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

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • Building affordable housing, police stops and more
    A gavel, California Law book
    We have more about some key laws.

    Topline:

    We took a look at a few new laws that may, from new rules for building affordable housing to how you interact with police officers and new emission standards for certain small engines (think leaf blowers).

    Why now: This past year California lawmakers passed and Governor Gavin Newsom signed more than 1,000 bills, and most of those will become new laws in 2024. Plus there are bills from previous years that are also scheduled to take effect after Jan. 1.

    Why it matters: We want you to go into the year knowledgable about what's changing.

    This past year California lawmakers passed and Governor Gavin Newsom signed more than 1,000 bills, and most of those will become new laws in 2024. Plus there are bills from previous years that are also scheduled to take effect after Jan. 1.

    Not all of those laws will impact your day-to-day life. The establishment of “Workplace Readiness Week” (now the week of April 28) or new procurement rules for transportation analytics software may not really change your 2024 (though maybe they will!).

    We took a look at a few new laws that may, from new rules for building affordable housing to how you interact with police officers and new emission standards for certain small engines (think leaf blowers).

    Making it easier for faith groups and colleges to build affordable housing on their land

    Religious institutions and nonprofit colleges in California will be allowed to build affordable housing on their properties without having to go through complex and expensive rezoning processes under a new state law that goes into effect in January.

    Senate Bill 4, often called the Yes In God’s Backyard (YIGBY) bill, gained bipartisan support in the Legislature and was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in October. State Senator Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, authored the bill, which is officially called the Affordable Housing on Faith Lands Act.

    The law rezones land owned by nonprofit colleges and religious institutions, such as mosques, churches, and synagogues, to allow for affordable housing. Many faith-based groups and nonprofit colleges are currently located on lands where multi-family housing is expressly prohibited by local zoning rules.

    It allows them to bypass most local permitting and environmental review standards that can take years to complete. The law is set to sunset in 2036.

    Neither “CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) nor local political processes can be misused to stop these affordable housing projects,” according to a news release Wiener issued in October.

    SB 4 requires that all housing built through this streamlined process must remain affordable through a deed restriction for at least 55 years for rental properties and 45 years for properties that can be owned. It must also adhere to state affordable housing density and height requirements.

    A recent report from UC Berkeley’s Terner Center found there are approximately 171,000 acres of land throughout the state that would be eligible for affordable housing under SB 4, including about 1,700 acres owned by faith-based organizations in Sacramento County.

    Housing advocates say the lack of available land is one obstacle to building more affordable homes. Securing the necessary funding presents an equally large challenge.

    The legislation was sponsored by the California Conference of Carpenters, Inner City Law Center, Jewish Public Affairs Committee, Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California (NPH) and Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing (SCANPH).

    Several cities, local government and neighborhood groups opposed the bill due to concerns over the loss of local control. They said local zoning and land use planning documents would be ignored. Those opposed included the cities of Beverly Hills, Manhattan Beach and Visalia, among others.

    Chris Nichols 

    Leave for reproductive loss

    Pregnant people who miscarry or couples who experience a failed adoption will now be eligible for five days of time off through California’s “reproductive loss leave.”

    The law covers “miscarriage, unsuccessful assisted reproduction, failed adoption, failed surrogacy, diagnosis negatively impacting pregnancy, diagnosis negatively impacting fertility, or stillbirth,” and applies to both people in the couple. Previously, people could only get time off if they were incapacitated after the loss of a pregnancy, and family and bereavement leave don’t cover most situations.

    “I wanted to ensure that this was for everyone, not just women who are pregnant, but those that want to be parents in other ways,” said bill author state Senator Susan Rubio, a Democrat who represents eastern Los Angeles County.

    The law, SB 848, comes after Utah and Illinois passed their own reproductive loss laws last year.

    Under California’s new law, employers are not obligated to pay employees for the time off and employees are only allowed to use 20 days of reproductive loss leave within a year-long period.

    Rubio said a big part of putting forward the legislation was “signaling to women and those experiencing such a horrific loss that it's okay to speak about it,” she said. “I think for many years it felt like women did something wrong because they couldn't carry a child to term and it's not their fault.”

    According to the Mayo Clinic, about 10-20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, although the number is estimated to be higher when including people who never know they’re pregnant.

    Kate Wolffe

    Police officers have to say why they stopped a driver

    “Do you know why I stopped you?”

    If you’ve been pulled over by police, you may have been asked that question.

    Beginning in 2024, it will be illegal for law enforcement to make it the first thing they say to you. Instead, they’ll have to tell you why they stopped or pulled you over before engaging in any questioning.

    Their reasoning for stopping individuals must also be documented on any citation and on police reports.

    The only exception to the new law is if a police officer “reasonably believes that withholding the reason for the stop is necessary to protect life or property from imminent threat,” according to the text of the law.

    People of color, particularly Black people, are stopped by police at higher rates than white people. The new law is meant to track that disparity and the outcomes of police stops. The law, AB 2773, was approved in 2022.

    Nicole Nixon

    Expansion of traffic speed cameras

    Your next speeding ticket could come from a traffic camera under a law authorizing some cities to set up surveillance in certain areas under a new pilot program.

    The cameras would automatically capture the license plate information and ticket drivers who are traveling at least 11 miles per hour over the road’s speed limit. The first violation up to 15 mph over the limit would result in a warning.

    For now, only six cities are allowed to set up the cameras: Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, Long Beach and Glendale.

    The speeding cameras can only operate for five years and will only be allowed in school zones, safety corridors or areas where speeding is a common problem. They will not be allowed on freeways.

    California law already allows traffic cameras to automatically ticket drivers for running a red light.

    Pedestrian safety advocates say the new law will lead to safer streets and fewer crashes. Cities that install the speeding cameras will be required to report whether – and by how much – the cameras reduce traffic incidents.

    Nicole Nixon

    Increasing city council member pay

    Senate Bill 329 increases the maximum salaries most City Council members can receive and sets rules for increasing their pay. Advocates say the bill reduces financial barriers for people to serve in public office.

    The bill applies to general law cities, but not charter cities such as Sacramento and Los Angeles. Charter cities operate under their own charters, while general law cities follow general state laws. Most of California’s 482 cities are general law cities, said Johnnie Pina, a legislative affairs lobbyist for the League of California Cities.

    The state has not adjusted maximum salaries for council members in general law cities since 1984, Pina said. Increasing the maximum salaries allows cities to adjust council members’ pay for inflation.

    New limits for council member pay range from $950 per month in cities with a population of 35,000 or fewer people to $3,200 per month in cities with a population of more than 250,000 people. The bill also allows council members to approve ordinances to increase their salaries past these maximums based on inflation or their previous pay adjustment.

    The bill may increase the diversity of people who serve on City Councils, said Roger Dickinson, the policy director for CivicWell, a nonprofit that supports developing sustainable policies.

    “There's a distinct need to have people sitting on City Councils who are able to devote sufficient time to the work … and to increase the diversity of those who serve on City Councils,” Dickinson said. “To make it more practical for not just not just people of color, but also people who may have less economic means to serve on City Councils.”

    The law goes into effect Jan. 1, but a city can only implement salary increases for council members when at least one begins a new term.

    Kristin Lam

    Ending suspensions for “willful defiance”

    Introduced by state Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), SB 274 — also known as “Keep Students in School” — will prohibit the suspension or expulsion of public school students in 6-12th grade based on what’s known as “willful defiance.” The law goes into effect July 1, 2024 until July 1, 2029.

    Willful defiance, outlined by the policy, is the disruption of school activities or defiance of authority such as supervisors, teachers, or administrators. Suspensions are still pursued by the superintendent or principal for actions including, but not limited to, physical injury to another person, unlawful possession or use of an intoxicant, and attempted damage to school property.

    This legislation appends Skinner’s previous bill — SB 419 — which permanently eliminates willful defiance suspensions in grades TK to 5 and prohibits them in grades 6 to 8 until 2025.

    Additionally, the bill mandates that school employees utilize intervention methods, including in-school and outside support, and document the actions taken within five days of the incident.

    Mark Harris, the diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility monitor for Sacramento City Unified School District, said he continues to be concerned about the underlying teacher subjectivity with deeming a student willfully defiant.

    “No one yet has come up with what will replace the current system,” explained Harris. “So they no longer are going to be kicked off campus. But what are they going to do? And where are they gonna go and who's gonna teach? I don't know the answer to those questions.”

    Sacramento City and Elk Grove Unified have been subject of high Black and brown suspension rates in the state as recently as 2019. Despite the policy demanding that the state reimburse the school for any expenses incurred in providing intervention, there are no actual monies associated with the bill.

    Srishti Prabha

    LGBTQ+ cultural competency training for teachers

    A law taking effect in the new year requires the California Department of Education to establish LGBTQ+ cultural competency training for teachers. It's called the "Safe and Supportive Schools Act."

    "Now in this time, especially with the heightened attacks against the LGBTQ+ community,” said bill co-author Torrance Democratic Assembly member Al Muratsuchi, “I believe it is the position and the values of the state of California that we take this important step forward to lead the country in terms of the right thing to do."

    Under the act, the DOE will need to set up a training curriculum for teachers and other certified school employees to support LGBTQ+ students.

    Proponents of the legislation — including a transgender student from Sacramento County — urged state lawmakers to send it to the governor's desk.

    One of those proponents identified himself as Adrian, a 10th grader attending a high school in Elk Grove.

    Adrian told lawmakers he came out as transgender to a small group of people but didn't want it known by others. A teacher found out and attempted to affirm Adrian's gender identity by calling Adrian he/him in front of the whole class, without permission.

    "I was mortified,” Adrian said during a legislative hearing. “All of a sudden, all control I had over my own decision to come out at school had been taken away from me."

    The new law requires the Education Department to have an online training program in place by the 2025-26 school year. The online training will start with the 2025-26 school year and only apply to educators who teach seventh to 12th graders.

    Researchers say LGBTQ+ students miss fewer classes and get better grades when they have supportive teachers.

    Steve Milne

    Adding Asian American history, media literacy to California’s K-12 curriculum

    California’s K-12 curriculum will undergo another overhaul soon — thanks to two bills, Assembly Bill 873 and Assembly Bill 1354, which respectively require the state’s Instructional Quality Commission to consider including media literacy content at each grade level and expanding instruction on Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander history in the U.S.

    On Jan. 1, California K-12 students won’t find their day-to-day curriculum disrupted immediately. But these laws jumpstart the work of updating the curriculum framework to encompass both subject areas.

    Only three other states — New Jersey, Texas and Delaware — have passed similar legislation on media literacy curriculum. Democratic Assembly member Marc Berman, who introduced AB 837 and represents portions of the San Francisco peninsula, called media literacy education a “bipartisan issue.”

    “This is really just about trying to make sure that the next generation has the skills that they need to navigate the reality of today,” he said.

    And media literacy education has been on California legislators’ minds. In 2018, the state’s department of education, California School Library Association and KQED compiled media literacy information in three free databases to fulfill the requirements set forth in Senate Bill 830.

    AB 1354 also reflects another legislative priority: responding to racist, xenophobic violence against Asian Americans that sprung up at the COVID-19 pandemic’s start.

    Among the topics the instructional commission will consider incorporating into curriculum are “examples of racism, discrimination and violence perpetrated against Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders in the United States, including, but not limited to, hate crimes committed during the COVID-19 pandemic,” AB 1354 reads.

    Even outside that, Asian American history is a particularly relevant issue. Asians are the fastest-growing ethnic group in California, a state which has the largest population of Asian Americans in the U.S. The bill aims to paint a fully contextual picture of history to “help prevent and decrease discrimination and violence perpetrated against the Asian American community.”

    Janelle Salanga

    Requiring owners to clean up “orphaned” oil wells

    A new law targets California’s “orphaned” wells, which are inactive wells where the owner does not have the money to clean up the site. It requires companies interested in purchasing idle or low-producing oil wells to have money set aside to sufficiently cover the costs of plugging, abandoning and restoring the site of the well.

    Advocates say this will help prevent large oil companies from selling wells to smaller companies who may not have the resources to clean up the site. Wells that aren’t properly maintained can contaminate groundwater, leak hazardous gasses like methane and pose health threats for nearby communities.

    “Because California doesn't have a setback law on the books, which just means a mandatory distance between oil wells and … places where people live, work and play, these oil wells are right outside of people's homes,” said Jasmine Vazin, a field organizing strategist with the Sierra Club.

    Vazin said negative health threats posed by these wells — which can include respiratory diseases and birth defects — are “impacts that are completely avoidable.” Although the law does not impact already existing orphaned wells, she said the law will prevent wells from becoming orphaned in the future.

    Manola Secaira

    New emission rules for small gasoline engines

    Small gasoline engines used to power lawn mowers, leaf blowers and other equipment will need to meet zero-emission requirements on Jan. 1.

    The rule, approved by the California Air Resources Board in late 2021, applies to newly-manufactured small off-road engines, known by the acronym SORE. These small engines pollute well beyond their size and weight, with CARB saying a commercial operator using one backpack leaf blower for one hour generates the same smog-forming emissions as a car driving 1,100 miles.

    According to CARB, the volume of smog-forming emissions from this type of equipment has surpassed emissions from light-duty passenger cars and is projected to be nearly twice those of passenger cars by 2031.

    Generators and large power washers won't have to meet the zero-emission rule until 2028, but beginning on Jan. 1, they will have more stringent emissions standards — a reduction of 40 to 90%.

    The Legislature has allocated $30 million to be dedicated to sole proprietors and other small landscaping businesses in California to help them purchase zero-emission small off-road equipment, including leaf blowers, lawn mowers and string trimmers.

    Mike Hagerty

    More new laws

  • Watch replay: Bass, Raman on environmental issues
    Two women in suit jackets hold mics and gesture as the address an audience.
    L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and Councilmember Nithya Raman separately explain their environmental positions at a mayoral forum held Thursday at L.A. Trade Tech in downtown Los Angeles.

    Topline:

    Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass painted herself as a proven fighter for environmental justice issues. Her challenger, L.A. City Councilmember Nithya Raman, said progress on environmental goals has stalled in City Hall.

    Key topics: The candidates each had about 45 minutes to individually answer questions from Erin Stone, an LAist senior reporter focused on climate and environment.

    Here are some of the topics they covered:

    • Extreme heat
    • Emergency preparedness and recovery
    • Protecting communities from pollution
    • Water
    • Public transit

    LAist will have more coverage and analysis of the conversations Friday morning.

    Topline:

    Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass described herself as a proven fighter for environmental justice issues. Her challenger, L.A. City Councilmember Nithya Raman, said progress on environmental goals has stalled in City Hall.

    Key topics: The candidates each had about 45 minutes to individually answer questions from Erin Stone, an LAist senior reporter focused on climate and environment.

    Here are some of the topics they covered:

    • Extreme heat
    • Emergency preparedness and recovery
    • Protecting communities from pollution
    • Water
    • Public transit

    About the organizers: The event is organized by a coalition of local environmental and environmental justice groups including: Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters, SCOPE-LA, Sierra Club, Clean and Healthy California, Neighborhood Council Sustainability Alliance and Communities for a Better Environment

    LAist will have more coverage and analysis of the conversations Friday morning.

  • Sponsored message
  • Ahead of election, Trump admin still has big plans

    Topline:

    The Trump administration is taking steps to advance a mysterious and unprecedented project to compile state-by-state lists of people it has decided are eligible citizens over the age of 18 who can vote in the upcoming midterm election.

    About the timing: Trump officials will no longer meet its own deadline to publish that information on a portal on Friday, which is 60 days before Election Day.

    Where things stand: Department of Justice attorneys told opposing counsel in two separate lawsuits that instead of meeting the Sept. 4 deadline, they would give 48-hours notice to plaintiffs' counsel before the state citizenship portal was launched, according to recent court filings.

    Why this matters: The U.S. has never attempted to create a comprehensive list of American citizens before this administration. Maintaining voter lists is the responsibility of states, not the federal government, as the Constitution dictates that states control elections. But President Trump has repeatedly taken steps to try to exert executive control over elections.

    The Trump administration is taking steps to advance a mysterious and unprecedented project to compile state-by-state lists of people it has decided are eligible citizens over the age of 18 who can vote in the upcoming midterm election. But it will no longer meet its own deadline to publish that information on a portal on Friday, which is 60 days before Election Day.

    Department of Justice attorneys told opposing counsel in two separate lawsuits that instead of meeting the Sept. 4 deadline, they would give 48-hours notice to plaintiffs' counsel before the state citizenship portal was launched, according to recent court filings.

    The U.S. has never attempted to create a comprehensive list of American citizens before this administration. Maintaining voter lists is the responsibility of states, not the federal government, as the Constitution dictates that states control elections. But President Trump has repeatedly taken steps to try to exert executive control over elections.

    The basis for the federal government creating state citizenship lists is an executive order Trump signed on March 31. A lower court had blocked implementation of key parts of that executive order in 23 states and Washington, D.C., but the Supreme Court stayed that injunction late last month, opening the door for the plan to be implemented after all.

    The March 31 executive order directs U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Social Security Administration to create "State Citizenship Lists" of individuals the agencies believe are citizens in each state, and send those lists to state officials "no fewer than 60 days before each regularly scheduled Federal election."

    The next section of the executive order says the U.S. attorney general will prioritize investigating and prosecuting state and local officials who issue federal ballots to anyone not eligible to vote.

    "States here have a strong incentive to actually use these lists to try to avoid federal investigation," said Jules Torti, counsel at the nonprofit Protect Democracy, in an interview with NPR. "But we know that these lists are going to be based on really inaccurate data. So the risk of disenfranchisement here is really, really palpable."

    The privacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center, along with individual voters, filed a motion Thursday asking a federal judge in Maryland to block the administration from creating the citizenship lists and publishing them on a portal. Specifically, they seek to block a June 8 implementation memo authored by USCIS director Joseph Edlow that outlines the plan.

    The motion, which was brought by Protect Democracy, along with another nonprofit legal group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, argues the administration's plans to share Americans' personal data between agencies and then disseminate the data to states violates multiple federal laws, including the Privacy Act, the Social Security Act and the Administrative Procedures Act. Under the Privacy Act, federal agencies must give the public 30 days notice and the opportunity to comment before they collect and disseminate Americans' personal data for a new purpose.

    The EPIC lawsuit also argues the government does not have access to accurate, up-to-date information on American citizens, especially those who move frequently, have changed their names, or are foreign-born. For example, Social Security's citizenship data often isn't updated when people naturalize, and the SAVE data system, operated by USCIS, frequently doesn't include records for people who became citizens as minors when their parents naturalized.

    Torti said it is "deeply concerning" that the administration is still planning to go ahead with the creation of citizenship lists but is no longer going to meet the deadline, since that means the lists will be completed even closer to Election Day.

    "It means additional chaos, additional confusion for the state election officials and just for voters," Torti said. "And I think that's the point. The point here is to create chaos in advance of the election."

    Neither the Department of Justice, nor the Department of Homeland Security, which is tasked with compiling the citizenship lists, responded to NPR's request for comment.

    The June 8 implementation memo stated that the portal for state election officials would be available around June 30 and a second portal where citizens could check their information would be available at a later date – but that deadline passed without further updates.

    The federal government has secured a domain for the state citizenship lists portal. While the portal is not currently online, it was briefly live in recent days with a landing page that said "Coming Soon," according to court filings.

    Lawyers representing Democratic party groups that had challenged the March 31 executive order in a separate lawsuit filed in April, accused the administration in a recent filing of failing to notify the court or the parties about its plans to move forward with the state citizenship portal. They asked the judge to require the federal government to give immediate updates about their plans to implement the executive order.

    This latest legal battle over the administration's plans to compile state citizenship lists comes as the Department of Homeland Security is ramping up its efforts to analyze state voter rolls with the goal of identifying potential noncitizens who are registered to vote. Previous audits have found instances of noncitizens casting ballots to be incredibly rare. 

    Additionally, last week, ICE published a request for information on a federal procurement site seeking vendors who can compile public voter rolls and voter history files from all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and U.S. territories, "to support Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) fraud detection and data segmentation activities."

    NPR's Hansi Lo Wang contributed reporting to this story. 
    Copyright 2026 NPR

  • CA officials oppose land-swap deal
    A mountain with a sheer face is seen behind a row of trees. In the foreground is a river.
    El Capitan in Yosemite National Park.

    Topline:

    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.

    About the proposed land exchange: 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.

    Why it matters: A bipartisan group of 61 state legislators led by Assemblymember Greg Wallis, a Republican who represents Riverside and San Bernardino counties argues 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.

    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.”

    Two men and one woman stand side by side, looking to their left. Behind them is an bay.
    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.”

  • New program to help small shops install cameras
    A window to a business storefront is broken as you can see inside the gated fence and "Open" sign.
    A file photo of an East Village restaurant that was vandalized on Thursday, June 6, 2024.

    Topline:

    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.

    More details: 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.

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

    Read on... for more on how to qualify for these grants in Long Beach.

    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.