doctor for USA Gymnastics. Nassar, who also sexually abused Olympic gold medal gymnasts, is serving prison sentences likely to keep him behind bars for the rest of his life.

The University of Michigan reached a $490 million settlement with more than 1,000 people who said they were sexually assaulted by the late Dr. Robert Anderson, during his nearly four-decade career as a sports doctor at the school.

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

The post UCLA to pay record of nearly $700M in doctor abuse lawsuits appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

For more than a half-century, California has been trying to nudge county and city governments into generating enough new housing to handle an ever-increasing demand.

The state’s chief tool has been a legal requirement that local government “general plans” include an adequate “housing element.” Every eight years, the state Department of Housing and Community Development issues regional quotas of housing needs which then are divvied up into specific city-by-city goals for zoning enough land to meet projected needs.

The allocations are very controversial , especially in suburban communities, because they run counter to the not-in-my-backyard sentiments of local residents. As housing production falls chronically short of the state’s goals, the cyclic quotas steadily increase and in recent years the state has added penalties for failure.

Obviously, the quota system hasn’t been working very well and researchers at UCLA’s Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies have concluded that it has a “fundamental flaw” because vacant land being zoned for housing to meet the quotas is only rarely used for housing. Rather, the housing being built — which is still too little — tends to go on other property, including some previously being used for other purposes.

The study focused on what has happened in the San Francisco Bay Area vis-à-vis the housing quotas issued in the last decade for the eight-year period that will end next year.

“The median Bay Area city is on track to approve housing projects on less than 10% of the sites listed in its housing plan,” the study found. “On average, however, cities are achieving a substantial portion of their (too low) housing targets — nearly 60% for the median city — just not on the sites they had selected and presented to the state as likely or apt for development. Across the Bay Area as whole, nearly 70% of housing built during this period was on sites not listed in housing plans.”

While cities zone specific sites to meet quotas, “housing development occurs in a way that is hard to anticipate. In spite of planners’ efforts to select imminently viable sites, they do not.”

The solution, they say, is to create a more realistic set of requirements that identifies all potential sites for housing, a “change (that) may require cities to include many more sites in their housing plan.”

While a more realistic inventory might require more work — and possibly increase local angst — the UCLA team also proposes that “cities receive preemptive credit for housing they expect to be built on sites not listed in their plan.

“The credit would be tied to production on non-inventory sites during the previous period, giving cities an incentive to accommodate much-needed development when it is proposed, even if they can’t anticipate exactly where or what developers will want to build.”

“The Legislature should stop proliferating ever more detailed requirements for a site to be included in the inventory, and instead require cities to consider every parcel on which residential use is allowed,” the UCLA team suggests. “Since cities aren’t very good at picking the sites where developers want to build, the focus should shift to estimating how much housing is likely to be built during the planning period on the entire stock of residentially zoned land in a city.

This is wonky stuff, but important because of the state’s worsening housing shortage. The proposals would shift the housing quotas from an exercise in paper-shuffling into something more likely to produce real results. But implementing it would require an official admission that the current system isn’t working and a willingness to correct its “fundamental flaw.”

Dan Walters | CalMatters

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

The post California housing plans need an overhaul appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Lockdowns are no exception. One assumption many Americans seem to make is that the more a government limits gatherings, mandates masks, restricts business activity and advises residents to stay at home, the more economic damage it will do.

Among the loudest of these voices is Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican who raised his national profile by allowing bars and restaurants to operate at full indoor capacity during America’s horrific holiday surge, then effectively banned mask mandates once Florida started to recover — all in the name of supporting business.

“She’s a lockdown lobbyist,” DeSantis recently said in reference to Democrat Nikki Fried, one of his 2022 gubernatorial opponents. Speaking at a New Smyrna Beach restaurant, DeSantis said Fried “would have had this business shuttered for the whole year. They would be out of business if Fried were governor.”

Yet for much of the past year, some experts have quietly advanced a counterargument: that economic activity is mainly affected by the rising and falling severity of the pandemic itself — not the relative strictness of the measures implemented to mitigate it. In fact, these experts argued, nonpharmaceutical interventions, or NPIs — a set of 20 government responses such as business closures, mask mandates and stay-at-home advisories that Oxford University rates according to stringency — can have an economic upside. The more the virus seems to be under control, the more eager people will be to participate in the economy.

Last week, this argument got a boost with the publication of a new report by economists at the University of California, Los Angeles. According to the latest quarterly UCLA Anderson Forecast, not only did big states with more stringent COVID measures end 2020 with fewer infections per capita, they also tended to post better economic growth numbers last year than states with fewer restrictions.

In other words, California’s economy actually fared better than Florida’s.

Yahoo News spoke with economist Jerry Nickelsburg, the director of the UCLA Anderson Forecast, to find out more.

Yahoo News: Is it now fair to say that so-called lockdown states performed better economically than so-called looser states during the 2020 pandemic?

Jerry Nickelsburg: That is correct. We generally view economic performance through the lens of gross domestic product. On average, GDP declined in 2020, and it declined everywhere. But those declines were smaller in states with more stringent nonpharmaceutical interventions than states with less stringent NPIs.

That’s the opposite of the conventional wisdom. In Florida, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is telling voters, in effect, “I saved the economy by opening bars and banning masks.” What made you suspect that the prevailing narrative — this idea that there’s a trade-off between public health and the health of the economy — might be wrong?

It was something that we started to see in Scandinavia. It’s something we saw in the 1918-19 influenza pandemic as well. It seemed to be more than just a fluke.

When you say “something,” what do you mean?

The evidence suggested that policies that are good for people’s health during a pandemic — like NPIs — are not necessarily bad for the economy. There might even be a positive correlation. But early on, we did not have any 2020 pandemic data to answer that question. So it was open for debate.

But now we have that data.

Now we do.

Walk us through what it says.

The states that were considered for this analysis are basically the states that produce most of the U.S. GDP — states with a population of 5 million or greater. We found two things. First, California had more stringent interventions and a lower infection rate than either Texas or Florida, two states to which it’s often compared. Yet California also performed better with respect to GDP than either Texas or Florida. Second, the same pattern showed up across all big states: On average, the ones with more stringent interventions had both better health outcomes and better economic outcomes.

How do we know this has anything to do with COVID restrictions? Couldn’t it just be a coincidence — that some state economies were better suited to weather this particular storm, regardless of how stringent their interventions were?

To be sure, states have different economic compositions. But that’s one reason we didn’t include small states like North Dakota. Even though it had very poor health outcomes, North Dakota can do very well in terms of GDP when oil prices go up, because of the dominance of petroleum production in the value of goods and services produced there. In contrast, large states typically have more diverse economies. And when you line them up according to their interventionist policies, you find that states that intervened more heavily tended to have fewer COVID cases per capita and smaller declines in GDP.

There were two outliers: New York and Michigan. Both had stringent NPIs but lost a lot of ground in terms of GDP. Why?

Michigan was all about supply chain interruption in the automobile industry. This had nothing to do with interventions. Factories were forced to close for part of the year.

What about New York? In the report you write, “Perhaps the economic performance [there] has more to do with remote work than the pandemic per se.”

We don’t know the answer. It may be that because of “work from home,” many New York employees were working from New Jersey or Connecticut or even Florida, and spending their money there.

Someone like Gov. DeSantis would disagree with your conclusions, and one argument he would make is that if restrictions are so great, then why is California’s unemployment rate 8.3 percent while Florida’s is 4.3 percent? Is that a fair comparison?

It’s true that if unemployment is your metric, California has a very high rate relative to Florida. But people who dropped out of the labor force because of COVID — either because they contracted it or because of concern for themselves or their families — are not counted in the unemployment rate. Likewise, there’s evidence that states that opened up earlier may have reduced their employees’ hours because fewer people were coming through the doors; the reduction in hours per employee was 4.2 percent in Texas versus 1.1 percent in California. So unemployment is actually quite complicated, and you can’t really rely on it.

[The UCLA report also suggests that “the answer lies in the structure of the California economy.” In California, “sectors with a high degree of human contact” — that is, “leisure and hospitality, education, retail trade, and health care and social services” — contributed only “0.3 percentage points to annual GDP growth over the decade preceding the pandemic.” But last year, “they accounted for 75 percent of the state’s job losses.” Meanwhile, the sectors driving growth in California — “information, professional and business services, manufacturing and financial services” — weren’t hit nearly as hard. That helps to explain the discrepancy between the state’s unemployment rate and its overall economic performance. UCLA expects “many of those lost jobs to return.”]

What about 2021? California has kept many of its restrictions in place for the first half of the year. Florida has not. Yet due to vaccination, cases have been going down in both states for months now. Does that change anything? The data we have for 2020 is pretty conclusive. The data for the 1918-19 pandemic is pretty conclusive.

The data for Scandinavia is pretty conclusive. So far, the data says that with NPIs, there’s no trade-off between better health outcomes and better economic outcomes. I don’t expect that to change.

ANDREW ROMANO | Contributed

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

The post ‘Lockdown’ states like California did better economically than ‘looser’ states like Florida, new COVID data shows appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The Bruins football and men’s and women’s basketball teams will be outfitted under the Jordan Brand. UCLA will be the first Pac-12 school to wear the “Jumpman” logo on its uniforms and will join Michigan, Florida, Oklahoma and North Carolina as programs under the Jordan Brand for football and both basketball teams.

The new deal with Beaverton, Oregon-based Nike starts next July 1. Until then, UCLA’s 25 programs will continue to be outfitted by Under Armour even though the university is suing the apparel company for breach of contract.

“Going into this process, our top priority was to secure the best quality and most innovative products to help our student-athletes and coaches compete for championships,” athletic director Martin Jarmond said in a statement regarding the new agreement. “As we build upon our rich history and strive for greater heights, this transformative collaboration is a signal of the future.”

Under Armour announced in June that it was ending its contract with UCLA, citing unforeseeable circumstances due to the coronavirus pandemic as one of the reasons. The two sides were four years into a 15-year deal worth $280 million, which was the highest in college athletics.

UCLA filed a lawsuit against Under Amour in August in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles for breach of contract, seeking damages in excess of $200 million.

Terms of UCLA’s contract with Nike have not been available since it is pending formal approval.

“The popularity of the brand, especially the Jumpman brand, within our sport of basketball is undeniable,” men’s basketball coach Mick Cronin said via Zoom.

UCLA guard David Singleton said he owns over 80 pairs of Jordan shoes and has two more “coming in the mail.”

“I watched him as a young kid and he became my favorite player. I loved his demeanor and his will to win,” Singleton said on a Zoom call. “Jordan is a line of Nike, so I feel like having Nike will increase our recruiting chances already.”

The men’s basketball team has been wearing various brands in its games so far this season.

“It’ll be a big upgrade for UCLA and recruiting,” basketball forward Cody Riley said. “I was always in Nikes or Jordans growing up playing. Also, it’s just Michael Jordan, one of the greatest players of all time.”

Under Armour paid $10 million per year in rights and marketing fees as well as contributing $2 million total to aid in facility improvements. Under terms of the contract, the company is supposed to supply $6.85 million in athletic apparel, footwear and uniforms.

UCLA was outfitted by Adidas prior to its deal with Under Armour.

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

The post UCLA will be outfitted by Nike, Jordan Brand starting in ’21 appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Is This The Right Move?

The State Legislature passed a bill last week that would allow Student-Athletes to get paid in the State of California. It went unopposed in the house and is heading to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s feet. Naturally, the NCAA isn’t happy about the bill because it directly affects their Golden Egg that they feel no one can touch. The NCAA is all about protecting their money and keeping their billion-dollar industry for themselves. They are the world’s largest mafia and are allowed to operate within their own rules with no one to police them. If you don’t agree or go against the grain, they throw you out and pick the next guy standing in line to take your place.

The first argument people will make when hearing about this is, “these athletes are paid, they are paid with an education,” although a statement like that holds some truth it also doesn’t shed light on the big picture. Education is not the reason why these kids attend school, nor is it the reason the schools offer scholarships to players. 

When playing a high-level sport at the college level, it is your full-time job and your priority. You put in 40+ hours a week practicing, working out, watching a film, or in treatment. That is separate from mandatory attendance in your classes and homework requirements for those classes. 

There is no time for these Student-Athletes to work part-time jobs and they shouldn’t be expected to. The university and the NCAA benefit off of them. It’s their skills, their work, their talent that gives the university recognition. If it weren’t for the players, there would be no market. For example, former UCLA point guard Lonzo Ball said when he first got to UCLA the stadium was empty. Students, Faculty, Alumni, and Fans were not showing up to the games. The games weren’t being nationally televised. When he was in High School, the gym was always packed with spectators. UCLA started winning, and people started to; show up to the games again, buy jerseys, and talk about the team. It wasn’t the university that did that; it was the players.

I don’t think the university should be able to pay these athletes millions of dollars, I don’t believe the NCAA or the universities should have to pay these athletes anything past their scholarship agreement, but what is wrong is taking money out of these kids pockets for your gain. The NCAA and Universities make money off the players every day, with jersey sales, TV deals, and endorsement deals. If a student-athlete tried to do any of these on their own, they would get suspended.

How is this fair? If your average college kid needs to make some extra money, he is allowed to; mow lawns, wash cars, or work a part-time job. How many college students start companies while in school and turn them into financially successful businesses? What the NCAA is doing to these student-athletes is telling them that they can’t make money for who they are. If there is an excellent player who has a social media following, brands like Nike should be allowed to pay them to endorse their products without affecting the eligibility of the athlete. The reason why universities don’t like this is that it takes money out of their own pockets. If they are an Adidas school, their star QB can’t wear Nike’s on Saturday, or they won’t get paid.

This should be illegal and considered slave labor. They are profiting off of kids names and likeness selling their jerseys, making video games out of them, selling their posters/pictures, signing deals with brands, getting paid for commercials, and many more things while literally making it against the rules for them to do the same thing off of themselves and if they get caught making money they will be suspended or kicked out of the program. The NCAA and Universities need to stop monetizing the opportunity for these athletes to make money and keep all of it for themselves. Players should be able to make any money that they can by using who they are as a person without it affecting their eligibility status.

I’m glad that California is taking the first steps to make this legal and hope more states begin following soon. 

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

Search: California Trying To Help College Athletes

The post California Trying To Help College Athletes Get Paid appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.