The Brief

A group of California lawmakers called on federal officials to halt and reject a proposed land exchange in Yosemite National Park that would allow a private developer to take control of a strip of land in the park for an access road to the park’s main attractions.

The letter to Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum on Wednesday was signed by a bipartisan group of 61 state legislators led by Assemblymember Greg Wallis, a Republican who represents Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

“Republicans and Democrats from both houses of the Legislature are standing together because some things are bigger than politics,” Wallis said in a statement. “Yosemite is not a subdivision. It is not a bargaining chip. And it is not for sale. Secretary Burgum and the administration should put an end to this proposal.”

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum (center) visited the Tunnel Tops in San Francisco in 2025 after he and then-Attorney General Pam Bondi toured Alcatraz ahead of their announcement to reopen the former federal prison.

(

Katie DeBenedetti

/

KQED

)

The group argued that the proposed land exchange is counter to the mission of the National Park Service and the founding of Yosemite in 1864, which set aside the start of the park for public use and protection for the first time in the history of the federal government.

“What is being proposed now runs directly against that founding principle, more than a century and a half later,” the letter states.

It continues later: “Our national parks belong equally to every American. They are not the Department’s to trade away, and they are not for sale.”

The proposal was first reported by news outlet NOTUS, which published a story last week alleging that members of the Trump administration were meeting with representatives of Kingsbarn Realty Capital, a private equity group that owns an 83-acre parcel next to the park. In an email to KQED, Kingsbarn’s lawyer Lanny J. Davis confirmed the group is pursuing the land exchange to build a new access road from its property to the park.

Previous owners have pushed for the same deal since the early 2000s and failed in court.

State Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), who signed on to the letter, called the proposal “indefensible,” and said he’s looking at state laws to ensure a similar proposal could never slip through.

“If the Trump administration can’t defend this publicly in broad daylight, then they shouldn’t be doing it,” he said.

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Marin) told KQED’s Forum on Wednesday that he’s worried there isn’t enough opposition among his Republican colleagues in Congress to stop the Trump administration’s efforts.

“I have not seen a single Republican colleague willing to stand up to Donald Trump when he decides that he’s just going to do something,” Huffman said. “So that is my concern, that he just plows ahead with this — even if it has dubious legal authority, or even if it’s an open violation of the law. He’s doing stuff like that anyway. And in this Congress, there’s no one here to stop him.”

In a statement to KQED, state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil (R-Modesto), whose district includes parts of Yosemite, said she will “keep pressing the Department [of the Interior] for a clear answer that this exchange will not proceed.”

Since the news of the deal broke late last week, it has sparked condemnation from a number of Democratic state leaders, including Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, as well as Attorney General Rob Bonta and Bonta’s predecessor, Xavier Becerra, who leads the race for California governor.

“The secretive backroom land-exchange scheme has gotten everyone’s attention,” said Neal Desai, senior Pacific regional director of the National Parks Conservation Association. “I can’t recall another issue — and I’ve been working in the conservation space for over a couple of decades — where the response has been this sharp and so one-sided that this is a terrible idea that should not happen.”

The backlash comes at a turbulent time for National Park Service employees, who have faced layoffs, staffing cuts and fear of retaliation for speaking up against Trump administration policies since the start of the second Trump administration.

Some former employees have also raised concerns about a potential reorganization of the National Park Service, according to a separate letter sent to Burgum’s office Wednesday. According to an email seen by KQED, park superintendents have been asked to attend in-person regional meetings in September — with no clear agenda beyond discussing “agency priorities, our FY 2026 outlook, and other matters important to the work ahead.”

The letter to Burgam, signed by 20 retired parks superintendents warns: “An ill-advised and hastily planned reorganization could dismantle that structure, putting our parks — and those who visit them — at great risk.”

Emily Thompson, executive director of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks, which organized the letter, said the email about regional meetings “raises some alarm bells.”

“The Park Service is already operating from a difficult place, from a place of crisis,” she said. “And any additional cuts, any movements or actions that would further jeopardize the capacity of the folks that are left, that’s concerning. It’s worrying, and it’ll have a devastating impact on the Park Service.”

Among the letter’s signatories is Don Neubacher, retired Yosemite superintendent, who has been a vocal advocate for parks amid the Trump administration’s changes.

Thompson said she’s worried parks leaders will be stretched even further than they already are, and local decision-making over parks could be in jeopardy.

“Morale is low,” Thompson said. “It’s a hard time to be a federal employee. Anything that … contributes to this culture of fear, it’s just not acceptable.”

This story first appeared on Long Beach Post.

Long Beach is offering up to $1,500 for local business owners and landlords to equip their storefronts with safety measures like cameras, floodlights, alarms and point-of-sale systems.

The grant program is accepting online applications now. You can apply here.

Businesses with storefronts of 1,500 square feet or less may receive grants of up to $750, while businesses between 1,500 and 5,000 square feet are eligible for up to $1,500.

Nonprofit organizations are eligible as well, and landlords can apply on behalf of commercial storefronts that are vacant or occupied. Franchises can also receive the grant.

To qualify, a business must:

• Have an active business license for a storefront within the city
• Be independently owned and operated (franchises are eligible)
• Be currently open and active for business
• Earn no more than $5 million in annual gross revenue
• Hold “active” status with the California Secretary of State for corporations, limited liability companies and limited partnerships

The funds will be provided as a reimbursement after eligible security improvements are installed. Grants will be given out until funds are exhausted.

It’s a great idea, according to Edwin Jara, who manages a pet store in Belmont Heights and was on the receiving end of a break-in earlier this year.

His store had security measures already in place — two cameras and an alarm system — but even that wasn’t enough to deter a masked burglar who grabbed $1,000 cash and a handful of dog treats.

Despite having footage of the burglar, Jara said police haven’t been able to catch the person and that a detective never responded after he filed a police report.

The grant program is being paid for with $350,000 from the city’s Redvelopment Agency along with $50,000 from Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn’s office.

“Our local small businesses are part of the fabric of our neighborhoods, and when business owners feel unsafe, the whole community feels it,” Hahn said in a statement.

In a statement, Mayor Rex Richardson said the program is a “direct investment in the hardworking business owners who make our commercial corridors vibrant and welcoming.”

Jara said he would consider applying for a grant if the city could send someone to help him and the store’s owner fill out the application.

He was offered a separate grant to replace a glass door the burglar smashed, but the store’s owner opted not to fill out the application.

“There was a lot of stuff that we needed to do, and I don’t have a lot of that information,” Jara said.

Santa Monica College has money problems. Spending has outpaced revenues over the last three fiscal years— and the college doesn’t have enough in its coffers to pay for retirement benefits.

That’s according to the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, the body responsible for evaluating community colleges. The organization has moved to “enhanced fiscal monitoring” of SMC.

In a statement to LAist, Mac Powell, president of ACCJC, said, “Enhanced monitoring is part of the Commission’s routine annual process for identifying and working with institutions that may be experiencing financial pressures; it is not, by itself, an accreditation sanction or adverse action.”

More than 25,000 students are enrolled at SMC, with over 50% identifying as first generation. The school has around 320 full-time faculty and 852 part-time faculty. On their website, SMC touts itself as the “#1 Transfer College” to University of California schools, Loyola Marymount University and the University of Southern California.

In a letter to Santa Monica College informing them of the increased monitoring, ACCJC Vice President Melynie Schiel wrote that a three-year decline of the ending cash balance and multiple open labor agreements factored into the “at risk” designation.

Santa Monica College declined an interview with LAist. But in a post online, Santa Monica College President Kathryn Jeffery wrote that the at-risk category was largely “backward-looking.”

So what does ‘enhanced fiscal monitoring’ mean?

Gaining accreditation from a body like the ACCJC allows SMC to qualify for federal funding and to distribute financial aid to students.

Every year, institutions accredited by the ACCJC submit financial information, including reserves, operating revenues and deficits, salary and benefit costs, enrollment trends and audit findings.

If institutions fall in the “at risk” category like Santa Monica College, they are placed on increased monitoring. This helps ACCJC “better understand the circumstances, remain informed about the institution’s response, and track progress over time,” Powell said.

During this time, ACCJC staffers will meet with representatives from Santa Monica College “and the institution provides information regarding the circumstances contributing to its fiscal condition and the actions it is taking in response,” Powell said.

Powell said that, for students and prospective students, the enhanced fiscal monitoring "indicates that ACCJC is paying closer attention to the institution's financial condition while the institution addresses identified fiscal challenges."

Is SMC’s accreditation at risk?

In short: No.

“Santa Monica College is accredited by ACCJC and, at this time, is not in danger of losing its accreditation, nor is an adverse accreditation action by the Commission currently anticipated,” Powell said. “The purpose of enhanced monitoring is precisely to identify concerns early and provide appropriate oversight while institutions work to address them.”

Are there any other colleges in Southern California in the same boat?

Powell said ACCJC typically doesn't make public whether a college is subject to increased monitoring.

“We are aware that Santa Monica College has chosen to publicly disclose its own fiscal monitoring status. That disclosure was made independently by the institution and does not reflect a change in ACCJC's policy regarding the confidentiality of this information for other member institutions,” Powell added.

What is Santa Monica College doing to address their fiscal woes?

Jeffery wrote in a memo to employees posted on the college website that the at-risk rating “does not account for far-reaching actions the College has taken since,” noting actions like layoffs and contract non-renewals, employee furloughs and salary freezes; and cutting vacant positions.

Powell told LAist in a written statement ACCJC would not speculate about how decisions such as layoffs, salary freezes, or contract non-renewals might affect the student experience.

"From an accreditation perspective, ACCJC's focus is on whether an institution continues to meet accreditation standards, including maintaining the financial stability, staffing, programs, and student support necessary to fulfill its educational mission," he said. "Enhanced fiscal monitoring helps ensure that the Commission remains informed about an institution's financial condition and its capacity to continue serving students effectively."

Amid a growing nationwide backlash against license-plate cameras, California this week, for the fifth year running, failed to enact regulations on the technology.

A bill in the Legislature would have strengthened privacy protections on how license plate data is collected and shared. It also would have guarded against misuse of automated license plate readers by law enforcement officers.

But after clearing the state senate the bill was stopped in the Assembly by majority leader Cecilia Aguilar-Curry on Monday, the final day the Legislature meets this year, before it could be introduced for a floor vote. It was one of a handful of bills that enjoyed strong support from lawmakers and looked poised to pass but died under mysterious circumstances.

All the bills California lawmakers have proposed since 2022 to reform or update regulations on license plate tracking by law enforcement agencies have failed to pass or become law. A similar bill passed last year but was vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“It’s a really disappointing outcome at a time when there is bipartisan concern about this mass surveillance tool,” UC Berkeley Center for Law & Technology codirector Catherine Crump told CalMatters. Crump testified in support of the bill in July.

Lawmakers pushing for more regulation of the readers point to police misuse of the data they collect, including illegally using it to help federal immigration enforcers and stalking people.

But law enforcement agencies say many of the proposed regulations would cripple a tool they say has helped solve a wide range of crimes.

“We were concerned that this bill was going to limit the utility of ALPR data to solve crimes, find missing persons, exonerate innocent individuals, and so the fact that it did not pass, we're glad for that,” California State Sheriff’s Association legislative director Cory Salzillo told CalMatters.

Mounting privacy concerns

Failure to pass the bill or even bring it up for a final vote comes at a time when opposition to license plate readers is growing in and beyond California. Police in Los Angeles and Redwood City and elected officials in California localities like El Cerrito and Campbell have ended contracts with the license plate reader company Flock Safety in recent weeks. Nationwide, more than 200 cities or law enforcement agencies ended license plate reader contracts in August, more than any other month since 2021, according to Secure Justice, a group led by Brian Hofer, a Bay Area privacy advocate who was held at gunpoint after a license plate reader incorrectly told sheriff’s deputies he was driving a stolen car.

License plate readers use cameras and artificial intelligence to log the plate numbers of passing cars. The readers are joined into networks used by law enforcement and information from them can be shared locally or nationwide. The tech can locate criminal suspects or missing persons, but it’s also been tied to police misconduct and immigration enforcement in violation of state law. More than 230 California police or sheriff’s departments currently use license plate readers, according to bill author Senator Sabrina Cervantes, a Democrat from Riverside.

An automated license plate recognition camera near an orchard along Avenue 7 ½ outside of Firebaugh on Aug. 26, 2026.

(

Larry Valenzuela

/

CalMatters

)

“It’s unfortunate that Senate Bill 1013 did not get the chance to be voted on before the deadline passed, but I look forward to continuing to fight for the privacy rights of Californians next year,” she wrote in a statement shared with CalMatters.

Cervantes argued in July that protections in the bill are necessary to prevent unlawful data sharing, because license plate readers routinely collect information about the movement of millions of law-abiding Californians, and to stop other forms of police misconduct. Lawmakers say license plate readers were unlawfully used by law enforcement officers to stalk or harass private citizens in Los Angeles, Marin, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San Diego, and Shasta counties.

Enforcement agencies outside of California have put the technology to even more controversial use. Oakland activist Crystal Zermeño, who attended a protest against the technology outside City Hall last month, said she’s concerned about the tech being used to track women who get abortions or by federal authorities. After Cervantes’ bill died, she asked, “How could we not as a state have the political will to do this in a moment when all of these [federal immigration enforcement] attacks are happening and we have limited defense?”

Cervantes’ Senate Bill 1013 would have restricted state law enforcement agencies to using license plate data only for locating criminal suspects or missing people, would have made police take privacy and cybersecurity training, would have restricted sharing with national databases by default, and would have required the attorney general’s office carry out random audits of license plate reader activity for misuse.

Had the bill come up for a vote, it still might have died, given support for the readers as tools of law and order. Nearly 40 law enforcement agencies and police unions opposed the bill.

Regulations in the measure had already been weakened, trading a requirement that police delete license plate data after 30 days for one that they “archive” it after 60 days, at which point they would need to obtain a warrant to search the data, unless it was connected to an active investigation or vehicle hunt. Police argued that old license plate data had helped solve cold cases and missing people investigations, and some, like the California State Sheriff’s Association, opposed the bill even after it was watered down. Newsom vetoed last year’s bill in part because it would have ordered police to delete license plate data after 60 days.

CalMatters reporting last year and this year found that local law enforcement agencies across Southern California repeatedly shared information with federal immigration agencies, a violation of a state law. A 2020 state audit and investigation by Attorney General Rob Bonta found similar violations of state law that prohibits sharing license plate reader data with out-of-state or federal law enforcement agencies. Since June 2024 the California Attorney General’s Office has contacted 18 law enforcement agencies about possible or known violations of Senate Bill 34 and filed a lawsuit against the city of El Cajon near San Diego to stop the practice.

There are roughly 70 documented instances nationwide where police officers misused automated license plate readers to do things like track their wives, stalk formal partners or pursue love interests, according to the Washington Post, including former Riverside County sheriff’s deputy Alexander Vanny, who used Flock to stalk his former fiancée and was sentenced to six years in prison in February.

The technology can also inaccurately label some drivers as criminal suspects, leading to potentially violent confrontations. A Los Angeles Police Department audit released in July found that one out of three vehicles identified as stolen by Flock cameras were inaccurately identified.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.