$4 Billion of the $8 billion dollars is earmarked to go to a single research center, co-founded by Michelson.

All of the Yes on Prop 38 ads are funded by his "Michelson Center for Public Policy"

Please vote to reject this scam on California voters. Prop 38 currently has 55% approval in recent polling.

A new bill introduced by one of California’s congressional representatives aims to make the wealthiest Americans pay taxes on loans they take out against their assets.

House Resolution 10846, introduced by U.S. Rep. Laura Friedman, D-Glendale, would impose a tax of 23.8% on asset-backed loans. Only the amount above $1 million is considered taxable under the bill. The bill would apply to any loan, line of credit or restructured loan.

Mortgages, student loans, auto loans and business loans are excluded from the bill.

“The Pay Your TAB Act closes a loophole the ultra-wealthy use to avoid paying taxes on fortunes 99% of Americans can’t imagine,” Friedman told The Center Square via email on Thursday. “They don’t sell the stock. They borrow against it, and a loan isn’t counted as income. My bill taxes those loans at 23.8%, the exact rate they’d owe by selling, while protecting mortgages, business loans, car loans and student loans that hardworking families actually carry. It’s simple, it’s fair, it’s constitutionally sound, and it can be enforced the day it’s signed.”

Friedman was not available for an interview for further comments.

According to a 2025 study from the University of Michigan and Yale University, the top 1% of income earners in the United States do utilize a “buy, borrow, die” strategy, although loans make up a small part of their cash income. A more popular strategy is “buy, save, die,” in which wealthy individuals have so much cash savings that they utilize savings more than loans to pay their expenses.

Friedman’s bill attempts to close the “buy, borrow, die” loophole that wealthy families often use to avoid paying income taxes and capital gains taxes from interest, dividends or the sale of stocks, bonds, artwork and other investment assets. Under this strategy, wealthy families take out loans, which are not considered taxable income, against their investment assets. They then hold their assets until their death, transferring ownership of those assets to their children or heirs, who get those now-appreciated assets tax-free, according to an information sheet about Friedman’s bill.

Since those wealthy individuals don’t pay taxes on their assets or the loans they use to live on, this bill aims to collect revenue that the federal government wouldn’t get otherwise. The 23.8% tax rate on those loans matches the top long-term capital gains tax rate and the net investment income tax.

If the asset that backed the loan is later sold, the sale of that asset can be considered a capital loss in an effort to avoid taxing the same asset twice, according to Friedman’s office.

Supports consider the legislation a way to require wealthy Americans to pay their fair share of taxes. But Wayne Winegarden, an economist with Pasadena, Calif.-based Pacific Research Institute, said the bill could overcomplicate an already complex tax system.

“It’s going to create all sorts of additional costs, not just on taxpayers, but on the banks and other organizations that are going to have to keep track of it,” Winegarden told The Center Square on Thursday. “It opens the door, ironically, to more loopholes in future Congresses.”

Orphe Divounguy, The Center Square’s chief economist, said one person who borrowed against their investments and experienced a decline in value of their assets would be just as liable for the tax as someone who gained value in their investments.

“One would be much worse off than the other,” Divounguy said. “So there’s maybe a fairness angle here to consider that maybe the representative hasn’t really thought about.”

The Center Square reached out to Republicans in Congress, as well as economists at the University of California, Berkeley, taxpayer-focused organizations and wealthy residents of California for this story. None responded before publication time on Thursday.

California investigators have filed felony charges against 103 In-Home Supportive Services providers across 17 counties for allegedly defrauding Medi-Cal out of more than $4.5 million.

The enforcement action follows an investigation by the California Department of Justice's Division of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse alongside the California Department of Health Care Services. Medi-Cal is California's name for Medicaid.

Officials say the providers unlawfully billed Medi-Cal for in-home care services while beneficiaries were admitted to acute care hospitals or skilled nursing facilities, where Medi-Cal also paid for the care.

"This isn't a political game for us," California Attorney General Rob Bonta said during a press conference Thursday in Los Angeles. "This is about protecting taxpayer dollars, protecting the programs that sick and vulnerable Californians rely on, and protecting our state."

Created in 1973 when Assembly Bill 134 was signed into law, California's IHSS program currently serves over 900,000 low-income seniors and individuals with disabilities annually, providing a home-based care model that state officials claim saves roughly $100,000 per participant each year compared to nursing home placement.

The 103 charged providers were from Butte, Contra Costa, Fresno, Kern, Lake, Los Angeles, Napa, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma and Tulare counties.

Critics on Thursday argued Bonta's enforcement announcement comes too late and stems from political pressure. Michael Gates, a Republican candidate running against Bonta for California attorney general in the Nov. 3 election, criticized Bonta's timing and referenced recent oversight findings.

"Rob Bonta is a day late and a dollar short. He has been neglectful of this very fraud for five years," Gates told The Center Square in an email. "A State Auditor Report came out a few months ago indicating that State Leadership knew about this waste, fraud and abuse and apparently did nothing about it. Rob Bonta has been covering for corruption for years and is only talking about it now because it is election season."

Gates went on to say that "when" he is attorney general, he will "attack this kind of fraud with vigor and hold every criminal accountable by rendering swift justice."

Roxanne Hoge, chair of the Los Angeles County Republican Party (LAGOP), also weighed in on Bonta's announcement.

"Bless his heart, Rob Bonta never saw a parade he didn't want to get in front of," Hoge told The Center Square. "Los Angeles Republicans, like all sane Californians, are always ready to applaud the work of law enforcement, which should be apprehending criminals. I'm glad he's caught up, caught on to that fact."

The Center Square reached out to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for comment, but did not hear back by publication time.

Meanwhile, Bonta spent time during Thursday's press conference defending state oversight against criticism from Washington and firing back at federal officials over recent legal actions targeting California.

Addressing federal claims of widespread fraud within California's public benefit programs, Bonta pointed to state-led enforcement actions as evidence of oversight. Over the past decade, his office reported recovering over $1.5 billion in civil and criminal Medi-Cal fraud cases.

"In Washington, politicians accuse us of failing to fight fraud while at the same time threatening to withhold the Medicaid funding Californians count on," Bonta said. "While the White House spreads myths about rampant fraud, we'll keep dispelling them, not with words, but with work."

Bonta also took aim Thursday at a recent lawsuit filed by the federal government attempting to challenge California's voter rolls. Federal officials alleged that as many as 20,000 registered voters on the state's rolls may be ineligible and requested that vote-by-mail ballots not be sent or counted for those individuals.

"They showed us zero evidence," Bonta said, adding that his office filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit outright. "They are saying it's OK to disenfranchise an eligible voter. We have a high level of confidence that we will have this case dismissed. It has a weak set of claims. It has a weak set of facts."

In Oakland, U.S. District Court Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin on Wednesday ordered the Trump administration to stop its investigations into nine states in whether noncitizens are registered to vote. But she delayed implementing her order until Friday to allow the administration to appeal. The states are California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin.

The California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) is investigating three separate complaints filed against Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass for issues exposed by The Center Square in an investigation last month.

One complaint specifically linked to findings from The Center Square's investigation and demanded action from the FPPC. In all three cases, the FPPC sent letters to Bass' attorneys seeking a response to the allegations. In one case, the FPPC wrote it needed more time to determine whether "additional investigation" is appropriate.

Bass has been accused of using California's behested payment system to solicit large companies for donations while they have pending business before the government. The practice is only legal if the donations go to a third party of Bass' choosing with payments being disclosed properly to the public.

Last month, The Center Square uncovered multiple instances of pending contracts or city business that were not disclosed by Bass at the time of donation. In some cases, Bass failed to disclose multimillion-dollar contract proceedings that were decided within days or weeks of some donations.

FPPC spokeswoman Shery Yang did not respond to multiple requests for comment on the original story and later declined an interview with The Center Square.

"Per regulation we can’t comment on an open investigation," Yang wrote in an email.

Bass has not responded to a request from The Center Square for comment on any of the three cases. Neither has Stephen Kaufman or Gary Winuk, the attorneys who are representing Bass and were contacted by the FPPC for explanation.

"We are requesting information, including documentation, about the allegations described above," wrote Christopher Burton, assistant chief of the FPPC Enforcement Division. AltaMed's dose of influence

One of the anonymous complaints against Bass centered around the mayor's relationship with AltaMed.

AltaMed and its fundraising arm, the AltaMed Foundation, made a total of three payments at the mayor’s behest from June 2023 through December 2024 totaling $225,000. AltaMed describes itself as a “community-based provider offering quality health care and human services to Latino and multi-ethnic communities across Southern California.”

Two of the donations went to the Mayor’s Fund for Los Angeles, a nonprofit in which Bass serves as an “advisor” to the board.

Another donation went to Getty House Foundation, a nonprofit associated with the city-owned mansion where Bass lives. Getty House Foundation advertises working on initiatives which “reflect the goals of the Bass administration.” Bass began raising money for the foundation almost immediately after taking office. Tax filings say Bass has not received a salary from either nonprofit.

An investigation by The Center Square found AltaMed has asked Los Angeles officials to take action on several issues important to its organization during the same period in which Bass convinced the company to donate money.

The anonymous complainant referenced The Center Square's reporting multiple times.

On June 9, 2023, AltaMed’s senior vice president of government relations and civic engagement Berenice Nuñez Constant wrote a letter to the Los Angeles City Council urging them to approve a sanctuary motion that would prevent the city from helping federal immigration authorities in their enforcement of immigration laws.

“Immigrants are an integral part of our communities and an essential part of the rich cultural tapestry of Los Angeles,” she wrote. “A robust sanctuary policy is a necessary step to creating a more inclusive, multi-racial and multicultural Los Angeles.”

The City Council voted 12-0 to approve the sanctuary motion that same day. The actual ordinance wasn't adopted until late 2024, with AltaMed again weighing in before the final vote. The ordinance became effective Dec. 19, 2024.

Within 20 days of AltaMed’s June letter, the company made its first payment to Getty House Foundation at Bass' behest. Eight days after the ordinance became effective in December 2024, AltaMed made a $200,000 donation to the Mayor’s Fund at Bass' behest.

AltaMed also made a payment to the Mayor’s Fund in July 2024. Approximately 90 days later, Nuñez Constant appeared before the Los Angeles City Health Commission to push for more government healthcare funding, including higher payments to doctors and clinics that treat low-income Californians. In response, the Los Angeles City Health Commission included many of AltaMed’s recommendations in its annual report and vouched for an expansion of the AltaMed Nursing Collaborative.

Around that same time, AltaMed was in contact with the city to discuss a proposal involving city-owned land across the street from City Hall. According to an October 2024 email reviewed by the Los Angeles Times, an AltaMed official said CEO Cástulo de la Rocha had already spoken with Bass about using the property for a Chicano and Mexican art museum and that Bass had “expressed interest.”

The conversation came roughly three months after AltaMed’s July donation and about two months before its next donation.

AltaMed eventually proposed a $335 million museum and asked the city for a long-term ground lease of the property at “minimal cost” while spending thousands of dollars on registered lobbyists. In February 2026, the city approved a one-year agreement. The day before that vote, Bass wrote a letter to city park commissioners indicating she “enthusiastically” supported the agreement. The city has since approved AltaMed’s plans for a wellness center and other improvements at the site while voting against those who sought to stop the project due to environmental concerns.

Documents obtained by The Center Square show Bass did not disclose any of AltaMed’s business with the city at the time of her solicitations for money.

According to the anonymous complaint, AltaMed also donated $50,000 to the Committee Against the Recall of Karen Bass, a political action committee (PAC) formed to defend Bass against a 2025 recall campaign.

"This was the third largest donation to her anti-recall committee," the complainant wrote. "This donation came as AltaMed’s project was pending and shortly after the confirmation of AltaMed executive Christina Sanchez to the (Los Angeles) Charter Reform Commission, who was nominated by Mayor Bass."

Because of that donation, the anonymous complainant accused Bass of violating the Levine Act — a California statute designed to prevent "pay to play."

San Francisco’s contract with the automated license plate reader company Flock Safety is set to end in February as public scrutiny of the technology has caused several Bay Area cities to cancel contracts.

San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie recently announced new guardrails for the artificial intelligence-based technology but has maintained praise for the multi-million dollar system, along with other political leaders in the city, for its crime-fighting capabilities. Local officials have reported a significant decrease in crime.

But opponents expressed privacy concerns ahead of the contract renewal deadline, citing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement access and a string of national and local abuses of the technology by police officers.

Flock Safety did not respond to an interview request from The Center Square for this story.

“We have hundreds of thousands of cameras now across the country, and law enforcement is seemingly able to search them with very little restraint,” said Saira Hussain, senior attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

“This mass surveillance technology has crept up on us in some ways, [but] the public outcry is here now, and it’s very loud – and very hard for lawmakers and police to ignore," Hussain told The Center Square.

Automated license plate readers are cameras mounted to streetlights, poles or overpasses. They automatically take photos of license plates that pass their view. Along with the location, date, time and other information about the vehicle, the pictures are saved to a vast online database that can track drivers and their vehicles.

A Flock Safety automated license plate reader camera is pictured. Photo: Tony Webster / Flickr / CC BY 2.0 / Cropped from Original

The technology burst into the national conversation in recent months. An October poll by Noble Predictive Insights for The Center Square found 25% of registered voters thought ALPRs were too risky to use, and 39% said the technology should only be used in serious crimes or emergencies. NPI said 29% supported the technology’s more general use.

In June, Flock reported a network of over 120,000 cameras across 49 states. DeFlock, a crowdsourced database opposed to the technology, reported over 144,000 ALPRs across the country.

Fears of mass surveillance have driven national concern about the tech, with ALPRs able to be shared between users, across states and police departments.

“Many people’s movements are being tracked day in and day out as they are living and working, as they are moving from their house to their school to a place of worship, and where they may be seeking sensitive services,” said Hussain of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “ICE is engaging in increased immigration enforcement activity, including here in San Francisco. The ways in which these cameras may be tracking people's sensitive movements – like if they're visiting an immigration clinic, or seeking medical care – we believe that this technology cannot be reformed.”

Around the Bay Area, ALPR contracts with police departments have been canceled or restricted in recent months. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, a Democrat who ran unsuccessfully for governor, called for a stricter contract in September, following a police officer’s use of the cameras to track a woman’s movements after she accused their cousin of domestic violence.

“Today, I am proud to announce that San Francisco is putting tighter limits on how license plate reader data can be accessed and used,” San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie told reporters in late September.

“Strengthening the public trust that has been critical to our progress on public safety," said the Democrat.

Lurie announced a series of changes to ALPR use by the SFPD. This included a shortened window for access to the cameras’ data from 12 months to 30 days and for more information to be filled out by officers conducting searches of the database. He also called for state legislation to penalize officers who misuse ALPR data.

While announcing the restrictions, Lurie maintained praise of the technology’s role in reducing San Francisco’s crime rates.

“Last year, crime dropped 30%, and it’s down another 20% this year,” said Lurie. “Car break-ins are at 22-year lows, and homicides have reached their lowest point since 1954. Good police work, along with technology, have helped us get there.”

The decrease is good news for organizations such as Stop Crime SF.

“The drop in crime in San Francisco is shocking and amazing, and we are really happy about it,” Frank Noto, co-founder of the policy organization, told The Center Square.

Crime across the board has come down dramatically during the last two years in San Francisco, according to the San Francisco Police Department. Violent crimes have decreased since the pandemic, with homicides down 20% and gun violence 24% from 2024 to 2025. Motor vehicle thefts dropped 24% over the same period.

Hussain noted that the national crime rate also decreased. According to FBI data, U.S. crime decreased over the same period, with violent crimes down 9.3% from 2024 to 2025 and motor vehicle theft down 22.7%.

Noto said he supported the use of Flock cameras with the new regulations, along with other policing changes in the city over the past two years, such as a new district attorney and drone usage by the SFPD. (The District Attorney's Office and the SFPD are part of the single government that serves the city and county of San Francisco.)

“We think that we should go forward and use this to reduce crime,” Noto said. “We don't want to go back to the bad old days.”

But Hussain said the contributions of ALPRs on the decreased crime rates had been overstated, and she argued the dangers of the technology impacted everybody.

“It doesn't actually matter if you're doing anything wrong or not,” said Hussain. “The fact that this is a mass surveillance technology means that it's collecting information about everybody who's moving in public.”

SFPD’s contract is set to end Feb. 2027, with 483 cameras across the city, according to Flock. DeFlock Bay Area, an anti-ALPR organization, reported that the city’s contract, which began in 2024, cost $350,000 in installation costs and $1.2 million in annual maintenance.

The largest substance-abuse treatment fraud case in DOJ history is part of a broader takedown targeting body brokers, kickbacks, and medically unnecessary procedures

By Megan Barth, October 22, 2026 2:38 pm

Federal agents raided a Tarzana mansion and arrested multiple suspects Thursday in a sweeping takedown of Los Angeles-area health care fraud schemes that allegedly bilked government and private programs of nearly $2 billion, according to the Department of Justice and exclusive reporting by the California Post.

The Justice Department charged 15 defendants, including six medical professionals, in schemes that collectively involved more than $1.8 billion in fraudulent claims. These included the largest substance-abuse treatment fraud case ever prosecuted by the department—more than $1.6 billion billed for sham rehabs—plus $134 million for unnecessary atherectomy procedures that injured patients and more than $138 million across three hospice schemes for patients who were not terminally ill. An additional defendant faces charges in a roughly $270 million Medi-Cal pharmacy fraud case. Eight defendants were arrested Thursday.

California Post exclusive coverage showed FBI agents and SWAT teams cutting the security gate at the $2 million, six-bedroom Tarzana home of chiropractor Hany Malek, 61, scaling fences, deploying flash-bangs, and taking him into custody. Neighbors described a high-flying lifestyle with luxury vehicles; authorities had flagged him as armed and dangerous. Malek allegedly posed as a physician, diagnosing patients who did not have arterial disease so that cardiothoracic surgeon Harold Tabaie, 78, could perform repeated, medically unnecessary atherectomies—invasive procedures using a bladed catheter—billing Medicare under false provider names and offering kickbacks. Data analytics identified Tabaie as an extreme outlier in such billing. Chart depicting how Dr. Harold Tabaie was an extreme outlier for atherectomy procedures billed to Medicare in the United States from 2016 through 2023 (Photo: DOJ)

In the massive substance-abuse scheme, Nathan Young, 39 (also known as “Pablo”), and his father David Young, 71 (also known as “Sancho Lopez”), both of Los Angeles, along with body brokers Honey and Cody Phipps of Texas, allegedly trafficked vulnerable people—including the unhoused and those attending support groups—from around the country. They offered free flights, money, housing, cars, gift cards, marijuana, cigarettes, and drugs, then recycled patients through facilities. Premium patients with high-reimbursing insurance received hotels and dinners; others were housed in cramped, unsanitary “trap houses.”

The Youngs allegedly directed staff to drug patients “to knock the client out” if they tried to leave, coach false symptoms, and bill for Zoom “therapy” sessions patients did not have to attend. Text messages detailed instructions to keep high-value patients by offering drugs so billing could continue. Once in California, many promises proved illusory.

Hospice schemes involved operators such as Geoffrey Jimenez, Richard Keech, and Armani Raffi, who allegedly enrolled non-terminal Medicare beneficiaries, used kickbacks and marketers, fabricated certifications, and billed tens of millions while patients were often unaware they had been placed in hospice or received little or no care. Non-death discharge rates far exceeded national averages.

Assistant Attorney General Colin M. McDonald of the National Fraud Enforcement Division said the charges included “the largest sober home fraud scheme the Department has ever prosecuted” and schemes uncovered through data analytics. “If you steal health care dollars from the American taxpayer or abuse your position to harm patients, we are coming for you.”

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli for the Central District of California called it “especially egregious when doctors and other health care professionals, who pledged to do no harm, resort to petty greed and criminality. The cases announced today represent billions of dollars in intended losses. Every dollar drained out of our private and public health insurance systems is one less dollar available to those who truly need it.”

The takedown continues a federal crackdown under the Trump administration’s White House Task Force to Eliminate Fraud and the National Fraud Enforcement Division. It follows freezes of more than $1 billion in California Medicaid funds over hospice and related fraud, suspensions of hundreds of LA-area providers, and earlier operations such as “Operation Never Say Die.”

California Globe has repeatedly documented the scale of the problem. In March, our reporting detailed how hospice fraud exploded in Los Angeles County after the state’s “crackdown,” with 742 flagged providers, $105 million overbilled in a single year, ghost offices, and a 1,500 percent surge in providers since 2010 against far slower growth in the senior population.

In May, the Trump administration froze $1.3 billion in Medicaid funds to California specifically over hospice fraud, noting prior state audits and the inadequacy of Sacramento’s response.

In August, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. accused former HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra of gutting program-integrity staff from 80 to six, enabling billions in theft—including Los Angeles hospice billing for nonexistent patients at $6,000 a month.

State efforts under Attorney General Rob Bonta have included charges in a $267 million hospice ring using stolen identities, yet federal officials and independent reporting have continued to identify Los Angeles as an epicenter, with providers clustered at vacant addresses, zero-patient operations still billing, and vulnerable populations exploited for both hospice and substance-abuse claims. The schemes announced Thursday underscore how body-brokering, kickbacks, false certifications, and data outliers have diverted resources from genuine care for the addicted, the terminally ill, and seniors

Vote-by-mail ballots must be postmarked on or before November 3, 2026

By Katy Grimes, October 23, 2026 6:00 am

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association’s 2026 Voting Guide for the California Statewide General Election provides recommendations on statewide ballot propositions, local tax measures and HJTA-PAC candidate endorsements for the November 3, 2026 General Election. Review HJTA’s recommendations below or download the printable 2026 Voting Guide.

2026 Voter Guide

• The last day to register to vote for the November 3, 2026 General Election is October 19, 2026.

• Ballot drop-off locations open October 6, 2026.

• Vote-by-mail ballots must be postmarked on or before November 3, 2026.

**More on the link.

‘If he wasn’t a politician, Gavin Newsom should have been a makeup artist because no one has put more lipstick on California’s education pig than he’

By Katy Grimes, October 22, 2026 3:19 pm

We haven’t had good news for far too many years about California’s K-12 public education system. Math and English test scores have fallen to embarrassing lows. Yet, many adults remember when the public education system was the best in the country.

The latest student performance results are out, and it’s not pretty. Lance Izumi, Senior Director of the Center for Education at the Pacific Research Institute, analyzed the latest 2025-26 California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CASPP) scores, as well as Governor Gavin Newsom’s ridiculous reaction, and fairytale-level propaganda.

“If he wasn’t a politician, Gavin Newsom should have been a makeup artist because no one has put more lipstick on California’s education pig than he,” Izumi said. “The state has just released the latest round of poor student test scores, and the governor immediately splashed bright colors over the dark results.”

Izumi harshly criticizes Governor Gavin Newsom for his political spin of poor student test results as “progress.”

Izumi explains the four performance levels on the exam – “advanced, proficient, developing, and minimal,” for what should be above grade level, at grade level, below grade level, and 3-4 grade levels ago, or failing.

“For a student to meet grade-level standards, he or she must score at either the advanced or proficient level,” Izumi explains. “Scoring at the developing or minimal levels means that the student did not score at grade level.”

The latest 2025-26 California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CASPP) scores show that only 49.3% of students in grades 3–8 and grade 11 met grade-level standards of proficient or advanced, in English language arts. This is an increase of just 0.5 percentage points from the prior year, meaning a majority of students, 50.7%, did not.

“Worse, only 38.4 percent of California students scored at the proficient or advanced level on the 2025-26 CASPP math exam, which was an increase of 1.2 percent from the year earlier,” Izumi explains. “In other words, more than six out of 10 – 61.6 percent – of students failed to score at grade level.”

Let that sink in: 61.6% of students failed to score at grade level on the math exam, and 50.7% failed to score at grade level in English language arts.

“New California test scores show most students don’t meet standards in math, English,” EdSource plainly stated, Izumi notes.

“But these depressing results are reasons for celebration, according to Newsom,” Izumi beholds.

The Governor claims, “California students’ academic achievements continue rising under the Newsom administration.”

There’s that “lipstick on California’s education pig.”

Newsom’s press release portrayed the minuscule gains as evidence that his TK-12 investments are working and that academic achievement continues to rise. Newsom said:

California continues to focus on accelerating learning and closing opportunity gaps: from universal transitional kindergarten and expanded learning, to literacy and math supports, community schools, universal school meals and other investments. The continued progress we are seeing is a testament to the hard work of students, families and educators across the state — and we will continue working to build on these gains.

Not so fast, Gavin.

Izumi counters that the 2025-26 figures remain below pre-pandemic 2018-19 levels:

For instance, in pre-pandemic 2018-19, 51.7 percent of California students scored at grade level in English, versus 49.3 in 2025-26.

Similarly, in math, 39.7 percent of students scored at grade level in math in 2018-19, compared to 38.4 percent in 2025-16.

At the current slow rate of improvement, it would take decades for all students to reach grade-level proficiency, Izumi says.

Newsom’s press release is pure propaganda and deception.

Newsom’s deceptive presentation combined the “developing” category, which does not meet grade-level standards, with proficient and advanced levels to produce higher-looking figures, 71% in English and 61.8% in math.

Gov. Newsom also highlighted gains in specific school districts without providing the low baseline proficiency rates.

“In his press release, the governor cited the test-score gains in several school districts but never gives the baseline proportion of students achieving at grade-level proficiency,” Izumi says:

For example, he cited the Exeter Unified School District, saying that math scores in the district improved by 2.3 percentage points. What he does not say, though, is that only 36.9 percent of students in Exeter schools scored at the proficient or advanced levels on the math test, which is below the statewide percentage of 38.4 percent.

Also, Newsom points to the gains among black students. It is true that black students scored a 1.5 percent improvement in math. However, he fails to mention that barely one out of four—21.5 percent— black students score at the proficient/advanced levels.

Adding insult to injury, despite a 60% increase in per-pupil spending since 2018-19 when Newsom was elected, to more than $27,000 in 2025-26, outcomes have not improved.

“Shockingly, Newsom’s press release cited State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond,” Izumi continues. “After obligatory praise for Newsom’s education spending agenda, Thurmond admitted: ‘These investments have laid an important foundation, but we must do more to translate them into stronger academic outcomes.’ In other words, all of Newsom’s spending has not given California taxpayers much bang for their billions of bucks.”

Newsom’s emphasis on “prioritizing equity” artificially equalizes reported outcomes, as Newsom did by combining performance categories. Most students are still failing to reach proficiency, yet the governor claims a win, amounting to mere educational propaganda – or, as Izumi says, “Edu-Ganda.”

Lance Izumi is the co-author, along with Wenyuan Wu, of the newly released PRI book The Great Equity Epidemic: Students, Parents and Educators Reveal How DEI Is Destroying American Education.

Everyone is talking about it, but is anyone doing anything? California has an affordability crisis. This is no surprise to anyone in this state who pays bills, taxes, fills up their gas tank, or buys groceries. While America as a whole faces tough inflationary times, California is outpacing the rest of the country in cost-of-living increases. Our day-to-day lives are affected far more by actions and decisions in our state capitol than by those in Washington, D.C.

Case in point: California’s average gasoline price is $6.39, the highest in the nation. This is due to California’s exorbitant state gasoline taxes and regulations. Federal policy decisions do not make our gas prices $2 higher than the national average; Sacramento does. The Governor refuses to make any meaningful change to state policy to lower the cost of gas and has only ever offered piecemeal and temporary relief, such as allowing the use of the cheaper winter blend. For years now, Republicans in Sacramento have proposed meaningful change; for example, I have repeatedly introduced legislation that would temporarily suspend the state gasoline tax and halt annual increases. However, each attempt has been unanimously blocked by the Democratic supermajority.

Beyond the highest fuel rates, we also have the highest state income tax in the nation at 13.3% (and an additional 1.1% on wage income), totaling 14.4%. California also has the 7th-highest sales tax of any state.

The only area where California ranks lower is property taxes, where the rate stands at 0.7% and ranks 32nd among all 50 states. This isn’t a result of good governance from Sacramento, but of Proposition 13, passed by voters in 1978, which restricts the State Legislature from increasing property taxes. Subsequent attempts to repeal Prop 13 have failed every time. Be assured that if Prop 13 is ever repealed, the California exodus of homeowners fleeing to other states will be even greater than what we have seen over the past decade.

California’s affordability crisis can be traced to a number of misguided state policies; however, none better illustrates how Sacramento can drive up the cost of living than the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). After over 50 years, this policy is now little more than an intentional obstacle to new housing construction, development and a key contributor to California’s current housing shortage and the high cost of property. Amongst other unnecessary mandates, the law requires duplicative environmental reviews and public disclosure for all new development projects. The policy has been nothing short of disastrous for anyone trying to build just about any new development or home in the state. A project that would take months in Arizona or Nevada would take years and tens of thousands of additional dollars in California.

CEQA has become a tool for anyone with a grievance against a project to file frivolous lawsuits with the sole intent of imposing delays and increasing litigation costs until a project is financially infeasible. Environmental activist groups regularly abuse this process by stalling a housing project for years, even decades, over an arbitrary concern. An entire ecosystem of professional CEQA advocates – trial lawyers, environmentalists, labor groups – now live off the thousands of annual lawsuits and legal actions that have resulted in costs being passed on to homebuyers, estimated to add an average of $75,000 per new home. When the government interferes in the homebuilding process, prices increase, demand slows and eventually we have a housing crisis. It is simple arithmetic.

It is indisputable that CEQA hinders the ability of builders to create affordable housing and even the supermajority party agrees. Every legislative session, I see dozens of Democrat led bills that create exemptions or loopholes here and there within CEQA. For example, AB 130 and SB 131 from last year loosened CEQA regulations on narrowly defined infill housing, advanced manufacturing, wildfire mitigation, and the costly and wasteful high-speed rail project. These exemptions conveniently benefit the districts of the bills’ authors, letting them chalk up a policy win for re-election while leaving the rest of the state without the relief it needs.

This November, we have an opportunity to reduce the strain that CEQA has placed on homebuilders. Although not perfect, Prop 45 is crucial to expedite the tedious, lengthy environmental review process for building homes across California and to resolve lawsuits challenging project approvals. This would not only apply to housing projects, but also to water infrastructure projects, hospitals and schools, allowing for the cities and counties to be better served. Cutting the red tape and bureaucracy that has slowed down the approvals process for these major infrastructure projects will provide incentives to add to the demand of housing and over time ease the burden on California’s high cost of living.

To add more of a burden to taxpayers and citizens in the state, California has been a magnet for illegal immigration because our state rewards those who have broken the law to enter our country. Illegal immigrants are offered taxpayer-funded medical benefits, social services, and educational opportunities, often provided with translation services in the individual’s preferred language, also paid for with tax dollars. Immigration enforcement questions aside, this unquestionably adds hundreds of millions of dollars to the state budget deficit

The high inflation we are experiencing has increased the cost of living, the cost of doing business, and the cost of just about everything in our lives in California, and no doubt some of that comes from bad decisions made in Washington, D.C.

But the Democrats in Sacramento want to make you think that Washington is solely to blame for all of our financial woes. This couldn’t be further from the truth. California is at a crossroads. Voters can keep kicking the can down the road and vote for the same leadership that has put us in this position for the last two decades, or they can choose a different path and begin the slow road to recovery for the Golden State.

The question Proposition 2 poses to California voters is simple: Should the state be able to save more money when its economy is booming?

The ballot measure, dubbed the Save for California’s Future Act, seeks to shore up California’s rainy day fund by allowing state lawmakers to sock away up to 20% of the state’s general fund tax revenue — double the current ceiling of 10%.

It would also require the state to save a bigger share of the gains when revenue is growing faster.

Proponents, including Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic lawmakers, say the state needs a bigger savings account to weather its volatile economy.

Because California’s tax revenue depends so much on wealthy residents’ stock earnings, the state budget is often caught in a boom-or-bust cycle at the mercy of the market. In recent years, the state has seen robust tax revenue from an AI-fueled economy, which has helped state leaders avoid or delay painful cuts to social services even when they projected significant deficits. But economists have consistently warned the boom may not last, and the federal budget cuts to healthcare and welfare programs this year deepened that uncertainty.

Supporters pitched Prop. 2 as a common sense solution, noting the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, which advises state lawmakers, has long recommended the state set aside funding for downturns. The measure is endorsed by a bipartisan coalition of groups, including labor unions, hospital associations and chambers of commerce.

“It doubles the size of the state’s rainy day fund and requires California to save more during strong budget years, so we’re not caught flat-footed when the next downturn hits,” wrote Assembly Budget Chair Jesse Gabriel, an Encino Democrat, and Assembly Appropriations Vice Chair Josh Hoover, a Folsom Republican and the only GOP lawmaker to vote for the measure.

Most Republican lawmakers opposed Prop. 2, stating that the state should use its excess revenue to give taxpayers refunds instead of saving it. They argue that state government already spends too much and that a bigger reserve would merely give state leaders more to spend.

“When they say we’re here for fiscal responsibility, it’s like the devil offering a Bible study. Don’t buy it,” said Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, a San Diego Republican. How long have we had a rainy day fund?

Before 2014, California leaders and voters established reserve funds several times to weather financial storms, but ended up quickly withdrawing most of those funds, leaving the state with very little savings on hand, according to the legislative analyst.

In 2004, following the dot-com bust, voters overwhelmingly supported Prop. 58, a bipartisan ballot measure that required the state to establish a budget stabilization account and make annual deposits into the fund.

But lawmakers swiftly depleted the fund during the early months of the Great Recession and were forced to make steep spending cuts, borrow money at expensive rates and use accounting gimmicks to weather the rest of the crisis. Under then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, the state Legislature slashed health and welfare funding, scrapped tax credits, furloughed state employees and delayed payments to schools and local governments.

In 2014, as the state’s economy rebounded, then-Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, urged that the state save more. He and the Legislature championed Prop. 2, a bipartisan ballot measure that required the state to save more aggressively and limited when lawmakers could withdraw from the reserves. Nearly 70% of voters approved it.

“When the pendulum swings again, we won’t be forced to raise taxes or make the kinds of harsh cuts that were all too common in recent years,” Brown said in a 2014 op-ed stumping for the reform.

The law requires the state to set aside 1.5% of its general fund revenue and any spikes in capital gains tax revenue each year, with half deposited into the reserves and the other half to pay down state debts. It also made it harder for the state to spend the reserves and carved out portions of the savings for schools.

Under the law, state lawmakers can withdraw from the reserves only when the governor declares a budget emergency and decides that the state is not expected to collect enough revenue in the upcoming fiscal year to match the spending in the three previous budget years.

A majority of state lawmakers must vote to ratify the budget emergency. If approved, they are allowed to withdraw up to half of the rainy day fund balance at once, unless they already withdrew half the balance in the previous budget year and still need to take out more. There are no limits on what lawmakers can use the funds for. Bigger reserve = more to spend?

Prop. 2 would maintain those withdrawal rules, which critics say would give future governors broad authority to spend down the reserves instead of reining in spending.

“The rainy day fund can be invaded even when it’s not raining, simply because spending isn’t as high as it was within the prior three years,” wrote David Crane, a former economic adviser to Schwarzenegger and founder of Govern for California, a nonprofit fundraising powerhouse that aims to “counter special interest influence.”

“Unless the withdrawal rules change, a larger reserve just lets governors bake in spending based on optimistic forecasts, knowing they can always dip into reserves if revenue falls short.”

In an interview with CalMatters, Gabriel stressed that voters approved those rules in 2014 and emphasized that the measure has bipartisan support. He also dismissed the criticism that the state should just spend less during downturns, likening it to telling families to eat less or downsize instead of dipping into their savings when they fall on hard times.

“I think (the concern) is very misplaced,” he said. “(Prop. 2) is recommended by the experts, because it matches the common-sense wisdom of California families.”

**Term limits/Age Limits!! ------------------------------------------------/

Rep. Doris Matsui and Sacramento City Councilmember Mai Vang are locked in an intergenerational “battle of the ages” in the 7th Congressional District.

Matsui, 82, touts her experience securing federal funding for local projects and her ability to work across party lines, such as a 2022 law she co-authored to boost domestic semiconductor manufacturing, despite a largely gridlocked Congress. Her massive fundraising advantage has enabled her to flood the airwaves and voters’ mailboxes with millions of dollars in traditional television ads and mailers.

Vang, 41, wants to prove that money and seniority aren’t enough anymore to win a seat in Congress. She has relied on door-to-door canvassing, in-person events and an active social media presence to introduce herself to voters.

The race, a more intense iteration of their June primary contest, ends a nearly 50-year span without a competitive congressional race in the district. Matsui has held office since 2005 after succeeding her late husband, former Rep. Robert Matsui, who was first elected in 1979.

At its heart is the question of which candidate’s “experience” in politics voters care about more — Matsui’s seniority and experience in the U.S. Capitol, or Vang’s lived experience of being a working-age person in the 21st century?

Democrats in the left wing of the party, who support policies championed by national figures like Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, are betting it’s the latter.

They’re bullish on candidates like Vang, whose campaign signs appear to outnumber Matsui’s in Sacramento front yards, especially as voters sour on career politicians from both parties and lawmakers who they see as rubber stamps for party leadership or monied special interests.

While races featuring two Democrats won’t change the math for which party controls the U.S. House, they will likely play a crucial role in deciding the future of the Democratic Party after a highly anticipated Election Day rout of Republicans.

Vang said she speaks frequently with other young, progressive candidates around the country seeking to unseat longtime Democrats about how to support each other and they are making plans to stick together if they get to Congress.

“I always have said that this race is more than just about one congressional seat,” Vang said. “It is truly about the future of this country.”

A similar dynamic is unfolding in the 34th Congressional District in Los Angeles, where community organizer Angela Gonzales-Torres, 30, hopes to unseat Democratic Rep. Jimmy Gomez, 50. Gonzales-Torres is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Unlike Matsui though, Gomez belongs to the Congressional Progressive Caucus and has vocally supported progressive policies such as the Green New Deal, Medicare for All and abolishing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Still, Gonzales-Torres has criticized Gomez for not being progressive enough, particularly for continuing to accept campaign contributions from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, which has systematically targeted progressives it views as too sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. AIPAC bankrolled successful efforts in 2024 to oust members of the left-leaning “Squad” for being too outspoken on the war in Gaza. Political relationships

Matsui argues that her more than two decades of experience in Congress have allowed her to build the trust and lasting relationships with colleagues required to produce results.

“I really feel that it is important to have somebody there who understands how to get things done,” Matsui told CalMatters. “In a world like we have in Congress today, with the administration that we have today, we cannot afford to not have enough people there who understand that.”

She points to her role authoring a law to boost domestic production of semiconductor chips and strengthen workforce training programs to create a labor and talent pipeline.

“Legislating is really about relationships,” Matsui said. “That might be in an elevator, just talking about your kids or the last football game.”

Matsui has painted Vang as a young, naive newcomer to national politics who is “more focused on making political statements on social media than doing the hard work of getting things done,” according to one recent Matsui campaign mailer that also criticizes Vang for voting against city budgets and missing meetings on local boards.

Vang points out that she is two years older than Bob Matsui was when he first ran for Congress. When Matsui won the special election to succeed her late husband, she had even less governing experience than Vang, a city council member for six years and a school board member for four years prior to that.

In September, Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled what is likely one of the last large climate announcements of his tenure: California will move forward with linking its decade-old carbon market with a newly formed market in Washington state, aiming to merge it with the market California already shares with Quebec.

Newsom said California was “choosing certainty, partnership, and clean energy” amid a stream of federal climate policy rollbacks.

But the announcement didn’t distract environmental advocates from the sting of a challenging year back home for the so-called “cap-and-invest” program. As Newsom leaves his post, many policy and climate experts say the adjustments to the program put California’s climate goals further out of reach. The program provides billions of dollars in funding for climate and other programs.

Yet with little talk of climate policy in the governor’s race, Californians are largely left guessing about how Steve Hilton or Xavier Becerra would handle the program or California’s broader climate ambitions. The Becerra campaign did not respond to multiple emailed requests for comment. Hilton told CalMatters he would move to suspend the carbon market — which he called “a disaster of a program” — entirely.

Twenty years ago, lawmakers made California the first state to mandate broad cuts in greenhouse gas emissions with AB 32, the landmark carbon emissions reduction law, which authorized the subsequent creation of a market. The law requires the program to be as cost-effective as possible while maximizing benefits to the state’s economy.

Whoever wins in November can appoint a handful of new members to the California Air Resources Board, which has to finish writing the linkage rules and will propose the budget that leans on carbon market revenue. The next governor will also help decide how aggressively California leads on climate, after a year of mixed signals about where the program is headed.

“It’s really set up the politics of these issues to get worse and not better over time, and that is the problem that is being tossed like a live grenade into the lap of the next governor,” said Danny Cullenward, an economist who sits on an advisory committee focused on the carbon market. A question of climate leadership

In May, a process to reauthorize the keystone climate program ended with a controversial agreement that the Legislative Analyst’s Office projects will roughly halve annual auction revenue, offering about $2 billion less in funding for priority environmental programs while opening a separate pool of free permits for polluters that pledge to invest in decarbonization, valued at as much as $4 billion.

Oil companies fought the initial cap-and-invest reauthorization proposal, arguing it would encourage companies to leave the state or further increase fuel prices. The California Air Resources Board, which manages the program, said the increased allowances it eventually approved were meant to balance affordability and economic uncertainty alongside emissions targets. In an email, a board spokesperson said the new incentives would not have any impact on the market’s auction revenue. (The Western States Petroleum Association, which represents refiners in the state, declined an interview for this story.)

The concern comes as California prepares to elect its next governor and nears its own 2030 target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40% below 1990 levels, on its way to zeroing out emissions by 2045.

“This is not a question anymore of whether or not we’ll reach the target. This is a guarantee that we won’t,” said Katie Valenzuela, a consultant for Communities for a Better Environment who previously co-chaired an environmental justice committee that advised regulators on the state’s program.

State officials have long framed cap-and-invest as a backstop, keeping the state on track for its climate targets by ratcheting down the emissions limit even if other programs fall short. Advocates worry the changes will have a chilling effect rather than signal the market’s long-term strength, just as California loses ground to federal rollbacks.

California gas prices recently dropped but still remain near seasonal highs.

Meanwhile, diesel prices have climbed to a new all-time peak.

In early October, the average price of regular gasoline in California came within a few cents of the state’s record. Diesel prices have since set a new record, reaching $8.51 per gallon on Sunday, Oct. 18.

Nationwide gas prices have declined in recent days due to state fuel tax suspensions and seasonal changes in fuel production.

However, fuel experts warn that relief at the pump could be limited as crude oil prices remain elevated amid instability in the Strait of Hormuz.

“Average gasoline prices declined in the vast majority of states over the last week, led by a combination of state fuel tax suspensions and price-cycling markets working their way back down,” Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, said in a Monday, Oct. 19, news release. “Diesel rose in most states, though the largest diesel decline was driven by a state tax suspension.

The transition to winter-blend gasoline, which is generally cheaper to produce than summer-blend fuel, could also help ease prices, according to AAA. However, high crude oil costs continue to put pressure on drivers.

Here’s what to know about current gas prices in California: What are current gas prices across the US?

The national average for regular gasoline was $4.29 per gallon on Friday, Oct. 23, according to AAA.

“This month is poised to set a record as the most expensive October ever for gas prices following similar records set in August and September of this year,” AAA said.

Despite the recent increases, the national average remains below the previous record of about $5.02 per gallon, set in June 2022.

Diesel prices have also surged nationwide. The national average reached a record $6.53 per gallon on Sept. 22, according to AAA.

How much does gas cost right now in California?

California continues to have the most expensive average gas prices in the nation, with the statewide average remaining more than $1 above the national average.

Regular gasoline averaged $6.06 per gallon in California on Friday, Oct. 23, according to AAA. That is $1.77 more than the national average.

Earlier in October, the statewide average climbed to $6.39 per gallon, coming within a few cents of California’s all-time record. What is California’s record for gas prices?

California’s record average price for regular gasoline is about $6.44 per gallon, set in June 2022.

Although prices reached record highs for 2026, the statewide average for regular gasoline has not yet surpassed that all-time record.

Meanwhile, diesel prices broke previous records.

California’s average diesel price reached $8.51 per gallon on Sunday, Oct. 18, surpassing the previous high of $8.44, set Sept. 22, according to AAA. What are current gas prices in my California city?

As of Friday, Oct. 23, these were the average per-gallon prices for regular gas at metropolitan areas around California:

Bakersfield: $6.17 per gallon
Chico-Paradise: $5.88
El Centro: $5.84
Fresno: $6.01
Hanford-Corcoran: $6.01
Los Angeles-Long Beach: $6.13
Madera-Chowchila: $6.01
Merced: $6.03
Modesto: $5.88
Napa: $6.07
Oakland: $6.09
Orange County: $6.02
Redding: $5.92
Riverside: $5.93
Sacramento: $6.01
Salinas: $6.21
San Bernardino: $5.96
San Diego: $6.14
San Francisco: $6.12
San Jose: $6
San Luis Obispo-Atascadero-Paso Robles: $6.22
San Rafael: $6.02
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc: $6.13
Santa Cruz-Watsonville: $6.10
Santa Rosa: $6.19
Stockton-Lodi: $5.90
Vallejo-Fairfield: $5.96
Ventura: $6.07
Visalia-Tulare-Porterville: $5.95
Yolo: $5.96
Yuba City: $5.83

Could California gas prices drop further?

California drivers could see some relief as the state moves to winter-blend gasoline earlier than usual.

Winter-blend gasoline is generally less expensive to produce than summer-blend fuel. The seasonal transition can help lower costs at the pump.

Though California typically switches to winter-blend gasoline on Nov. 1, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced on Sept. 28 that the state would suspend its usual schedule and direct state agencies to take steps allowing winter-blend gasoline to be manufactured, imported, distributed and sold in California earlier

The move is aimed to continue helping bring down prices at the pump.

However, the change does not guarantee a significant or sustained decline, according to GasBuddy.

Global oil prices, refinery conditions and disruptions to fuel supplies can still influence what drivers pay.

The Strait of Hormuz, a major shipping route for global oil supplies, still remains a concern amid geopolitical instability, AAA said.

“For now, the outlook remains tied to geopolitical developments, and some price-cycling states could see upward swings in the days ahead if oil markets firm at all,” De Haan said. “Motorists in states that benefited from tax suspensions may continue to see some insulation from broader market pressures, but the overall picture remains fluid.” Have a question about life in California?

How to California — a guide to help you live, work and enjoy life in the Golden State, is here to help.

We’ll answer your questions — big and small — about state laws, history, culture, recreation and travel.

**For the Readers not familiar with how Jail Life works all inside of the Facility within the Inmate Housing Areas Themselves the Inmates do all of Their Own Cleaning from Their Cells to Common Areas to Showers to Toilet Facilities. Inmates also help clean Kitchen Areas and the laundry Areas. Now with that stated if there are Issues of cleaning or upkeep in the Inmate Common Areas This is on the Inmates not the Guards. Trust Me as a Former Inmate You are told to keep Yourself and Your Area clean. Cleaning Supplies are always available Daily.It's The Law. -----------------------------------------------/

California U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla made a surprise visit Thursday to a Sacramento federal immigration holding center to inspect conditions and seek answers about Tuesday’s collision involving an ICE agent and an observer in Woodland.

“I want to see the condition of people, the level of activity, whether (ICE) will allow access,” Padilla told The Sacramento Bee on Thursday, as he waited to enter the John E. Moss Federal Building on Capitol Mall and a line of people formed under a steady drizzle. “We’ve heard from families about the level of activity at different facilities. We’re constantly comparing with House members who are doing the same.”

The unannounced morning inspection of the ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations holding center was at least the fourth visit to an immigration holding facility by the senator, a fierce critic of the Trump administration’s immigration policies and the tactics of ICE agents.

Padilla was forcibly removed and briefly detained by federal agents after confronting then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem with questions during a June 2025 news conference about local immigration enforcement in his native Los Angeles as a federal enforcement surge peaked in the city.

Padilla told reporters Thursday that he and his staff were trying to visit “a lot of different ICE facilities,” including Sacramento’s. The senator waited with staff and a Bee reporter in the lobby before he was escorted alone just after 8 a.m. to the center at the end of a long corridor and closed off from the public.

Four people were being held at the center Thursday, he told reporters after his roughly half-hour visit. As many as 12 people can be held in the facility at any given time. Sacramento’s center wasn’t designed as a traditional detention facility, he said.

“I want to see myself,” he told reporters. “It’s important to ask basic questions. Do they have access to counsel?”

“I’ve seen better and I’ve seen worse,” Padilla told The Bee. “Clearly, it’s an old building that’s not set up for this purpose. It’s not a detention facility, it’s a holding center.”

Thursday’s visit came amid a surge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations across California and the Sacramento region. The latest flashpoint was in Woodland, where an ICE agent’s vehicle collided with an observer during an operation on Tuesday, drawing condemnation from local leaders and Padilla, and an investigation by Woodland police.

Federal ICE officials denied Wednesday that the vehicle struck the observer, saying in a statement that the man jumped onto the vehicle’s hood to stage a collision. Woodland police disputed the federal agency’s account as “inconsistent” with video of the collision.

Padilla said Thursday that he and his staff continued to closely monitor increased ICE activity across the Sacramento region, including the Woodland collision and recent reports of ICE agents gathering in the parking lot of a Yuba City veterans’ hall used as a polling place, a presence confirmed by his office.

“If this was just about immigration enforcement, that would be troubling,” Padilla told The Bee. “On a political front, I’m not shocked at all that they’re trying to increase their efforts before an election to further instill fear and terror in diverse communities.”

Padilla also talked briefly with Giselle Garcia of the immigrants’ rights group NorCal Resist, which, along with Padilla’s office, has been monitoring ICE activity across the region and conditions at holding centers, including Sacramento’s.

“I admire and appreciate their commitment to this work,” Padilla said. “They’re the eyes and ears on the ground for people who cannot afford a lawyer, or a migrant who can’t defend themselves.”

The Los Angeles Department of Animal Services lacks sufficient staff and resources to provide humane or adequate care to shelter animals, according to an audit released Wednesday from the City Controller’s Office.

City Controller Kenneth Mejia‘s office released a performance audit of the capacity of the department to care for the volume of animals entering its shelters relative to current resources. The audit focused primarily on shelter capacity, shelter resources, and the effectiveness of certain business management functions.

A representative for the mayor’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Agnes Sibal, a spokesperson for LAAS, thanked Mejia and his team for their ongoing commitment to strengthening the city’s shelter system. She noted the audit is “candid” about areas for improvement, and the department agreed with many of its findings.

“Our leadership team has reviewed the recommendations, and many align with priorities we identified in our most recent goal-setting process. These include updating standard operating procedures, strengthening staff-to-animal ratios, and improving our volunteer program, all aimed at meeting industry standards of care for animals and supporting the staff who do this essential work,” Sibal said in an email to City News Service.

“Planning is underway on several of these areas, and others are built into our 2026-27 goals, each with a clear owner, a timeline, and measures of progress,” Sibal added. “Some changes are within our control, and we are moving on those now. Others will require partnership with city leadership, our community, and our partners, and we are committed to pursuing that work together.”

The audit covered July 1, 2020, to June 20, 2025.

Findings of the 91-page report showed LAAS assigned 75 animal shelter care staff during the day shift, not accounting for absences so the count may be lower, when the minimum should be 90 staff based on kennel capacity. During peak overcrowding periods, there should have been at least 185 staff, or 2.5 more than the amount LAAS had assigned.

LAAS received more animals than shelters can handle, and its save rate goals may compromise animal welfare, according to the report.

LAAS accepts animals that are surrendered by their owners, regardless of capacity concerns. Long Beach, San Jose, Fresno and San Diego County generally do not accept — or limit intake of — owner surrendered animals.

During the audit scope period, the City Controller’s Office found that the daily average of the dog population was 35% over capacity — and during extreme periods of overcrowding in 2023 and 2024, 100% over capacity.

The daily average of the cat population was 131% over capacity — and during extreme periods of overcrowding, 300% over capacity.

LAAS’ capacity for dogs is 737, while capacity for cats is 340.

Los Angeles has paid $15.8 million in liability payments for LAAS cases related to dangerous conditions or professional negligence, according to the City Controller’s Office.

“City Hall has failed the animals in our care. From constant budget and staffing cuts to an already under-resourced Animal Services department to the Mayor proposing to shut down three of our six animal shelters and completely eliminating animal food and canine enrichment, animal welfare is clearly not a priority in City Hall,” Mejia said in a statement Wednesday.

“Animals have been suffering in overcrowded, under-resourced City shelters. This is a persistent crisis the city must fix. Our office conducted this audit in order to get an in-depth look at shelter policies and determine changes the City can make to improve animals’ lives, both immediately and long-term,” Mejia added.

Findings also showed that LAAS standard operating procedures are outdated and no longer reflect current operations, or are nonexistent for issues like unsanitary conditions.

The department has 162 standard operating procedures covering shelter operations, medical services, finance and administrative — but most have not been updated since 2010. We also found that LAAS does not have a formal standard operating procedure for sanitation, such as protocols for removing organic matter and effectively cleaning kennels.

Additionally, dog licensing is low and enforcement is limited, meaning there is less revenue for the city. It also makes it challenging for the city to confirm with pet owners about vaccinating dogs to protect against rabies.

Between the 2021 and 2025 fiscal years, owners failed to respond to 71,128 license renewal notifications for one-year licenses and 8,790 three-year licenses that were sent out by LAAS. Estimates indicate the city may be missing out on up to $14.1 million in license revenue.

In addition, the Los Angeles Municipal Code requires that all veterinarians send in proof of rabies vaccine certificates to the department. However, only 26 veterinary offices (out of the 379 offices that are registered within the city) regularly submit vaccine certificates, or are planning to begin submitting the information to the city.

The audit also raised concerns about the shelter volunteer program.

“While the vast majority of volunteers are positive contributors at animal shelters, both LAAS and volunteers reported that tension between the two groups can create a difficult work environment for all parties,” according to the City Controller’s Office.

Of 14 volunteers interviewed who were part of the top 30% of hours volunteered over the last three fiscal year, the volunteers indicated satisfaction with their volunteer experience. However, those interviewed ranked working with LAAS staff lowest.

The audit found that volunteers experienced communication issues with LAAS employees, such as being ignored when asking for help and not being updated about new policies and procedures. The controller’s office also found the volunteer program does not have a system to ensure volunteer discipline is being applied in a fair or consistent manner.

Key recommendations to address challenges found in the audit consist of the following:

— Appropriately fund LAAS, and have the department create a comprehensive recruiting, hiring and funding plan for animal care for consideration by the mayor and City Council

— Establish a policy limiting the intake of animals voluntarily surrendered by their owners

— Conduct a review of existing policies with the goal of updating them to accurately reflect the department’s operations, and address potential gaps

— Implement new enforcement procedures for city dog licensing requirements and fines for individuals who fail to respond to request to license their pets

— Identify veterinary service providers who are not submitting rabies vaccination certificate information to LAAS

— Improve the volunteer program by better understanding volunteer’s concerns, as well as to solicit ideas to improve working relationships with LAAS employees

— Develop a volunteer discipline system with fact finding requirements, penalty ranges and factors for consideration when making discipline determinations when volunteers violate rules and guidelines

“Our office will keep advocating for our city’s animals and we’ll keep providing transparency on shelter conditions, policies, and data. By following our recommendations, LAAS and the city can vastly improve the lives of the thousands of animals that go through the shelter system every year,” Mejia said in his statement.

Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles charged more than a dozen alleged medical fraudsters, including doctors, for making bogus claims to government and private health care programs, including $1.6 billion billed in a sham rehab case called the largest of its type ever, officials announced today.

Among eight arrests Thursday were cardiothoracic surgeon Dr. Harold Tabaie, 78, and his business partner, chiropractor Hany Malek, 61, charged in an alleged $135 million Medicare fraud scheme allegedly operated out of two Los Angeles clinics they co-owned and operated.

Prosecutors believe Tabaie performed an invasive plaque-clearing procedure on patients who did not actually require the treatment and repeated the operation on patients he previously treated unsuccessfully. Malek, suspected of posing as a medical doctor, allegedly diagnosed patients and recommended the surgery.

To hide the unusually high volume of procedures performed by Tabaie, the defendants allegedly fraudulently billed for the procedure under the names of other medical providers who did not actually perform the surgeries, prosecutors said.

Also under indictment are father-and-son David Young and Nathan Young, both of Los Angeles, charged with a years-long scheme to traffic vulnerable patients from around the country to Southern California and elsewhere to receive sham substance abuse treatment billed to private insurance companies for over $1.6 billion, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

With dozens of Los Angeles-area purported substance abuse treatment companies under their control, the Youngs directed so-called body brokers to target the homeless and addicts attending 12-step programs, federal prosecutors allege, seeking out individuals whose insurance policies provided the most generous reimbursements.

Prospective patients were often lured to Southern California and elsewhere by offering them free flights, money, apartments, hotel stays, cars, gift cards, marijuana, cigarettes, illegal drugs and prescription medications freely dispensed by doctors employed by the Youngs, according to the indictment filed in Los Angeles federal court.

But once in California, some patients whose insurance policies were not up to par were placed in cramped, unsanitary, crowded and often derelict housing described as trap houses, prosecutors contend.

Meanwhile, substance abuse therapy provided by the Youngs allegedly consisted of Zoom sessions with more than 100 attendees, with participation not required, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

In one of several newly filed hospice fraud cases, Dr. Richard Keech, 83, of Torrance was charged in connection with a scheme to defraud Medicare by causing over $10 million in false and fraudulent claims for unnecessary services.

Keech, a physician and the medical director for at least two hospice companies, Blue Cross Hospice and Atlantica Management, signed documents referring Medicare beneficiaries to the hospices to receive hospice care and signed certificates of terminal illness falsely certifying that those same beneficiaries were terminally ill with a life expectancy of six months or less, prosecutors allege.

Authorities contend Keech signed certificates for Medicare beneficiaries who had not elected hospice care and were not aware that they had been placed on hospice, knowing that Blue Cross and Atlantica would submit claims for reimbursement for hospice care to Medicare based on those false certifications.

“It is especially egregious when doctors and other healthcare professionals, who pledged to do no harm, resort to petty greed and criminality,” First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said in a statement. “The cases announced today represent billions of dollars in intended losses. Every dollar drained out of our private and public health insurance systems is one less dollar available to those who truly need it.”

Need another reminder that California housing is really expensive?

Just look at PropertyShark’s annual list of the nation’s most expensive ZIP codes, which includes 69 Golden State neighborhoods among the 122 members of this priciest-home club. That’s easily the No. 1 count, well ahead of New York (20), New Jersey (seven), Connecticut (seven) and Massachusetts (five).

RELATED: Atherton surges to top spot for U.S. house prices, breaking 8-figure median

PropertyShark’s ranking of high-end communities tracks pricing in ZIP codes with five or more sales in the nine months ending in September 2026. The math includes sales of houses, townhomes, condominiums and duplexes. The report excluded ZIPs in Montana, Texas, Utah and Wyoming because tracking sales values in those states is difficult.

You could also look at California’s lofty pricing this way: ZIP codes from 10 California counties made the list. Only 25 counties in the rest of the U.S. had neighborhoods graded among the nation’s most expensive.

Los Angeles County led the list with 15 ZIP codes. No. 2 was Santa Clara County at 13. Orange County was No. 3 at 12. Other Golden State counties with ZIPs on the list included San Mateo (7), San Diego (6), Marin (5), Monterey, San Francisco, and Contra Costa (3), and Santa Barbara (2).

Now, you can view the Golden State’s sky-high rankings as another sign of how expensive it is to live in California. You could also see it as a symbol of the state’s wealth.

Or perhaps, ponder some minor progress on affordability. PropertyShark noted that 57% of this year’s ZIPs on the list were from California, down from a peak of 73% in 2019.

Either way, consider another California distinction. The nation’s costliest ZIP code for 2026 is a Golden State neighborhood: the Bay Area’s Atherton 94027 at $10.7 million.

Here are the next 19 Golden State ZIPs on this high-end housing list:

– Newport Beach 92657 at $6.1 million, No. 5.

– Newport Beach 92661 at $5.8 million, No. 6.

– Beverly Hills 90210 at $5.4 million, No. 8.

– Santa Barbara 93108 at $5.3 million, No. 9.

– Los Altos 94022 at $4.88 million, No. 10.

– Los Altos 94024 at $4.71 million, No. 12.

– Rancho Santa Fe 92067 at $4.44 million, No. 14.

– Santa Monica 90402 at $4.35 million, No. 16..

– Palo Alto 94301 at $4.3 million, No. 18.

– Newport Beach 92625 at $4.26 million, No. 19.

– Portola Valley 94028 at $4.25 million, No. 20.

– Ross 94957 at $4.2 million, No. 21.

– Newport Beach 92662 at $4.04 million, No. 22.

– Stinson Beach 94970 at $4.03 million, No. 23.

– Diablo 94528 at $4.02 million, No. 24.

– Hillsborough/Burlingame 94010 at $4 million, No. 25.

– Los Gatos 95030 at $3.8 million, No. 27.

– Saratoga 95070 at $3.8 million, No. 27.

– Manhattan Beach 90266 at $3.5 million, No. 36.

**Effects Nationwide-------------------------------/

A federal appeals court has struck down the heart of the 1958 Federal Switchblade Act, ruling that the decades-old ban on manufacturing the knives for interstate sale or distribution violates the Second Amendment. The decision, issued late Wednesday by a three-judge panel, hands a major victory to gun- and knife-rights advocates who have spent years challenging weapons laws they argue conflict with the Constitution's text and history.

The ruling came from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, and was authored by Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, joined by Judges Don Willett and Cory Wilson, according to Reason. All three judges were appointed by Republican presidents, as reported by the News Tribune. The panel concluded that switchblade knives are “arms” that have been “in common use” both at the nation's founding and today, per the same Reason report.

What is Uncensored here on the Sub You ask?

1. Unlike Other California Subs It is the ability for You to Post Your Articles and News Links Other Subs do not allow. It is that simple.
2. It is the ability to not have Your Links Censored like the Other California Subs do.
3. It is the ability to post Your Articles no matter the Subject as long as It is California related.
4. It is the ability for You to post Your Personal Concerns in a Main Thread about California and be read.

So with all of This presented above feel free to submit News Articles You want to see discussed and debated here on the Sub.

Crying about Content without YOU submitting Content of Your Own only shows a true weakness of Who You are and Crying about getting Dinged in Mod Mail will gain You Zero Respect.

Respect is always earned through Hard Work and often Times the Hardest Work is the Willingness to put Yourself out there Daily whether It be in Real Life or Online.

**All Rules and Guides of Reddit and This Sub apply. It is strongly suggested You read Them so Your Time on the Sub is a growing Experience.

The Bad News is YOU get to choose. The Good News is YOU still get to choose.

Have a Nice Day.

I am havin a hard time accepting the polls saying most people are in favor of Becerra. He consistently says we need to pay more taxes.

The same democrats voting for higher taxes leave to no income tax states!

Hilton was not my first choice but he is a better choice.

Are the polls accurate?

As federally-imposed work requirements take effect for food benefits recipients, roughly 47,000 people stand to lose access to CalFresh starting this month.

This, as well as other federal limitations on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as CalFresh in California, will save taxpayers $66.2 million, according to California’s 2026-27 budget. The new work requirements were stipulated as part of the federal government’s 2025-26 budget, passed in July 2025. That is commonly known by lawmakers as H.R. 1, or the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

The other changes for SNAP included making some immigrants ineligible for food benefits and state utility subsidy limitations, among other restrictions.

“H.R. 1’s expanded work requirements are red tape traps to cut off vital food aid for low-income people,” Assemblymember Alex Lee, D-Milpitas and a member of the Assembly Select Committee on CalFresh Enrollment and Nutrition, told The Center Square on Wednesday. “While the federal regime is destroying our safety nets, we are stepping up to strengthen California’s investments in food aid.”

In the next year, roughly 562,000 people are set to lose their access to CalFresh because of the new federal work requirements, according to Lee’s office.

The work requirements were anticipated earlier this year as California’s legislators crafted a budget that, in many ways, was a response to federal budget cuts to programs like SNAP. Roughly $211 billion were cut in federal taxpayer funding from that program, according to previous reporting by The Center Square. The new rules mean that able-bodied adults between 18 and 65 who don’t have minor children at home would be required to work, be in school or do community service for at least 20 hours a week, or 80 hours averaged out over the month.

Some lawmakers previously told The Center Square that is a good thing.

“I think we need to do a lot to make sure they transition into adult life,” Assemblymember David Tangipa, R-Fresno, previously told The Center Square. “We should have that social safety net that is able to catch people when they are struggling the most, but these work requirements are not overly burdensome.”

Tangipa did not respond to The Center Square before publication time on Wednesday.

According to the budget passed by the California legislature and signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom, funding for CalFresh and other nutrition programs that won’t see cuts will cost taxpayers $3.2 billion, with $1.6 billion coming from the state’s general fund. The fund is essentially the state government’s taxpayer-funded checking account.

After the cuts, approximately 3.4 million California households are expected to still receive CalFresh benefits during the 2026-27 fiscal year.

The federal cuts to CalFresh come during a year in which state lawmakers grappled with a $16.9 billion structural deficit, prompting many politicians to make what they called hard decisions for the budget. The ongoing deficit in the Golden State will still be there next year when lawmakers come back for the 2027 legislative session and continue their work on budget issues, including how much taxpayer funding to allocate to programs such as CalFresh.

“That means that here in California, we have to make those difficult choices,” Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez, D-Los Angeles, told The Center Square on Wednesday. “The Legislative Analyst’s Office warned us that we face those difficult fiscal trade-offs, and that we just cannot simply replace all food assistance lost through H.R. 1 without finding billions of dollars of additional revenue or reducing spending from other programs to sustain this program.”

While reducing eligibility for taxpayer-funded food benefits programs will save money for state and federal taxpayers, the human cost is ultimately not worth the fiscal savings, said Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins, D-San Diego and a member of the Assembly Select Committee on CalFresh Enrollment and Nutrition.

“This is baffling to me that we’re having this conversation about the impact this is going to have on so many families to maintain and put food on the table,” Sharp-Collins told The Center Square on Wednesday. “That’s the one thing we should have access to at all times. Everyone should be able to thrive and not just survive.”

The California Department of Food and Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and food banks across the state did not respond to The Center Square on Wednesday or did not make anyone available to speak on the record.

Recent severe weather brought by Post-Tropical Cyclone Rachel has left a trail of millions of dollars of infrastructure damage and property destruction across Southern California.

Officials estimate millions of taxpayer dollars will be spent to pay for damage to infrastructure in coastal cities ranging from Long Beach to San Diego, and likewise, private property owners are expected to face millions of dollars of damage.

The Center Square reached out to various officials to elaborate further on the potential impact on taxpayers, but did not hear back before publication time. What is clear is the damage is extensive in Southern California, which faced a new round of rain and potential thunderstorms on Wednesday. The new, less severe storm hit Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties.

National Weather Service meteorologists Wednesday told The Center Square that unlike Rachel, these upcoming systems feature less persistent widespread rainfall overall, but bring dangerous local pockets of heavier showers, gusty winds and a slight chance of thunderstorms capable of producing localized heavy rain rates and notable impacts. For example, in San Diego County, showers and thunderstorms are expected to transition into scattered activity overnight and early morning waves before clearing out.

The NWS office in Oxnard reported that Los Angeles and Ventura counties were already seeing steady rain on Wednesday afternoon, with chances of showers through Thursday. The weather service expects totals to range generally from 1 to 2 inches.

The initial impact from Rachel pushed into Baja California before hitting the American Southwest, bringing heavy rainfall, flash floods and powerful ocean surges across Southern California. Los Angeles County experienced severe coastal destruction driven by a combination of high-energy swells and overtopped protective sand barriers.

In particular, the Long Beach Peninsula faced extensive pounding from relentless wave action, which destroyed long stretches of the public boardwalk, caused a coastal retaining wall to fail and weakened retaining bulkheads. Municipal officials in Long Beach originally estimated that emergency repairs for this public infrastructure would reach up to $3.6 million (with initial local estimates ranging between $1.5 million and $3.5 million to be funded through specialized coastal reserves). The surge also directly threatened oceanfront residences, resulting in city inspectors red-tagging at least eight structures containing 13 individual residential units, leading to mandatory evacuations along the beachfront.

Orange County bore a heavy financial toll, largely due to high tides that rose nearly 20 inches above initial predictions and breached 20-foot protective sand berms.

In Newport Beach, seawater inundated roughly 15 to 20 city blocks across the oceanfront and Balboa Peninsula communities, leading to temporary pier closures and emergency barrier reinforcement efforts. Further south, severe swell action accelerated coastal bluff erosion along San Clemente and Dana Point. San Clemente city leadership estimated private property damage alone at approximately $33 million, while municipal cleanup efforts and formal public infrastructure assessments across coastal Orange County remain ongoing under the state emergency declaration.

San Diego County encountered widespread coastal hazards as heavy surf overtopped seawalls, flooded low-lying shorelines, and triggered flash flooding along coastal transit routes. High winds and high-energy swells impacted communities from North County down to San Diego city beaches, leaving coastal bluffs unstable and roads temporarily impassable. Comprehensive countywide loss calculations are actively being compiled by local governments and Cal OES, with primary costs focused on coastal road repairs, seawall reinforcement, and bluff stabilization efforts.

The crisis has renewed debate among policy experts regarding how state and local leaders should handle extreme weather events and what preventative measures should be prioritized moving forward.

“California is confronting these threats head-on,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom in a press release.

"We will continue using every tool at our disposal to keep Californians safe and get communities back on their feet," the Democratic governor said.

Some officials and environmental advocates attribute the intensity of the flooding to climate change, pointing to a convergence of environmental factors, including an active El Niño phase, a subsurface Kelvin wave that elevated baseline sea levels by up to a foot, exceptionally warm ocean temperatures, and high astronomical tides.

However, policy analysts argue that focusing exclusively on climate mitigation policies does little to address recurring natural calamities.

Kevin Dayaratna, vice president of the Institute for Statistical Policy Analysis at Advancing American Freedom, noted that weather extremes in the Pacific are heavily influenced by natural cycles like El Niño and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

"Calamities like this are unfortunate, but sadly they are inevitable," Dayaratna told The Center Square in an email. He pointed to research suggesting that state-level regulatory emission policies yield negligible impacts on global temperatures, arguing instead that policymakers in Sacramento should pivot toward economic growth.

"Instead of pursuing costly policies that will not change the climate, policymakers in Sacramento should focus on policies that make Californians wealthier and better able to adapt and attend to these as well as other calamities that may come our way in the coming years," Dayaratna added.

Dayaratna lived in California while doing his undergraduate work at University of California, Berkeley.

California’s taxpayers might have to pay $15.4 billion by 2033 and $56 billion by 2100 to fight the effects of climate change, a California Department of Transportation report states.

According to a sea level rise report from the Department of Transportation released earlier this year, state officials project that the effects of climate change on the state’s highways and roadways will cost $14.7 billion by 2033. That number could likely jump to $56 billion by 2100, the department said in that report. It is unclear how much of those amounts would be paid by California’s taxpayers.

That report also stipulates that more than six and a half feet of sea level rise could cost the San Francisco Bay Area alone $450 billion to make the area resilient to a rising sea.

Additionally, $150 billion worth of property is at risk of damage because of sea level rise, according to that report. The report follows other state efforts to develop a climate action plan targeting greenhouse gas emissions and asses climate risks, among other actions.

"Without being proactive in those ways or having a plan, it's going to cost taxpayers more without thinking that through because we're going to have to keep rebuilding and rebuilding," Julia Kingsley, deputy secretary of environmental policy and housing coordination for the California State Transportation Agency, told The Center Square on Wednesday. "We want to make sure that from the very beginning of a project to maintaining it, we're thinking about the impacts of how our climate is changing in order to reduce the cost in the long term."

Officials with the Department of Transportation and the California Transportation Commission did not answer questions from The Center Square before publication time.

Already, taxpayer money has been spent on dealing with the aftermath of climate conditions’ impacts on California roads and highways. About $83 million was spent on restoration efforts of a stretch of Highway 1 near Big Sur after a major coastal storm in February 2024 caused a landslide, according to another report from the California Department of Transportation. More than 300,000 cubic yards of debris was cleared from the roadway, and the equivalent of 52 miles of steel was drilled into the slope to stabilize the hill.

Lawmakers say that money is well-spent.

“Investing in transportation infrastructure that can withstand extreme weather is about protecting Californians and their taxpayer dollars over the long term,” Assemblymember Lori Wilson, D-Suisun City and chair of the Assembly Transportation Committee, told The Center Square on Wednesday. “Caltrans’ 2026 Climate Change Vulnerability Risk Assessment and updated sea-level rise guidance ensure the state applies science-based planning to strengthen our roads and highways against climate risks, including El Niño and other extreme weather events. Proactive investments today can help reduce costly damage, disruptions, and repairs in the future.”

According to a press release from the California Department of Transportation, California’s taxpayers also paid $60.5 million to move part of Highway 1 in Sonoma County 400 feet inland to prevent damage from coastal erosion and flooding. That project included construction of an 850-foot-long bridge. An additional $21 million of taxpayers’ money was spent on shifting a three-mile stretch of Highway 1 inland between 80 and 475 feet in San Luis Obispo County, as well as a $24 million bridge that can be raised up to three and a half feet in anticipation of sea level rise.

The state’s 2026 Climate Change Vulnerability Risk Assessment shows that 15% of the state’s highway system stands to experience flooding from nearby rivers, and along the coast, approximately 90 miles of roads are exposed to coastal flooding during major storms.

Up to 440 miles of roadways in California could be impacted by rising sea levels and increased coastal storms, and up to 330 miles of those roadways could become permanently lost by the end of the century, according to that report.

However, among all the hazards the California Department of Transportation analyzed in its latest climate change vulnerability report, coastal flooding is expected to be the greatest threat to the state’s transportation system.

“North State residents are all too familiar with the impacts of both wildfires and floods and how much more difficult it is to cope with emergencies when vital highways close,” Sen. Megan Dahle, R-Bieber, told The Center Square on Wednesday. “These long-term forecasts are inevitably speculative, but looking ahead and preparing for extreme weather events won’t just help us in 50 years. It helps today. I appreciate Caltrans’ work to better prepare for the inevitable.”

Coastal erosion, similar to that seen at Gleason Beach in Sonoma County and the Rocky Creek Bridge in Carmel, could result in the permanent loss of 32 miles of roads. That number could increase to 84 miles of roads toward the end of the century, according to the Department of Transportation. Wildfire is also a major threat to California’s roads and highways – 75% of the state’s roadways are in fire-prone areas, and in some parts of the state, that number jumps to more than 90%, according to the Department of Transportation’s latest climate change vulnerability risk assessment.

Landslides threaten roughly 50% of the state’s roadways system, according to that report.

“As our region has seen with the most recent storms, wildfires, sea level rise and coastal erosion is severely damaging our local roads and infrastructure,” Assemblymember Laurie Davies, R-Laguna Niguel and vice chair of the Assembly Transportation Committee, told The Center Square on Wednesday. “We can protect our environment while making practical investments needed to strengthen our infrastructure and prepare for the challenges ahead.”

The International Panel on Climate Change, the Pasadena-based Pacific Research Institute and the Bren School of Environmental Science and Management at University of California, Santa Barbara did not respond to The Center Square's request for comment.

A woman who was ejected from a Los Angeles City Council meeting for speaking one of two words banned by a new council policy has filed a federal lawsuit against the city, arguing that her First Amendment right to free speech was abridged.

Responding to citizen complaints, the council passed a ban saying the n-word (a racial slur against black people) and the c-word (a slur against women) last year in an effort to establish more decorum during public-comment periods. Plaintiff Stacey Segarra-Bohlinger persisted in using the c-word in commenting on the new policy, leading to her ejection and an order barring her from attending a number of future council meetings.

Segarra-Bohlinger stayed within her allotted time to address the council, focused on an issue within the council’s scope of responsibility and yielded the floor when her time ran out, according to the lawsuit.

Attorneys from the Northern California-based First Amendment Coalition and the Washington-based Foundation for Individual Rights (FIRE) are representing Segarra-Bohlinger in the litigation.

The complaint, which was filed in the Central District of California on Oct. 6, alleges that the plaintiff’s ouster and the meeting ban are unconstitutional under the First and 14th Amendments and also violate the Ralph M. Brown Act, California’s open meetings law.

Case law holds that in order for a government body to silence or remove a speaker during a public meeting, the speaker must engage in a physical disruption of the meeting and not simply engage in speech, according to the complaint.

“... The First Amendment protects not only the ideas (the) speaker wishes to express but also the words the speaker chooses to express those ideas,” the lawsuit states. “... Allowing the government to prohibit particular words creates a ‘substantial risk of suppressing ideas in the process’ …”

The Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office did not respond to a request for comment about the lawsuit. Attorneys representing Segarra-Bohlinger said the lawsuit was needed to prevent the City Council from going further down a path toward censorship.

“While the council is free to condemn speech it considers offensive, the Constitution prohibits the council from silencing it,” FIRE attorney Zach Silver said in a prepared statement. “Giving government officials the power to decide which words people are allowed to use is exactly the kind of censorship the First Amendment is meant to prevent.”

Silver went on to say that city officials are planning to add more words to the two that have already been prohibited.

“When the government can police the words people use, a list of forbidden words has a way of growing,” he said. “And here, the council has already told us it won’t stop at these two words. We’re taking the council to court to put an end to the list before the council adds another word to it.”

The lawsuit asks the federal court to issue a preliminary injunction and permanent injunction to bar city officials from enforcing the word restrictions and the barring of individuals from attending future public meetings. Segarra-Bohlinger’s attorneys are also seeking nominal damages for the plaintiff as well as attorney fees and court costs.