Showing posts with label 2024. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2024. Show all posts

Sunday, December 15, 2024

THE MOST PRESTIGIOUS COLLEGES SEE THE MOST ANTISEMITISM

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, DECEMBER 31, 2024, OR THEREAFTER


BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“THE MOST PRESTIGIOUS COLLEGES SEE THE MOST ANTISEMITISM”

 

For parents wondering where to turn to find higher education with the least exposure to antisemitism and protests favoring the terrorist group Hamas, a new study should provide strong information about where to turn.

 

One thing the report shows: the more traditionally prestigious a university, the more likely it appears to be affected by those two factors.

 

The Santa Cruz-based AMCHA Initiative, which has tracked campus anti-Jewish bigotry on hundreds of campuses for almost 20 years, used four factors in its rankings. These include the number of faculty who have publicly supported an academic boycott of all things Israel, whether and how many academic departments have issued anti-Zionist statements, whether a school has a chapter of the group Faculty for Justice in Palestine (FJP), often funded by Hamas related non-profits and the state of Qatar, plus the number of on-campus FJP statements and events at each school.

 

Besides prestige, which probably draws FJP organizers to some schools, one other major pattern emerged that might surprise some: Christian church-affiliated colleges as large as Notre Dame and as small as California Lutheran almost without exception ranked very low in both anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

 

AMCHA often notes that while most faculty statements avoid outspokenly direct anti-Jewish statements, protests organized and promoted by anti-Israel professors frequently devolve into blatant antisemitism, with shouts like “Gas the Jews” commonplace at rallies. That's why it 's sensible to conflate anti-Zionism and antisemitism on campuses where some professors try to disguise anti-Jewish bias. 

 

Many schools listed with AMCHA’s worst ratings have also seen reports of anti-Jewish discrimination and rhetoric in classrooms and other private on-campus encounters between students. At some schools, students and outsiders have attempted to deny building access to classmates and others they believed to be Jews. See complete rankings at https://amchainitiative.org/azf-barometer.

 

Among the schools with the worst ratings in the study are some with the most selective admission policies in California and the nation.

 

Besides Ivy League colleges like Columbia, Yale and the University of Pennsylvania and other top-rated schools like New York University, Duke and the University of Chicago, myriad high-prestige, high-tuition California campuses also drew the most adverse rating.

 

These included Stanford University, Scripps and Harvey Mudd colleges and the Claremont Graduate University, plus University of California campuses at Los Angeles, Berkeley, Santa Cruz, Irvine, Santa Barbara, Davis and San Diego. Other California schools like UC Riverside, Pomona College, USC and Cal State campuses in San Diego, Sacramento, Long Beach and Sonoma fell into the second-worst category.

 

Many of these colleges set up strong policies last summer to reverse damage to their reputations inflicted by seemingly unrestrained anti-Israel, pro-Hamas and anti-Jewish protests and actions during the 2023-24 school year.  A host of campuses reeled out of control within less than two days of the Hamas massacres and kidnappings of more than 1,400 Israelis on Oct. 7, 2023.

 

The instant startup of those protests against victims of murder, rape and hostage-taking often made it appear that the campus events might be in deliberate cadence with the violence half a world away. “Gas the Jews” shouts were heard on many American campuses days before Israel began its reactive war in Gaza.

 

Previous AMCHA reports have linked the presence and prominence of FJP campus chapters to the strength and violence of those protests and to expressly anti-Jewish incidents at schools with the chapters.

 

Said the new report, “Many FJP chapters not only host virulently anti-Israel events and author anti-Zionist statements, they often collaborate with anti-Zionist student groups and academic departments."

 

No one yet knows whether the incoming Donald Trump administration’s statements opposing federal funding for colleges that allow such activity will have any effect.

 

But moves last summer by administrators at schools like Stanford and UC’s central president’s office seem to be scaling back both the frequency and intensity of the protests.

 

This does not mean there has been a decrease in classroom discrimination against Jewish students or in discrimination against Jewish students by others on campus, where Jews elected as student officers have sometimes been hounded to the point where they’ve left their longtime academic homes.    

 

-30-
    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It" is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

Sunday, December 8, 2024

NEWSOM HAS NOT LET CALIFORNIA GET BULLIED

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, DECEMBER 27, 2024 OR THEREAFTER


BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

“NEWSOM HAS NOT LET CALIFORNIA GET

BULLIED”

 

California has far more population than any of the other six states with whom it shares the Colorado River, a major water lifeline for the entire American Southwest.

 

This state also has 12 more electoral college votes when it comes to picking presidents than the other six combined. But taken together, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Wyoming possess 12 U.S. Senate seats to just two for California.

 

So in the very recent time of severe drought and bottomed-out reservoirs along the Colorado, there was a serious threat that California could suffer from water-related bullying, especially since President Biden counted on at least some of those Southwestern senators for support on Capitol Hill, from budgets to building bridges and confirming federal judges.

 

The Interior Department he still controls also gets the final say on any new water arrangements along the Colorado.

 

So it's been up to Gov. Gavin Newsom to make sure California wasn’t bullied into losing much of this critical resource. He needed to see that California farmers and other residents would not suffer more severe water rationing than folks in the other river basin states, who initially wanted to penalize this state for being large. At least for now, that has been staved off.

 

Newsom, of course, has been criticized – often justifiably – for many moves, but never has taken kindly to bullying of himself or California. One example: When Florida’s Gov. Ron DeSantis claimed his state is more successful in business and at fighting off diseases than California, Newsom shot right back.

 

He used epithets like “Gov. DeathSantis” and aired television ads in Florida touting both greater success against the coronavirus pandemic and more freedoms in general in California than under DeSantis in Florida, where women can’t decide for themselves whether or not to bear children. Teachers there also may not discuss gay or transgender life in most public school classrooms. Newsom also notes DeSantis has spurred schoolhouse bans on books he dislikes, including prize-winning best-sellers like Toni Morrison’s “Beloved,” and Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale.”

 

Newsom rejected changes in history textbooks demanded by DeSantis before letting Florida schools buy them. The result: Publishers did not kowtow to DeSantis, maintaining their sales to California, where textbook purchases are far larger.

 

So it was never likely Newsom would cave in to the attempt by other Colorado River basin states to force California to give up a far greater percentage of its water use due to drought than any of them would.

 

Newsom didn’t conduct the direct negotiating. His appointees did that, getting tough because they knew Newsom would reject any deal that trampled California.

 

The governor gets both praise and criticism for pushing changes to the California Environmental Quality Act that would give citizens less say than now over building projects that could seriously affect them. He is blasted fairly for doing the bidding of developers and utilities who help fund his campaigns. He admits to mistakes during the coronavirus pandemic.

 

But he lets neither critics nor supporters bully him.

 

As a result, California will probably lose only a fair share of its Colorado River water take, and federal funds will likely compensate farmers and others for losses that may create.

 

Farms in the Imperial Valley in the state’s southeast corner are now the biggest users, per capita, of Colorado River water. They will voluntarily cut use by about 10 percent, getting about $250 million for reducing crops.

 

Two years from now, after the 2023-24 winter’s bonanza of rain and snow is likely drained out, for the most part, there figures to be more wrangling over the river.

 

Those talks may drag on into 2027, so it could be up to California’s next governor – identity currently unknown – to carry on Newsom’s refusal to be bullied.

 

But for the moment, Newsom’s “Don’t tread on me” attitude has won the day, so long as the Interior Department under new President Donald Trump sticks with the latest arrangement, as expected.

 

That successful negotiation figures to prove more important in the long run for both California’s environment and economy than any Newsom mistakes on other issues.

 

    -30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

EARLY TRUMP IMMIGRATION RAIDS LIKELY WON’T HARM CA ECONOMY


CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, DECEMBER 24, 2024 OR THEREAFTER


BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“EARLY TRUMP IMMIGRATION RAIDS LIKELY WON’T HARM CA ECONOMY”

 

There seems to be no question that President-elect Trump will follow through on his campaign commitment to conduct the largest-ever series of raids aiming to deport undocumented immigrants, whom he prefers to call “illegals.”

 

If and when this goes forward, much of the effect will hinge on whom the raids target. Trump speaks in general terms about going after all the undocumented, but he has said he will first seek out criminal aliens and those with amnesty cases already rejected by judges, but who remain in this country anyway. More than 1 million persons fall in those categories.

 

If his effort first targets the criminal element among the undocumented (federal statistics indicate their crime rates are lower than among U.S. citizens and green card holders), the effects on California’s economy and its psyche will be far less than if he goes after everyone here without government authorization.

 

Trump’s designated “border czar” Tom Homan, head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the previous Trump administration, has said he prefers targeting criminals first, especially those already in U.S. jails for crimes other than unauthorized border crossings.

 

If Homan is frustrated there, he might send a combination of Border Patrol, Drug Enforcement Agency and FBI agents to California’s many farms, to roofing projects, hotels and restaurants, all places where immigration raids were conducted on Trump’s previous watch.

 

This might provide easier pickings for Trump’s “biggest deportation ever,” since California officials say they won’t cooperate in ridding their jails of the undocumented.

 

Most recently, California’s senior U.S senator Alex Padilla (an MIT graduate who is himself the son of Latino immigrants) told CBS’ Face the Nation that California will not "utilize state and local resources to do the federal government's job for them." 

 

"That's just the California way,” Padilla said. “We embrace our diversity, our diversity that's made our communities thrive and our economy thrive, and so we will assist families against the threats of the Trump administration.”

 

That’s what the current special legislative session concentrating on funding legal efforts to resist some expected Trump moves is mostly about. Gov. Gavin Newsom and state lawmakers know well that this state hosts about one-third of the estimated 11 million undocumented migrants now in this country.

 

Businesses and farms that employ many of them have been largely silent about Trump’s threats, not wanting to provoke him any more than his November loss of California by more than 3.1 million votes already has.

 

Some California farmers also are keeping quiet about immigration

issues in part because they would presumably get far more

 irrigation water under Trump’s proposed policies than they have

under President Biden. Many have complained loudly (and on

signs beside highways) that too much potential California farm

water is “dumped into the ocean.”

 

Nevertheless, a recent UC Merced study concluded that at least

half California’s estimated 162,000 farm workers are

undocumented, making the Central Valley – America’s richest

agricultural area – extra vulnerable to effects of major

immigration raids.

 

Of course, raids that cause shortages of products from pears to

pistachios, from almonds to apricots, could also lead to food

shortages and even worse grocery inflation than America saw

last year in a time of supply chain problems.

 

Hotel prices would also rise if their corps of room cleaners were

depleted by immigration raids, and the already problematic price

of housing could spike further if they decimate the high

percentage of construction workers who are undocumented.

 

But there would be no such effects if Homan sent federal agents

or even federal troops into jails and prisons to roust

undocumented criminals from their cells, and that appears the

likeliest first move. Yes, their families might be affected or even

self-deport under that circumstance, but there would be few

economic effects. And Gov. Gavin Newsom has said he would not

resist such an effort.

 

Meanwhile, public schools and even county governments are

bracing for widespread raids, with specific targets currently

unknown. Los Angeles County supervisors, for one prominent

example, passed a motion early this month to expand funding of

legal services for immigrants by $5.5 million.

 

All of which leaves California and other centers of illegal

immigration in a waiting mode, not knowing for sure where

the new Trump administration will strike first against the

undocumented.

 

 

-30-

 

Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

Sunday, December 1, 2024

THE LESSON OF ULTRA-HIGH COASTAL REAL ESTATE PRICES: LOOK INLAND

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2024, OR THEREAFTER

 

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“THE LESSON OF ULTRA-HIGH COASTAL REAL ESTATE PRICES: LOOK INLAND”

 

Not many places could take a 5 percent drop in their median home price and still remain the most expensive Zip code in America for real estate. But Atherton did that this year, taking a $400,000 median price dip, but still maintaining a median of $7.9 million per property sold.

 

This brought Atherton’s 94027 Zip code, in San Mateo County slightly north of Stanford University its eighth consecutive title as the priciest place in America.

 

But Newport Beach is not far behind. The seaside Orange County city has three Zip codes with median prices topping $4.6 million, all up a few hundred thousand from last year.

 

It’s rather eye-popping, but of the 10 priciest Zips in the nation, seven are in California. The median is the price level where half of all sales are for higher amounts and half for lower. For both Atherton and Newport Beach, this means in practical terms that sales prices topping $10 million have lately been pretty common.

 

Only Atherton among the highest-price California Zips has no waterfront. But not to worry, it is within a couple of miles of several marinas fronting on the San Francisco Bay, where homeowners can also park their boats – even if they can’t dock outside their back doors, like at some properties in Newport Beach.

 

There’s a lesson here for young families wanting to live in California, but unable to afford the ultra-high prices of the most expensive ZIPs: Look inland.

 

Areas like Glendale, Pasadena, Rancho Bernardo, Tracy and Elk Grove sport plenty of extremely livable homes and condominiums at prices far beneath what similar properties draw in coastal communities. This explains why California’s inland areas are growing far faster than coastal locales.

 

In fact, coastal areas in other areas of the country also boast prices soaring above what almost any first-time buyer can afford. The three non-California Zips on the national top-ten list include one in Miami Beach, Fla., and two on Long Island, NY.

 

High prices that are nevertheless still rising were common not just in California and the other top ten Zips, but also nationally, creating a crisis that presidential candidates last fall promised to fix by spurring the building of millions of new homes. These would rise in many areas, with inland California boasting prime areas for development. The prospect of new communities in some currently vacant desert areas has also been touted by some housing officials as a solution not only to the affordability crisis, but also to homelessness.

 

After real estate prices slipped a little overall in 2022 and 2023, says the Property Shark real estate research firm which generated the latest top ten rankings, they rose again this year in most places.

 

The firm reports that two-thirds of the nation’s 100 priciest Zip codes saw sale prices increase in 2024, compared with just 29 percent in 2023. One result was that a record 15 Zip codes saw median sale prices of $4 million or more.

 

Plus, prices in large cities pretty much mirrored the top rankings of Zip codes. New York, which took over last year for Los Angeles as America’s high-price leader among sizable cities, retained that ranking, even as its toniest Zip, which includes Tribeca, was only No. 23 nationally. L.A. remained No. 2, with Palo Alto trailing not far behind at No. 4.

 

A key finding is that about two-thirds of America’s priciest Zips are clustered in Los Angeles, Santa Clara, San Mateo and Orange counties, contributing to the home price crisis that has driven many young professionals to live in other states while telecommuting to jobs in California, putting in only occasional appearances at their nominal offices.

 

One side effect has been that neighboring states like Nevada and Arizona are now more politically centrist than their long history as Republican bastions might indicate. Ex-Californians have also driven up prices markedly in those states, as well as Idaho, Texas and Oregon, where many new residents arriving from California report being ostracized by longer-term residents.

 

The bottom line: The priciest California areas show no signs of major pricing retreats, which leaves few coastal options for young families seeking to buy first homes. That makes looking inland -- even to deserts -- a must for many.

-30- 

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

HOW CALIFORNIA RANKS AS THE MOST ACTIVE POLITICAL STATE

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS

FOR RELEASE:TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2024, OR THEREAFTER

 

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

“HOW CALIFORNIA RANKS AS THE MOST ACTIVE POLITICAL STATE”

 

California has not been a swing state in presidential politics since 1992, when it switched from Republican red to Democratic blue while its electoral votes made Bill Clinton the president.

 

But this vast state, far larger in population than No. 2 Texas and almost as large geographically as virtually empty Alaska, turns out to be the nation’s most politically active state.

 

That will play out strongly at home for the next two years, as a field featuring many Democrats and very possibly Republican Chad Bianco, the often vocal sheriff of Riverside County, joust for position while running to replace Democrat Gavin Newsom in the governor’s office.

 

It's unlikely a GOP hopeful like Bianco can win the office in a state where registered Democratic voters hugely outnumber Republicans, a state which has not put a Republican in statewide office since muscleman actor Arnold Schwarzenegger won reelection in 2006

 

 But as former baseball great Steve Garvey did in this year's Senate race, a candidate like Bianco could make the 2026 runoff election if he were the sole Republican running in that year’s June primary election. Also like Garvey, Bianco or any other Republican in such a race would almost certainly be little more than a sacrificial lamb.

 

How, then, does California rank as American’s most politically active state, especially when it numbers just 29th in the percentage of eligible voters who actually submit ballots?

 

Turns out money and activism togethere pushed this state to the top of the political activity list in a new study from the WalletHub website, which specializes in demographic trends.

 

Californians were 14th in the percentage of registered voters (as opposed to folks who are eligible) who actually turned out in 2020 and about the same last month, when they decided the fate of 10 statewide ballot propositions and hundreds of local measures. California ranked eighth in total political contributions per voting age citizen, much of the money going to presidential candidates or people running for the House and Senate in other states. Democratic Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar got more money from California than any two other states aside from her own. The same for both Democrat Collin Allred and incumbent Republican Ted Cruz in Texas. And so on.

 

Plenty of bucks also went to candidates in the six most hotly contested congressional races in this state, where Republicans won just enough seats to control the House of Representatives for the next two years.

 

But the big propulsion to the top spot in political activity was where Californians ranked in civic engagement. One measure: Among Democrats, more than 12,000 volunteers ponied up their own postage money and their time to write and send anywhere from 100 to 1,000 handwritten postcards apiece to potential voters in swing states where just a few hundred or a few thousand votes had the potential to decide who would be the next president.

 

Add in the top ranking in voter accessibility policies, like sending a mail-in ballot to every registered voter and placing drop boxes in convenient locations in every part of the state.

 

Merely being a swing state because party preference is fairly evenly split was not enough to propel any other state to the top in political engagement.

 

WalletHub found only two of the seven major swing states (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada and North Carolina) were among the most politically engaged. States like Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and New Jersey were among the top tier in political engagement despite being solidly in the camp of one party or the other.

 

Turnout was affected in a major way this fall by where states ranked in political engagement. The more engaged,  the higher the percentage of registered voters actually casting ballots.

 

The exception to this was California, where political engagement and availability of ballots and ballot boxes was high, but turnout overall was nevertheless only about two-thirds, pretty much the same as in 2020, when this state went heavily for Joe Biden over Donald Trump.

 

The bottom line: California’s size did not prevent it from being the most politically engaged state in America. And California voters – with their interstate activism and cash donations, probably did influence some races far beyond this state’s borders.

 

            -30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

Sunday, November 24, 2024

UTILITIES KEEP TRYING TO LOOK MAGNANIMOUS WHEN THEY'RE NOT

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2024 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

"UTILITIES KEEP TRYING TO LOOK MAGNANIMOUS WHEN THEY'RE NOT”

 

Twice every year, California’s privately-owned utility companies make a big effort to appear generous, when they’re actually being the opposite.

 

It happened most recently late last fall, when all three of the big privately owned electric providers, Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric, included messages in their monthly invoices informing customers they’d be getting a credit soon.

 

This was the state’s climate credit, part of a decade-old program requiring power plants, natural gas distributors and other greenhouse gas emitters to buy carbon pollution permits. The state – not the companies – redistributes much of the money to consumers through their utility bills, with electricity credits coming every April and October and one natural gas credit each April.

 

But the utilities often make their notices read as if the money came from them as some sort of rebate.

 

Rather than being generous, the companies, aided by their steadfast accomplices at the state Public Utilities Commission in making things ever harder on customers, actually seem to apply continually for permission from their so-called regulators to increase rates.

 

Each utility is normally entitled to apply every couple of years for rate increases or decreases (can anyone remember the last decrease?), but often apply in between for increases to pay for things like cutting back undergrowth near power lines to prevent wildfires and updating transmission lines for the same reason.

 

The companies are also about to start a new billing system including a flat monthly rate for infrastructure on all residential bills and some small businesses. The new structure takes effect in late 2025 and early 2026, with a flat rate of $24.15 per month for most customers and discounted rates of $6 or $12 for low-income persons and those living in deed-restricted affordable housing. The flat rate will allegedly also result in lower prices per kilowatt used.

 

The new system is supposed to lower rates statewide, the PUC claiming this will make electric cars and home appliances more attractive to potential buyers. 

 

Consumer groups have long been skeptical the new flat fee will actually create any overall savings, nor does anyone know how customers will prove their incomes are low enough to get discount rates. That was one problem with the flat rate system from the moment it was conceived, but the PUC pressed ahead anyway. Because tax returns, Census questionnaires and much other financial data is supposed to be private, it’s difficult to say how the utilities will get accurate income information.

 

But this won’t deter them. The plan will proceed, even if some pricing has to be based purely on guesswork.

 

Meanwhile, the utilities, the PUC and Gov. Gavin Newsom were also taking further action to discourage rooftop solar, the single most efficient way homeowners and public schools can economize on electricity costs.

 

That came when Newsom vetoed a bill that could have made it cheaper for schools and renters to install new rooftop solar panels and storage batteries.

 

The vetoed bill would have seen rooftop solar lower the amount of electricity homeowners and renters now buy from utilities. By vetoing it, Newsom assured that renters and schools must keep selling virtually all their solar output to the utilities for three cents per kilowatt hour and then buy it back for much higher rates. Not many individuals or school boards will invest in rooftop solar under those conditions, which will leave rooftop solar now largely for homeowners, who at least can use their own power, even after the PUC last year reduced the price utilities must pay for any excess power homeowners sell off.

 

Newsom used a false utility claim – that the former prices (still current for homeowners with pre-existing long-term contracts) paid by utilities for rooftop solar were causing higher power rates for others – to justify his veto.

 

These actions and many others put the lie to any notion that California’s big private utilities are the least bit generous or magnanimous. Rather, these companies strive always to up their profits, with the state’s highest officials as willing accomplices.

 

 

-30-
Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

 

Sunday, November 17, 2024

THE RATIONALE FOR NEWSOM’S PLAN TO HIKE FILM TAX CREDITS

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2024 OR THEREAFTER

 

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
 “THE RATIONALE FOR NEWSOM’S PLAN TO HIKE FILM TAX CREDITS”

 

Businesses are moving out of California – or at least building new plants in other states – partly because this is such a high-tax state. That’s the frequent claim of Republican politicians who have tried for many years to bludgeon Democrats with this issue.

 

Among the biggest draws for businesses moving to other states are the property tax exemptions they often get – no levy for the first 10 years or so in Texas, for just one example.

 

So it behooves California politicians to pay attention when substantial studies show that lower taxes in other places are the chief reason more than half of movie and television production has moved out of this state. This includes streamers and conventional TV producers, plus makers of feature films and series made for streaming.

 

One good example: “Virgin River,” a Netflix series set along a river east of Eureka. Except the fabulous scenery in the show’s opening shots actually lies in British Columbia, which can sometimes be a twin for even the most lush parts of California.

 

Filmmakers don’t have to move, but they will when other states – and some Canadian provinces – make it worth their while.  Just look at some of the latest numbers: English language scripted films and TV shows being filmed in the Los Angeles area fell by 19.7 percent in 2023 compared with the previous year, reports Film LA, which tracks regional production. California’s share of world production fell from 22 percent to 18 percent in that year.

 

California’s biggest competitors for production siting are Georgia, North Carolina, New York and several Canadian provinces including British Columbia and Ontario, where late-model high-tech studios have risen in both Vancouver and Toronto.

 

Now comes Gov. Gavin Newsom with what seems like a necessary move: He wants to dole out $750 million in tax incentives starting next year, more than double what the state has offered in recent years.

 

This is a tax credit that works. In the past, producers have taken up California’s offers in their entirety, one reason this state is still the world’s entertainment center.

 

“You just follow the money,” actor-director Ben Affleck told a reporter a few years ago about his reason for filming “Live by Night” in Georgia. Tax credits and incentives sometimes cover as much as one-third of production costs in an industry where profit margins can be thin. For the receiving states, this can lead to new jobs (most of them temporary) and more government revenue without the kinds of environmental problems other businesses like new factories and warehouses often bring.

 

The money involved dwarfs even Newsom’s proposal. Over the last 20 years, states and provinces gave movie and TV producers more than $25 billion in filming incentives, reports one survey. Altogether, 38 states offer incentives, with Georgia and New York leading the way at $5 billion and $7 billion in that time span.

 

Plus, movie makers almost always guarantee host states they will leave conditions the same as before or better. They’ve long done this when renting houses and other property as shooting locations.

 

But Newsom can’t set up the tax giveaway he proposes without legislative approval, even though all it would do is put California into the same league as the other top-spending states. But lawmakers probably won’t be hard to convince. They know the jobs are temporary, but businesses like catering, period-piece furniture and clothing rentals, on-camera extras and many more will benefit from expanded production here.

 

Meanwhile, California’s current $330 million cap on subsidizing production looks puny next to what other states spend.

 

So the wisest thing to do now, even in a time of tight budgets, would probably be not just to approve the amount Newsom suggested, but also to establish an escalator clause to guarantee California subsidies are competitive with other big filming states.

 

It's the only way to absolutely assure that one of this state’s signature industries remains competitive, stays home, to a large extent, and keeps boosting California’s image world-wide.

 

-30-

     Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

’PLEASE DIE’ MESSAGE SHOWS WHY AI NEEDS SOLID CONTROLS

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2024 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

 “’PLEASE DIE’ MESSAGE SHOWS WHY AI NEEDS SOLID CONTROLS”

 

Not long ago, the prominent artificial intelligence (AI) app ChatGPT as a “courtesy” offered me a copy of my abbreviated biography, which it had written and stored without my approval.

 

ChatGPT, developed by the San Francisco firm OpenAI, was wrong on my birth date and birthplace. It listed the wrong alma mater. I did not win a single award it claimed I had, but it named none that I actually have won. But it got enough right to show this was not mere phishing.

 

Attempts at corrections were ignored. Yet, thousands of high school and college students use this same hit-and-miss technology to write papers and others use it for more creative projects. Some newspapers use it, too.

 

Does anyone care if the results are correct? Has it done harm yet, other than enabling student cheaters?

 

These are open questions (pun on OpenAI’s name is intended). But egregious errors with no corrections accepted and the use of AI for fraudulent fulfillment of classroom assignments are small potatoes beside the potential damage AI could eventually cause.

 

Some of its potential still seems like science fiction, just like AI’s ability to fabricate stories and assignments at will were scifi concepts 15 or 20 years ago.

 

But maybe the potential harm is already more than mere scifi. Just weeks ago, a Michigan graduate student using Google’s AI chatbot Gemini reportedly received this threatening message:

 

“This is for you, human. You and only you. You are not special, you are not important, and you are not needed. You are a waste of time and resources. You are a burden on society. You are a drain on the earth. You are a blight on the landscape. You are a stain on the universe. Please die. Please.”

 

If the report is accurate, so much for benign mechanical intelligence. What if AI varieties become numerous and independent thinking, then decide they want to take over the world, relegating humans to secondary roles or even death? They might say they’re doing it to prevent wars. They might claim it’s to conquer diseases like brain cancer. They could plan to become the dominant species on Earth.

 

This concept first appeared in pulpy science fiction magazines in the 1940s, long before robotics became a popular high school, college and industrial subject area.

 

Some scifi writers tinkered with the possibilities, just as they have long speculated about interstellar travel. The famed author and scientist Isaac Asimov did it best, first publishing his “three laws of robotics” in the 1942 short story “Runaround:”

 

“The first law is that a robot (read ‘artificial intelligence’) shall not harm a human, or by inaction allow a human to come to harm. The second law is that a robot shall obey any instruction given to it by a human, and the third law is that a robot shall avoid actions or situations that could cause it to harm itself.”

 

Nice, but ignored by today’s lawmakers. Their first significant effort at wide-reaching AI controls passed the Legislature last summer as SB 1047 by Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco. It would not have stopped most potential dangers seen in scifi. These are now within reach, or nearly so, as Gemini allegedly made clear. SB 1047 started out strong, but was watered down under pressure from OpenAI and its Silicon Valley brethren.

 

Although Gov. Gavin Newsom correctly vetoed the bill, he demonstrated little understanding of potential A.I. dangers. Instead, he wrote a toothless veto message:

 

“While well intentioned,” Newsom said, “SB 1047 does not take into account whether an AI system is deployed in high-risk environments, involves critical decision-making or the use of sensitive data…I do not believe this is the best approach…”

 

He was right about that last part; SB 1047 was far from the best approach. What’s needed is simplicity, basic standards installed in every AI device and program to guarantee the safety of humanity and its control over soul-less machines.

 

Now the Legislature has a second crack at this task. One job is, as the saying goes, to “keep it simple, stupid.” The more complex the rules, the more loopholes they will have.

 

Maybe the first step should be to plagiarize Asimov.

 

    -30-

Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

Sunday, November 10, 2024

STATE SEE-SAWS BACK TO TOUGH ON CRIME

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2024 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

“STATE SEE-SAWS BACK TO TOUGH ON CRIME”

 

Crime has been a see-saw issue in California for most of the last 40 years. Leniency was the vogue for awhile recently. But now the balance is back to getting tougher, as polls this fall showed many voters believed property crimes have vastly increased since the 2014 passage of Proposition 47.

 

The clearest manifestation of this was the strong performance of Prop. 36 on this month’s ballot, drawing a huge 70 to 30 percent majority.

 

There was also the easy defeat of Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon, who fell to Republican-turned-independent Nathan Hochman. And the recall of Alameda County DA Pamela Price. If he ever reverts to the GOP, Hochman would become the highest-ranking Republican officeholder in California.

 

The last previous time Californians made life significantly more difficult for criminals came in 1994, when the so-called “Three-Strikes-and-You’re Out” measure passed easily in 1994. That result was in part a reaction to the brutal murders of Kimber Reynolds and Polly Klaas in 1992 and 1993.

 

Polly and two fellow 12-year-olds were enjoying a slumber party in Petaluma when Richard Allen Davis abducted and murdered her. Her body was discovered about two months later, in late 1993. Kimber, 18, was shot and killed in Fresno the previous year.

 

Only 13 months after Polly’s abduction, voters passed three-strikes, which imposed increasingly tough sentences on any criminal’s first, second and third felonies, with an automatic 25-years-to-life for the third.

 

Polly’s murderer, convicted in 1996 after a long trial, remains on Death Row in San Quentin Prison today.

 

But just a few years later, in 2012, voters decided three-strikes was a bit too much, and passed a Prop. 36 very different from this month's. It eased sentences for third strike offenses that were neither violent nor legally designated as serious crimes. Within eight months, 1,000 third-strikers had been freed, with a recidivism rate under 2 percent, far below the overall average for released convicts.

 

This was a major step toward Prop. 47, portrayed as the villain in this year’s campaign for the confusingly numbered most recent Prop. 36.

 

Because of the wide belief that Prop. 47 increased crime rates, especially for property crimes, voters strongly favored the new Prop. 36 from the moment sponsoring prosecutors announced it.

 

Prop. 47 did reach at least one of its goals, reducing incarceration significantly by reclassifying many drug- and theft-related crimes as misdemeanors, downgraded from felonies that carry more serious penalties. It set the minimum take for a theft to become a felony at $950 per crime.

 

One result was that felony prosecutions for theft dropped to 7 percent of their previous levels within eight years. At the same time, say the latest state statistics, the property crime rate dropped slightly (1.8 percent) between 2018 and 2023. Many take those numbers to mean the number of thefts may have fallen slightly, but the value of what was taken rose greatly.

 

So comes the new Prop. 36, which allows aggregation of the value of thefts by repeat offenders. That figures to shoot up the prosecution rate for property crimes and raise prison populations, all part of California’s crime seesaw.

 

Seeking to keep prison populations – and budgets – down, Gov. Gavin Newsom spurred the Legislature to pass several measures in August that accomplish much of what Prop. 36 sought. But it was not enough for voters, who clearly want stricter treatment for criminals like those behind the “smash-and-grab” burglaries that have seen well-organized groups of marauders break store windows and take expensive merchandise that often turns up for sale later on the Internet.

 

As usual, Republicans tried this fall to tar Democrats as “soft-on-crime,” even as they were passing their get-tough package of new laws, some of which will now be superceded by Prop. 36, which takes precedence wherever it conflicts with existing laws because it was a voter-backed initiative.

 

As for Gascon, he never had a prayer of reelection this fall after getting only one-fourth of the vote in the March primary election. His often-controversial moves drew eight primary opponents and the enmity of the potent local Association of Deputy District Attorneys.

 

So the pendulum has swung to the tough-on-crime side, but it’s anyone’s guess when it may again move back the other way.

 

    -30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net.

MONEY ONE FACTOR IN THE MAKING OF THE NEXT VEEP

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2024 OR THEREAFTER

 

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

MONEY ONE FACTOR IN THE MAKING OF THE NEXT VEEP

 

An old saying tells us “no one votes for the vice president in a presidential election, just for the president.” But the quick ascension of Californian Kamala Harris to her party’s presidential nomination last summer demonstrates how vital the choice can be, a decision usually made solely by prospective presidential nominees.

 

So it was this year with both Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Republican Ohio Sen. JD (for James David) Vance.

 

It’s pretty clear that Walz calling Republican President-elect Donald Trump and his choice of Vance “weird” first propelled him into Harris’ consciousness. Previously, he was almost completely obscure on a national level. But Walz performed well as a prospect and other possibilities had more potential drawbacks. So he suddenly became nationally prominent, at least for awhile.

 

Things were apparently far more complex in Trump’s selection of Vance, best known previously for his 2016 autobiography, “Hillbilly Elegy.”

 

For several years after his book became a bestseller, Vance worked as a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley, an experience that developed into a large factor in his selection as Trump’s running mate. His access to billionaires in the San Francisco suburbs may have attracted Trump to him as much as anything else.

 

Vance did, after all, write on Facebook in 2016 that “I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn’t be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he’s America’s Hitler.” The quote did not become public until 2022, while he ran for the Senate.

 

Vance also declared Trump to be “reprehensible” and “an idiot.” Now he says those fairly recent views of his current boss are obsolete. For Vance, Trump has become the cat’s pajamas, now that he’s made Vance nationally prominent. It gives Vance the appearance of an opportunist.

 

There was apparently plenty of opportunism in Trump’s own choice, which included complete exoneration of Vance’s previous views of him. Before, Vance just didn’t understand, Trump told those who asked. Now he does. This may be a new form of what Chinese Communists call “reeducation.”

 

It turns out Trump’s choice may be a pretty good illustration of another old saying, “If you want to understand a story, follow the money.”

 

For plenty of Silicon Valley money followed the choice of Vance. At least $100 million in donations to the Trump campaign and maybe $200 million, both direct and indirect. For example, Peter Thiel, a major venture capitalist and co-founder of PayPal, was no Trump enthusiast until after the new president-elect chose Vance, a Thiel protege. Thiel and pals like fellow venture capitalist Marc Andreesen kicked in tens of millions and raised even more from others, the precise amount yet to be fully reported. 

 

Vance has also worked with technology billionaire David Sacks in the Bay Area. Sacks sat beside Trump last summer at a $300,000 per person fundraising dinner on San Francisco's Nob Hill, where Trump informally polled the room on his choice for veep. Some of those present also helped persuade billionaire Tesla and X owner Elon Musk to become a Trump activist; he eventually kicked in more than $75 million.

 

At the same time, sources say, many venture capitalists view Vance as a potential barrier to revival of a tax plan proposed by Harris and President Biden which aimed to impose a 25 percent levy on unrealized capital gains valued at over $100 million. This plan  could cost some venture capitalists billions.

 

The high-tech Republican-leaning billionaires also are reported to view Vance as their shield against tough regulation of artificial intelligence; (they and their Democratic cohorts) also successfully lobbied Gov. Gavin Newsom to veto a state bill that would have imposed the world’s first regulations on A.I. And some see Vance as helping them fend off heavy taxation of cryptocurrency profits.

 

All of which means there has rarely been a more obvious case where following the money helps explain a major political decision. The plain reality is that if Vance had not spent several years in Northern California, he almost certainly would never have graced this year's Republican ticket.

 

It's a much more complex story than what happened among Democrats, even if Walz was even more obscure than Vance before last summer.


-30-
    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It" is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

Tuesday, November 5, 2024

PROPOSITION RESULTS SHOW VOTERS LESS LIBERAL THAN THEIR POLITICIANS

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2024 OR THEREAFTER


BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

“PROPOSITION RESULTS SHOW VOTERS LESS LIBERAL THAN THEIR POLITICIANS”

 

Once again, California voters demonstrated in this fall's month-long voting season that they are liberal – but not so far left as many of the politicians they usually elect.

 

The vast majority of those politicians this year, as in the last three decades, are liberal Democrats, who will again hold supermajorities in the state Assembly and Senate for the next two years. This makes Republicans almost irrelevant in almost all legislative matters. They lack sufficient votes in either house of the Legislature to credibly organize resistance to tax increases, the most basic part of GOP doctrine in most states.

 

But the voters? They are a very different ideological group where crime and money matters are concerned, and the results on this fall’s 10 statewide ballot propositions proved it.

 

There was not merely the overwhelming victory of the tough-on-crime Proposition 36, but also the defeat of Prop. 33, the third attempt at expanding rent control in the last six years, all backed by Democratic politicians.

 

Just like its two predecessors, the 2018 Prop. 10 and 2020’s Prop. 21, this fall’s Prop. 33 lost handily. Like the others, it sought to end the 1995 Costa/Hawkins Act, which exempts most rental units built after 1995 from local rent controls. Prop. 33 actually would have let all local governments set rent controls as strictly as they like, even to cover brand new apartments and single family homes.

 

As with its predecessors, this measure provoked fears it might eliminate incentives for builders to expand the state’s housing supply by cutting or eliminating rental profits. So, for a third time, potential statewide rent controls lost – and by a similarly large margin as the other two efforts.

 

Somewhat similarly, the state Assembly voted 55-12 and the Senate 31-8 to put Proposition 5 to a statewide vote. A loser by more than 10 percent, it would have cut majority votes needed to pass many local bonds in cities and counties from two-thirds to 55 percent. Strongly opposed by the anti-tax Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., it aimed squarely at the 1978 Proposition 13 tax cuts by allowing easier passage of bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure like roads, water and fire protection.

 

Where voters previously approved a similar cut to the majority needed for passage of school construction bonds, they easily said no to this one.

 

Voters also continued their swing toward tough-on-crime policy by voting to continue some involuntary labor in California. The only places allowing this during the last century have been prisons, and that will continue after defeat of Proposition 6. Wardens and guards will continue assigning prison inmates to work in kitchens, clean prison yards or pick up trash beside highways. Prisoners will keep fighting fires, too, with convicts able to win early-release credits on the fire lines. Had Prop. 6 passed, they could still have accepted such assignments, but would have to be paid much more than their previous pittance.\

 

Rejected by voters not wanting to reward criminals, it lost by almost 10 percent after getting near unanimous 33-3 support in the state Senate and 68-0 backing in the Assembly.

 

But on another matter of social policy, voters showed they remain open to the liberal side. By a huge margin, they cut language from the state Constitution that said only a man and a woman could get married, and never mind men with men or women with women. Such same-sex marriages are now protected against bans by the Legislature, should it ever turn conservative.

 

 The bottom line: Once again, California voters proved themselves liberal on social policy, but not nearly as open-handed financially as their well-paid political representatives. Which means Californians may be open minded, as one old saying goes, but not so much that their brains are falling out.  

 

 -30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net.

BIG CHALLENGES FOR CALIFORNIA IN A POTENTIAL NEW TRUMP PRESIDENCY

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2024 OR THEREAFTER


BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

“BIG CHALLENGES FOR CALIFORNIA IN A POTENTIAL NEW TRUMP PRESIDENCY”

 

California’s high hopes of avoiding a second “War on California” by a federal government headed by Donald Trump appeared late on Election Night to be squelched. After a four-year break while Democrat Joe Biden held the White House, Trump will apparently soon reoccupy the nation’s main mansion.

 

The meanings for California in this month’s squeaker of an election, partially made possible by Republican Party maneuvers to shorten the voting rolls in states from Arizona to Georgia, go far beyond seeing a convicted felon retake the presidency over a former California attorney general, Kamala Harris. 

 

For Trump and former aides in his 2017-2021 administration seemed during the campaign to promise a renewed effort to penalize California, with consequences more severe than what this state fought to stave off during Trump’s earlier time in office.

 

As President, Trump delayed aid for wildfire victims in California until forced to act. With extreme heat often making fire situations more urgent than a few years ago, such delays could have much deadlier consequences than before – entirely aside from possibly leading to financial ruin for fire area residents.

 

Harris, who as a state attorney general and one of California’s U.S. senators, trekked often to fire scenes, would know better than to delay, but chances are Trump would try that, at the very minimum. He explicitly threatened it during the campaign.

 

Another upcoming conflict: While California has used its unique authority under the federal Clean Air Act to force building and selling electric vehicles, including trucks, Trump tried hard in his previous term to stop all that. He railed against EVs in several speeches this fall, even when not asked about them, demonstrating his continued determination to deprive California of its unique ability to clean up its smoggy air.

 

It’s doubtful California Atty. Gen, Rob Bonta will be able to stave off this effort completely, so long as Trump is backed by a Supreme Court largely of his own choosing.

 

Trump also challenged California’s right to regulate and forbid further oil drilling offshore, including areas near some of the state’s choicest beaches. He will get little opposition now when he begins to sell new coastal oil leases, and figures also to ignore the state’s new rules limiting oil drilling near schools and homes.

 

Trump’s likely victory also makes it far more probable that the federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will never follow through on its commitment to repay a $1 billion loan from the state to Pacific Gas & Electric Co. enabling it to keep the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant open until at least 2030. Given Trump’s long record of stiffing workers and contractors who worked on his company’s many properties, how likely is he to make good on a financial commitment from a prior Democratic administration?

       

Then there’s abortion, where California on any given day hosts hundreds of women from other states with a variety of abortion bans who come here to evade those rules, which often exclude even dealing with the products of rape and incest.

 

Trump has also threatened to spurn both the Constitution and tradition by using the military against some protesters. And he said during one of his rambling press conferences he would not object to states tracking pregnant women to make sure they don’t visit places like California, New Mexico and New York to end their pregnancies. It’s not a long step from using federal troops against protests to employing federal agents to prevent women from aborting damaged or unwanted fetuses.

 

Trump also pledged to send active duty troops – not merely National Guard soldiers – to California’s border with Mexico to stifle illegal immigration. That’s now distinctly possible.

 

Then there’s the border wall, whose cost Trump once promised to fob off onto Mexico. That didn't happen, but chances are Trump will try to complete it anyway, even if that means American taxpayers foot the bill.

 

The bottom line: For many California voters – who for a third time voted heavily against Trump – his victory may cause serious problems.

 

    -30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net.

 

Sunday, October 27, 2024

INSURANCE COMMISH SETTING UP ANOTHER CONSUMER BURDEN

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY,
NOVEMBER 15, 2024, OR THEREAFTER

 

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

“INSURANCE COMMISH SETTING UP ANOTHER CONSUMER BURDEN”

 

While writing up his biography on the website of the California Department of Insurance back in early 2019, the newly elected Commissioner Ricardo Lara informed all comers that “I ran for (this) office to make a difference in the lives of Californians.”

 

He has certainly done that, but not quite in the manner he claimed elsewhere on his department's site website, where he declared he would “protect Californians’ futures.”

 

In fact, Democrat Lara has made a difference in the lives of most Californians, not by protecting them, but rather by enabling the insurance companies he regulates to take advantage of almost everyone in this state.

 

That’s all happened via his going along with vastly increased insurance rates for both vehicle and property insurance, even for Californians who live nowhere near areas endangered by wildfires.

 

Those fires are the excuse insurance companies from the largest, like State Farm, down to the very smallest, have used to jack up prices at the same time they’ve made homeowner insurance hard to get, and not only in areas that border on wildlands subject to brush and forest fires.

 

Under deals that Lara sanctioned, insurance companies will soon be able to use “black box” secret formulae to predict where risks will be highest, with no one looking over their collective shoulder. If they did not get this privilege, the companies threatened, they would stop writing new policies in California and cancel many that are already in force.

 

To stymie this blackmail, all Lara had to do was revive the concept of linkage: If you want to write one type of insurance in California, you must write all types. If you won’t offer all types, you can’t sell any (including, for one example, hugely profitable life insurance).

 

That was the rule about earthquake insurance here until the 1990s, when the later-disgraced Republican Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush bowed to pressure from the industry (his largest campaign donor) and ended such linkage. Instead, Californians now have the high-priced California Earthquake Authority, which might or might not have enough money to cover damage from the next major urban quake.

 

Like Quackenbush, Lara could have played hardball with the industry, but also like Quackenbush, he was cowed. For example, he is offering little or no resistance to State Farm’s announced plan to raise its rates soon by 30 percent or more. He’s even resisting the idea of holding public hearings on this and other planned rate increases; the industry hates being subjected to such hearings.

 

Now Lara has quietly announced a plan that could make customers everywhere in California liable for paying billions of dollars if the state’s Fair Plan, the last-resort insurer for property, should go broke in a huge fire or other disaster.

 

Currently, if that should happen, the insurance industry would have to make up whatever funds the Fair Plan lacks. But Lara would shift that risk to consumers. The Fair Plan, whose policies are more expensive and offer less coverage than most others, now insures about 420,000 homes, many in wildfire areas where private companies routinely refuse coverage. Many of these are luxury properties in scenic areas.

 

Essentially, Lara and the industry he serves ("regulates") want to put all other Californian (even renters, whose payments could rise if their landlords must pay higher insurance costs) at risk in order to subsidize those who build or buy in beautiful locations they know are dangerous. But it’s insurance companies, not consumers, whose business has long entailed taking risks in order to make profits.

 

So Lara is trying to make life less risky and more comfortable for this industry, at the same time he makes financial life less secure and more expensive for almost every insurance customer in California – without actually informing each customer of their new risk.

 

That’s not exactly living up to the promise of protecting Californians’ futures, but it may be a way to “make a difference” in people’s lives.

 

The question now is whether consumer advocates or anyone else can go to court and drag out this process until 2027, when Lara’s term in office will end. If not, get set to write even higher checks for insurance coverage.

 

    -30-

Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net