SKID ROW - A few weeks ago, a portion of my Title VI Civil Rights complaint against the City of Los Angeles was accepted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Complaint No. 21-26-R9). My complaint focuses on disparities involving environmental review, trees, and open space affecting the Skid Row neighborhood, which the EPA identifies as “Central City East”. This investigation is now active.

While continuing to research issues raised in my complaint, I stumbled across a different question altogether: How can residents participate in planning the future of Skid Row if they have no reliable way of knowing what projects are being proposed around them?

Representatives of the Los Angeles Department of City Planning spent years facilitating workshops, meetings, surveys, and public planning discussions as part of DTLA 2040, the comprehensive update to Downtown's Community Plan. Staff worked closely with a local coalition I am a part of called Skid Row Now & 2040, which produced its own policy paper, Containment and Community, authored by Catherine Gudis, Ph.D. We were told that our input would help shape the future of Downtown.

Notably, the final Plan incorporated numerous Skid Row-specific recommendations such as enhancement of the public realm, coordination with residents and community organizations, recognition of the neighborhood’s unique character and history, and prioritization of inclusive design.

What I did not fully understand at the time is that a Community Plan is only as meaningful as the approval process through which future projects move.

A few months ago, I began requesting public records for an abandoned factory at 431 S. Crocker Street, which I had heard was being redeveloped. Initially, I was simply trying to determine whether environmental review under CEQA was underway and, if so, where the project stood in that process.

Planning had no records for me at that time. I then shifted my inquiry to the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS), where I uncovered draft plans for a housing development of more than 200 units, a clinic, and accessory parking. Emails indicate that the project was being evaluated through an ED1 streamlined approval pathway. This ministerial process would not have generated a traditional discretionary Planning case number or triggered the public notice and hearing process typically associated with discretionary approvals. A few days after I emailed questions regarding the lack of public notice, Planning came back to say that ED1 was no longer viable for the project and that the developer would need to re-submit their plans. I only learned of all this through several CPRAs. This is not an inclusive process.

In other words, a project large enough to reshape a prominent industrial site in Skid Row was moving through the approval process without the planning records and public visibility that many residents would reasonably expect to find.

And then, I stumbled into a larger realization about projects in Skid Row. The specific fate of 431 S. Crocker is less important than what it taught me.

In my previous CityWatch article (Skid Row Gets the Weakest CEQA Review in L.A. and That's a Civil Rights Problem), I asked whether Skid Row receives weaker environmental review than neighboring communities. However, environmental review is only part of the story. Communities cannot participate in decisions they never learn about in the first place.

Since last November, I have spent countless hours reading CEQA documents, Planning reports, emails and administrative records associated with projects across Skid Row. What I have come to realize is that many of the most consequential planning decisions are not made when a project reaches a public hearing, they are made behind the scenes between the developers and the City. 431 S Crocker St. is not the only project I have found that fits this profile; there are several others. That may sound difficult to believe, but the administrative record tells a different story. The Weingart 3-Tower project (the 3rd tower still under construction) is a development in which numerous consequential decisions were made shielded from public view.  A 13,815 sq. ft. courtyard/urban park, family sized housing units and public restrooms were just a few of the things that were quietly removed long before members of the public could understand what was occurring. The new County-run Skid Row Care Campus received a CEQA Notice of Exemption from the State, which allowed it to bypass public hearings. These “invisible” projects form a pattern which needs some sunshine on it…sunshine being the best disinfectant.

The real question is often not: What is being built? The real question is: What approval pathway is being used? And: What is being decided in private without public participation or notice?

When a project proceeds through a discretionary process, public notice is typically provided, documents become available, community groups can monitor proposals, environmental review can occur, public hearings may be held and neighbors can comment.

When a project proceeds ministerially through various forms of streamlining, those opportunities can become significantly reduced or eliminated altogether.

The difference sounds technical, but it isn’t. It determines whether the public gets a seat at the table. And if public participation disappears during project approvals, many of the promises embedded in DTLA 2040 become difficult to realize in practice. This distinction matters because Skid Row is currently experiencing tremendous development pressure. Affordable housing projects continue to be proposed. Downtown is entering a new era of Adaptive Reuse. Former SRO hotels are changing hands and being rehabilitated (again). Property owners and developers are positioning themselves for the next wave of investment.

Yet the community has not been given meaningful opportunities to participate in many of these conversations. In other words, communities may spend years helping shape a Community Plan only to discover that major projects are ultimately approved through pathways that provide little or no meaningful opportunity for participation.

Communities deserve notice and the opportunity to understand what is being proposed around them. They deserve access to project documents before major decisions are made and to know when development standards involving trees, open space, public benefits, environmental review, and neighborhood impacts are being modified.

Other Los Angeles communities have begun asking similar questions.

As the United Neighbors in Defense Against Displacement (UNIDAD) Coalition recently observed, which I found on SAJE’s website:

“We support the construction of new affordable housing, but the city must ensure ED1 developments do not cause displacement and gentrification and harm low-income communities of color, who continue to bear the burden of our housing system’s systemic inequities…Our goal is to ensure preservation and protection are not lost in the city’s focus on streamlining production.”

\That observation captures an important truth. The debate is not simply about whether housing should be built. It is also about how decisions are made.

There is widespread support for all levels of affordable housing in Skid Row as well as rehabilitation of its aging and historic buildings – it’s in our community recommendations! Why, then, is the City treating public participation here as an obstacle?

Over the last year, I set out to understand why projects in Skid Row did not receive the same level of environmental review as neighboring communities. What I discovered is that the most important Planning decision is not always the project itself but oftentimes the approval pathway. The approval pathway determines whether the public gets a seat at the table.

(Katherine McNenny works in Los Angeles' garment industry as a Patternmaker and lives Downtown. She is co-founder of Industrial District Green, an organization that has planted over 400 trees in the area. Her focus is on issues that affect the Skid Row neighborhood and how to improve City urban forestry policy.) 

ALPERN AT LARGE - As much as I’ve recently come out with a few CityWatch pieces suggesting Mayor Karen Bass might be the lesser of two evils between both her failed mayoral first-term and an unprincipled as-of-yet-unsuccessful challenger (Councilmember Nithya Raman), the concept of “just get Bass out of here!” isn’t lost on me.

Both of the two candidates, as of this Labor Day article, are running neck and neck. The fake Median Strategies poll showing Mayor Bass had a significant lead before the November 3rd runoff election, with 85% of Pratt voters saying they planned to vote for Bass, was just that: fake.

Neither Bass nor Raman have a mandate here, and every Angeleno should know it.

As I’ve stated in other CityWatch articles, Rick Caruso “played” Angelenos in calling against a recall of Mayor Bass, promising to step up for a better campaign in 2026 to replace Mayor Bass, and then at the last second running away like a coward and dropping out of the election.

I’ve also stated that our best mayor would have been one Austin Beutner, but that good man had personal tragedy destroy his life and he rightfully—unlike Caruso—dropped out. Had Caruso dropped out six months earlier, we could have entertained other viable candidates beyond Raman and Bass.

Meanwhile, Spencer Pratt ran too amateurish a campaign to provide enough Angelenos assurance he knew how to run a major city, and his future lies in the world of op-eds, Fox News appearances, and the culture wars that still DO need to be fought.

The fact remains is that the creepy, “don’t worry, be happy” smile of Karen Bass can’t pave over her record of insufficient results on homelessness, crime, affordable housing, favoring L.A.’s civil service over the voters and taxpayers of the City of L.A., and her failures in making L.A. more business-friendly prior to the Olympics in 2028.

Bass has the support of anti-Trump voters (who will still need Trump if we want to have federal funds for a successful 2028  Olympics), L.A.’s political unions, and the Democratic mainstream establishment who think that Bass’s failures can be papered over because “who the heck else ya gonna vote for…that socialist Raman?”

I wonder if Andrew Cuomo thought the same thing as he ran against current Mayor Zohran Mamdani to run New York City. Sometimes the voters will put up with ANYTHING just to kick the old and failed leadership OUT.

So Pratt voters MIGHT vote Bass in, might not vote at all, or might just vote in Raman just to get Bass OUT—not so much because they want Raman IN, but they do want Bass OUT. I dare say the Pratt vote is about 50-50 for each candidate, or perhaps 33-33-33 for each candidate combined with a non-vote…

…but neither of the two candidates—Bass OR Raman—are appealing to those who did vote for Pratt because they wanted things to change in L.A.

And in a neck-and-neck election, it’s kind of a horrible idea to ignore the Pratt voters.

But there IS a possible way out for those who are just sick of having to deal with either Bass or Raman:

VOTE IN RAMAN AND KICK BASS OUT, AND THEN GIVE RAMAN SIX MONTHS TO MAKE DEFINITIVE CHANGES OR FACE A RECALL BEFORE (AND BEST ENSURE SUCCESS OF) A 2028 LOS ANGELES OLYMPICS.

Let’s now get to Nithya Raman, who has too often appeared inept in her own district and in City affairs—she doesn’t have the power of the Mayor, but her website does suggest a few potential good ideas (presuming she’s AUTHENTIC about these ideas):

1. Overhauling the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), because the 17.5% drop in homeless that Karen Bass brags about is pathetic. If Trump can drop illegal border crossings to just about zero, then a tough, results-oriented L.A. Mayor can do the same about ENDING homelessness to just about Zero.
2. Want to be pro-police, public safety, and safe sidewalks—end the ridiculous and failed “Inside Safe” of Karen Bass to have public/private contracted partnerships where reducing homelessness is incentivized (and a failure to do so means contracts ended and City employees FIRED.
3. The police and related law enforcement have plenty of legal precedents to demand homeless seek help and shelters (even if they WANT to remain outdoors but NOT on busy sidewalks and streets)…or face jail-time and/or denial of taxpayer-funded benefits.
4. We’ve got an Olympics coming up—either our next mayor effectively ends homelessness, or Trump will come in and do it for that mayor. Pick one.
5. Speeding up pothole fixing and having a “shot clock” of 60 days for fast-tracking by-right and affordable housing projects is good—this whole “variance” thing has been abused too long to create high-end, NON-affordable housing and make things worse in our City for too doggone long.
6. Enhancing 911 and fire-preparedness times is something Raman calls for (do we believe her, or just give her six months to present major progress, or SHE gets recalled?). Let’s consider giving her a chance, because Mayor Bass thinks she’s been just great with how she’s overseen basic safety/security services in L.A.
7. I do NOT agree with the “end parking requirements”, but the concept of focal and strategically-placed parking structures to create City revenue sources while getting streetside parking shifted OFF the streets is proven and fiscally sound.
8. Do we have an Uber/home-commuting infrastructure in place to obviate the need for cars—and how long will we continue to treat car commuters who need their vehicles to work and do family/children-focused errands? Does Raman have an answer for this, if Bass obviously doesn’t?
9. Every society that allows antisemitism or demonization of a given ethnic or religious group has suffered—Raman needs to distance herself from ANYONE who thinks that Jew-hatred, Muslim-hated, Christian-hatred, or bigotry of any sort is OK. If the GOP can eschew Tucker Carlson, the Left can do the same for Hasan Piker.
10. Most importantly…DOES NITHYA RAMAN (OR EVEN KAREN BASS) HAVE A 2028 OLYMPICS BLUEPRINT OR MAJOR ACTION PLAN?

Many who have supported younger socialist candidates don’t always favor these candidates themselves—they just want the Old Guard in the Democratic Party OUT. Kind of like the GOP electing those they used to despise just to get “RINO’s” out.

Six months is enough for either Raman or Bass to prove themselves.

Voting Bass out, and then making it clear to Raman that we WANT her to succeed but we NEED her to show preliminary results in six months isn’t unreasonable.

Angelenos have had enough—show that CHANGE is a real thing that can occur even in the City of Los Angeles.

(Kenneth S. Alpern, M.D, is a dermatologist who has served in clinics in Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside Counties, and is a proud husband and father. He was active for 20 years on the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC) as a Board Member focused on Planning and Transportation, and helped lead the grassroots efforts of the Expo Line as well as connecting LAX to MetroRail. His latest project is his fictional online book entitled The Unforgotten Tales of Middle-Earth, and can be reached at [email protected]. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Dr. Alpern.)

GELFAND’S WORLD - It’s two months and a day until the November elections. There are expectations that the Republicans will lose legislative control at least in the House of Representatives. This will have a substantial effect when it comes to budget bills and any other legislation that requires both houses of congress, but continued Republican control over the Senate would have its own effects. That’s because the Senate by itself can OK the appointment of Supreme Court justices, ambassadors, and other high officers.

In the event that the Democrats win control of both houses, we might expect a round of Supreme Court retirements (Thomas, for example?) since Democratic ownership of the Senate as of 2027 would make it difficult for Trump to win approval of replacements.

I’m going to skip the subject most dear to the hearts of the great mass of editorial writers, which is the expectation that a Democratically controlled House will immediately return to hearings and investigations of Trump administration corruption. Maybe so, maybe not. (It’s within the realm of possibility that the administration might try to do a little deal-making with the other side, which could result in some sort of quid pro quo which avoids another round of impeachment hearings and the like.)

What Democratic control of at least one house will accomplish is to avoid Republican control of the budget reconciliation bill. The most likely outcome is – drumroll – an even higher national debt. Here’s the logic: Trump would never agree to tax increases, but the Democrats will insist on bringing back what has been lost in the Affordable Care Act and other social welfare programs. Aid to starving children overseas would come back under any such compromise. Even worse deficits will be the result.

Of course the Republicans will suddenly remember that they used to complain about the debt and will start talking about it again. This Spend But Don’t Tax Republican congress will start accusing the Democrats of being the Tax and Spend party, just as they have done for decades. It’s up to the Democrats to make the counter-case, that it was irresponsible tax cuts on the rich that started the cycle in the first place, and Republican refusal to remedy those effects is what will accelerate the massive deficit.

The Democrats ought to be yelling and screaming about the effects of Trump policies on the economy. They ought to be predicting that every day in office for Trump accentuates the damage, and that only Democratic control of the presidency and the congress will alleviate the situation. (There is plenty of historical evidence that Democratic administrations are better for the economy and for workers.) When they take control, they need to explain – every day – that it is going to take four years to fix the damage, and they need to talk about the progress they are making every one of those days.

But enough about that. I’d like to raise one other question, which is about the Trump sense of humor.

To some extent, this discussion goes back to all those mean things that Donald has said on the campaign trail and to reporters over the past 10 years or so. The latest involves his invention of the word dumocrats to refer to the political opposition (whether or not spelled with the letter b), but we might eventually hear that the suggestion to rename the Pacific and Atlantic oceans and the state of New Mexico are just attempts at humor. Remember that Trump has used this excuse in the past.

And guess what? I actually believe that some of the nastier things Trump said were, indeed, his way of trying to be funny -- joke telling -- even if they were in bad taste. And remember that Trump has complained that critics and the press have routinely misunderstood simple attempts at humor.

But here’s the thing. It is improper and inappropriate for the President of the United States to engage in such activities. To the rest of the world, such verbal attacks and tariff threats come across as sadism and diplomatic terrorism. They do damage to our international standing and ultimately damage our economy through damage to trade. To dust off an old word, it is unpresidential for the commander in chief to be anything but serious in any manner that can be misunderstood or misconstrued.

There is of course one continuing problem to Trump’s entire approach. He appears to be oblivious to the beneficial effects of trade on human populations that were described by David Ricardo and Adam Smith centuries ago. The idea that any country which runs a trade surplus is “stealing” from us is bizarre thinking, but we continue to hear this from the presidential lips. Perhaps medical science should invent a discipline called economic psychiatry to deal with such delusions. In the meanwhile, Donald Trump continues to toss off a mixture of threats and jokes, and we don’t know which is which at any moment.

(Bob Gelfand writes on science, culture, and politics for CityWatch. He can be reached at [email protected])

THE BOTTOM LINE - For years, Los Angeles taxpayers have been told the same thing about homelessness: Give us more money. Give us more time. Trust the system. The money came. The results did not. Now Washington wants answers.

The House Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency has launched an investigation into potential waste, fraud and abuse involving federal homelessness funds administered through the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority. Mayor Karen Bass has been called to testify before Congress on September 15.

After more than $1 billion in federal funding flowed to LAHSA since 2021, the question is no longer whether Los Angeles spends enough on homelessness. The question is whether taxpayers can see what they received in return.

A Billion-Dollar Question

According to the House Oversight Committee, LAHSA has received more than $1 billion in federal funds since 2021, including approximately $220 million in 2024 alone. Yet more than 45,000 people remain homeless in the City of Los Angeles.

Los Angeles has built an enormous homelessness apparatus involving city and county agencies, LAHSA, contractors and nonprofits. Contracts are awarded. Programs are announced. Taxpayers are repeatedly asked for more.

But tents remain on sidewalks and thousands of homeless Angelenos remain trapped in misery. Government must stop measuring commitment by how much it spends and start measuring success by what that money accomplishes.

Open the Books

Congress is requesting records dating back to January 2020 involving LAHSA’s internal controls, federal funding, and communications among the Mayor’s Office, LAHSA, the City Council and Los Angeles County.

Good. Open the books. Follow the money.

Show taxpayers which organizations received federal dollars, what they promised and what they accomplished. Who approved the contracts? Who monitored performance? Who investigated conflicts of interest? And who was ultimately responsible?

Responsibility is divided among so many agencies and providers that accountability can disappear. When programs succeed, politicians take credit. When they fail, responsibility becomes difficult to locate. Congress should locate it.

Follow the Contracts

The committee points to a $2.1 million contract involving Upward Bound House, where former LAHSA CEO Va Lecia Adams Kellum’s husband worked. Adams Kellum had said she recused herself from matters involving the organization, but public records later showed she personally authorized the contract. LAHSA said it had inadvertently ended up before her.

The committee also raised questions about 1736 Family Crisis Center, which it says received more than $36 million in federal grants since 2008, including at least $25 million through LAHSA since 2021. According to the committee, its CEO received approximately $1.6 million in total compensation over two years.

These facts do not automatically establish wrongdoing. But they justify scrutiny. Taxpayers are entitled to know how public money was spent and whether it produced results.

Mayor Bass Should Testify

Mayor Bass should go to Washington, bring the records, and answer the questions.

Not because Congress has established that Bass personally committed wrongdoing. It has not. She should testify because she is mayor and homelessness has been a central priority of her administration.

Bass should explain what her administration knew about LAHSA’s financial controls, what reforms City Hall demanded, how federal dollars were monitored and whether contractors faced measurable performance standards.

If investigators are wrong, she should make that case forcefully. If mistakes were made, acknowledge them. If systems failed, fix them. If wrongdoing occurred, expose it. Los Angeles has everything to gain from transparency.

This Isn’t About Party Politics

The hearing could easily become partisan theater. Republicans will attack Los Angeles. Democrats will defend it. Taxpayers should demand something better.

Forget the party labels. Forget Washington versus California. Follow the money.

A dollar does not become Republican or Democratic after government spends it. It either produced the service taxpayers paid for or it did not. That should be the standard.

The Era of Blank Checks Must End

Accountability is not anti-homeless. Every dollar wasted is a dollar unavailable for housing, mental-health treatment, addiction services, or shelter. Homeless Angelenos deserve a system capable of actually helping them.

Major homelessness contracts should have measurable outcomes. Contractors receiving substantial public funds should face meaningful oversight. Conflicts of interest should trigger review. Poorly performing contracts should be reconsidered or terminated. Taxpayers should be able to see where their money went and what it accomplished.

Show Us the Receipts

Congress should not prejudge the evidence. Neither should Los Angeles. But investigators should ask the uncomfortable questions, examine contracts, trace federal dollars to providers, compare promises with performance and determine whether safeguards failed.

If the money was properly spent, tell the public. If investigators find incompetence, expose it. If they find waste, stop it. If they find fraud, prosecute it.

Los Angeles taxpayers have already done their part. They paid again and again.

Now government must do its part:

Show us the receipts.

After more than $1 billion in federal funding and more than 45,000 people still experiencing homelessness in Los Angeles, asking where the money went is not political theater.

It is the billion-dollar question City Hall should have answered long before Congress came knocking.

(Mihran Kalaydjian is a seasoned public affairs and government relations professional with more than twenty years of experience in legislative affairs, public policy, community relations, and strategic communications. A respected civic leader and education advocate, he has spearheaded numerous academic and community initiatives, shaping dialogue and driving reform in local and regional political forums. His career reflects a steadfast commitment to transparency, accountability, and public service across Los Angeles and beyond.)

MY THOUGHTS - Gavin Newsom came to the final days of his final regular legislative session with one more major problem he wanted California lawmakers to solve. They didn't.

The collapse of Senate Bill 492, the wildfire-liability package that never received a final Assembly vote, was about more than one governor losing one legislative battle. It exposed a recurring weakness in Sacramento: complicated problems can remain unresolved for years, only to become emergencies when the legislative clock is about to expire.

Wildfire liability is too consequential for that kind of governing. California must compensate communities devastated by fires, keep utilities financially capable of hardening the electrical grid, protect ratepayers from escalating costs, and maintain a functioning insurance market.

Those interests inevitably collide. They cannot responsibly be reconciled in the final hours of a legislative session simply because the calendar demands an answer.

The Problem Wasn't New. The Urgency Was.

Newsom's concern was legitimate. California's investor-owned utilities face enormous potential liabilities when their equipment causes catastrophic wildfires. His administration argued that the existing system could threaten utilities' financial stability and ultimately increase costs for Californians.

But Newsom's original proposal also sought major changes affecting who could recover money after catastrophic fires, including insurers, local governments and victims.

Lawmakers pushed back. So did wildfire survivors.

By the time a compromise emerged, several of Newsom's most consequential proposals had disappeared. Insurance companies retained their ability to seek reimbursement from utilities, and compensation for individual wildfire survivors was not limited.

Then came the remarkable conclusion: the Assembly didn't vote on it.

Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said the package still failed to provide the relief, accountability and meaningful reform Californians deserved. Newsom wasn't satisfied either, saying the measure failed to solve the underlying structural problem.

After weeks of intense negotiations, both sides effectively acknowledged that the final product wasn't good enough.

The problem wasn't that lawmakers needed another frantic night of negotiation. The problem was that Sacramento was trying to settle a years-long problem against a clock.

Legislation Shouldn't Be a Countdown

Newsom has repeatedly demonstrated that deadlines can be powerful political tools. Bring the parties together. Negotiate intensely. Produce a compromise. Pressure lawmakers to act before time expires.

Sometimes that works.

But there is a difference between using a deadline to finish negotiations and using a deadline to manufacture urgency that should have existed months earlier.

Assemblymember Chris Rogers highlighted the problem during the final negotiations, complaining that lawmakers were confronting legislation they had barely had time to examine before it was effectively too late to substantially change it.

That criticism goes beyond Newsom. It goes to the Legislature itself.

Lawmakers are not supposed to be spectators waiting outside a negotiating room until someone hands them final language. They are supposed to legislate.

Who ultimately pays when utility equipment starts a catastrophic wildfire? How much financial exposure can utilities withstand without threatening grid investment? How much should ratepayers absorb? How should survivors be protected? What role should insurers play?

There are no easy answers.

That is precisely why those questions deserve months of scrutiny rather than days of pressure.

Wall Street Doesn't Get the Final Vote

The financial warning signs were significant. California's major investor-owned utilities suffered steep stock declines as negotiations unfolded. Utility executives warned legislative leaders that the companies had collectively lost roughly $20 billion in market value and that deteriorating investor confidence could eventually affect borrowing costs, investment and electricity rates.

Those concerns shouldn't be dismissed. Utilities require enormous amounts of capital to maintain infrastructure, modernize the grid and reduce wildfire risks.

But Sacramento cannot write wildfire policy according to a stock ticker.

The Legislature's obligation is broader. It must consider utility stability, ratepayers, wildfire survivors, insurers, local governments and the reliability of California's electrical system.

A falling stock price can be evidence of a problem. It cannot be the answer to one.

This Was Bigger Than a Political Loss

It would be easy to interpret SB 492 entirely through the politics of a departing governor. Newsom himself acknowledged that his time in office is running out.

But reducing the episode to lame-duck politics misses the larger lesson.

Governors should push legislatures. Legislatures should push back. That tension is part of representative government.

The failure comes when the process becomes so compressed that lawmakers must choose between accepting an imperfect package and allowing an important issue to remain unresolved.

Assembly leaders chose the latter. Now they own part of what comes next.

They have pledged additional hearings. They should use them.

Bring wildfire survivors, utilities, insurers, consumer advocates, local governments, financial experts and ratepayer representatives into the room. Put the numbers on the table. Make the tradeoffs public.

Give legislators enough time to understand what they are voting on before someone starts counting down the hours until adjournment.

Newsom said California cannot settle for half measures. But comprehensive solutions require something Sacramento's final-days political machinery could not produce:

Time.

California's wildfire-liability crisis did not suddenly appear in August. It has been building for years.

The state did not run out of problems to solve.

It ran out of legislative time to solve them.

And when billions of dollars, wildfire survivors and the reliability of California's electrical grid are at stake, running out the clock is not a governing strategy.

(Yonthan Mendal writes on Jewish community issues, antisemitism, Israel, and public policy. His articles focus on civic engagement, education, and issues affecting Jewish communities.) 

A STUDENT’S VIEW - California may ask voters to authorize billions for scientific research after federal funding cuts. Young Californians have a particular stake in what happens next.

California is considering a $7.5 billion bet on science.

If it succeeds, my generation could inherit the discoveries. If it fails to deliver, we could still inherit the debt.

That is what makes California's proposed science bond more complicated and more important than another political fight between Sacramento and Washington.

Senate Bill 895 would put a $7.5 billion bond before California voters in March 2028 to support scientific research and infrastructure. Its supporters argue that California needs greater stability after major disruptions to federal research funding.

That argument deserves serious consideration.

So does the price tag.

A bond is borrowed money. Taxpayers ultimately repay the principal and interest, potentially long after the politicians who approved the proposal have left office.

For younger Californians, that creates a simple standard: If we are going to inherit the debt, we should be able to measure what we received in return.

Research funding can support work involving cancer, dementia, infectious diseases, wildfire prevention, water supplies, and other challenges with enormous human and economic consequences. California's universities and research institutions are also an important part of the state's economy and its position as a center of scientific innovation.

Losing researchers, laboratories, and years of scientific work can carry costs of its own.

But acknowledging the value of science does not answer every question about how California should finance it.

Before voters are asked to authorize $7.5 billion, they deserve specific answers.

Who decides which researchers receive the money? How are conflicts of interest disclosed and prevented? How much will go directly toward research and facilities, and how much will be consumed by administration? Will taxpayers be able to see individual awards, recipients, progress reports, and results? What happens to projects that repeatedly miss their objectives?

And perhaps most importantly: What will success look like?

Those aren't arguments against scientific research. They are questions about governing billions of dollars responsibly.

California also has to confront the opportunity cost. Housing, schools, wildfire protection, water systems, transportation, and other priorities compete for limited public resources. Debt service does not disappear simply because the purpose of a bond is worthwhile.

Nor should California's science policy become merely an extension of partisan conflict with Washington.

Cancer is not Democratic or Republican. Neither is Alzheimer's disease. Wildfires don't distinguish between political parties, and scientific discoveries do not become more or less valuable depending on which administration funded them.

Federal research policy deserves scrutiny. California's response deserves the same.

The strongest case for state investment would therefore be one that can survive changes in political leadership: independent scientific review, transparent spending, enforceable conflict-of-interest protections, and publicly measurable results.

That matters especially to young Californians.

We are constantly told that science, engineering, medicine, and technology will define our future. Some students hearing that message today will become tomorrow's physicians, engineers, and researchers.

They need a scientific system stable enough to pursue work that can take years or decades.

Taxpayers need something, too: confidence that billions borrowed in their names will not disappear into bureaucracy, favoritism, or programs whose performance cannot be measured.

California does not have to choose between those principles.

It can value scientific discovery and demand financial accountability.

It can recognize the consequences of unstable federal funding and still question whether state borrowing is the best response.

And it can support researchers without giving any institution a blank check.

By March 2028, voters should be able to see exactly where the proposed money would go, what safeguards would govern it, what the total borrowing is expected to cost, and what outcomes Californians should expect in return.

Ultimately, the question is larger than Donald Trump, Gavin Newsom, or any single election.

It is whether California can protect world-class scientific research without abandoning world-class accountability.

My generation has an unusual stake in the answer.

We could inherit the discoveries.

We could become the scientists making them.

And we will inherit the debt.

Whatever California decides, young people deserve to inherit something else as well: evidence that when government borrowed billions in the name of our future, it treated both the science and the taxpayers financing it with the seriousness they deserved.

(Shoshannah Kalaydjian is a young Jewish student who writes about education, identity, and the challenges facing the next generation. Growing up in today’s climate, she has witnessed firsthand how rising antisemitism affects young people in classrooms and on college campuses.  She is committed to sharing the perspectives of Jewish youth, amplifying student voices, and encouraging leaders to create safer, more inclusive environments for all students.)

With organizations like Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the American Jewish Committee (AJC), we Jews need no enemies. (In the early 1970's, I was AJC associate area director of the Los Angeles chapter.) It would benefit all Americans if the ADL and AJC simply quit operations and stopped spreading the polarizing Identity Politics, aka Woke DEI. 

I believe that for years, the ADL and AJC have been promoting the racist anti-White and anti-Semitic Identity Politics (Woke DEI) propaganda in our schools from K-12 and at colleges and universities as well as in business and government. It is vital that everyone, Jews and non-Jews, recognize that Wokeism DEI is inimically hostile to America’s founding values of individual inalienable rights and the government’s purpose is to protect those rights. (Declaration of Independence) Wokeism is also staunchly opposed to our constitutional Republic, one of whose purposes is to secure the Blessings of Liberty.  Martin Luther King formulated the most American of memes: Judge a person by character and not by skin color (race, religion, gender, etc.)  Wokeism is the opposite: judge a person by his group and not by his own actions.  

Wokeism Pretends to be Good, While Bringing Hate-filled Polarization

Wokeism is so anti-American inalienable rights that Americans have trouble grasping such an ideology exists in the land of the free.  Because it clothes itself in “social justice” garments, people are deceived about the true nature of Identity Politics. Too bad Snow White did think before accepting the apple from the wicked queen.  Too bad so many Americans have swallowed the poison of Wokeism.  Wokers, like the wicked queen, are not open-hearted do-gooders. They are not adherents of Tikkun Olam, e.g., working to improve the world. 

As Identity Politics has developed in present day America, Wokeism is a polarizing ideology that there are two groups in the world: (1) Oppressors – Whites and Jews, and (2) Oppressed – everyone else are the victims.  Wokers’ solution is to overthrow individual inalienable rights and the US Constitution which they claim are the core of White Racism. Under Wokeism, Whites and Jews are successful because institutional racism has favored us so that our well-being is based on stealing the hard work and wealth of Blacks.

It is oxymoronic for the AJC to claim that it rejects Wokeism’s binary Oppressors vs Oppressed classification. Without that dichotomy, there is no Wokeism.  One may claim that she is only a little bit pregnant, but the fetus still exists.

The Declaration of Independence Rejected Group Rights in Favor of Individual Inalienable Rights

The Declaration totally and absolutely rejected the idea that any person is born with more or less inalienable rights.  At that time, the British had the Peerage System.  At the top of the heap was the King.  In 1215, The Magna Carta had limited the King’s rights and increased the aristocracy’s position.  But worldwide, Britain was definitely a class system where different persons were born with different rights.

The fact that the Declaration held that each individual had the same inalienable rights did not mean that everyone respected other people’s rights.  The Declaration was necessary because no nation held that each person had the same innate rights.  It states our core philosophy and our national goal but left it to future governments to create institutions which would provide each person the best opportunity to make the most of his inalienable rights.  In fact, that is why the US Constitution imposes on Congressmen, Senators, Judges, and Presidents mandatory duties to protect inalienable rights.  Our society has made great progress since 1776.  After the Civil War, we added the 13th Amendment which ended the Identity Politics of slavery. The 14th Amendment affirmed that individuals and not group(s) have rights.

Mandated Constitutional Duties

Politicos love their rights and privileges, while ignoring their duties.  The people with the most compelling duties – which require them to risk life and limb and their standing in their communities – are elected and appointed government officials.  They all take an oath to defend the US Constitution, which imposes a myriad duties.  The Constitution’s Preamble establishes the government duty to secure the “Blessings of Liberty.”  Because power tends to corrupt, the Constitution’s oath imposes mandatory duties on elected officials, especially on Congresspersons, Senators, the President and judges. 

Individual Rights and Wokeism Are Immiscible

While we are free to discuss whatever we wish, we need to admit that Identity Politics (Wokeism) opposes core American values.  For more than a decade, the ADL and the AJC have supported Woke DEI, which is a perniciously racist concept and is totally incompatible with both the Declaration and the US Constitution.  Other countries have experienced similar ideologies.   Contemporary identity politics is not equivalent to Soviet Marxism or German Nazism, but I believe it can share one troubling characteristic with those ideologies: reducing individuals to their assigned group identity. Soviet Marxism principally divided society by economic class, while Nazi ideology created a racial hierarchy that elevated so-called Aryans and demonized Jews and other groups as inferior or dangerous. Some contemporary activists instead divide society into “oppressors” and “oppressed,” frequently placing Whites and Jews in the former category and racial minorities in the latter. Although the historical circumstances and consequences are profoundly different, judging individuals primarily by group identity can still encourage division, collective blame and prejudice.

First, the Nazis said the solution was to remove all the Jews; US Wokeism proposes replacing Whites and Jews with minorities.  In Germany, replacement transitioned into extermination.  Right now, American Jews are being excluded from the Dem Party unless they accuse Israel and by extension most of world Jewry of genocide. For example, State Senator Scott Wiener succumbed, but even then, he is harassed.  Read Leftist Insider Joel Rubin  Within some Jewish circles, however, AJC and ADL have earned the name erev rav, i.e., Jews who work for the destruction of the Jewish people.  

Wokeism and Individual Rights are Mortal Enemies

Abraham Lincoln was right that a house divided cannot long endure.  Just as the “Wokeism of the 1860's” with its two groups of Free vs Slave could not continue, today the nation cannot survive when an individual’s rights rest on the group to which he has been assigned.

Under what critics describe as “Wokeism,” moral judgment can become distorted by a rigid division of society into oppressors and oppressed. When Hamas is cast as the oppressed and Jews collectively as oppressors, some activists have minimized or rationalized Hamas’s atrocities—including sexual violence and the murder and kidnapping of innocent civilians—as acts of “resistance.” These atrocities are neither resistance nor justice; they are indefensible crimes that must be condemned without qualification. Some progressive activists have also pressured Jews to denounce Israel or fellow Jews over alleged wrongdoing as a condition of political acceptance. Against that background, the continued alignment of the AJC and ADL with certain progressive causes warrants closer examination.

(Richard Lee Abrams is a former Los Angeles-based attorney, an author, and political commentator. A long-time contributor to CityWatchLA, he is known for his incisive critiques of City Hall and judicial corruption, as well as his analysis of political and constitutional issues. Abrams blends legal insight with historical and philosophical depth to challenge conventional narratives. A passionate defender of civic integrity and transparency, he aims to expose misuse of power and advocate for systemic reform in local government.  You may email him at [email protected])