Sponsored message
Logged in as
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • Fewer spaces could be a climate change solution
    An aerial view of hundreds of cars parked in rows in a large parking lot

    Topline:

    Since the 1920s a little-known policy called parking minimums has shaped a large facet of American life. In major cities, any type of building — apartments, banks, or shopping malls — needs to reserve a certain amount of parking spaces to accommodate anyone who might visit. Now climate change has urban planners rethinking the policy.

    Why it matters: Transportation makes up almost one-third of carbon emissions in the U.S. and cars represent a significant portion of those emissions. As the country attempts to aggressively cut carbon emissions, reducing dependence on fossil fuels will also mean rethinking what transportation and public space look like, especially in cities.

    Why now: Momentum is building with cities like Anchorage, Richmond, and Raleigh, and states like California all eliminating their parking minimums within the last few years. Earlier this month, the city of Austin, Texas, became the latest community to eliminate parking minimums and is now the largest city in the U.S. to do so.

    This story was supported by the Economic Hardship Reporting Project.

    This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist’s weekly newsletter here.

    Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future.

    In the beginning, parking lots were created to curb chaos on the road. But climate change has turned that dynamic on its head.

    Since the 1920s a little-known policy called parking minimums has shaped a large facet of American life. In major cities, this meant that any type of building — apartments, banks, or shopping malls — needed to reserve a certain amount of parking spaces to accommodate anyone who might visit.

    But transportation makes up almost one-third of carbon emissions in the U.S. and cars represent a significant portion of those emissions. As the country attempts to aggressively cut carbon emissions, reducing dependence on fossil fuels will also mean rethinking what transportation and public space look like, especially in cities.

    Earlier this month, the city of Austin, Texas, became the latest community to eliminate parking minimums and is now the largest city in the U.S. to do so.

    “If we want half of all trips to be in something other than a car, then we can’t, as a city, in my opinion, mandate that every home or business have at least one parking space for each resident or customer,” said Zohaib Qadri, the Austin city council member who introduced the measure.

    Reducing dependency on cars was a huge push for the initiative in Austin, said Qadri, who hopes the measure also will lead to a more sustainable city.

    “Climate change is here,” said Qadri. “And we’re only going to make it worse by clinging to these very climate unfriendly and unsustainable transportation habits of the 20th century.”

    The elimination of this seemingly innocuous law could pave the way for cities to build denser housing, increase public transit options, and reduce their carbon emissions, according to Donald Shoup, an engineer and professor of urban planning at UCLA.

    “It isn’t just the housing crisis and climate change, it’s traffic congestion, it’s local air pollution, it’s the high price of everything — except parking,” said Shoup.

    Climate change and air pollution are particularly costly outcomes, with both estimated to cost the U.S. billions of dollars every year. Parking spots, meanwhile, can run in the tens of thousands of dollars to construct, with one estimate putting that figure at almost $30,000 per spot.

    “Even if climate change were not an issue, removing parking requirements is a good idea. But in addition to being a good idea locally, it will help the entire planet,” he said.

    Momentum is building with cities like Anchorage, Richmond, and Raleigh, and states like California all eliminating their parking minimums within the last few years.

    Paved parking lots not only take up valuable space, but also contribute to the urban heat island effect, where cities often experience higher temperatures than their rural counterparts. The asphalt and concrete used to construct parking lots often absorb and re-emit heat at higher rates than the natural environment. This happened amidst a record-breakingly hot summer which means that not only are parking lots contributing to the larger problem of climate change, but they also make the outcome worse in the short-term as well.

    An important caveat is that undoing parking minimums does not mean that all parking will vanish overnight, but rather that any off-street parking built will not need to adhere to any minimum standard. These standards were not only outdated but often prevented meaningful conversation about how to increase housing density — an urgent need for most parts of the U.S., according to Tony Jordan, president of the Parking Reform Network.

    “Imagine if all the parking was still built, but we just had another 10 apartments in every building in every city for the last 50 years,” said Jordan. “We’d have a housing abundance, like, that’s a lot of apartments that would have just been built that we basically prevented.”

    Every time parking took precedence over other land uses, that was a deliberate choice, even when it was the result of relying on decades-old policy to avoid active decision making about public space according to Jordan.

    “The cities just need to take an active role in managing what they own — the street and the curb.”

    The most important effects of undoing parking minimums probably won’t be seen right away, it will take time for cities to build up their housing stock, or to increase investment in low-carbon transit options but repealing parking minimums represents an important step in building more climate-friendly cities.

    “Austin is the same city that it was two weeks ago,” said Jordan. “It’s gonna take quite a while for that city to really reap the benefits of their parking mandate reforms. And so it just removes a roadblock and a barrier to other reforms.”

  • Governor says he's on Trump's 'hit list'
    A man wearing a navy blue button up shirt points his finger while speaking to an older man wearing a navy blue suit jacket and black baseball cap.
    President Donald Trump listens to Gov. Gavin Newsom after arriving on Air Force One at Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles on Jan. 24, 2025.

    Topline:

    Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday accused President Donald Trump of placing him on a political “hit list” and directing federal investigators to go on a “fishing expedition” for a crime it could use to indict him.

    Why now: The Democratic governor declared that the president was targeting him not for his “mean tweets,” but because Newsom is considering a run for president in 2028. His office said federal agents have contacted friends, former employees, business associates, donors, and organizations connected to the Newsoms but did not specify further. Neither the governor nor first partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom have received subpoenas yet, Newsom’s office said, but he “looks forward” to receiving them.

    Awaiting confirmation: The White House referred questions about Newsom’s comments to the Department of Justice. A Department of Justice spokesperson did not immediately respond.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday accused President Donald Trump of placing him on a political “hit list” and directing federal investigators to go on a “fishing expedition” for a crime it could use to indict him.

    The Democratic governor declared that the president was targeting him not for his “mean tweets,” but because Newsom is considering a run for president in 2028.

    “In recent days, federal agents have knocked on the doors of family friends and former employees,” Newsom said in the video. “Not because they found a crime, but because they simply are trying to find one.”

    Newsom stated that he was “proud” to join Trump’s so-called “enemies list” that has also included former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, the former vice presidential candidate.

    The governor claimed that federal agents were demanding records and “abusing the grand jury process” by “digging through years and years of random documents.” Neither the governor nor first partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom have received subpoenas yet, Newsom’s office said, but he “looks forward” to receiving them.

    His office said federal agents have contacted friends, former employees, business associates, donors, and organizations connected to the Newsoms but did not specify further.

    The accusations first came in a fiery video statement released Monday, but provided no concrete evidence that the president had orchestrated such a probe and did not identify any of the associated groups or people he said the Justice Department was looking into.

    “You can subpoena my records. You can investigate me. You can harass me. Put my name on any and every enemies list that you have,” Newsom said. “But leave my wife and family out of your personal vendetta!”

    The White House referred questions about Newsom’s comments to the Department of Justice. A Department of Justice spokesperson did not immediately respond.

    This is a developing story that will be updated.

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

  • Sponsored message
  • CA admits to using systems it failed to report
    Large signage of the seal of California on a concrete building with windows. Underneath it is text that reads "State of California" on building.
    Every year, California agencies report to the state technology department on their use of "high-risk" decision systems.

    Topline:

    State officials have found they are using six high-risk AI-like systems. One year ago, they reported using zero.

    Why it matters: A year ago, California officials had to report under a new state law how they used automated systems to make important decisions about people’s lives. They said they never did — a startling answer for a number of reasons, sources told CalMatters at the time, including that there were several prominent examples to the contrary.

    More details: Now, the state has issued a more expansive answer: It is currently using six automated systems to make consequential decisions about the lives of Californians. The systems are used to do things like:

    • Predict whether incarcerated people will re-offend 
    • Evaluate whether unemployment claims are fraudulent
    • Remotely administer exams for California State University students 
    • Detect when college students use generative AI to write assignments.

    Read on... for more on the systems used by the state.

    A year ago, California officials had to report under a new state law how they used automated systems to make important decisions about people’s lives.

    They said they never did — a startling answer for a number of reasons, sources told CalMatters at the time, including that there were several prominent examples to the contrary.

    Now, the state has issued a more expansive answer: It is currently using six automated systems to make consequential decisions about the lives of Californians.

    The systems are used to do things like:

    • Predict whether incarcerated people will re-offend 
    • Evaluate whether unemployment claims are fraudulent
    • Remotely administer exams for California State University students 
    • Detect when college students use generative AI to write assignments.

    That's according to a report released Friday by the state's technology department. The report is required under a 2023 law mandating that that state agencies annually disclose their use of “high-risk automated decision systems,” which the law defines as systems “used to assist or replace human discretionary decisions that have a legal or similarly significant effect, including decisions that materially impact access to, or approval for, housing or accommodations, education, employment, credit, health care, and criminal justice.”

    The law was pushed by civil rights, privacy, and civil liberties groups concerned about harms from AI-like systems. Numerous such systems have been shown to produce results biased against marginalized groups, including those used for high-stakes testing, predicting recidivism, and detecting AI-generated texts.

    CalMatters flagged last year’s report as surprising, noting that the state corrections department had reported using software to predict post-release behavior and that the employment department used a fraud detection system that paused benefits for 600,000 Californians between Christmas and New Years in 2020, according to a Legislative Analyst’s Office report.

    Though the report names six high-risk systems in use today, state agencies have used some for several years now. Those include COMPAS, which has been used by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to assign recidivism scores to inmates for at least a decade.

    The technology department said in the report that it found more systems for its report this year because it evaluated responses from state agencies more thoroughly, including by meeting with agencies and questioning them about their systems.

    In addition to the six high-risk systems, the department’s report disclosed an additional six systems initially flagged as high risk but later determined not to be. One was AI used for legislative bill analysis by the California Department of Finance.

    The report also notes two high-risk systems that are not currently in use: the Department of Cannabis Control is developing artificial intelligence to analyze whether marijuana packaging violates a law against appealing to children and California State University discontinued use of a language model for reviewing job applications.

    Results of the second annual survey come after cities like San Jose and San Francisco released their first AI inventories in recent months. They also come at a time when California-based AI companies like Anthropic and OpenAI are going public and seeking government contracts. Americans are split on whether they trust AI and surveys last year by TechEquity and Carnegie California found that the majority of Californians want safety over innovation. A Gallup poll to evaluate the opinions of Americans found similar results.

    Senate Bill 1248, a bill that would have prohibited state employees from using automated decision systems as the sole basis for decisionmaking, was killed last month in the state’s rapid-fire appropriations process.

    What’s missing

    While the newly-released report shares more information than last year’s, several questions remain about the state’s use of artificial intelligence and other automated systems.

    The report does not include generative AI pilot projects underway with support from the governor’s office to do things like help businesses file taxes, support state employees who work on homelessness, and an AI assistant named Poppy that uses language models like Anthropic’s Claude to do things like draft documents, research policy, or build custom AI tools, according to a state website. The website says that 67 state departments provided input during the pilot phase and statewide rollout of Poppy begins next month.

    A California State University contract with OpenAI to provide a version of ChatGPT is also not mentioned, though surveys of AI use in educational settings have found that the technology can do more harm than good.

    The 2023 law mandating the annual high-risk systems report excludes reporting by a number of state agencies, including the judicial branch and the University of California college system. Reporting by CalMatters last month found that a majority of the roughly 60 courts that operate statewide have adopted generative AI use policies. Courts in Los Angeles and Riverside counties have begun testing an AI tool to act as a clerk, drafting orders and producing research memos.

    CalMatters is compiling an inventory of automated decisionmaking systems in use by state and local agencies throughout California in order to provide transparency into how governments are using decisionmaking systems and AI. Know about an AI system in use by a state or local agency? Email khari@calmatters.org.

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

  • Recent study has hopeful finding for Joshua trees
    Rows of burned Joshua trees extend across a desert landscape.
    The Dome Fire in 2020 burned more than 1 million Joshua trees.

    Topline:

    After an estimated 1.3 million Joshua trees died in a fire, scientists found fungi thriving near the charred pants. These networks of fungi, which help extend the reach of the yuccas' root systems, could help the recovery of burned Joshua trees.

    Why it matters: Fungi help Joshua trees absorb water and nutrients, helping them survive harsh desert conditions. Without the fungi, the beloved desert plants would struggle even more than they already are to recover from the 2020 Dome Fire.

    The context: By 2100, Joshua trees are projected to lose up to 80% of their habitat if greenhouse gas emissions continue increasing. Amid concerns about climate change, experts said that the new study provided insight into how Joshua trees may fare in a hotter world.

    Read on … to learn more about the underground fungal networks that survived the fire.

    An estimated 1.3 million Joshua trees burned as the 2020 Dome Fire swept through 43,000 acres of the Cima Dome in the Mojave Desert. Scientists feared the damage extended far beyond the trees, reaching into the underground networks of fungi that help sustain desert ecosystems.

    Instead, fungi are thriving underground.

    That finding — published in a peer-reviewed study in the journal Fire Ecology — is important because the fungi extend the reach of Joshua trees’ root systems, helping them survive harsh desert conditions. Without the fungi, the desert plants would struggle even more than they already are to recover from the fire.

    “Even though things die, there are always plants and microbes that will take advantage of the fire and will really bloom after them,” said Sydney Glassman, a fungal ecologist at UC Riverside and the lead author of the study. “So it’s not all doom and gloom."

    Two weeks after the Dome Fire was contained in August 2020, Glassman and a team of researchers collected samples from burned and unburned areas around the Cima Dome volcanic structure east of Baker. The area is home to one of the densest Joshua tree forests in the world. The team collected soil samples near Eastern Joshua trees to assess the fire’s effect on fungal communities. The samples were frozen, processed for DNA extraction, and later sequenced to identify which organisms were present.

    Over the next three years, researchers returned to the sites five times, focusing on measuring the amount of the symbiotic fungi and bacteria that live within Joshua tree roots.

    They found a fungal system that remained largely intact.

    “In this case, other plants survived — like cacti, or different kinds of desert forbs, or other yuccas — so they were maintaining the soil microbial community,” Glassman said.

    A photo of a woman with a mask sampling fungi at Mojave National Preserve.
    Sydney Glassman of UC Riverside collects samples of fungi in the Mojave National Preserve.
    (
    Lynn Sweet
    /
    UC Riverside
    )

    These fungi help plants absorb water and nutrients from the soil, while also protecting against pathogens and environmental stressors such as drought.

    Experts think that the fungal networks remained resilient partly due to the sparseness of the Mojave, where Joshua trees are spread far apart.

    “There’s not really a lot of ground cover in between them, so the fire moves really fast,” Glassman said, meaning the heat did little damage to the soil.

    But efforts to restore Joshua trees have seen little success so far. Seedlings face a multitude of threats, including pack rats and increasing temperatures, Glassman said.

    “The seedling has to get growing and survive first,” Glassman said. “And then once it’s growing, then it definitely requires these fungi, and those can help them tolerate drought and survive.”

    A purple image of a tree-like structure.
    This image shows what's known as an arbuscule, a fungal structure, from an Eastern Joshua tree's root.
    (
    Arik Joukhajian
    /
    UC Riverside
    )

    By 2100, Joshua trees are projected to lose up to 80% of their habitat if greenhouse gas emissions continue increasing. Amid concerns about climate change, experts said that the new study provided insight into how Joshua trees may fare in a hotter world.

    Brendan Cummings, conservation director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said Joshua trees face increasing fire and drought risk as human-caused climate change accelerates.

    “If we do everything necessary to save the Joshua tree, we will also be saving the broader desert ecosystem,” said Cummings, who has worked on Joshua tree conservation.

    Glassman said her research will continue. She hopes to understand the traits of bacteria and fungi that survive fires, and how they're doing it.

    Ohio State University evolutionary ecologist Alison Bennett said future research could investigate whether soil fungi play a role in improving the germination and growth of Joshua tree seedlings. However, Bennett noted that challenges in procuring Joshua tree seedlings and waiting for them to reach maturity over decades could make such research difficult.

    “There are other aspects of restoration and looking at soil microbiology that need to be built more, and I feel like this paper lays a good foundation for a lot of that future work,” said Andrew Kaiser, an environmental scientist at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife who was not involved in the study.

  • Where they want to spend more than Newsom
    A collage of two photos side by side: on the left is Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, a man with light skin tone, wearing a black suit, speaking. On the right, is Sen. John Laird, a man with light skin tone, facial hair, wearing a dark blue suit and glasses, gesturing with his left hand in the air as he speaks.
    From left, Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel and state Sen. John Laird.

    Topline:

    State lawmakers’ budget plan would reject or delay many of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s social service cuts. Now, the budget negotiations begin in earnest.

    Why it matters: Today’s vote is only a formality, because lawmakers are constitutionally required to pass a balanced budget by June 15 each year to continue collecting their pay. They have until the end of the month to strike a deal with Newsom before the new fiscal year starts July 1.

    What's next: In the next two weeks, legislators will have to settle their differences with Newsom on health care cuts, funding for schools and homelessness and more.

    Read on... for five takeaways from the Legislature's spending plan.

    California lawmakers are expected to adopt a $356 billion state budget today that would largely avoid or delay billions of dollars in social service cuts Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed last month.

    Then, the (real) budget negotiations can begin.

    Today’s vote is only a formality, because lawmakers are constitutionally required to pass a balanced budget by June 15 each year to continue collecting their pay. They have until the end of the month to strike a deal with Newsom before the new fiscal year starts July 1.

    In the next two weeks, legislators will have to settle their differences with Newsom on health care cuts, funding for schools and homelessness and more.

    Here are five takeaways from the Legislature’s spending plan:

    Punt and soften healthcare cuts

    Faced with federal funding cuts under the tax and spending law President Donald Trump signed last year, Newsom proposed several measures to limit healthcare coverage for undocumented immigrants as well as refugees, asylees and human trafficking survivors.

    Top legislative Democrats want to delay those cuts by a year while looking for alternatives to soften the impact.

    Newsom also wants to raise the monthly Medi-Cal premium undocumented immigrants pay from $30 to $50. But lawmakers prefer waiting him out, proposing to leave the decision to the next governor.

    “I don’t think it’s about Gavin Newsom,” said Sen. John Laird, a Santa Cruz Democrat who chairs the budget committee. “It’s really about trying to stretch as far as we can in the hope that we don’t have to make those cuts.”

    The Legislature rebuked Newsom’s proposal to reinstate stringent Medi-Cal asset tests for seniors and adults with disabilities by July, instead pitching a less restrictive limit to take effect in fiscal year 2027-28. With bipartisan support, the lawmakers also rejected Newsom’s proposed cuts to the In-Home Supportive Services program.

    They did, however, agree to Newsom’s plan to spend $300 million to subsidize private healthcare for low-income Californians.

    Restoring some child care, TK-12 money

    Democratic lawmakers want to add 22,000 state-funded child care slots over the next few years. They also rejected Newsom’s proposed reduction of 6,800 state-supported spaces due to declining federal and state funding.

    The new slots would prioritize children ages 3 and under. Advocates who applauded the proposal say it would address a gap left unfilled by Newsom’s transitional kindergarten expansion to reach 4-year-olds.

    Banking on a rosier revenue forecast, state lawmakers proposed $2.7 billion more in funding for TK-12 schools and community colleges than Newsom did in May.

    Schools and educators were hoping for more. They wanted the Legislature to reject Newsom’s proposal to withhold $3.9 billion in constitutionally guaranteed school money — an accounting mechanism to prevent overpaying schools in case the projected revenue doesn’t materialize.

    “We demand that the Legislature and the governor follow the law, stop with the gimmicks and the shell games, and fully fund our schools,” said David Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association. “Our union is prepared to do whatever it takes to hold them accountable if they don’t. Our students deserve no less.”

    More generous with counties

    The Legislature’s spending plan would give counties more money to step up eligibility checks for Californians applying for food stamps and health care benefits, reviews that are now required under Trump’s spending bill.

    It would also allocate $125 million to help counties reestablish indigent care — a program serving low-income Californians that largely went away under Obamacare.

    State lawmakers also want to set aside $900 million for the state’s homelessness fund, whereas Newsom included just $500 million in his proposal.

    More revenue, please

    Newsom proposed three new tax measures and lawmakers are on board with them:

    The proposals come at a time when California voters have rejected most local tax initiatives during the June primary. But Newsom’s proposals require no voter approval — just the support of two-thirds of each legislative chamber.

    There’s still an appetite among lawmakers to make corporations pay up. Senate Democrats had proposed a monthly charge on big employers for having employees enrolled in Medi-Cal, but have now backed away from the plan, instead asking the next governor to pitch “fully viable options” next year.

    Save more money for rainy days

    There’s a consensus between the Legislature and the governor to raise the ceiling on the revenue the state can deposit into its rainy day fund. The question is how much. State leaders are constitutionally required to make deposits into the account each year, but the balance cannot exceed 10% of the state’s general fund tax revenue under current law.

    Changing that amount would require voter approval. Lawmakers are considering placing a measure on the November ballot that would allow them to sock away more money for lean years. They have a tight deadline of June 25 to settle on what they want to put before voters.

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